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

[GUTB]

The exeSounds are overpriced IMO. The 9028 does not, in fact, need a new board as it is pin-compatible with the 9018.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

[johndoe21ro]

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...

 

Yes I am satisfied! I think it's the way to go...

And yes, the Hynes LPS made a worthwhile difference... More body, better separation, better low level details, improved dynamics and a blacker background! I couldn't listen without it anymore and... if you have a fat power cord and a transparent system you can plug it into the Hynes power supply and it'll make a difference! Not a huge difference (probably because of the 11 filtration stages of the exaSound) but it will make a noticeable difference!

[exa]

The exeSounds are overpriced IMO. The 9028 does not, in fact, need a new board as it is pin-compatible with the 9018.

9028 is not PCB-compatible with 9018.

[weedos123]

Ok I have an e28 and have just rearranged the set up of my stuff. Stupidly I pulled the interconnects out of the dac without writing down which of the dacs 1-8 channels was attached to which l,c,r,s etc channel on the amp. Now I'm not convinced I've got them right.

 

Can anyone enlighten me as to how I should map 1-8 to l,c,r etc. USB from windows 10 pc running roon via e28 to power amp, if it matters.

 

Thanks. I shan't do it again. Promise.

[exa]

Ok I have an e28 and have just rearranged the set up of my stuff. Stupidly I pulled the interconnects out of the dac without writing down which of the dacs 1-8 channels was attached to which l,c,r,s etc channel on the amp. Now I'm not convinced I've got them right.

 

Can anyone enlighten me as to how I should map 1-8 to l,c,r etc. USB from windows 10 pc running roon via e28 to power amp, if it matters.

 

Thanks. I shan't do it again. Promise.

Here is the Roon KB article on multi-channel and two test files.

https://kb.roonlabs.com/Multichannel

[weedos123]

Here is the Roon KB article on multi-channel and two test files.

https://kb.roonlabs.com/Multichannel

 

Thank you George thats just what I was looking for.

[mlknez]

Perhaps you could point me to another 8 channel DAC that can properly play all of the multichannel files available for less money.

[Kal Rubinson]

Perhaps you could point me to another 8 channel DAC that can properly play all of the multichannel files available for less money.

I wish. The only cheaper one is the miniDSP but it only goes to 24/192 and no DSD.

[jtwrace]

I don't understand why exaSound doesn't have their dac compatible with Linux.  This doesn't make any sense to me.  The market loss has to be substantial but yet not big enough for them to change.  It's totally bizarre to me!  

[bmoura]

5 minutes ago, jtwrace said:

I don't understand why exaSound doesn't have their dac compatible with Linux. 

 

Probably because Linux only represents 2% of the operating system market.  Making drivers for Windows and Mac based computers is going to be a much higher priority for DAC makers, including exaSound.

 

 

https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0

[jtwrace]

Just now, bmoura said:

 

Probably because Linux only represents 2% of the operating system market.  Making drivers for Windows and Mac based computers is going to be a much higher priority for DAC makers, including exaSound.

 

 

https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0

I don't think you can use that when it comes to audio though and specifically streamers that use Linux such as the Sotm sMS-200 or µRendu.  

[bmoura]

4 minutes ago, jtwrace said:

I don't think you can use that when it comes to audio though and specifically streamers that use Linux such as the Sotm sMS-200 or µRendu.  

 

That's what I've used for music files for years - computers with Windows.  Works fine. 

 

 

[jtwrace]

Just now, bmoura said:

 

That's what I've used for music files for years - computers with Windows.  Works fine. 

 

 

Yeah, that's old fashioned nowadays.  SMS > Dac using Roon is stellar!  

[bmoura]

19 minutes ago, jtwrace said:

Yeah, that's old fashioned nowadays.  SMS > Dac using Roon is stellar!  

 

Or you can use the PlayPoint from exaSound for Roon, or the NADAC Player with built in Roon.  That assumes you prefer Roon to JRiver + JRemote or HQ Player.  Some do, some don't.  

 

[jtwrace]

9 minutes ago, bmoura said:

 

Or you can use the PlayPoint from exaSound for Roon, or the NADAC Player with built in Roon.  That assumes you prefer Roon to JRiver + JRemote or HQ Player.  Some do, some don't.  

 

Yes, I know what can be used.  I don't want to be tied to the PP.  That's the problem!

