Review and Measurements of Sabaj D5 DAC & Amp

[Nango]

Neurochrome also has apx analyzer

The US-$ 25k one? I doubt it. But I may be wrong. The Khadas folks do, that was the 1st time I thought this site shouldn't just double check their measurements on the same machine.

Both Khadas and Sabaj sent the items in, it was not someone "discovering" them. It is not the right "ethic". Edit: But it would be ethical if they paid (significantly) for maintenance the site if they want to doublecheck their measurements.

 

[Tks]

Furthermore: A mfr who uses the same measurement equipment than @amirm and knows the results in advance the only thing it seeks is to get publicity from this site. I don't see the reason why such products should be reviewed here.

I actually disagree in totality. It shows a seriously dedicated pursuit of providing an honest product when you as a manufacturer are willing to invest in the equipment used by third parties, on top of also sending the device to that third party to truly scrutinize your device.

Peer reviewed journals would also be treated as “publicity” seeing as how if the expiraments are ran identically in the studies it would simply mean as you say “they know what the results would be if they measure things the same way, so it’s free publicity” (I abbreviate).

There’s nothing wrong with this, as there can always be scum companies that would lie about something like measurements (audio-gd’s devices for example) and then be exposed for such nonsense when a third party gets their hands on the device.

Edit: mobile typos

 

[Nango]

@Tks No one knows for sure they invested 25k into that machine. They may have paid a 3rd party for measuring. From what I recall audio-gd never measured on the APX.

It would be simply silly to say as a mfr "I used the APX...." where I did not, I mean ..............

 

[Frank Dernie]

The US-$ 25k one? I doubt it. But I may be wrong. The Khadas folks do, that was the 1st time I thought this site shouldn't just double check their measurements on the same machine.

Both Khadas and Sabaj sent the items in, it was not someone "discovering" them. It is not the right "ethic". Edit: But it would be ethical if they paid (significantly) for maintenance the site if they want to doublecheck their measurements.

It depends on the number of people looking at the site and their type.
If a manufacturers is producing excellent product but nobody has heard of them it seems entirely admirable for them to be reviewed here even if their data is self published.
I had never heard of most of the kit reviewed here beforehand, good or bad.
I am glad this has been reviewed here, even though I won’t be buying one.

 

[Nango]

My point is simply: If I already know the results, there is no added value for us, nor for the mfr itself, other than getting publicity. And it puts him in a privileged position vs all the others that have no access to the APX. Because they probably would not send in, if they didn't know the results.

They should pay for a certificate (kind of ISO-9001 or like that) that indeed confirms they realized the measurments according to certain (scientific) criteria etc etc .... They simply save this amount by sending in to @amirm. Other way around, it would be fair if they paid this amount into the site.

 

[Krunok]

Oh, I hope there is some difference in terms of their “sonic signatures” as some people say that AKM chips have more musicality and ESS ones perform better in benchmarks.

Some people say Earth is flat.

 

[Tks]

@Tks No one knows for sure they invested 25k into that machine. They may have paid a 3rd party for measuring. From what I recall audio-gd never measured on the APX.

It would be simply silly to say as a mfr "I used the APX...." where I did not, I mean ..............

Well sure, but the more “but they could also have done X” you introduce into the speculation, the more you have to justify such suspicion with examples of prior actions from others also engaging in such behaviors. Also then you have to pair that wil simply the general odds of probability and logical consistency on someone doing this, and how that would make sense from a risk and investment point of view, for a product you’re trying to sell at ~$350 who’s performance from its DAC section is slapping nearly the relevancy of all we’ve seen today at nearly all price points, let alone the staggeringly low price for such performance. Even if this was a standalone DAC, with these measurements this thing sells itself.

So yeah, technically you’re right, they could do all this - heck they could be lying about even doing what you said instead simply took a shot in the dark with no paid-for measurements at all and were staking their whole existence of their bet here on making a claim they thought to be true about the D5, but not sure.

Again, as rational people we learn such probabilities are instantly filtered away when all aspects are taken into account. This isn’t MBL or whoever trying to sell a $25,000 DAC and going all-in with their bluff. I hope you realize where I’m getting at with this evaluation.

 

[JohnYang1997]

The US-$ 25k one? I doubt it. But I may be wrong. The Khadas folks do, that was the 1st time I thought this site shouldn't just double check their measurements on the same machine.

Both Khadas and Sabaj sent the items in, it was not someone "discovering" them. It is not the right "ethic". Edit: But it would be ethical if they paid (significantly) for maintenance the site if they want to doublecheck their measurements.

Tom's is apx525 which was bought before the release of apx555. And this bugged him for a long time.

 

[Tks]

My point is simply: If I already know the results, there is no added value for us, nor for the mfr itself, other than getting publicity. And it puts him in a privileged position vs all the others that have no access to the APX. Because they probably would not send in, if they didn't know the results.

They should pay for a certificate (kind of ISO-9001 or like that) that indeed confirms they realized the measurments according to certain (scientific) criteria etc etc .... They simply save this amount by sending in to @amirm. Other way around, it would be fair if they paid this amount into the site.

What you insinuate (though innocently I believe) is that ASR should be a “can’t afford an APX? Get your free measurements here from here on out folks!”

You’re missing the point of third party validation as a valuable tool for gaining more closer to objective truth of a matter. If the results were different it would also be valuable to us and the company, for them, either check the device or the measurements they themselves do, and us to question if we’re seeing a lemon, or a concerning phenomena.

