ES9038Q2M vs ES9038PRO

[Chanur]

I know the pro has 8 channels 4 for left and 4 for right. The ES9038Q2M has two channels, one for each. Does the additional channels make a difference in the audio? I know the pro has a bit better sinad but I assume both are inaudible as they are well over 90.

Is there any real benefit to the pro chips? AI (haha) and reviews tells me it will have a lower noise floor and wider sound stage( isn't this from the recording?) and so sound better with low impedance headphones but I assume this is all bullshit. If so why make chips like this with so many channels? Or is it just not intended for two channel use?

Is it all just nonsense to make one product seem more high end than another?

 

[solderdude]

Lower noise floor ...yes slightly and in practice also depends on the components used in the audio path after the chip's outputs... soundstage ... nonsense.

The chips with 8 channels can be used either when needing 4 channels (or even 8) while using just one chip or be used to reduce the 'no signal' noise floor.
The trick of lowering noise floors is already very old and relies on self-noise of components being random and signal is not. Due to the random nature of noise it does not add the same way as signals do.

Of course the noise floor of music recordings is ALWAYS much higher than the self-noise of the DAC chip output (assuming the op-amps after it are even lower noise) and noise in the recording is handled as a signal so while it the numbers becomes slightly better it is moot when used in music applications.

 

[Chanur]

Lower noise floor ...yes slightly and in practice also depends on the components used in the audio path after the chip's outputs... soundstage ... nonsense.

The chips with 8 channels can be used either when needing 4 channels (or even 8) while using just one chip or be used to reduce the 'no signal' noise floor.
The trick of lowering noise floors is already very old and relies on self-noise of components being random and signal is not. Due to the random nature of noise it does not add the same way as signals do.

Of course the noise floor of music recordings is ALWAYS much higher than the self-noise of the DAC chip output (assuming the op-amps after it are even lower noise) and noise in the recording is handled as a signal so while it the numbers becomes slightly better it is moot when used in music applications.

That's kind of what I suspected. This was in reference to headphone amps , so I assumed it was more marketing. Blacker blacks and lower noise floor etc.

 

[Roland68]

I know the pro has 8 channels 4 for left and 4 for right. The ES9038Q2M has two channels, one for each. Does the additional channels make a difference in the audio? I know the pro has a bit better sinad but I assume both are inaudible as they are well over 90.

Is there any real benefit to the pro chips? AI (haha) and reviews tells me it will have a lower noise floor and wider sound stage( isn't this from the recording?) and so sound better with low impedance headphones but I assume this is all bullshit. If so why make chips like this with so many channels? Or is it just not intended for two channel use?

Is it all just nonsense to make one product seem more high end than another?

ESS's flagship DACs, the Pro chips, demonstrate what's technically possible.
But in reality, the implementation is more important than the raw specifications of the DAC chip.

Take a look at the Sinad list (and other measurements as well). The first ES9038/39 Q2M isn't even 1% behind the best DAC with the ES9038/39 PRO. Right after that come other devices with the ES9038/39 Q2M.
But then there are many more devices with the ES9038/39 PRO, as well as more ES9038/39 Q2M. The range where such differences become audible is a good 30% lower.

Yes, more channels can lead to better measurements, but in reality, this only makes the difference in the last 0.XX%.

Incidentally, digital music data is absolutely precise, and there's no room for interpretation. So, if two DACs deliver different data/results, or even audible differences, then something is definitely wrong with at least one of the devices.

 

[Rja4000]

The trick of lowering noise floors is already very old

Actually, it's the same trick at work with tape:
Double the tape width and you gain a few dBs of noise (up to 3dB).

 

[Chanur]

ESS's flagship DACs, the Pro chips, demonstrate what's technically possible.
But in reality, the implementation is more important than the raw specifications of the DAC chip.

Take a look at the Sinad list (and other measurements as well). The first ES9038/39 Q2M isn't even 1% behind the best DAC with the ES9038/39 PRO. Right after that come other devices with the ES9038/39 Q2M.
But then there are many more devices with the ES9038/39 PRO, as well as more ES9038/39 Q2M. The range where such differences become audible is a good 30% lower.

