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

[Bob Stern]

Addendum to preceding post:

 

I realize EQ plugins require floating point arithmetic, so native DSD files would have to be converted to PCM to use an EQ plugin. Nevertheless, it would be a nuisance to switch back and forth between HQP to play DSD tracks natively and Audirvana when you want to use EQ.

[Kal Rubinson]

Nevertheless, it would be a nuisance to switch back and forth between HQP to play DSD tracks natively and Audirvana when you want to use EQ.

HQP will also play PCM/EQ.

[Bob Stern]

HQP will also play PCM/EQ.

What do you mean by "PCM/EQ"? I was expressing a desire for parametric EQ that is user-adjustable on-the-fly. HQP can implement EQ only via a convolution filter, not a plugin.

 

To approximate on-the-fly PEQ adjustment, I could create a library of convolution filters with different PEQ settings. However, I believe selecting a different convolution filter in HQP requires stopping and restarting playback, which would be an annoying interruption if I'm experimenting with tailoring the EQ for the particular track I'm currently listening to. (As opposed to room EQ which remains mostly fixed.)

 

Is there a smoother implementation that I'm overlooking?

[Kal Rubinson]

Sorry. I was not aware of the other constraints and was responding only to the quoted statement.

[Bob Stern]

Thanks, Kal. I hope I didn’t sound unappreciative. Your advice here and your reviews in Stereophile are invaluable!

[wgscott]

Addendum to preceding post:

 

I realize EQ plugins require floating point arithmetic, so native DSD files would have to be converted to PCM to use an EQ plugin. Nevertheless, it would be a nuisance to switch back and forth between HQP to play DSD tracks natively and Audirvana when you want to use EQ.

 

Apologies if I am dragging this off-topic, but Audirvana alone allows you to do all that. It will use an EQ plugin (or Dirac, or whatever plugin) for PCM and automatically skip over it seamlessly for DSD. Also, you can set the plug-in so you can do EQ in real-time.

[Bob Stern]

Apologies if I am dragging this off-topic, but Audirvana alone allows you to do all that.

To close the circle on how this relates to the exaSound e32, I was responding to the post by exa (presumably George Klissarov himself) that DoP is supported "if anybody needs it". I was attempting to illustrate to George why DoP is not a mere stepchild but is vitally important to those of us having good reasons to use Audirvana rather than HQP.

 

Many users value Audirvana's powerful music library manager and plugin support enough to forgo the reported advantages of HQP's upsampling over Audirvana's iZotope upsampling.

 

Therefore, I hope George will continue to devote effort to making the DoP performance as good as possible.

[exa]

To close the circle on how this relates to the exaSound e32, I was responding to the post by exa (presumably George Klissarov himself) that DoP is supported "if anybody needs it". I was attempting to illustrate to George why DoP is not a mere stepchild but is vitally important to those of us having good reasons to use Audirvana rather than HQP.

 

Many users value Audirvana's powerful music library manager and plugin support enough to forgo the reported advantages of HQP's upsampling over Audirvana's iZotope upsampling.

 

Therefore, I hope George will continue to devote effort to making the DoP performance as good as possible.

 

Hi Bob,

 

The exaSound Core Audio drivers support native DSD up to DSD256, therefore there is no need for DoP. Native DSD works fine with Audirvana. The new ES9028 DAC chip supports DoP. I couldn't think of any application for it at this time.

[Bob Stern]

Thanks for the clarification, George. Perhaps you forgot to update the Mac e32 user guide to state this.

 

The e32 user guide, page 12, says your Core Audio driver supports "DSD over PCM 1.0", and only your Mac ASIO driver supports native DSD.

 

Also, your online Guide on Audirvana configuration (last updated Jan 2015) requires setting Audirvana to use DoP.

Configuring Audirvana Plus 2 for Bitperfect DSD/DXD Playback with exaSound DACs

[exa]

Thanks for the clarification, George. Perhaps you forgot to update the Mac e32 user guide to state this.

 

The e32 user guide, page 12, says your Core Audio driver supports "DSD over PCM 1.0", and only your Mac ASIO driver supports native DSD.

