exaSound e18 - e20 - e28 - Info and Experiences Post All Here

[tgx78]

In a few days I will have the Paul Hynes SR3-12, now I'm using a KingRex Mark II, I will report when the PH arrives.

 

Regarding USB cables (even if the question is not directed to me) I found exaSound is completely immune to this cables, and I have a lot!...

 

Now I'm breaking in a new exaSound e22 (previously had an e20) and I'm fascinated with its SQ: 3D soundstage, detail never before heard and the best and accurate bass in the industry!...

 

Roch

 

Roch,

 

before e22 you had e20 III .082ps? I was thinking if it's worth upgrading from e20 III (.082ps) to their new e22.

[KingCrimson]

I would also appreciate it if someone could characterize the difference between the performance of the e20 III .082ps, and the standard E20 MKIII. I am considering that as one of my best DAC options, but see that the clock upgrade was only available some time ago.

[hifial]

KingCrimson, I had my exaSound e20 MK III upgraded to the .082 Clock after it was in my system for a couple of months. It was not subtle. Not only was there more of a blacker background but there was better timing, air, and better timber. Do not get me wrong, the standard e20 was no slouch.

 

Also, the exaSound does benefit to an upgraded outboard power supply. I use a Paul Hynes. It took many hours of burn to reach its full potential but it was worth the wait.

 

PM me as I might be selling. I might be going UP in the food chain. But only if the difference if BIG enough as my exaSound has beat or equaled DACs costing at least twice as much.

[elcorso]

Roch,

 

before e22 you had e20 III .082ps? I was thinking if it's worth upgrading from e20 III (.082ps) to their new e22.

 

I had the e20 II (the first one?), but a close friend has the III. The only thing I can tell you is that the Femto Clocks brings the e22 to further extraordinary levels in detail, musicality and background silence. They are hard to burn in than the previous e20. I'm in about 300 hours today, I guess it needs 400.

 

Roch

[Sam Lord]

I'm looking at a new DAC too (Schiit Bifrost all-PCM now). I hate to be in the DAC-of-the-Month club, but Exasound really is getting great pieces out the door faster than the numerous competitors. Personally I would love to see an all-USA-built Benchmark "DAC3" with a full analog and digital preamp inside and DSD128 or 256, or a W4S unit with new DSD capabilities, but I won't wait forever.

 

I also wonder just how critical clock precision is to the ADC side...shouldn't that be equal, and account for some people's lauding of certain new recordings? Great current ADCs like the Grimm and others with great clocks, or synced to great external clocks like the Grimm CC-1 or Mutec(s), appear to have generated some outstanding redbook releases. Complex music like choirs and massed strings have always been the letdown of redbook for me; could clocking be the answer? Any thoughts?

[Miska]

I also wonder just how critical clock precision is to the ADC side...shouldn't that be equal,

 

I would say ADC side clocking is even more important, because if there is any jitter at recording time you cannot play back the recorded data correctly unless you can exactly replicate the same jitter in-phase. So the ADC jitter becomes part of the recorded data.

 

All playback is based on the assumption that the incoming data is correct.

 

And the inverse goes for measuring jitter, if your DAC is more precise than the analyzer's ADC, you end up measuring actually the analyzer ADC's jitter (and in any case combination of the two)...

 

Some of the DACs are becoming so good that I'm not sure if AP's reference clock is good enough anymore.

[EdmontonCanuck]

I would also appreciate it if someone could characterize the difference between the performance of the e20 III .082ps, and the standard E20 MKIII. I am considering that as one of my best DAC options, but see that the clock upgrade was only available some time ago.

 

More to the point, as far as SQ goes, I would like to know if the e20 with the clock upgrade is basically what the e22 is now (notwithstanding the physical improvements that the e22 brings, like more powerful headphone amplifier, 12V Trigger Output, classic USB connector, heavy-duty RCA connectors).

[tgx78]

 

after trying out many different options.. I am currently enjoying this setup the most.

 

 

0.6m black cat silverstar usb cable -> ifi iusb.. iso ground switch 'on', iusb 9v power fed by LiPo battery ->

USB A Male to Mini B Male Adapter -> e20 -> e20 powered by Teddy Pardo 12/2 ->

High Fidelity CT-1E RCA interconnects.

 

a very stable and accurate imaging is obtained with this combination..

background became blacker and very slight treble glare (redbook) is entirely gone now.

