Everyone decides what to do with their computer. I saw and heard the difference before and after using these two programs.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Gustard X16 Balanced MQA DAC Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
caocaolatre199x
Member
Yeah it's the "class A" output circuit. But its just a class ab buffer in the loop of the opamp.
There's either dropout or no difference.
caocaolatre199x
Member
So does it have more differences than single op1612 designs from SMSL or TOPPING? It has a fairly valuable output.
Thank you.
It doesn't provide any benefit over just using opa1612 for es9068.
There is no dropping out. The sound is clearer.
Pick one. It was dropping out or there's no difference. As there's no dropping out, it means it doesn't make any difference.
caocaolatre199x
Member
Do you know how much price for each unit ES9068As? I think it will be cheaper than ES9038 Pro.
You can think it's 2x9038q2m. 9038pro is roughly 5x9068as.
caocaolatre199x
Member
Same ES9026Pro. Thank you.
misureaudio
Member
At the post's end you can find a simple MATLAB script to generate a test wav file useful to isolate the X16's noise problem.
The signal consists of a low level high frequency component and a conveniently low residue.
When reproduced, in whatever player/computer/DAC combination I choose, I listen to substantial silence, except the (not so audible) HF component, with all the DACs I tested. This restricting to 44.1kHz/16bit wav file.
Once the 44.1/16 test signal file is generated, it has to be converted to DSD, which I did with jRiver, obtaining a DSF file (DSD64).
If the DSD64 version is played, the X16 apparently locks the 2.822MHz signal, but instead of silence you can listen clearly to the repeated mild crackling noise I previously noticed in DSD music tracks.
All the other DACs in the same experiment, with compatible and similar conditions due to the same ASIO driver from Thesycon, show absolutely no trace of noise.
It's clearly a specific situation regarding (at least my) X16. I can't order another sample of course and it could be interesting to know if the experience is repeatable with other samples of the X16.
In case it could be necessary to address Gustard for a possible solution, if the problem is general and tied, for instance, to a firmware correctable problem.
For what I have heard otherwise, using HD and MQA, the X16 is really great. I'd like to obtain the same from DSD files.
Frs=44100;
Dur=100;
lenv=Frs.*Dur;
Sab=16;
NCh=2;
ycd=zeros(lenv,NCh);
pval=1;
nval=-pval;
for i=2:lenv-1
if mod(i,2)==0
ycd(i,: )=[pval,pval];
else
ycd(i,: )=[nval,nval];
end
end
audiowrite('.\X16testCD.wav',ycd,Frs,'BitsPerSample',Sab);
The signal consists of a low level high frequency component and a conveniently low residue.
When reproduced, in whatever player/computer/DAC combination I choose, I listen to substantial silence, except the (not so audible) HF component, with all the DACs I tested. This restricting to 44.1kHz/16bit wav file.
Once the 44.1/16 test signal file is generated, it has to be converted to DSD, which I did with jRiver, obtaining a DSF file (DSD64).
If the DSD64 version is played, the X16 apparently locks the 2.822MHz signal, but instead of silence you can listen clearly to the repeated mild crackling noise I previously noticed in DSD music tracks.
All the other DACs in the same experiment, with compatible and similar conditions due to the same ASIO driver from Thesycon, show absolutely no trace of noise.
It's clearly a specific situation regarding (at least my) X16. I can't order another sample of course and it could be interesting to know if the experience is repeatable with other samples of the X16.
In case it could be necessary to address Gustard for a possible solution, if the problem is general and tied, for instance, to a firmware correctable problem.
For what I have heard otherwise, using HD and MQA, the X16 is really great. I'd like to obtain the same from DSD files.
Frs=44100;
Dur=100;
lenv=Frs.*Dur;
Sab=16;
NCh=2;
ycd=zeros(lenv,NCh);
pval=1;
nval=-pval;
for i=2:lenv-1
if mod(i,2)==0
ycd(i,: )=[pval,pval];
else
ycd(i,: )=[nval,nval];
end
end
audiowrite('.\X16testCD.wav',ycd,Frs,'BitsPerSample',Sab);
It's actually much better than 9026pro. 9026pro only exists for multichannel.
caocaolatre199x
Member
I mean about the price. In terms of configuration parameters on paper, it will probably be equal to 9018s or 9028 pro, except to support 2 channels compared to 8-channel DACs.
Last edited:
I b I'll ugh this Gustardx16 and had problems right from the start which I videoed and sent to Gustard, which showed clearly an intermitent, static or click. I t would come and go. I ran a hertz generated signal and you could clearly hear the problem. Gustardx16 claimed it was the environment, but I have had a number of cheaper dacs which didn't have a problem. In the end after sending the dac back, and Gustardx checked the problem. Smirk has the video and confirmed the noise. Al I can say is that the Gustardx16 and the Gustard company are not reliable and don't stand by there product or the warranty. The problem was in the coaxial and optical. These have the best sound and broader band width. My experience ,I says don't go near Gustard.
I don't understand if they are not standing by their product they could have lied. Also you could have asked for a replacement. Which is a common worldwide practice, that's why you have a warranty. Single units can always fail there is nothing working 100%.
misureaudio
Member
'...it's the environment...'
I live in Italy and have had identical experience as yours.
I currently own and use many other DACs for reference and comparison, not even the Topping NX-4 makes the faintest mistake in processing DSD streams, even in much harsher conditions than being connected to correctly installed and optimized PC. I forgot to mention it in the list I previously exposed, but it was the first pocket DAC I bought, and revealed itself excellent. I was very curious about the rest of the line and acquired E30, D50s, D90MQA: all excellent, with no flaws in music reproduction. Other DACs, from the Bricasti M1SE and M3, to the Ifi micro DSD signature, all show impeccable behaviour wrt DSD playback at any rate via USB. I don't know if the policy of not recognizing the problem in the X16 is a good one. One could think, instead of sending the unit back, to continue using it for HD and MQA, and as a case study for what effectively goes wrong, eventually publishing the results, which is not exactly the best outcome from the commercial point of view.
In case no positive technical move will be done by Gustard, correcting the flaw, one could ask how it's possible to put on the market a product flawed in this way.
(Uncertainty of course exists at this point about the roots of the flaw, but being the n-th user noticing it world wide, I would consider as low the probability that our units belong to the same production batch. More investigation is needed at this point, in my opinion.)
Last edited:
Hi
Similar threads
- Poll
