Differences between PRO/C2M/Q2M/K2M versions of ESS SABRE DACs?

[Merkurio]

Hi again!

Looking at the ESS site (mostly as a newbie standpoint), I don't really get very clear the differences between the flagship "PRO" line of DACs and the mobile oriented versions with the different designations I wrote in the title (other than less power consumption).

The physical size is the same? What are the most important/noticeable changes between them, technically speaking?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Krunok]

"Pro" versions are 8 channel while others are 2 channel.

 

[Merkurio]

"Pro" versions are 8 channel while others are 2 channel.

Thanks for the response Krunok.

How is that related to audio quality or features overall?

 

[yue]

How is that related to audio quality or features overall?

Silicon design is expensive, so ESS won't use different design on different product. This is similar to your Intel CPU, whereas i3, i5, i7, i9 of the same generation is based on exactly the same design.

PRO/C2M/Q2M/K2M of the same generation (9038, for instance) should be using the exactly the same design. ESS may disable certain features (such as only support 2 channel instead of 8) on low end processors, similar to i3 having fewer cores than i5. They probably won't intentionally downgrade low end chip to have worse audio quality. But they may test select the top wafers and package them for their high end chip.

 

[yummy]

output current

 

[dc655321]

The physical size is the same? What are the most important/noticeable changes between them, technically speaking?

Packaging formats may differ (physical size) depending on target applications. Not sure about this though.
The "mobile" Q2M versions are designed to consume much less power than their PRO counterparts.
I believe the K2M version is equipped with an integrated output stage, providing 2Vrms. The other models leave output to the integrators.

 

[Merkurio]

Thanks for the explanations guys!

Finally, what does the 8 channel design actually do for audio quality compared with the less expensive 2 channel models?

 

[yue]

Thanks for the explanations guys!

Finally, what does the 8 channel design actually do for audio quality compared with the less expensive 2 channel models?

you take more measurement and you can get more precise result --- 4x the channel combined together will eliminate even more error, and has higher power.

also, as I said, they test and select the top fab and package it as pro, so pro will have better performance than q2m. as a result, pro has 140db dynamic range. You can't get that in q2m. Similar to i3 and i7 --- they are identical chips, but intel tested and choose the better wafer to make it i7, and disabled a few cores and features in i3, so i7 is much much faster than i3.

 

[RayDunzl]

Finally, what does the 8 channel design actually do for audio quality compared with the less expensive 2 channel models?

Benchmark DAC3 Manual

"4:1 Parallel Conversion Structure

The conversion system in the DAC3 achieves a 6 dB signal to noise improvement through the use of 4:1 summing.

The ES9028PRO D/A is an 8-channel 32-bit converter. In the DAC3, four channels are summed in the analog domain to form each of the two output channels.

The 4:1 summing also improves the THD. The non-linearities in individual conversion channels are averaged across the four summed channels and incoherent nonlinearities are attenuated by 6 dB."

 

[Merkurio]

Interesting.

So, the more channels, the better measurements and output power that the DAC could provide (with a proper implementation, of course).

I asume that these benefits would increase even more applying a double-DAC design, separating the R and L channels into two different DACs, right?

 

[yue]

I asume that these benefits would increase even more applying a double-DAC design, separating the R and L channels into two different DACs, right?

yes but pretty marginal. given a 0.1cm precision ruler, you can make a lot of measurements and take the average, so you can have better confidence and less error. but you can't have 0.01cm precision.

 

[ArturoKiwi]

I relive this thread because I would like to ask a question:
If the difference with one dac per channel is "pretty marginal", one 9038 pro is better than two 9039q2m. Right?

 

[Sak]

If the difference with one dac per channel is "pretty marginal", one 9038 pro is better than two 9039q2m. Right?

I think this question is more complicated.
Keep in mind that many manufacturers use PRO chip in dual channel mode. And then it need to be compared the difference with the mobile version (q2m ), which also works in two channel mode. For example, as far as I know, in Oppo Sonica PRO version of ESS chip is installed in dual channel mode.
If you look at the measurements of the SONCOZ SGD1, it is ahead of some devices on the PRO chip.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/soncoz-sgd1-audio-dac-review.10295/