Matrix Audio X-SABRE Pro MQA: Best Audio DAC in the World?

[RichB]

Gentlemen, I have a huge respect for measured performance which is why I purchased the Matrix Audio DAC, I suspected it would measure and sound great based on their reputation and Amir’s measurements of the Element X. I also expect and demand excellent measurements from my tube equipment as well. Just because it has tubes is no excuse for poor measured performance in my opinion. I think you would be shocked at how many recordings use tube microphones especially for vocals and intimate acoustic recordings. They typically have noise floor of around 140db and very low harmonic distortion. Tubes also don’t require as much negative feedback because they are inherently more linear.

It's fine to love tubes. But how is a device with higher output impedance more linear driving reactive loads?

- Rich

 

[SIY]

It's fine to love tubes. But how is a device with higher output impedance more linear driving reactive loads?

DACs and mic preamps generally don't.

 

[IVX]

The game is already over with affordable dacs that measure better than human hearing.

Olympic games also should be over after car invention? Cool achievements like this one DAC are normal sport, and I know people who ready to pay for that.

 

[Ralf Stocker]

Which op amps were used in this dac?

 

[Nango]

I think you would be shocked at how many recordings use tube microphones especially for vocals and intimate acoustic recordings. They typically have noise floor of around 140db and very low harmonic distortion.

That would be then tubes on tubes!!

 

[RichB]

DACs and mic preamps generally don't.

Fair enough, but this and other reviews show that state of the art performance in a DAC can be achieved without tubes.

IMO, any technology used prior to the recording are part of the instruments. Whether it be air driven, plucked, struck, amplified, and recorded was all designed to make the desired sound. The job of my home system is to product that accurately.

- Rich

 

[SIY]

Fair enough, but this and other reviews show that state of the art performance in a DAC can be achieved without tubes

No one rational would argue that tubes are necessary for top performance, least of all me. But it’s also often stated (incorrectly) that stuff with tubes is incapable of excellent performance. It can be excellent, but sadly often is not.

 

[JJB70]

Whether or not a product like this makes sense depends on what you want it for.

If you just want a DAC which does its job of converting digital to analogue and delivering transparent audio performance then no. Nobody needs this if is just about performance.

If you want it because you take pleasure from knowing that it's measured performance is outstanding and because you enjoy premium quality then it may well make sense.

And as with anything ultimately it all comes down to personal choices and what you value.

I am in two minds about statement DACs. Part of me sees this segment as being similar to cables in creating a demand for expensive equipment that is unnecessary and supported by some rather asinine marketing and subjective reviews. If a company like Apple can deliver an excellent DAC for the price of a good sandwich I really can't get excited about stuff costing four or five figure sums to achieve the same end. Especially when there are products like the March Audio DAC which offer great performance and excellent quality and industrial design for modest cost if you want a separate DAC. On the other hand there is real substance here and excellent design which does separate it from the snake oil nonsense of expensive cables.

 

[g29]

... Especially when there are products like the Khadas Tone Board DAC which offer great performance ...

FIFY

 

[Dealux]

Once again, RIP Chord.

 

[30 Ounce]

Fair enough, but this and other reviews show that state of the art performance in a DAC can be achieved without tubes.
- Rich

I would seriously question any company that used tubes in a DAC.

 

[30 Ounce]

Amir, I’m a little confused on the filter measurements. You state filter #2 is the default but my manual lists #1 (fast roll off minimum phase) as the default.

t

 

[amirm]

Amir, I’m a little confused on the filter measurements. You state filter #2 is the default but my manual lists #1 (fast roll off minimum phase) as the default.

Maybe I got the sequence wrong. Regardless, the above graph is in order.

 

[Zog]

It is nice to see that the good measurements match my experience. I purchased this, at least the non MQA version, prior to this test and the Element test. It is better sounding than either the Oppo205 (used as a DAC) or the W4S Dac.

 

[tensor9]

There has to be something going on with the 32 tone intermodulation distortion test. There noise floor is way worse than the Element X.

 

[amirm]

Thanks so much for the new test! The Jitter Noise of S/PDIF input looks almost the same as USB input.
It that means the reason cause Jitter Noise difference between X Sabre Pro and Element X is somewhere a little design imperfection in other part of X Sabre Pro's digital signal processing?
According to the product page, it uses 2 more "Ultra-Low Phase Noise Oscillator" for sample rate of 44.1kHz, 48kHz and their multiples, and one same Crystek CCHD-950 femtosecond clock for ES9038PRO reference clock. I was expecting to see X Sabre Pro having a better Jitter Noise result than its brother, but the test show the opposite. And this design imperfection is fixed in Element X which is produced 2 years later.

Jitter is rarely caused by the clock itself. But rather as you stipulate, it comes from other sources polluting the clock, reference voltage or otherwise the output of the DAC.

Also, real jitter has symmetrical sidebands on each side of our main tone at 12 kHz. Anything that is not symmetrical is interference of some kind. There is some symmetrical jitter in X Sabre Pro at very low frequency and hence, hug the main tone. Those are least audible so not a concern from that point of view.

 

[AudioSceptic]

On the first point - I doubt they are... my guess is they will not measure nearly as well - but I don't think that's their aim either. However, I will wait for measurements to confirm or deny my suspicions. On the second point, agreed... now if only they came in black.



Braun design is right up there with Porsche IMO... however, I personally find this DAC to be very nice looking. Mostly business with just a touch of elegance. However, like music, design is very subjective (at least until it impedes functionality). Dieter Rams' furniture was pretty groundbreaking at the time as well. Of course now the knockoffs sold at Container Store and home improvement stores are much more ubiquitous.

For me, nothing beats the Linn Klimax DS/DSM for industrial design <https://www.linn.co.uk/sources/network-music-players/klimax> Of course the price is stupid...

Hold on, how much is a Klimax compared with a TotalDac?

 

[vkvedam]

Wow! Thanks for the findings @amirm

 

[BDWoody]

For me, nothing beats the Linn Klimax DS/DSM for industrial design <https://www.linn.co.uk/sources/network-music-players/klimax> Of course the price is stupid...

Hold on, how much is a Klimax compared with a TotalDac?

$60+ tip... Oh...Sorry...

 

[Rene]

Hi Rene'. For standard IMD vs Level, it is 44.1 kHz. For 19+20 kHz, it is 48 kHz. So your guess is correct on the TotalDAC one.

There are no settings related to MQA. I assume it automatically uses their filters when fed MQA content.

So you were using your favorite filter: #3?