What? You didn’t know all DAC,This is a home and recording studio comparison of the Cambridge Audio EXN100 and Eversolo DMP A8.
NOTE: I'm editing this post adding this paragraph to clarify that yes there is another Cambridge Audio EXN100 and Eversolo A8 comparison post. It is my post. However there is confusion by some thinking this is a duplicate post. It is not. Doing a little more thorough search would have shown the author to be me. In that post I mentioned there was to be a follow up involving a professional studio. This is that post.
This is not going to be an exhaustive subjective review of what sounded better etc. That applies to my ears only. To say what another will or will not hear or for another to say what I did or did not hear is argument fodder and a waste of bandwidth.
At the end I will briefly cover why I chose as I did.
What does this test and research factually reveal? That regardless of the belief to the contrary these machines - DACs, streamers etc are not built the same and DO influence the sound. Period. Any arguments to the contrary are simply false beliefs influenced by poor sources, misinformation or a desire to argue.
First let me say I held no expectations or belief of one machine being better or different.
The setup:
1. In home. Both were fed the same source material via ethernet through an X/Y/Z switch. The switch is Amir tested and approved. Both were db matched via a 1kHz tone. Someone else swapped machines and music from another room. The loudspeakers and I were alone. The speakers are positioned per the manufacturers instructions. I spoke with their tech. No special room treatment.
I listened to short and longer passages repeating as necessary to hear the same segment.
In the end there was quite a noticeable difference between the machines. If these machines as some incorrectly believe are all the same then the music would have sounded identical. But it didn't because they aren't designed the same. A former classical pianist and tuner also identified differences as well as another in the house who consistently identified the Eversolo as harsh sounding. The subjectiveness isn't the point nor matters. What matters is three people all heard distinctions between the machines set up per professional recommendation including Amir's suggestions.
2. Not satisfied with the home test I sought professionals in the music industry. I rented time at an east coast recording studio. The two machine outputs were matched via their equipment and methods and again Amir's recommendations. Once done music was streamed via ethernet from the same lossless source. The recording studio monitors have a flat response. I had no idea which machine was streaming. I listened to the same song same passage. Repeating via both slow and quick switching. My choice was noted and we proceeded on.
I turned the tables and did the switching for the listeners which included the studio's chief audio engineer. Clear differences noted by all.
Same signal in. Different sound out.
The machines were closer in performance than at home but still sounding noticeably different.
This difference was noted by myself, the audio engineer, crew and another non employee that was there and I asked to join.
But lets be honest clearly there is a belief held by some to be unshaken by real world facts that (digital) signal processing is cookie cutter. DACs, streamers, etc sound the same. Or should I say for their world view "must sound the same" if not it's your ears fooling you. Nonsense.
These streaming DACs perform differently. I was there as were others.
Matched I've heard a difference, a classical pianist had heard a difference, an audio engineer has heard a difference, studio crew heard a difference. I don't hold to (a) belief because it is a popular one and because skepticism is popular. I am compelled to belief because of the facts.
I had earlier emailed Amir on this and as mentioned included his advice in with the testing methodology. Although I could not hear clear distinctions in all music it was quite evident in some therefore it must be there in all whether distinguishable or not. Therefore these streaming DACs perform/sound (whatever the popular adjective is) differently. They likely all do but I can't prove that.
Through doubt and wanting clear evidence I've gone far beyond what many would do applying the valid advice and suggestions here and elsewhere. I've received compliments and "well dones" from various people here and elsewhere for this effort. Thank you. Sorry if some don't like the facts. Challenged they become condescending and angry. It's ok. Ignore the naysayers. Your ears, your money.
Had I shone that the machines are the same there would be no debate from them. Irregardless of my methodology.
Facts. Proven qualifications. I don't put myself forward as any expert. I'm not. By no means. Nor do I quote sources elsewhere without verification. I seek expertise. There's an old saying in testing "trust but verify". It doesn't mean the person giving advice isn't correct but the burden of proof has not been met. I am happy to hear from the qualified but but please prove your expertise. Just someone saying I worked at X or did this or that doesn't prove their opinion or "facts" valid if they can't be investigated. The fact that I myself worked for decades at my company doesn't necessarily qualify me to make flat statements regarding systems design, fabrication or execution. I have to bring source and possibly evidence.
