Eversolo DMP-A6 Streamer Review

[Barryfromholland]

It was sighted off coarse, but I have no interest in either those companies and don’t sell hifi gear like Keith.

in fact, I really wanted to get rid of my topping dac, less apparatus in my life and easier remote control with app.

I like the Eversolo dmp a6, but in retrospect I would rather have bought the standard version to replace my bluesound node. I choose the master version for the better pre amp section.

 

[Purité Audio]

Better pre amp section?
The ‘normal’ version is audibly transparent, look at the measurements.
Keith

 

[Barryfromholland]

What is audibly transparent exactly?
do they sound exactly the same? With other components?

i Don’t know, I have only the master edition.
What I do know is that my topping d90se dac/pre amp sounds a little more dynamic/sparkle/wider soundstage in my system and through my ears.

a few more remarks:
the dmp a6 stays pretty cool in my almost closed cupboard
when you change input via the app, you hear a tick through the speakers. Not loud, but clear and a little annoying.

 

[Purité Audio]

I appreciate you taking the time to express your thoughts, but unless the comparisons were made unsighted/level matched they really are not valid.
Conduct a proper unsighted comparison, two audibly transparent dacs will sound identical.
Keith

 

[muslhead]

Of course they were, the psychology is really fascinating.
Keith

It is if you are aware of it.

 

[muslhead]

It was sighted off coarse, but I have no interest in either those companies and don’t sell hifi gear like Keith.

in fact, I really wanted to get rid of my topping dac, less apparatus in my life and easier remote control with app.

I like the Eversolo dmp a6, but in retrospect I would rather have bought the standard version to replace my bluesound node. I choose the master version for the better pre amp section.

There is no difference in sound but a difference in components. I assume, that is what you mean by better.

 

[Werther44210]

@Werther44210 : Je suppose que vous utilisez le même filtre numérique sur l'Eversolo et la Rose. Sinon, vous ne faites que comparer la réponse impulsionnelle.

À ma connaissance, les deux unités peuvent être utilisées en mode DAC uniquement. Qu'advient-il du son si vous utilisez l'Eversolo comme source via le DAC du Rose, et inversement ? Curieux de savoir si vous percevez encore des différences à ce niveau. Si vous le pouvez, un coup de chapeau, je doute que je puisse même m'en approcher.

@merchantage I'm using the same filter Rose recommend the "Fast attenuation of minimum phase filter", I used this on the Eversolo, I used the same RCA cable so both streamers were on an equal footing. Listening with internal Dac of the two devices (both use the 9038 K2M, Rose only has one against two for the Eversolo). My (subjective) impressions: the DMP has a very well detailed sound image, the vocals are clear and very natural, the location of the different sound sources in the played track can be identified very precisely, the listening experience is spacious. It's dynamic, powerful sound and very good bass on, for example, Adele's song Rolling in the Deep (I liked it a lot compared to the Rose). The least, not for modern music, mainly classical and especially women's voices at the opera, too much dynamics and too bright a treble rendering, on the other hand I have a Denon, it's not too bright an amp. On the Rose it's different the sound is softer it's more of a presentation both with a bit of detail and holographic the less dynamic treble which is sharp and goes on smoothly without acdentuation (device better on classic in my opinion notice). For dynamics and bass, it is more set back than the Eversolo, it is more focused on comfortable and fluid listening. With the DAC of my Denon amp (4 Burr Brown 1795 chips), I don't see any obvious differences, I will use the DMP without any problem, the listening is fine for me. I am therefore satisfied with the DMP for a lot of musical styles (I am someone who is interested in the details in music), for opera on certain recordings, I will take the Rose or the DMP with DAC from my Denon amp.

 

[Werther44210]

L'A-6 a une réponse en fréquence plate sans aigus croissants, donc à moins que votre 'Rose' n'ait des aigus tombants, ce n'est que votre imagination.
Keith

The Rose is soft at equivalent volume, I was not bothered by the treble of the DMP because it is in my opinion a fine and without excess (balanced) restitution without excess compared to other more aggressive ESS DACs on this register on a majority of musical styles, what I say of women's voices in opera, I prefer a soft reproduction (probably too used to Rose), it's a purely subjective opinion. The overall sound of the DMP seemed to me to correspond more to the sound signature of my integrated Denon which is neutral and transparent like the DMP, the Rose is different in my opinion as a restitution. So very happy to have purchased the DMP.

 

[Purité Audio]

If there are audible differences between the devices they would be evident in their respective measurements, it is very easy to be fooled by sighted bias.
Keith

 

[dman777]

Curious that Eversolo does not put the DMP-A6 in HiFi Audio category...
View attachment 281740
Probably because it "takes a small step down in performance relative to state of the art"?

You know what is strange... I emailed their sales and they told me the A6 would be better because it has 2 Dacs causing less interference between the 2 channels. I looked at the Z8 and it only has a single DAC, although it is a ESS pro version. I am confused on which one is supposed to have the better audio quality if we are speaking strictly of audio quality rather than features.

 

[Werther44210]

The Rose is soft less loud at equivalent volume, I was not bothered by the treble of the DMP on a majority of musical styles, what I say about the voices of women in opera, I prefer a soft reproduction (probably too accustomed to Rose), it is a purely subjective opinion. The overall sound of the DMP seemed to me to correspond more to the sound signature of my integrated Denon which is neutral and transparent like the DMP, Rose is different in my opinion as a restitution. So very happy to have bought the DMP.

Small contribution on the solo violin (Hilary Hahn, last Ysaye sonata album), the DMP superb detailed and transparent restitution, the treble is magnificent, as well as the timbres of the instrument.....