[Hiro]

I would say ADC side clocking is even more important, because if there is any jitter at recording time you cannot play back the recorded data correctly unless you can exactly replicate the same jitter in-phase. So the ADC jitter becomes part of the recorded data.

 

All playback is based on the assumption that the incoming data is correct.

 

And the inverse goes for measuring jitter, if your DAC is more precise than the analyzer's ADC, you end up measuring actually the analyzer ADC's jitter (and in any case combination of the two)...

 

Some of the DACs are becoming so good that I'm not sure if AP's reference clock is good enough anymore.

 

That's why I am waiting for some company to design a SOTA discrete DSD128 (+ optionally 256) A/D converter, with ultra-accurate clocking optimized for the higher DSD sampling rates.

[Sam Lord]

...I also wonder just how critical clock precision is to the ADC side...shouldn't that be equal...

I would say ADC side clocking is even more important... ...the ADC jitter becomes part of the recorded data... ...Some of the DACs are becoming so good that I'm not sure if AP's reference clock is good enough anymore.

 

Thank you Miska. I didn't word my question well, though as usual you made a fine response. Since time is the domain of the signal...

 

What I meant to ask was how critical these new extremes of time precision were, compared to the gains in linearity and S/N that have recently occurred. Remember the good old days when 100ps of jitter was thought to be excellent? Now that we are dropping below 1 picosecond (don't know the measurement window), are the gains versus, say, 10ps comparable to an extra bit of precision?

 

This is partly a matter of math and partly psychoacoustics. As the sample rate keeps climbing, for example to 11+MSps with DSD256, does an 82fs-precise clock at the ADC give you noticeable benefits? And if REs start using these super clocks on recordings that are finally converted to 16 bit and undersampled to for release in 16/44, do we then get nearly all the benefits of, say, a purely-recorded and delivered DSD64 version? IOW, how does timing accuracy sonically compare to bit depth? I know this is very early to make judgments but it's a useful question to consider.

 

Like tgx78 I wonder about the gains of the E22 vs. E20 III with the 82fs clock...

[fmak]

I thought it would be good for people that own or are interested in the exaSound DACs to have central place to post info and their experiences of the exaSound DACs.

 

 

To start things off here is an update from exaSound.

 

exaSound is offering an upgraded clock on the e20 MK III as a "Custom order". The clock upgrade is from .13ps rms to .082ps rms and is a $100 price increase over the e20 MK III ($2,899 to $2,999 CAD). The clock must be ordered at time of purchase of the DAC.

The price of the upgraded clock might increase in the near future so anyone who has an interest should not wait. It is likely to go up.

 

The clocks from MSB are as follows, .14 and .077 while the exaSound clocks are .13 and .082 and the difference between the two best is just .005. I think this says a lot about the e20 MK III.

 

are not particularly meaningful in terms of sound quality.

 

It is the Phase noise at <10Hz that matters and 'femto' clocks are not femto at these frequencies, although they are better than standard clock oscillators. The power supply to the clock is a critical factor and must be very stable and low noise.

 

A typical Crystek or Abracon low phase noise clock costs less than $30 and some can be bought for $24. There is no reason for a manufacturer to offer it as an option, if SQ is what they are aiming for. I also reckon that frequency

stability ie temperature coefficient is important and most clocks are only 50 ppm.

 

If I can find one, I shall try heated clocks (OCXOs) with ppb stability.

[hifial]

are not particularly meaningful in terms of sound quality.

 

It is the Phase noise at <10Hz that matters and 'femto' clocks are not femto at these frequencies, although they are better than standard clock oscillators. The power supply to the clock is a critical factor and must be very stable and low noise.

 

A typical Crystek or Abracon low phase noise clock costs less than $30 and some can be bought for $24. There is no reason for a manufacturer to offer it as an option, if SQ is what they are aiming for. I also reckon that frequency

stability ie temperature coefficient is important and most clocks are only 50 ppm.

 

If I can find one, I shall try heated clocks (OCXOs) with ppb stability.

 

 

Hi Frank. I agree there is more to it then just the one number and that all of what you stated is just as important or more so depending on the design.

 

I have learned a lot since the original post and will continue to learn.

 

Thanks for bringing this up as I have been meaning to for a while. But you you have described much better then I would be able to.

[elcorso]

Jitter Nos are not particularly meaningful in terms of sound quality.

[...]

 

Of course not, but you can use to compare different DACs, then it came the implementation where exaSound takes a lot of care regarding power regulation (11 linear power filtering stages). Not to mention their proprietary USB, that to my ears & system, you don't need to spend fortunes in USB cables.