Yes, more channels can lead to better measurements, but in reality, this only makes the difference in the last 0.XX%.

Incidentally, digital music data is absolutely precise, and there's no room for interpretation. So, if two DACs deliver different data/results, or even audible differences, then something is definitely wrong with at least one of the devices.

I was looking at the Audiolab D7 and D9. I suspected the "improvements" on the D9 were going to be inaudible. Only reason I can see to pay twice the money for the D9 is the internal toroidal transformer and the nicer IPS screen. I suspect the D7 would actually be the longer lasting device at half the price and they have the same power output, but maybe less current in the D7.

 

[Roland68]

I was looking at the Audiolab D7 and D9. I suspected the "improvements" on the D9 were going to be inaudible. Only reason I can see to pay twice the money for the D9 is the internal toroidal transformer and the nicer IPS screen. I suspect the D7 would actually be the longer lasting device at half the price and they have the same power output, but maybe less current in the D7.

I'd like to point out a few things.
The measured values are even surpassed by €79 DACs.
Audiolab hasn't been Audiolab for a long time. It was founded by audio enthusiasts and aficionados, but since they gave it up, it's been sold twice.
There's a 3-year warranty if you register, but repairs after that are unfortunately uncertain (this was also the case with the predecessors).
The devices are now manufactured entirely in China.
The headphone amplifier is more of a token feature in terms of power and measured values.

In the ASR list, you'll find devices with similar functionality starting at just over €200. One of the best-measuring and lowest-noise headphone amplifiers with over 3 watts of power is available for €150.
An SMSL D200 DAC, for example, is a very sophisticated device with excellent analog and channel-matched volume control (Muse) and output buffers, both implemented in dual mono. Ideal for directly driving power amplifiers.
Currently, it's hard to beat a Topping L70 as a headphone amplifier, and even then, only with a significantly higher investment.

 

[Chanur]

I'd like to point out a few things.
The measured values are even surpassed by €79 DACs.
Audiolab hasn't been Audiolab for a long time. It was founded by audio enthusiasts and aficionados, but since they gave it up, it's been sold twice.
There's a 3-year warranty if you register, but repairs after that are unfortunately uncertain (this was also the case with the predecessors).
The devices are now manufactured entirely in China.
The headphone amplifier is more of a token feature in terms of power and measured values.

In the ASR list, you'll find devices with similar functionality starting at just over €200. One of the best-measuring and lowest-noise headphone amplifiers with over 3 watts of power is available for €150.
An SMSL D200 DAC, for example, is a very sophisticated device with excellent analog and channel-matched volume control (Muse) and output buffers, both implemented in dual mono. Ideal for directly driving power amplifiers.
Currently, it's hard to beat a Topping L70 as a headphone amplifier, and even then, only with a significantly higher investment.

I ended up ordering a Fiio K9 ESS Pro. Mostly because of the LDAC, front XLR, and supposedly upgraded build quality. Plus no real screens or anything to break.

 

[Chanur]

By the way the Fiio sounds fantastic. Probably all my imagination but it sounds so much cleaner and clearer than my Schiit Modi 3+ and Magni 3+.

 

[Chanur]

I know it's not scientific but I listened to Hallelujah by Jeff Buckley on my old stack above then the Hifiman EF600 and Fiio K9 ESS Pro. Preferred the new ones and couldn't really tell a difference but for some reason slightly preferred the Hifiman. I said nothing to my wife.

I asked my wife who is not the least bit interested in audio equipment to listen to all three. She preferred the two new ones also. Said in a blind test she wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the new ones but for some reason also slightly preferred the Hifiman. I told her I had the same experience.

She also said she didn't like how everything seemed to be squished together on the low end of the modi Magni 3+ stack. She said it also sounded kind of digital (artificial) at some points. Muddy is what I call it but that has always been my complaint with it.

So take it for what it is, not scientific but I found it interesting she came to the same pick as me. I am sending both back though as I have a JDS Labs Element 4 coming. Since all the quality modern amps seem to sound the same in going for American made, form factor, and PEQ.

No fault to either the EF600 or Fiio K9 ESS Pro. I thought both were great and would probably have been happy with either of them.

Edit - Might keep one of these for the bedroom. How ever may not because they are fairly large.