 

[Werther44210]

You know what is strange... I emailed their sales and they told me the A6 would be better because it has 2 Dacs causing less interference between the 2 channels. I looked at the Z8 and it only has a single DAC, although it is a ESS pro version. I am confused on which one is supposed to have the better audio quality if we are speaking strictly of audio quality rather than features.

Very good question, hard to say, the channel separation is very good on the DMP given its dual DAC, the gap is small in my opinion, some think the DMP, the question remains open, maybe some who have both can answer...

 

[AudioScience Enthusiast]

If there are audible differences between the devices they would be evident in their respective measurements, it is very easy to be fooled by sighted bias.
Keith

Please enlighten me, everyone, I see this type of discussion popping up from time to time in the threads I visit on ASR (maybe it happens more frequently that I think?), what I can't reconcile is, despite technically "similar" measurement results from different DACs, it seems I keep coming across owners who claim there are differences between DACs or versions of DACs.

If it's just a few random reports, then maybe it's easy to point to "psychology" but is possible that every listeners who reports differences in sound quality is attributed to "sighted bias"? By the way, has the effect of sighted bias been proven in a reliabe and statistically significant way to begin with? I am seriously curious to know.

Also, I have re-read the measurements in the first post I don't see mentioning of measurement variables like "soundstage" or "warmth." Maybe it's my limited technical background (no engineering experience of any kind), are there specific measurements that speak to these "intangible" qualities? Is it possible that the instruments and measurement methods for these "intangibles" are simply not available or haven't been devised?

Of course, it's entirely possible for many owners and listeners to be wrapped in mass delusion but is it really as simple as this? Has there been research done to show once again, reliably and statistically significant that every one who perceives different sound qualities is affected by these biases? Are these biases built-in the same or differently to each one or us, or is it more like a spectrum?

 

[Purité Audio]

Every sighted comparison is essentially worthless.
Keith

 

[bargainguy]

Perception is reality. If you perceive a difference, that becomes your reality.

If you can correctly identify different components (or whatever you're testing) in blind, level-matched A/B comparisons above the level of chance, that's the gold standard. I imagine that at this level, there will be a lot more working pros than members of the general public, for ex.

Anything sighted is the equivalent of a blindfold test where peeking is involved. Has to be strictly no-peeky (and level-matched) if you want it real.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Please enlighten me, everyone, I see this type of discussion popping up from time to time in the threads I visit on ASR (maybe it happens more frequently that I think?), what I can't reconcile is, despite technically "similar" measurement results from different DACs, it seems I keep coming across owners who claim there are differences between DACs or versions of DACs.

If it's just a few random reports, then maybe it's easy to point to "psychology" but is possible that every listeners who reports differences in sound quality is attributed to "sighted bias"? By the way, has the effect of sighted bias been proven in a reliabe and statistically significant way to begin with? I am seriously curious to know.

Also, I have re-read the measurements in the first post I don't see mentioning of measurement variables like "soundstage" or "warmth." Maybe it's my limited technical background (no engineering experience of any kind), are there specific measurements that speak to these "intangible" qualities? Is it possible that the instruments and measurement methods for these "intangibles" are simply not available or haven't been devised?

Of course, it's entirely possible for many owners and listeners to be wrapped in mass delusion but is it really as simple as this? Has there been research done to show once again, reliably and statistically significant that every one who perceives different sound qualities is affected by these biases? Are these biases built-in the same or differently to each one or us, or is it more like a spectrum?

Short answer: Yes.

Longer answer: That you hear a difference in a sighted listening test doesn't mean there isn't a difference. But it also doesn't necessarily mean there IS a difference. So yes, you have tons of studies indicating that if we expect a difference or is some how consciously or unconsciously aware of a theoretical difference, we will hear it, whether it is there or not. Look up cognitive biases. There are too many to mention. Our brain is horribly unreliable. That's why people do weird stuff like purchase 5,000$ cables despite the fact that a 50$ cable will do the same job.

 

[dman777]

Just to mention there exists also a A-6 Master edition. It has the same non pro dacs, but everything else in it is supposed to be upgraded. https://summithifiusa.com/products/copy-of-eversolo-dmp-a6-streamer

 

[Baldrick]

I’ve put a 4Tb ssd in my ME and copied a few hundred Gb of losslessly ripped CDs to it (WAVs) and have a couple of odd observations.

First, whilst copying (over samba) I couldn’t play any other files (the songs would play at what looked like ~5x speed judging from the time code). Once when I cast the screen I got a random green overlay - maybe dropping some network packets but it looked weird). A reboot after the copy had finished fixed both.

Now, looking at “music”, having added the ssd files as a library, some albums appear split into two - one with the artist, the other without and a seemingly random set of tracks in each. Looking at the metadata for each track I can’t see a difference. It’s annoying at best, but it means if I play an entire album I won’t get all tracks and they won’t play in the right order. The most obvious artefact is looking at a kids story double cd where I see cd1 track 1 then cd2 track 1, cd1 track 2, cd2 track 2, etc… which would obviously result in a pretty messed up story

I love the way this thing sounds in my system but bugs like this will be irritating. I’ll kick off a rescan when I remember and cross fingers it’ll sort it out but … has anyone else had a similar experience?

 

[UEG]

Anyone else losing patience having to scroll back through from the beginning of a USB music library each time after backing out of an artist album?

Not sure if this is fixable but it would have been real handy to be able to back out of an artists albums but remain at the same place.

 

[Baldrick]

Anyone else losing patience having to scroll back through from the beginning of a USB music library each time after backing out of an artist album?

Not sure if this is fixable but it would have been real handy to be able to back out of an artists albums but remain at the same place

Yes. Hopefully this sort of thing will get fixed with future firmware. #crossfingers