The worse explanation begins with " everyone knows . . ." Also there is no need to berate or lecture. I've seen that in other posts. The emotional argument is the losing one. Gaslighting or sarcasm is the last resort of lost reasoning and a failed point.
I can't and am not interested in changing ingrained (popular) beliefs. But if someone can't prove what they are saying and just rinse and repeat then I'll toss that in the opinion bucket.
Further qualified evidence is here in a response to my questions to Cambridge Audio:
I asked:
"My question to you is when matched output wise do these machines truly sound differently or is it my ears. An audio engineer, classical pianist, another and myself all heard distinct differences streaming identical songs in a blind test. Do DACs or streamers add their own unique touch to the signal?"
Their answer:
Thank you for contacting Cambridge Audio.
We "ear pick" our components based on the overall design and which ones sound best. Of course, the DAC used, and the audio chain in every DAC/network player we produce, will have a different flavour or character, and multiply a similar process across every other manufacturer, then of course, differences in sound could be perceived by the listener. This is why there are so many reviews and opinions expressed worldwide about the perception of sound of a particular device, amplifiers or DACs or network players, the source material or input in use, the list goes on, mostly based on an individual's own personal opinion, the setup as a whole, including connected hi-fi equipment, interconnects, and the listening environment. Even in A/B setups, it is expected that some will hear a difference, while others may not.
So to answer your question, yes, it is an expectation that a DAC or streamer would add its own unique touch, in some way . ."
Let us stop beating the DAC/amps etc sound the same the ear is being fooled horse. It's dead and buried. This data and Cambridge Audio just added more dirt on the grave.
Anyway I hope this helps those seeking real world knowledge. The machine specs guarantee nothing the only important factor is what you will hear.
**Warning you are entering a subjective zone**
I did say I would briefly mention why I chose what I did which is the Cambridge. It has a warmer sound. The sound field seemed wider. I did not need all of the bells and whistles of the A8. Six output filter characteristics choices for instance. Seems you can "tune" the output stage roll-off. Hmm, now why would one (or Eversolo) need to do this if all DACs sound alike? Because filter (design) roll-off settings can (and do) affect sound quality as well as the machine's handling of transients. I didn't change the A8 from the default.
The Cambridge has a better established customer support. From purchase to forever I have 7 day after sales tech support from Crutchfield. And with text and email responses from Cambridge I feel better covered.
There is no straightforward customer service contact I found for Eversolo. Seems you go through the dealer or on their website for purchased products only. The company is simply too new. Will they be around to honor their warranties? The A8 did receive good reviews from Amir. In the end looking at both machines I wish the A8 had been victorious. It is sharper looking and has a plethora of I/O options and internal settings should they ever become needed. The touchscreen is clear and responsive however any screen that size is useless to me at just a few feet away. If the screen is to be useful it needs to stay within reach which means placing the A8 on your desk.
However I/O, screens and such mean little of it's aurally displeasing. It's audio equipment so sound is first, last and everything in between. I'm happy with my choice. Oh, in that blind testing the chief audio engineer and visitor also picked the Cambridge Audio EXN100 three to zero over the A8. Enough said there.
For those shopping I encourage narrowing choices down to two, buying both provided the return is straightforward and window sufficient.
Don't hear a difference? Then pick the one that had the I/Os, looks etc that you want. If and you likely will hear some nuances then is it in the genres you listen to? If positive you've found your machine. If you don't like what you hear with your preferred music keep looking. The Eversolo cost $23 to return. 1% of it's price. Drop in the bucket to eliminate doubt and ensure happy listening. Also if you like features but the sound is not pleasing perhaps room treatments physical or electronic might be your answer. For me buying the machine that already "fit" the room worked.
Remember your ears, your money, your choice. Don't leave it to or be led by someone else who isn't there listening, hasn't demonstrated any repeatable evidence or is trying to put a factual suit on a (popular) belief.
Thank you to those for the helpful feedback. Especially Amir for his quantitative suggestions.
Good luck. But if you listen carefully you won't need it.
Your methodology was wrong you listened in a blind test. Didnt you know listening at ASR is strictly forbidden. You had at least 5 people who could clearly differentiate the sound between the two. Yet according to ASR forums no one can pass a blind test except Armir.This is a home and recording studio comparison of the Cambridge Audio EXN100 and Eversolo DMP A8.