 

Also, your online Guide on Audirvana configuration (last updated Jan 2015) requires setting Audirvana to use DoP.

Configuring Audirvana Plus 2 for Bitperfect DSD/DXD Playback with exaSound DACs

 

Our drivers work the same way, and the configuration is the same since then. The confusion comes from the fact that exaSond DACs (except for the latest DoP option for e32/e38) always work in native DSD mode. The Core Audio driver accepts DoP stream from the player, strips the DoP markers and sends over USB the native DSD stream. We will think of a better way to explain it in the Owner's Manual. With ASIO the advantage is that there is no need to do the conversion. ASIO also offers better asynchronous operation and Integer mode is guaranteed regardless of the Mac OS version.

[jmdesignz2]

The Corning cable has copper power leads within it just like any other USB cable. There is power on those when you plug into any normal USB jack at the PC end. It worked fine for me without doing anything special, except using a USB3 port instead of USB2 and an adaptor at the DAC end, as has been explained. You are overthinking it.

 

So the Corning does NOT work unless used via USB 3.0 port on the computer/laptop?

good to know that the e28 must be supplied with 5V via USB. I was looking for this info and considering a 5V linear power supply.

[ednaz]

So the Corning does NOT work unless used via USB 3.0 port on the computer/laptop?

good to know that the e28 must be supplied with 5V via USB. I was looking for this info and considering a 5V linear power supply.

 

I wanted to clean out my music server (the annual dust removal) and so unplugged everything, cleaned it up, plugged everything back in, and then couldn't get any recognition of my DAC. An hour of futzing around, and finally thought, lets's see if I damaged the USB ports while vacuuming... try a different one. Well, the different one was USB3, and suddenly everything was fine. Tried a thumb drive in the USB2 port, and it was fine. Switched the Corning to the USB2 port and once again, no DAC found. When I'd replugged after cleaning, I'd mindlessly plugged the Corning cable into a USB2 port, where before it had been USB3. Lesson learned.

 

I've seen some discussion group arguments about whether USB3 is in fact better than USB2. But whatever... the Corning is way, way, way better than even a very short regular USB cable.

[Kal Rubinson]

I've seen some discussion group arguments about whether USB3 is in fact better than USB2. But whatever... the Corning is way, way, way better than even a very short regular USB cable.

Corning states in the instructions that a USB3 port is required. It is even emblazoned on the box.

[Jud]

Corning states in the instructions that a USB3 port is required. It is even emblazoned on the box.

 

Is "emblazoned" better than "stuck on the outside"?

[Kal Rubinson]

Is "emblazoned" better than "stuck on the outside"?

 

Either way, it should be obvious to most.

[jmdesignz2]

Anyone have good experience using a 5V linear power supply inline with their USB cable corning or otherwise?

I have one in mind from the e b y place...

[jmdesignz2]

Either way, it should be obvious to most.

 

Hi Kal- did you ever get around to doing this:

"If it could work the same magic with higher-priced DACs such as my exaSound e28, the UpTone USB Regen

Read more at http://www.stereophile.com/content/uptone-audio-usb-regen#8rpLFFfOmquo3BkR.99"

[Kal Rubinson]

Hi Kal- did you ever get around to doing this:

"If it could work the same magic with higher-priced DACs such as my exaSound e28, the UpTone USB Regen

Read more at http://www.stereophile.com/content/uptone-audio-usb-regen#8rpLFFfOmquo3BkR.99"

 

Casually. It didn't seem to make a significant difference with the e28.

[johndoe21ro]

For me the Regen does exactly as advertised.... the sound is more fluid, more analog, tonally richer and with a better separation... I guess the e28 sound similar to the e20 (except the e28 is multichannel)!

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Casually. It didn't seem to make a significant difference with the e28.

 

That is where I am, too. The Regen is out of my system. I completely flip flopped on what sounded best. Initially, it was the Regen. Then, as now, it sounds best without it. An E28 is what I use.

[pompon]

That is where I am, too. The Regen is out of my system. I completely flip flopped on what sounded best. Initially, it was the Regen. Then, as now, it sounds best without it. An E28 is what I use.

 

Same here. E28 without regen. Regen make the sound worst on the E28.