 

The other numbers (like THD, etc.) and graphs are posted in their web pages, for those interested.

 

Regarding Jitter, I like better a DAC with low jitter specs, even if they are embedded jitter in the digital recordings. I don't want the sum of both. Then comes the question of how each DAC handles the embedded jitter.

 

exaSound's George Klissarov is very easy to reach and he has been very honest with me when I ask him questions and responds quickly to the same. Plus he gives you a 30 days money back trade.

 

Everything else mentioned can be very speculative. At the end "'the proof of the pudding is in the eating..."

 

Happy listening!

 

Roch

[Miska]

What I meant to ask was how critical these new extremes of time precision were, compared to the gains in linearity and S/N that have recently occurred. Remember the good old days when 100ps of jitter was thought to be excellent? Now that we are dropping below 1 picosecond (don't know the measurement window), are the gains versus, say, 10ps comparable to an extra bit of precision?

 

There's no straightforward answer to this since it depends on characteristics of the jitter. If it is just plain completely random white noise, it just degrades SNR.

 

However, in many cases jitter comes from some systematic interference source that really puts it's fingerprint on the signal. It could be noise over PSU lines inside DAC leaking into clock signals, or it could be switching noise from SMPS. Or some noise leaking from USB interface such as 1 ms packet interval of UAC protocol. These kind of sources are completely unrelated to performance of the oscillator component used in ADC or DAC, but instead depend on overall design (schematic and board layout).

 

So it is impossible (?) to give a blanket statement that jitter of N ps matters or doesn't matter...

[Sam Lord]

Thanks again Miska!

 

What about getting high-rate DSD into the Exasound DACs? Jesus R now produces the SOtM SMS100 which he says will provide DSD128 via USB, and DSD256 when HQPlayer's "NAA" (Network Audio Adapter) software is installed...I hope I understood his information. Can anyone confirm if this is a way to play DSD256? And are there other means when one has the new Exasound DACs? The Auralic Aries is another NAA (on steroids) contender it appears.

 

Also, can JRiver or other software like HQPlayer send out DSD256 via ethernet to renderers like the SMS100? (I think I heard so.)

 

I am rebuilding my system to get my computer away from my DAC into another room. And I don't change gear often, so I want to be sure the whole system can easily handle these formats that people are yelling about. I definitely want to try to convert my redbook files to DSD128 to learn if the sound improvement is really "all that." Then again Chord says it does this and more with the ultra-up-and-oversampling Hugo and a future reference DAC.

[elcorso]

Thanks again Miska!

 

What about getting high-rate DSD into the Exasound DACs? Jesus R now produces the SOtM SMS100 which he says will provide DSD128 via USB, and DSD256 when HQPlayer's "NAA" (Network Audio Adapter) software is installed...I hope I understood his information. Can anyone confirm if this is a way to play DSD256? And are there other means when one has the new Exasound DACs? The Auralic Aries is another NAA (on steroids) contender it appears.

 

Also, can JRiver or other software like HQPlayer send out DSD256 via ethernet to renderers like the SMS100? (I think I heard so.)

 

I am rebuilding my system to get my computer away from my DAC into another room. And I don't change gear often, so I want to be sure the whole system can easily handle these formats that people are yelling about. I definitely want to try to convert my redbook files to DSD128 to learn if the sound improvement is really "all that." Then again Chord says it does this and more with the ultra-up-and-oversampling Hugo and a future reference DAC.

 

New exaSound e20, e22 & e28 DACs can play DSD 64, 128 & 256 on a Mac and on Windows PC and by USB.

 

 

 

 

 

Roch

[Sam Lord]

Thanks Roch.

 

Since I'm planning to get a renderer/NAA to allow me better access to my computer (my server), I hope to learn what viable options exist. Miska has described DIY NAA builds in great detail, but I want prebuilt components. So much of this is very new, from the Exasound DACs to DSD256 recordings to the SMS100 and Aries, I know these waters are barely charted.

 

Also I would love to hear again from anyone who has listened to DSD128 recordings and those who convert redbook or hi-res PCM to DSD128 or 256 about those experiences.

[Miska]

NAA is based on Linux and there are no Linux drivers for exaSound DACs, unfortunately...

[exa]

NAA is based on Linux and there are no Linux drivers for exaSound DACs, unfortunately...

 

Hi Miska,

 

All exaSound DACs offer FIFO functionality that provides asynchronous decoupling between the DAC and the computer. What are the benefits of using the NAA (Network Audio Adapter) with our DACs?