NOTE: I'm editing this post adding this paragraph to clarify that yes there is another Cambridge Audio EXN100 and Eversolo A8 comparison post. It is my post. However there is confusion by some thinking this is a duplicate post. It is not. Doing a little more thorough search would have shown the author to be me. In that post I mentioned there was to be a follow up involving a professional studio. This is that post.
This is not going to be an exhaustive subjective review of what sounded better etc. That applies to my ears only. To say what another will or will not hear or for another to say what I did or did not hear is argument fodder and a waste of bandwidth.
At the end I will briefly cover why I chose as I did.
What does this test and research factually reveal? That regardless of the belief to the contrary these machines - DACs, streamers etc are not built the same and DO influence the sound. Period. Any arguments to the contrary are simply false beliefs influenced by poor sources, misinformation or a desire to argue.
First let me say I held no expectations or belief of one machine being better or different.
The setup:
1. In home. Both were fed the same source material via ethernet through an X/Y/Z switch. The switch is Amir tested and approved. Both were db matched via a 1kHz tone. Someone else swapped machines and music from another room. The loudspeakers and I were alone. The speakers are positioned per the manufacturers instructions. I spoke with their tech. No special room treatment.
I listened to short and longer passages repeating as necessary to hear the same segment.
In the end there was quite a noticeable difference between the machines. If these machines as some incorrectly believe are all the same then the music would have sounded identical. But it didn't because they aren't designed the same. A former classical pianist and tuner also identified differences as well as another in the house who consistently identified the Eversolo as harsh sounding. The subjectiveness isn't the point nor matters. What matters is three people all heard distinctions between the machines set up per professional recommendation including Amir's suggestions.
2. Not satisfied with the home test I sought professionals in the music industry. I rented time at an east coast recording studio. The two machine outputs were matched via their equipment and methods and again Amir's recommendations. Once done music was streamed via ethernet from the same lossless source. The recording studio monitors have a flat response. I had no idea which machine was streaming. I listened to the same song same passage. Repeating via both slow and quick switching. My choice was noted and we proceeded on.
I turned the tables and did the switching for the listeners which included the studio's chief audio engineer. Clear differences noted by all.
Same signal in. Different sound out.
The machines were closer in performance than at home but still sounding noticeably different.
This difference was noted by myself, the audio engineer, crew and another non employee that was there and I asked to join.
But lets be honest clearly there is a belief held by some to be unshaken by real world facts that (digital) signal processing is cookie cutter. DACs, streamers, etc sound the same. Or should I say for their world view "must sound the same" if not it's your ears fooling you. Nonsense.
These streaming DACs perform differently. I was there as were others.
Matched I've heard a difference, a classical pianist had heard a difference, an audio engineer has heard a difference, studio crew heard a difference. I don't hold to (a) belief because it is a popular one and because skepticism is popular. I am compelled to belief because of the facts.
I had earlier emailed Amir on this and as mentioned included his advice in with the testing methodology. Although I could not hear clear distinctions in all music it was quite evident in some therefore it must be there in all whether distinguishable or not. Therefore these streaming DACs perform/sound (whatever the popular adjective is) differently. They likely all do but I can't prove that.
Through doubt and wanting clear evidence I've gone far beyond what many would do applying the valid advice and suggestions here and elsewhere. I've received compliments and "well dones" from various people here and elsewhere for this effort. Thank you. Sorry if some don't like the facts. Challenged they become condescending and angry. It's ok. Ignore the naysayers. Your ears, your money.
Had I shone that the machines are the same there would be no debate from them. Irregardless of my methodology.
Facts. Proven qualifications. I don't put myself forward as any expert. I'm not. By no means. Nor do I quote sources elsewhere without verification. I seek expertise. There's an old saying in testing "trust but verify". It doesn't mean the person giving advice isn't correct but the burden of proof has not been met. I am happy to hear from the qualified but but please prove your expertise. Just someone saying I worked at X or did this or that doesn't prove their opinion or "facts" valid if they can't be investigated. The fact that I myself worked for decades at my company doesn't necessarily qualify me to make flat statements regarding systems design, fabrication or execution. I have to bring source and possibly evidence.
The worse explanation begins with " everyone knows . . ." Also there is no need to berate or lecture. I've seen that in other posts. The emotional argument is the losing one. Gaslighting or sarcasm is the last resort of lost reasoning and a failed point.
I can't and am not interested in changing ingrained (popular) beliefs. But if someone can't prove what they are saying and just rinse and repeat then I'll toss that in the opinion bucket.
