Hahaha it has less treble than a normal DAC although when you apply oversampling / upsampling in the PC it still didn't sound very interesting, even with the return of treble. If I tried around 7 desktop DAC's at that time then the TDA parallel thing I just put in the wardrobe & returned to my usual 9018.
In my Samsung Galaxy phone right now I noticed they included upsampling in the audio settings & when you turn it on there is not much difference, if there is a difference I can't hear the upsampling difference in my Samsung phone in a blind test. LG phones use the basic ES9018 DAC & they sound quite nice, however still nothing compared to the desktop ES9018's, plus the desktop ES9018 are usually the standard chip which is actually 4x 9018, while the smartphones use 90182QM which is 1x, which you know already. However since you seem like an expert in PCB layout possibly you think 90182QM 1x is enough for ultimate sound in the correct PCB layout.
Yes it makes sense, using the correct layout & decoupling, then the PCB is letting the op-amp shine in what it can do, so when the AD828 or possibly THS4032 is allowed to do what it can do, after the ES9018, it's like hello & au revoir, here comes the comet 2u
I have a feeling you are going to criticize the PCB of the desktop DAC I say is the best sound of the ES9018 I ever heard.
Actually, I don't own it right now so I need to re-purchase it, anyway. When I repurchase it then I'll send you a picture of the PCB, then you can possibly recommend some of your expert PCB knowledge ideas.
---
Here is another ES9018 device the Calyx M portable player, I can't see much on the PCB, the top right corner is the DAC chip then the headphone-out is nearby at the top right.. -- https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1019/4439/products/DSC9427-X2_2000x.jpg
Last edited:
Not enough pixels for details, but:
- It's a multilayer board
- Most likely solid ground plane since it had to pass EMC
- They put the big noisy chip as far as possible from the audio bits
- No top layer copper pour around the audio bits
- Clock is where it should be
- SD card connector near the audio bits, but it's well shielded
- Huge switching PMIC in the middle, but there's really no other choice
- Didn't skimp on capacitors
- The ground plane shields the audio bits from the screen
- Every questionable thing I see is there for a reason: for example it's battery powered, so you have to have DC-DCs, no other choice
All this hints the guy who did the board knows what he's doing.
What desktop DAC are you talking about?
Last edited:
Lolz.
---
Personally I am not a scope check person like you, I just listen carefully & change all the op-amp & read all the datasheets, et cetera..
However your comments about the 130 Mhz AD828 & 120 Mhz THS4032, tell me I need a scope to confirm the LPF & L-O of these since they're so fast, however the designer used the AD828 as his top choice for the LPF & L-O anyway, then I ranked it as the best desktop ES9018 I've heard so that is enough for me
It's one of the ES9018 in the Chinese internet, if you search for ES9018 DAC with AD828 in the Chinese internet then you'll find it, it comes in several versions.
It's quite heavy & you need to find a forwarding service for them to buy it for you & ship it to you, however the forwarding service including DHL shipping is not expensive & they will only take a $15 fee + $35 DHL shipping or so, that's ok. I should also buy more clothes from the Chinese internet if I had a large income.
Nice
I think most normal people which like sound and/or music are happy with a basic Hi-Fi smartphone like the LG G5 or Xiaomi's with several OPA1611, then keep the Hi-Fi sounds where it should be which is in the desktop DAC at home, to floorstanding speakers.
So the Calyx M & iBasso or Fiio whatever in the middle, can not become popular.
Although syn08 will keep telling you that timing errors are not relevant based on his measurements (just because he keep measuring with simple tones and above all time-invariant while music is complex signals and dynamic) I prefer to avoid commenting on the usefulness of the Jtest in order to prevent another battle from unleashing.
Having said that, I agree with you about the implementation.
Digital to analog conversion is more of an RF project than a typical audio frequency project, which involves some further considerations (current return path and terminations just to just to name a couple).
RF is a bad beast.
Honestly I'm not walking in the street with the Sennheiser HD6XX, someone would probably offer me a free knife in the gut in exchange for them.
