Matrix Audio X-Sabre Pro MQA

[Josh Mound]

On 8/31/2019 at 7:41 PM, 57gold said:

Anybody listen to one of these.  The fellow at Audio Science Review who claims to have tested 150+ DACs reports this unit has the best performance specs of any he has tested.

 

Since I do not understand all the charts and graphs on his forum, he could be fooling me.  But the fellow seems seriously committed to his tests and whilst this DAC is @$2K, but he also recommends DACs as testing extremely well like one called a Sabaj D5 DAC, which uses top drawer parts with broad capabilities in terms of file resolution and connectivity for @$500.

 

Any experience with these units?

 

Happy with my Brooklyn +...but would have been happier if it cost $500 and could do DSD1024...which might mean I could use my Mini and HQPlayer to get to DSD256, for example.

 

 

 

 

I’d love to hear the Matrix. By all accounts, it’s a great sounding (and measuring) DAC. 

 

Personally, though, I’d take ASR with a big grain of salt. The proprietor clearly has certain favorites (Topping) and axes to grind (Schiit), and on several occasions his measurements have been the outlier among multiple independent measurements (Yggdrasil). He also seems to have a large ego (saying he could “pull rank” on the AP folks when they helped Jude at HF conduct a measurement that contradicted his).

 

Ultimately, however, the idea that you can spend <$200 and get a DAC or amp that is “scientifically” better than (or at least equal to) the best gear in the world is a compelling argument that has gained many followers. Given that, as @Miska suggested, I don’t know what the point of ASR’s continued DAC measurements are if, by ASR’s own logic, a bunch of $100-ish DACs are perfect beyond the limits of human hearing. 

 

As far as the Sabaj, I’d suggest looking at the threads on ASR, HF, Drop, etc. about the quality issues with Topping, SMSL, etc. before spending hundreds of dollars or more on such products. (Matrix, though, seems to have great customer support so far.)

[Josh Mound]

3 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Fair enough. I don’t always agree with everything posted on ASR. You can see my own measurements there of interconnects and USB cables both showing some differences, despite the common belief there that these don’t matter. 

 

THD figure by itself is meaningless, but the actual distortion plot over audible range is very useful, IMHO. Just like a single jitter value is meaningless, while a phase error plot over audible frequencies can be very revealing.

 

Do you have a link to your measurements? Very interested to see. I was fascinated by some of Atomic Bob's USB cable measurements. 

[Josh Mound]

On 9/2/2019 at 5:24 PM, pkane2001 said:

 

Haven't seen AB's USB measurements. Mine was just to compare a Lush^2 to a generic USB cable. First post here, some follow-ups in the posts below it:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/do-usb-audio-cables-make-a-difference.1887/post-216835

 

Comparison of a few balanced interconnects:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/do-interconnect-cables-make-a-difference-a-null-test-result.7738/

 

 

 

Cool. Thank you for sharing. Here’s Bob’s post:

https://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/usb-cable-shield-resistance-technical-measurements.5662/

[Josh Mound]

14 minutes ago, asdf1000 said:

 

No caveats?

 

So nobody should target lower distortion measurements then?

 

 

 

To be honest, I think that’s a paradox of the forum in question. The mantra there is that all “properly engineered” DACs sound alike, and the common refrain in threads is not to bother spending more than whatever the latest budget Topping DAC costs unless you want other features, etc., because the difference won’t be audible. Given that, it’s not clear why they keep measuring DACs. 

 

(Going back to my previous post, it’s stuff like this that gives me...pause.)

[Josh Mound]

7 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

If you ask them for a falsifiable definition of 'properly engineered' you'll never get one. Sometimes 'competently' is used instead of 'properly' but the intent is the same. A more nuanced mantra is 'All competently engineered DACs sound identical under level matched, double blind conditions'.

 

Moreover, when someone demonstrates they can hear differences under those stringent conditions, it’s offhandedly dismissed as flawed or otherwise impossible. It’s circular reasoning. 

[Josh Mound]

 

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I have personal, first-hand information about forums that are run by extreme subjectivists, where you get banned for mentioning measurements or blind tests. As I said, I'd rather not go down the path of naming them. It was not a pleasant experience but I'm not a vindictive type of person.

 

Why can't you specify which forum you're speaking of so that we can debate whether that's the case?

 

By the way, I'll be reviewing the Matrix for Audiophile Style, for those who'd like a subjective review. 😊

[Josh Mound]

3 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Precisely because I don't want to be part of this discussion.

 

But you started the discussion by saying you could point to sites!

[Josh Mound]

6 minutes ago, mansr said:

Here you go:

 .....  ......     .    ....... 
.     . .     .   . .   .       
.       .     .  .   .  .       
 .....  ......  .     . .....   
      . .     . ....... .       
.     . .     . .     . .       
 .....  ......  .     . .       

 

That's absolutely untrue. SBAF publishes lots of measurements. Moreover, both AtomicBob and Marv there are more accomplished at measurements than Amir is. The debate is about what measurements matter (and to what extent) as well as what's audible, not whether measurements have any value. 

 

The recent claim by a someone at ASR that he was banned from SBAF for being "objectivist" is flatly untrue. A bunch of members (me included) engaged with him and gave him serious comments and advice about headphones. He was banned for saying racist things.