ESS dongles with good measurements around €60?

[JamoBroGuy]

Hey, I’m new here, but I spend a lot of time on Head-Fi Sound Science. I registered here to ask this question.

I recently got the iBasso Jr Macaron, which has dual CS43131 chips. However, I recently came across a thread by @jkim which explains the “Cirrus hump” and how most CS43131 DACs are not audibly transparent because of it. This has got me kind of worried, so I’m probably gonna return the Macaron and get an ESS based dongle instead.

Do you guys have any recommendations for ESS dongles around the same price as the Macaron? Good measurements would be nice but as long as it’s audibly transparent I’m fine.

(I know the Fosi Audio DS2 doesn’t have the Cirrus hump, but they don’t say what the output impedance is, and low output impedance is very important for me since I use low impedance IEMs. I might email Fosi Audio and ask what the output impedance is, and if they tell me I might consider that one.)

 

[unpluggged]

most CS43131 DACs are not audibly transparent because of it

So you have it and realized it's "not audibly transparent" only when you read that review? And if so, why did you ignore the list of alternatives there?

P.S. BTW, nowhere in that post there is a claim that CS43131 is not audibly transparent.

 

[JamoBroGuy]

So you have it and realized it's "not audibly transparent" only when you read that review? And if so, why did you ignore the list of alternatives there?

Oh, I completely forgot about that. I’ll check that out.

P.S. BTW, nowhere in that post there is a claim that CS43131 is not audibly transparent.

Pretty sure it said the distortion was audible even in realistic scenarios.

“But perhaps a more important consideration is that hi-fi consumers of these devices would enjoy listening to music through them believing that they are exceptionally transparent by modern standards, when in fact not. That is robbing them of big fun in this hobby!”

 

[unpluggged]

are exceptionally transparent by modern standards, when in fact not.

1) I don't see the word "audibly" here;
2) the sentence is equivalent to "in fact not exceptionally transparent" (whatever that could mean).

OTOH, we have this statement:

This information would be especially valuable to those who believe the Cirrus hump distortion should be mostly inaudible, on which I tend to agree.

So based on that information, I would not feel too much uncomfortable. Yes, in the first place I'd better get something different, but after the fact I think I would not be too upset. I did and do enjoy my gear despite it turned out to perform not that stellar. Especially this is true for the Qudelix 5K that measures not SOTA, but sounds great, has unique feature set, convenient form factor, and good support from the manufacturer, so after four years of use I just ordered a second unit and now have two of them.

 

[Overseas]

Very happy with Ifi Go Link Max, I wanted it for 2x Ess chips. I am under the impression that it sounds a bit different than Fiio KA11. None was measured here on forum, so I still can be subjective in my perception, I guess.

 

[JamoBroGuy]

1) I don't see the word "audibly" here;

Fair.

2) the sentence is equivalent to "in fact not exceptionally transparent" (whatever that could mean).

Yeah, I don’t know why people use that kind of wording. It’s either transparent or it’s not, you can’t be more transparent than transparent.

OTOH, we have this statement:

That gives me a good bit of peace of mind, but my OCD doesn’t like that they used the word “mostly”.

 

[markanini]

What will you be driving?

 

[jkim]

Pretty sure it said the distortion was audible even in realistic scenarios.

“But perhaps a more important consideration is that hi-fi consumers of these devices would enjoy listening to music through them believing that they are exceptionally transparent by modern standards, when in fact not. That is robbing them of big fun in this hobby!”

I guess it is important to read carefully especially when the material was written carefully.

I carefully wrote parts of the review on audibility of the distortion because that information should be what readers look for. Some excerpts from the "Audibility of the Distortion" section:

It is difficult to tell how clearly audible these measured distortions would be in real audio content.

the website provides multiple recordings of the same track played at different levels, which are then level-matched for the higher % distortion to be heard easily. Other than the most audible cases, it takes trained ears familiar with distorting sound to hear it.

But we are talking about 0.06% distortion in the worst case. And human ears are easily deceived in this case.

And as for the word "transparent" in the sentence quoted by @JamoBroGuy, its context is important. The review is one based on measurements. A word "transparent" in this context almost always means 'measurably transparent' by the standards at that time (i.e., relative to other well-measured devices) unless otherwise noted.

 

[JamoBroGuy]

I guess it is important to read carefully especially when the material was written carefully.

I carefully wrote parts of the review on audibility of the distortion because that information should be what readers look for. And the "Audibility of the Distortion" section clearly states:



And as for the word "transparent" in the sentence quoted by @JamoBroGuy, its context is important. The review is one based on measurements. A word "transparent" in this context almost always means 'measurably transparent' by the standards at that time (i.e., relative to other well-measured devices) unless otherwise noted.

Ohhhhh. Thanks, I guess I didn’t interpret it properly (an awful habit of mine). You just single handedly stopped me from freaking out, lmao.

I’m gonna keep my Macaron.