Further qualified evidence is here in a response to my questions to Cambridge Audio:
I asked:
"My question to you is when matched output wise do these machines truly sound differently or is it my ears. An audio engineer, classical pianist, another and myself all heard distinct differences streaming identical songs in a blind test. Do DACs or streamers add their own unique touch to the signal?"
Their answer:
Thank you for contacting Cambridge Audio.
We "ear pick" our components based on the overall design and which ones sound best. Of course, the DAC used, and the audio chain in every DAC/network player we produce, will have a different flavour or character, and multiply a similar process across every other manufacturer, then of course, differences in sound could be perceived by the listener. This is why there are so many reviews and opinions expressed worldwide about the perception of sound of a particular device, amplifiers or DACs or network players, the source material or input in use, the list goes on, mostly based on an individual's own personal opinion, the setup as a whole, including connected hi-fi equipment, interconnects, and the listening environment. Even in A/B setups, it is expected that some will hear a difference, while others may not.
So to answer your question, yes, it is an expectation that a DAC or streamer would add its own unique touch, in some way . ."
Let us stop beating the DAC/amps etc sound the same the ear is being fooled horse. It's dead and buried. This data and Cambridge Audio just added more dirt on the grave.
Anyway I hope this helps those seeking real world knowledge. The machine specs guarantee nothing the only important factor is what you will hear.
**Warning you are entering a subjective zone**
I did say I would briefly mention why I chose what I did which is the Cambridge. It has a warmer sound. The sound field seemed wider. I did not need all of the bells and whistles of the A8. Six output filter characteristics choices for instance. Seems you can "tune" the output stage roll-off. Hmm, now why would one (or Eversolo) need to do this if all DACs sound alike? Because filter (design) roll-off settings can (and do) affect sound quality as well as the machine's handling of transients. I didn't change the A8 from the default.
The Cambridge has a better established customer support. From purchase to forever I have 7 day after sales tech support from Crutchfield. And with text and email responses from Cambridge I feel better covered.
There is no straightforward customer service contact I found for Eversolo. Seems you go through the dealer or on their website for purchased products only. The company is simply too new. Will they be around to honor their warranties? The A8 did receive good reviews from Amir. In the end looking at both machines I wish the A8 had been victorious. It is sharper looking and has a plethora of I/O options and internal settings should they ever become needed. The touchscreen is clear and responsive however any screen that size is useless to me at just a few feet away. If the screen is to be useful it needs to stay within reach which means placing the A8 on your desk.
However I/O, screens and such mean little of it's aurally displeasing. It's audio equipment so sound is first, last and everything in between. I'm happy with my choice. Oh, in that blind testing the chief audio engineer and visitor also picked the Cambridge Audio EXN100 three to zero over the A8. Enough said there.
For those shopping I encourage narrowing choices down to two, buying both provided the return is straightforward and window sufficient.
Don't hear a difference? Then pick the one that had the I/Os, looks etc that you want. If and you likely will hear some nuances then is it in the genres you listen to? If positive you've found your machine. If you don't like what you hear with your preferred music keep looking. The Eversolo cost $23 to return. 1% of it's price. Drop in the bucket to eliminate doubt and ensure happy listening. Also if you like features but the sound is not pleasing perhaps room treatments physical or electronic might be your answer. For me buying the machine that already "fit" the room worked.
Remember your ears, your money, your choice. Don't leave it to or be led by someone else who isn't there listening, hasn't demonstrated any repeatable evidence or is trying to put a factual suit on a (popular) belief.
Thank you to those for the helpful feedback. Especially Amir for his quantitative suggestions.
Good luck. But if you listen carefully you won't need it.
Strange contradictions here. All Amolifiers, DACs , Streamers and cables sound identical according to ASR forums. But their obsession is measurements. Why would you obsessively measure in the first place if they all sound the same.
Digital interference, line noise, distortion, jitter and clocking errors no longer are a problem according to ASR. These little $100 Amps and $50 DACs coming out of China have solved all these problems. A talentless hack using the cheapest parts building a $50 DAC sounds identical to the most expensive DAC in the world according to ASR.
So the much cheaper Cambridge sounded better then the Eversole. According to ASR Audiophiles are totally delusional fools, that always believe the higher the price the better the sound. Another ASR Myth busted.
That should take the heat off you for awhile. Hmm 5 minutes the RMAOL stickers and mockery should be heading my way.
.