👍
Ok, you eventually persuaded me. This isn't the exact model I had however the board looks quite similar --->
https://gd3.alicdn.com/imgextra/i3/13795664/T2svEFXQxXXXXXXXXX_!!13795664.jpg
The model I had is not listed there now, however it seems like the L9018A3 gold MCU软控 is their current best version of the 9018 ? --
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
These are DIY type people giving highest quality audio to people at affordable & normal prices. So then also people can afford to buy 5, 6 or 7 DAC at the same time (like us) =)
It is not possible for him to relate measurements to sound due to his (claimed) inability to discern any difference at that level. He sounds frustrated (be it real or acting) unable to make any sense of discussions by those (probably billions) who can. You can tell by his use of most polite vocabulary while doing so. However there are also enough snake oil peddlers pushing expensive stuff useless to the majority if not all of human population.
I choose to stop participating in discussions of stuff in the direction he shows any interest to pester. I'd be needing regular dose of meds otherwise.
We have to face the reality, namely that we as humans are the final arbiters for any kind of equipment.
Any kind of experimental setup for listening tests relies on humans as detectors/qualifiers and has to deal with the inherent issues of the participants.
We had alreday extended discussions about the pitfalls and how to handle these "issues" , but we still can not assess the iternal state of mind, but have to rely on conscious answers.
Markw4 already mentioned the fMRI in addtion to the EEG and with finer resolution it could provide more insights, which might be independent from consciousness, hence might even be more obective than other procedures.
An advantage might be, that it is easier that way to explore the response to stimuli diverging in several dimensions at once.
Hi Jakob2,
In order to compare two things, you must hold the other factors as equal as possible or the comparison is a waste of time. It loses all value, yet there are many who don't understand this. Therefore such things area a disservice to the audio community. We already have enough people trying to confuse the waters in order to sell inferior products or worthless improvements. One example of this are the products made by Bybee and John Curl's continued push to advance the nonsense for commercial gain. While we are not sure who is gaining what, somewhere in that mess, everyone is getting something. Maybe not tangible rewards, but something.
There is the danger of allowing too much latitude when we lower the bar to include things impossible to test by any reproducible metric. The cost? Many people get ripped off for hundreds or thousands of dollars. That money is often not really discretionary and they suffer financially.
So, there is a very real cost and damage that can come from allowing a non-rigorous approach to comparisons. There is room for these when stated they are impressions - after the measurements section of a report. This is the hotly contested area where the myth (we can hear things that can't be measured) is the shyster's best and most effective weapon against truth. You can see how effective this is by reading posts from many members.
Hook, line ... and sinker. Caught by a lie. A blatant untruth that needs to end. Of course, real honesty on the part of the reviewer would help immensely as well. This is a problem.
-Chris
In order to compare two things, you must hold the other factors as equal as possible or the comparison is a waste of time. It loses all value, yet there are many who don't understand this. Therefore such things area a disservice to the audio community. We already have enough people trying to confuse the waters in order to sell inferior products or worthless improvements. One example of this are the products made by Bybee and John Curl's continued push to advance the nonsense for commercial gain. While we are not sure who is gaining what, somewhere in that mess, everyone is getting something. Maybe not tangible rewards, but something.
There is the danger of allowing too much latitude when we lower the bar to include things impossible to test by any reproducible metric. The cost? Many people get ripped off for hundreds or thousands of dollars. That money is often not really discretionary and they suffer financially.
So, there is a very real cost and damage that can come from allowing a non-rigorous approach to comparisons. There is room for these when stated they are impressions - after the measurements section of a report. This is the hotly contested area where the myth (we can hear things that can't be measured) is the shyster's best and most effective weapon against truth. You can see how effective this is by reading posts from many members.
Hook, line ... and sinker. Caught by a lie. A blatant untruth that needs to end. Of course, real honesty on the part of the reviewer would help immensely as well. This is a problem.
-Chris
Just a few useful precautions.
And this is the Lite version, higher version will be 6 layers PCB and time domains isolated by optic fiber cables.
To complicate a little the RF scenario the design involves MCU, FPGA and Windows programming.
Attachments
Last edited:
I'm totally with you here but I believe it will take some explanation to make people grasp that the suggestion actually don't exploit any higher component (DAC) bandwidth with increased Fs but rather eased filter requirement which I also believe has much more benefit to the end result than bat communication properties.
//
Chris, I'd much prefer not to see that name ever be mentioned again in any way, no need to bolster his fame.
You are technically good and well educated, too easy for you to fool others of your true motive. I have seen you mentioned that despicable name repeatedly, even put onus of proof of efficacy of his filthy crap on me. I'm not stupid.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.