https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...eview-and-measurements.1990/page-2#post-54149
Kal: "I've been using a 12v sealed lead acid battery to run mine for quite a while."
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Exasound E32 DAC Review and Measurements
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...eview-and-measurements.1990/page-2#post-54149
Kal: "I've been using a 12v sealed lead acid battery to run mine for quite a while."
My favorite measurement for evaluating a dac to a 1000 GHz rest tone at -90.3 dB. Done with a 16 bit signal and then redone with a 24 bit.
The noise floor drop indicates resolution of the dac. -160 dB is king of the hill. This is 21+ bit.
I have several well respected and expensive dacs hit about -140 dB or 18 bit.
This is not very good.
But delivering a -160 dB noise floor is no guarantee of great sonics.
I have a LHL Pulse Infinity that has a -160 dB noise level with 24 bit and I replaced it with a much cheaper unit.
Just sounded better.
The noise floor drop indicates resolution of the dac. -160 dB is king of the hill. This is 21+ bit.
I have several well respected and expensive dacs hit about -140 dB or 18 bit.
This is not very good.
But delivering a -160 dB noise floor is no guarantee of great sonics.
I have a LHL Pulse Infinity that has a -160 dB noise level with 24 bit and I replaced it with a much cheaper unit.
Just sounded better.
1 THz, really? Typo, I suspect...
Noise floors that low probably reflect averaging in the FFT more than the actual noise floor of the device.
dc655321
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2018
- Messages
- 1,600
- Likes
- 2,259
Blumlein 88
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 22,967
- Likes
- 42,639
Yes but that's a 1 miilion point FFT. That'll drop the noise floor 15 dB vs Amir's measure.
1 million pt FFTs will drop the noise floor about 57 db vs the total bandwidth measured. Plus they used 8 or more runs averaged which will lower the floor several more db. So those 165 170 numbers are equivalent to a 20 khz wide noise floor of -100 db to -110 db. Which is okay, but not unusually low.
Last edited:
I wonder if the reviewed DAC was MK I or MK II, because I've seen https://www.exasound.com/Products/e32MarkIIDAC.aspx and some nice measurements (right click on pics, then open in new window).
OP
- Thread Starter
- #88
It was mark I. They had used battery for the measurements of that one.
mcdonalk
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2020
- Messages
- 65
- Likes
- 38
I am interested in this DAC for reasons beyond the scope of this post. When I encountered this review, I was naturally concerned. First of all, I, too, am concerned by the need for proprietary drivers for Windows, which I learned about in this review. But then, I remembered that my Topping D90 and Yamaha A-S801 amplifier with integral DAC each require their respective drivers as well to function. In today's political environment, I think that it is just as likely that we shall lose Topping support as we may lose Exasound support due to today's economic climate.
I read more about the Exasound driver on their web page, and it offers some interesting features, which may actually justify its existence. I can't find any information about the Topping or Yamaha drivers, other than that they are necessary. So, I'm not sure that the driver criticism is one with which I would be uniquely concerned.
I also note that the Exasound web page identifies this product as a "MK II" version. I wonder whether the MK II version addresses any of the other concerns identified in this review?
I read more about the Exasound driver on their web page, and it offers some interesting features, which may actually justify its existence. I can't find any information about the Topping or Yamaha drivers, other than that they are necessary. So, I'm not sure that the driver criticism is one with which I would be uniquely concerned.
I also note that the Exasound web page identifies this product as a "MK II" version. I wonder whether the MK II version addresses any of the other concerns identified in this review?
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2016
- Messages
- 103
- Likes
- 15
Drivers; users of high end equipment should only concern about Linux. Actually everyone should concern only about Linux because even Volumio is Linux which is the maybe cheapest solution out there...
I have build dacs based on ak4490 which has been praised for its performance. There is most likely better performing dacs out there..
I have made a outputstage that was very simple. I build a more advanced with worse distortion. Now every one says it sounds better.
My point is.... Worse distortion is not necessarily worse when the distortion has the right balance.
I have build dacs based on ak4490 which has been praised for its performance. There is most likely better performing dacs out there..
I have made a outputstage that was very simple. I build a more advanced with worse distortion. Now every one says it sounds better.