I’m not able to wrap my mind around his whole privledge aspect you’re speaking about. Why would any of us discount having confirmation, or learning about a company such as this (they’re totally new to me, and I had not the slightest clue they were serious about measured performance).

You have to understand, this is an industry still in its Wild Wild West phase with respect to consumer audio metric data. Very few serious standards with respect to quality or performance for a consumer to easily gauge. Heck some even lying.

Any sort of confirmation of any company willing to put their device through scientific rigor is a welcome thing in my book. Privledged? I mean I don’t understand.. should we be calling AP to start donating machines to all manufacturers? Or at least free leases per year so a company can test their yearly products? I truly am lost on this privledge ordeal.. and with the trend of how reality works (objective truth and understanding proliferating) when we get better standards and more companies taking measurements serious.. won’t they all eventually be “privledged”?

 

[JohnYang1997]

My point is simply: If I already know the results, there is no added value for us, nor for the mfr itself, other than getting publicity. And it puts him in a privileged position vs all the others that have no access to the APX. Because they probably would not send in, if they didn't know the results.

They should pay for a certificate (kind of ISO-9001 or like that) that indeed confirms they realized the measurments according to certain (scientific) criteria etc etc .... They simply save this amount by sending in to @amirm. Other way around, it would be fair if they paid this amount into the site.

ap2700 is also very expensive. Most companies who bought 2700 should have bought them before the release of apx555 which itself is quite new. And to be honest 2700 is quite good on its own. Just 555 is better. And 525 is basically the new generation of 2700 but supposedly has less features as far as I know. Similar performance wise. There are still companies or individuals buying 2700. There are also many people buying dscope even. Just because 555 is the most expensive one doesn't mean others are useless. For performance around 1ppm, all analyzers above are capable of doing that. There are even many audio interfaces can give -120db thd at certain levels. Unless you are measuring -150db or lower harmonics or 64bit digital acquisition or very low jitter measurements, there really isn't much benefit from apx555. Well, some amplifiers do have distortion under -130db so apx555 is more suitable. However whether it's necessary, I think no.

 

[Dialectic]

The US-$ 25k one? I doubt it. But I may be wrong. The Khadas folks do, that was the 1st time I thought this site shouldn't just double check their measurements on the same machine.

Both Khadas and Sabaj sent the items in, it was not someone "discovering" them. It is not the right "ethic". Edit: But it would be ethical if they paid (significantly) for maintenance the site if they want to doublecheck their measurements.

I'm having great difficulty understanding what is unethical about Amir's testing this DAC--regardless of whether the manufacturer sent it to him. I realize that English may not be your first language, but for the benefit of all of us users of ASR, can you please try to spell it out more clearly?

 

[M00ndancer]

Definitely not. This site's purpose shouldn't be to repeat but to verify (different equipmented) measurements.

English not my native language, and you're absolutely right, the word I was searching for was verify.

 

[Thomas savage]

English not my native language, and you're absolutely right, the word I was searching for was verify.

Well , to repeat so we can verify, there was nothing wrong with how you originally expressed yourself.

The more data the better. I'm a little lost wrt Nango's logic here tbh.

 

[Nango]

I'm having great difficulty understanding what is unethical about Amir's testing this DAC--regardless of whether the manufacturer sent it to him. I realize that English may not be your first language, but for the benefit of all of us users of ASR, can you please try to spell it out more clearly?

Sure. If I already know the results, if I know the outcome, I don't send the item in, it's not fair (or ethical), thats what I meant. It has -of course- nothing to do with @amirm measurements and his site which I admire.

I understand "to repeat" as doing same things twice to obtain identical results. I understand to verify as doing things in a different way or method again to obtain identical results. So to me it is not the same meaning,

 

[Silou]

Definitely a great deal for 370€ on Aliexpress, but I wonder how long the price will stay that low. The SU-8 was 180€ and now 210€ after the V2 measurements were published.

 

[maxxevv]

Sure. If I already know the results, if I know the outcome, I don't send the item in, it's not fair (or ethical), thats what I meant. It has -of course- nothing to do with @amirm measurements and his site which I admire.

I understand "to repeat" as doing same things twice to obtain identical results. I understand to verify as doing things in a different way or method again to obtain identical results. So to me it is not the same meaning,

You need to look up the meaning of "verify" on the english Dictionary. Your interpretation of the word is already wrong not to mention the scientific discourse/ context of it.

Meaning of verify

 

[Dro]

Are there 50 mV measurements for the headphone out?

 

[maxxevv]

Definitely a great deal for 370€ on Aliexpress, but I wonder how long the price will stay that low. The SU-8 was 180€ and now 210€ after the V2 measurements were published.

That's the discounted price. For both the SU-8 and the DA5, only during substantial sales. The MRSP for both are respectively US$250 and US$470.

So, do get your figures correct on that.

 

[THW]

I understand "to repeat" as doing same things twice to obtain identical results. I understand to verify as doing things in a different way or method again to obtain identical results. So to me it is not the same meaning,

not sure if I follow your line of logic, are you suggesting to change methodology to check if you get the same results?

i thought the idea behind reproducible results is that another person will get the same results if you follow the exact methodology as outlined? wouldn’t independent verification by a third party to check if there isn’t any shenanigans being pulled be the way to go rather than changing test methodology?

 

[Silou]

That's the discounted price. For both the SU-8 and the DA5, only during substantial sales. The MRSP for both are respectively US$250 and US$470.

So, do get your figures correct on that.

That is not correct. The discounted price for the SU-8 was 170€ for a short time.