[elcorso]

Hi Miska,

 

All exaSound DACs offer FIFO functionality that provides asynchronous decoupling between the DAC and the computer. What are the benefits of using the NAA (Network Audio Adapter) with our DACs?

 

Hi George,

 

Could you explain "FIFO functionality". I just read is "First In First Out" but I'm still a novice in digital theory and USB communication, although I have a lot of USB DACs.

 

I still admired by the wonder of the USB port on the exaSound DAC and its immunity to different USB cables that I have, from normal to extra expensive.

 

I also tried the Coaxial SPDIF port on the exaSound with an extraordinay USB interface, but the USB direct connection wins (to my ears and system).

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Roch

[Miska]

All exaSound DACs offer FIFO functionality that provides asynchronous decoupling between the DAC and the computer. What are the benefits of using the NAA (Network Audio Adapter) with our DACs?

 

(Apart from galvanic isolation you already provide) at least the reasons I could think of:

1) For many-to-many connectivity, any player computer can play to any DAC

2) Playing to different rooms

3) Playing from NAS using devices like Surface Pro 2/3 to DAC over WiFi (no wires between player and DAC)

[exa]

Hi George,

 

Could you explain "FIFO functionality". I just read is "First In First Out" but I'm still a novice in digital theory and USB communication, although I have a lot of USB DACs.

 

I still admired by the wonder of the USB port on the exaSound DAC and its immunity to different USB cables that I have, from normal to extra expensive.

 

I also tried the Coaxial SPDIF port on the exaSound with an extraordinay USB interface, but the USB direct connection wins (to my ears and system).

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Roch

 

 

Hello Roch,

 

I will try to explain our approach. There are three problems with computer-based high-end audio that affect sound fidelity:

 

1. Computer s are not good for producing accurate timing. Computer clock beats are irregular and jittery.
   
2. Computers generate huge noise caused by bad power supplies and digital switching.
   
3. Computer sound systems, including the standard drivers, are not created for high-end audio. They are created for multipurpose use and quality is sacrificed for versatility, compatibility and easiness of use.
   

 

There are two approaches for addressing these problems. The mainstream approach is to make an "Audiophile Grade Computer". The noise can be reduced by making audiophile grade computer power supplies and USB power cleaners. The accuracy of computer timing can be improved by removing parts of the operating system so there are fewer interrupt requests. Further reducing of CPU load can be accomplished by distributing the processing on two computers (like the Network Audio Adapter). Random experiments with exotic cables can provide some relief from USB transmitted noise and can improve USB timing.

 

In my opinion the "Audiophile Grade Computer" approach is about treating the symptoms, not the root cause of the problems. It is like using pain killers. There will be endless small improvements in this area, something to buy every three months.

 

exaSound approached these challenges from the opposite point of view. Since computers have these basic and inevitable issues, just because of the way they work, then the only real solution is to create immunity to these issues in the gear that is connected to them. The DAC hardware and software must be designed to solve the issues of computer jitter and noise, and to provide bit-perfect streaming. A properly designed DAC must be immune to computer originated timing issues, USB jitter and streaming errors. A properly designed DAC must be very insensitive to USB transmitted noise. These requirements are basic. Digital errors, noise and jitter can be measured, and DAC manufacturers have to demonstrate how effectively these problems are solved before we even start talking about the aesthetic perception of sound fidelity, the hard to describe qualities of air, space, transparency and realism.

 

exaSound DACs solve the problem of computer timing issues and USB jitter by using a large hardware-implemented FIFO buffer. For simplicity think about it as a memory chip that stores let's say 0.5 seconds of music. It is located in the DAC box, and our proprietary drivers and USB interface can fill it up with sound stream data 10 times faster than the playback rate. Therefore we can guarantee that there is always data in the buffer. It doesn't matter how bad the computer timing accuracy is, because it only affects the delivery of data to the buffer. The bits and bytes will sit in the buffer for about 0.5 second anyway. On the other end of the buffer is the I2S interface to the DAC chip. The timing of delivery of data from the buffer to the DAC chip is determined only by the quality of the master clock and the design of the surrounding circuits. This approach allows for timing precision that cannot be achieved with computers. Best of all it is predictable and consistent.

 

There are several key points to make here:

 

• I2S wires, the links between the hardware that reads from the buffer, the master clock and the DAC chip must be as short as possible, otherwise they become a source of jitter. I2S is not meant to be used with external wires. Having the clock as close to the DAC as possible minimizes jitter. Having an atomic clock outside as a standalone fancy component is another old idea. The wire to the external clock causes jitter.
  