[exa]

15 hours ago, jtwrace said:

I don't understand why exaSound doesn't have their dac compatible with Linux.  This doesn't make any sense to me.  The market loss has to be substantial but yet not big enough for them to change.  It's totally bizarre to me!  

 

exaSound DACs require the use of our proprietary drivers and they are closed source.  Using closed source drivers on LINUX is a bad practice and it will be very costly to maintain compiled versions for all LINUX flavors. That's why we offer our own optimized LINUX box - the PlayPoint.

 

[GUTB]

Considering how bare-bones the ExaSound DAC circuitry is, it seems the majority of the asking price is going towards to the FPGA implementation -- as Sabre DACs from China have much more robust circuits at a fraction of the price.

 

The problem is, a lot of Computer Audiophiles use Linux-based network renderers like the MicroRendu. I'll never use anything Linux in my audio stream because I don't hate myself, but nevertheless it is a very common solution used by posters here. So it really shouldn't bee too much to ask for Linux drivers, as both major USB controllers on the market supports it. 

[Bob Stern]

13 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Considering how bare-bones the ExaSound DAC circuitry is ...

 

Sabre DACs from China have much more robust circuits

 

@GUTB, can you please explain:

(1) In what respect the exaSound circuit is "bare bones".

(2) Likewise, how Chinese Sabre DACs are "robust".

 

(Please consider this a question, not an attack.  However, your post is meaningless without clarification.)

[GUTB]

1 minute ago, Bob Stern said:

 

@GUTB, can you please explain:

(1) In what respect the exaSound circuit is "bare bones".

(2) Likewise, how Chinese Sabre DACs are "robust".

 

(Please consider this a question, not an attack.  However, your post is meaningless without clarification.)

 

Sure. Here is an e20 Mk.III:

 

 

The parts appear to be high-end, which is good. But this is a very lean output stage. Also no power supply.

 

Then we move onto:

 

 

The $800 Gustard X20 Pro. Note the dual-differential true balanced topology, dedicated digital/analog power supplies, high-end clock, and big capacitors. It lacks the FPGA implementation with custom filters and input stage.

 

 

[jtwrace]

5 hours ago, exa said:

 

exaSound DACs require the use of our proprietary drivers and they are closed source.  Using closed source drivers on LINUX is a bad practice and it will be very costly to maintain compiled versions for all LINUX flavors. That's why we offer our own optimized LINUX box - the PlayPoint.

 

Yeah, that's interesting for sure.  

[Bob Stern]

@GOTB:

 

In my opinion, comparing the performance of the Gustard and exaSound DACs by visual inspection is ridiculous.

 

You deduce from their larger physical size that the Gustard's aluminum capacitors are electrically superior as decoupling capacitors to exaSound's low-ESR polymer tantalum capacitors?

 

exaSound's specs describe numerous design features intended to minimize jitter induced by the USB receiver, ground plane noise, etc.  Do you think a photo meaningfully reveals the effectiveness of these features compared to the corresponding features of the Gustard?  Can you analyze the usefulness of Gustard's separate analog and digital power transformers compared to exaSound's 11 power filtering stages, etc?

 

I know nothing about the Gustard, so I'm not asserting it's inferior, but I think it's absurd to claim the exaSound is poor value based on the evidence you've cited.

[exa]

7 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

Sure. Here is an e20 Mk.III:

 

 

The parts appear to be high-end, which is good. But this is a very lean output stage. Also no power supply.

 

Then we move onto:

 

 

The $800 Gustard X20 Pro. Note the dual-differential true balanced topology, dedicated digital/analog power supplies, high-end clock, and big capacitors. It lacks the FPGA implementation with custom filters and input stage.

 

 

 

Your illustration of extra robustness is the presence of two transformers and two division walls.  Can you show us the measurements for this device?  We should be able to see the negative influence of the transformers on the noise measurements. I would argue that our approach to keep the power supply outside and away from the DAC delivers much superior signal to noise ratio.  Here are the e20 measurements: http://www.exasound.com/e20/e20Measurements.aspx

 

You are comparing an old exaSound DAC with a current model. Your photo brings back the sweet memories for the e20, It was our second DAC, released on September 17, 2012. At that time it had support for DSD128. On February 13, 2013 with the MK II release it became the first DAC available for purchase on the audiophile market to support quad DSD at 11.2896MHz. On July 12, 2013, with  the MK III release the e20 became the first DAC to support DSD at 12.288 MHz. We've managed twice to release ground-breaking technology before Merging and Mytek. There was a third world's first - on March 22, 2014 with driver update we were the first to release DSD256 on OS X with custom Core Audio and ASIO drivers.  