Keep it simple ... computer -> USB -> DAC !

[watts]

I am a new customer to an e22. It replaced a Wyred DAC1. I am being treated to previously unknown details in the CD's I have owned for decades. I have been listening and burning it in exclusively with SPDIF from my Linn player. I have about 100 hours on it. Tonight I just tried it direct through balanced directly to the Marchand XM44, which goes to the horizontally bi-amped Mcintosh amps then Magneplanar 3.6's. I have only been listening for a few hours bypassing the Mc pre, but felt compelled to post some impressions and get some feedback.

 

Is this what transparency is? Quite a different sound from what I have been used to over the past several years. It is definitely more transparent; detail retrieval is exceptional, but the vocals are pushed forward, and along with the related frequencies around 1 khz they are more prominent. Perhaps too much so. The bass by comparison is tighter, leaner, more taut and tuneful, but definitely recessed. Hmmm... I have read previously the pre will add weight, I have to concur.

 

To get the same amount of bass I am having to turn it up the gain (if that is what you call it in the DAC) and then the vocals are a little too overbearing. They are not harsh, they are smooth and glarefree, but it is such a different voicing than what I have been accustomed to. So while some familiar tracks seem lacking in weight, there are others that have benefited from the new character of the system: Holly Cole temptation was always rather too bass heavy before, now it sounds sensational!

 

So a question to those who have gone through this "transition period" as I am not a source of knowledge when it comes to the internals of audio gear: Does the pre-amp section in the exasound DAC require a burning in period as well as the SPDIF path? or have most of the parts in the pre amp circuit path already been "conditioned". I am just curious if the sound will change at all based on others experiences, and if others have done away with their pre-amp permanently.

[watts]

I think I am talking to myself here but I didn't want to leave the previous post as the last in this thread. I have made several changes in the system; repositioning cabling (from Transparent balanced IC's to RCA's into the amps), adding a Solid Tech rack, some new power cables etc. and the e22 has had about 200 hours on it now.

 

I am reconsidering my earlier findings: I think bypassing the pre-amp might be the way to go. It is just an adjustment period: once I got used to not having that extra slam that the preamp adds, it is quite enjoyable in its own right. Perhaps it is the 256dsf files I have recently introduced into the system; I must say, it is pretty cool to see 11.2 Mhz on the display, but I may be selling the preamp I wish I could claim I have compared this Exasound e22 to the Aurelic, the Wyred se and some other remarkable DAC; I have not; but listening to it doesn't make me want to audition any other.

 

PS: this DSD recording from Native DSD is the finest recording I have ever heard. I have several reference recording cds, MFSL, JVCXRCD superbits and Linn super-duper bits; I think they are on to something with these DSD downloads

[johndoe21ro]

I think I am talking to myself here but I didn't want to leave the previous post as the last in this thread. I have made several changes in the system; repositioning cabling (from Transparent balanced IC's to RCA's into the amps), adding a Solid Tech rack, some new power cables etc. and the e22 has had about 200 hours on it now.

 

I am reconsidering my earlier findings: I think bypassing the pre-amp might be the way to go. It is just an adjustment period: once I got used to not having that extra slam that the preamp adds, it is quite enjoyable in its own right. Perhaps it is the 256dsf files I have recently introduced into the system; I must say, it is pretty cool to see 11.2 Mhz on the display, but I may be selling the preamp I wish I could claim I have compared this Exasound e22 to the Aurelic, the Wyred se and some other remarkable DAC; I have not; but listening to it doesn't make me want to audition any other.

 

PS: this DSD recording from Native DSD is the finest recording I have ever heard. I have several reference recording cds, MFSL, JVCXRCD superbits and Linn super-duper bits; I think they are on to something with these DSD downloads

 

I think your findings are correct! You just needed an adjustment period!

[watts]

You are satisfied using the exasound direct into your BAT johndoe? Did yours replace an expensive preamp?

Also, did the upgraded Hynes power supply make a worthwhile difference?

It seems really odd to connect this skinny (cheap?) little power wire into this piece of audio gear and getting fabulous sound...I have this fat powercord sitting here doing nothing...