• Implementing the FIFO buffer with hardware, without using a CPU is a great advantage in terms of timing precision on the buffer output. Computer-based software-implemented buffer is a half-measure. It suffers from the same problems, the reading is performed by a CPU controlled by software and influenced by interrupt requests. The output data stream has to travel along wires to reach the DAC. Wires cause jitter.
  

 

To solve the problem of computer-originated common noise and ground-loops hum, exaSound DACs use ground isolation. Traditional USB filtering technologies have a common ground wire connecting the computer with the DAC. This wire acts like an antennae for the high-frequency noise. Ground isolation cuts this connection. The evidence is in the noise measurements published on our website. If the noise levels are extremely low and about the same with and without USB cable connection to the computer, then the isolation is working. If connecting an external USB filtering device doesn't affect in a visible way the noise measurements, then the isolation is working.

 

Finally the third problem of computer-based high-end audio is the quality of the general purpose sound drivers. exaSound's proprietary drivers provide a number of advantages:

 

• Our drivers are designed for and work only in 32bit integer mode. This is the native format used by the Sabre ES9018 DAC chip. Our sound-streaming software and hardware is designed to utilise the full potential of this chip. This is one of the reasons why our DACs sound so much better than other Sabre based DACs.
  
• Our drivers guarantee bit-perfect operation with error correction.
  
• In our opinion our implementation of asynchronous USB operation is better than the one offered by the USB Audio 2.0 standard and Apple's Core Audio.
  

 

I hope I've managed to answer the question why USB cables don't deliver exciting improvements in sound quality when used with exaSound DACs. For the same reasons using an external USB to SP/DIF convertor is not a good idea. The external USB to SP/DIF device duplicates functionality that is already present inside our products. At the same time it has the disadvantage to have to downgrade its output for delivery via SP/DIF wires, instead of having a direct short I2S connection to the DAC chip.

 

There are several devices inside every exaSound DAC - a USB purifier, an asynchronous reclocking FIFO buffer, a fine DAC and a preamplifier with high-end volume control. You need to decide what is the best way for you to solve the problems of computer-based high-end audio. There is no need to pay for the same features twice - on the computer side and on the DAC side.

 

The bottom line is that computers and DACs can produce spectacular sound. These days high-resolution recordings are produced with computers, and there is no reason why they may sound better when downgraded by recording on physical analogue media.

 

 

Best,

 

George Klissarov

[exa]

(Apart from galvanic isolation you already provide) at least the reasons I could think of:

1) For many-to-many connectivity, any player computer can play to any DAC

2) Playing to different rooms

3) Playing from NAS using devices like Surface Pro 2/3 to DAC over WiFi (no wires between player and DAC)

 

Thanks - these are very interesting usage scenarios.

[tgx78]

I can confirm that using ifi ipurifier (usb filter) on exaSound made zero improvement on SQ.

In fact, I think ipurifier degraded SQ slightly by introducing another chain between the signal-path.

With it in place, I could not even play DSD256 materials.

 

I am currently in very old building with terrible power grid, so my main focus was to improve power delivery

to the DAC. I now have 6 PS audio Noise Harvester around my main system to clean out AC line noises.

Blue Circle audio PLC thingee to further clean out ac power going to Teddy Pardo power supply.

Battery powered iUSB to the DAC with short usb cable to the iusb and adapter from iusb to e20.

 

I think I reached my audio nirvana for now until I finally upgrade my speakers to the 20.7

[elcorso]

I can confirm that using ifi ipurifier (usb filter) on exaSound made zero improvement on SQ.

In fact, I think ipurifier degraded SQ slightly by introducing another chain between the signal-path.

With it in place, I could not even play DSD256 materials.

 

I am currently in very old building with terrible power grid, so my main focus was to improve power delivery

to the DAC. I now have 6 PS audio Noise Harvester around my main system to clean out AC line noises.

Blue Circle audio PLC thingee to further clean out ac power going to Teddy Pardo power supply.

Battery powered iUSB to the DAC with short usb cable to the iusb and adapter from iusb to e20.

 

I think I reached my audio nirvana for now until I finally upgrade my speakers to the 20.7

 

This are very good products for power problems, TORUS Power:

 

Torus Power

 

And this a very nice USA dealer:

 

Home Theaters & Acoustic Consulting | San Francisco, Marin, Bay Area, Worldwide | Acoustic Frontiers

 

Roch