 

Looking at the e20 and the heavy-metal device, you can see some other differences. In the small form factor we've managed to pack a top-class headphone amplifier. See the measurements.

 

Look in front of the big FPGA chip, the two small chips are the Galvanic isolators.  In addition the air gap on the PCB prevents dust particles collected on the PCB surface to compromise the isolation. Recently It was mentioned on this forum that Galvanic isolation is the Holy Grail of Computer Audio. The e20 was worthy of this definition back in 2012.  I would be curious to find how the newly introduced Galvanic Isolation technologies are better than the one used on the e20. The e20 and all its successors always had galvanic protection without the use of external USB gadgets.    

 

You can see the three low-jitter clocks (two of them next to the FPGA are made to order for us). They support the asynchronous operation.  The clocks, together with the FIFO buffer (the chip next to the FPGA) are tightly integrated with the drivers to implement the true asynchronous operation that allows us to do error correction over the USB connection. With all this in place, our devices are quite insensitive to the "audio" qualities of your computer. It doesn't make much difference if you use a spinning hard drive or SSD, all-from-memory playback or barebones Foobar, with audio-optimizer or not. If your computer can provide a steady USB stream,  the sonic fidelity will be almost indistinguishable between a 10 years old HP desktop and custom-built computer hardware.  

 

In our opinion the challenges that computers bring to audio reproduction are best solved by specialized hardware outside the computer. Trying to fix computer timing accuracy and to reduce computer noise by tweaking the operating system is like taking painkillers.  The root cause is not addressed. Having custom hardware architecture built around the DAC chip to bring the best of it and  drivers that are tightly integrated with the hardware and the firmware makes our devices unique.

 

The 6 black boxes (there are two more behind the front PCB next to the headphone connector) are the relays that cut off the line outputs and the headphone outputs in case of emergency. For best bass extension down to 0 Hz all our DACs are DC-coupled. This can be dangerous if the DAC is directly connected to a DC-coupled power amp. For example if you accidentally disconnect the DAC power cable the transients can destroy your speakers.  Our firmware will detect the disaster and will have enough operation time before critical power loss to cut off all outputs for graceful, pop-free, bang-free shutdown.

 

To give an example of the impact of the quality of the USB connection, our old devices used to be able to play without interruption when the USB cable is quickly disconnected and reconnected.  This is possible because of the FIFO buffer.  Newer exaSound DACs and the new generation drivers don't allow this anymore. We deploy the same shutdown measures when the USB cable is accidentally disconnected. (Don't try this at home.)

 

Regarding your assessment of the output stage, the proof is in the sound and in the measurements. Ours is true-balanced all the way from the DAC output to the XLR connector. The unbalanced output comes last with an extra buffer.

 

I can agree with your assertion that our devices look less heavy compared to other DACs.  This is because most of the development budget goes into new development. The e20 PCB that you bring as an example is made with manual placement here in Canada.  We can't compete on cost with the Chinese manufacturers, we can't use transformers with silver wire. Our approach is to invest in developing what we believe is the best technology to deliver natural, detailed and dynamic sound.

 

[jtwrace]

I must say that the measurements of the e32 are quite impressive.  Is the proprietary software part of the objective performance?  

[GUTB]

Well, I'm very aware that measurements don't tell the whole picture, especially Sabre DACs which differ hugely on implementation. But since the discussion is moved towards measurements:

 

Gustard X20U Pro (9028 version):

 

Again, it costs around $800. I'll point out the e32 costs $3,500.

 

More expensive Chinese 9028/9038 DACs are in the $1,400-1,800 range, such as the X-Sabre Pro:

 

SNR > -134dB 20Hz-20kHz A-Weighting
THD+N <0.00012% at 1kHz A-Weighting <0.00015% at 20Hz-20kHz A-Weighting
Frequency Response 20Hz-20kHz (+0.01dB/-0.02dB)
Crosstalk > -151dB @1kHz

 

[exa]

21 hours ago, jtwrace said:

I must say that the measurements of the e32 are quite impressive.  Is the proprietary software part of the objective performance?  

Yes, it is. It contributes to jitter reduction, asynchronous playback, all-time 32bit operation. It also makes it possible to do the USB streaming at 0dBFS (maximum volume, no resolution loss) at all times.