My point is.... Worse distortion is not necessarily worse when the distortion has the right balance.
Don Saltzman
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2020
- Messages
- 1
- Likes
- 0
Hello all. In my many years as an audiophile, I have read countless online forums but have never been moved to post a reply. Until now. I am primarily an analog fan but I appreciate digital and recognize that much new music is only available on a digital format. I like the sound of my older Meitner deck and dac and recently a good friend brought over an exaSound e32 to use in the playback of many of his hi-res recordings. He has compared many dacs and believes the exaSound sounds great with his recordings. I have not compared many dacs but I agree that the e32 does indeed sound great with his, and other, recordings. But the purpose of this post is not to write a review of the exaSound.
I am writing simply to express my shock that a "review" and thread like this exists in this day and age. I have never seen this website before and have no clue whatsoever as to who actually wrote the exaSound 32 "review." But I was curious to read what others might think of the exaSound, so I Googled exaSound reviews and found this article, which was indeed labelled a "Review." Curious, I clicked and read on. I read that the writer is really unhappy that he purchased the unit and that it clearly did not "measure" the way he believed a quality unit should measure. I am not taking shots at his measurements; for all I know he may be right and he may also be right that other units measure better than the exaSound in one or more ways.
I might not have been so surprised to read a "review" like this in the heyday of Audio, High Fidelity and Stereo Review magazines, who preached that equipment that "measured the same must sound the same." But as The Absolute Sound, Stereophile, and countless other online forums have established beyond question, two pieces of equipment that measure the same may in fact sound very different from one another.
Even John Atkinson, an esteemed reviewer mentioned in the article, and whom I admire a great deal, rigorously tests equipment in the eternal hope of finding strong correlation between testing and listening. Sometimes he finds a correlation; sometimes he doesn't. He has admitted many times in his articles that he is puzzled why one of his reviewers in Stereophile thought so highly of a unit when he thereafter found that it "measured poorly" for one reason or another. What John Atkinson has never done, to my knowledge, is simply publish a set of measurements and then write negatively of any product, without any comment about the way that unit actually sounds. I think it is safe to say that by the year 2020 the accepted wisdom in the world-wide audiophile community is that measured testing is not a strong correlator of how a particular piece of gear sounds.
I kept reading this exaSound review, hoping to find a few words of wisdom, following the graphs and charts, of what the reviewer actually thought about the sound of the e32 in his system. Maybe he would find that it sounded as poorly as he believed it measured. Or maybe he would be pleasantly surprised to find that it sounded good in spite of his measurements. Or something in between. But, after spending a significant part of my evening in reading and re-reading his review, as well as all comments that followed, I could not find a single word or sentence in the review of how the writer found the exaSound e32 to actually sound when playing music in his system. All he discussed were the measurements and his unhappiness with same. In short, it was not a "review" at all and I am pissed that he called it a review. I am annoyed that he trashed the hard work of a manufacturer without at least commenting on the sound of the unit. I am annoyed that I took the time to read the article without learning anything about what someone else felt about the sonic merits of the exaSound. I am also annoyed that I felt compelled to take the time to post this response, but I feel strongly that it is unfair to manufacturers and readers to comment on the worth of any audio unit without a thoughtful and intelligent discussion of how that unit actually sounds. Should the same writer (and I have no desire to research who he may be) post such "reviews" about other equipment in the future, I would ask that he simply entitle the article "My Measurements" and not mislead the uninformed reader into believing they are reading an actual review.
(P.S. To write this missive, I was forced to become a member of this website. That included passing a "find the bicycles in the pictures" security test, which apparently I did not pass. But I am proud to say I finally passed the "find the fire hydrants" test. I am not sure why an audio forum has a strict security protocol. Even though I feel I earned my membership, I am pretty sure the editor-in-chief of this website will be pleased to learn I have no plans to visit again in the future.)
I am writing simply to express my shock that a "review" and thread like this exists in this day and age. I have never seen this website before and have no clue whatsoever as to who actually wrote the exaSound 32 "review." But I was curious to read what others might think of the exaSound, so I Googled exaSound reviews and found this article, which was indeed labelled a "Review." Curious, I clicked and read on. I read that the writer is really unhappy that he purchased the unit and that it clearly did not "measure" the way he believed a quality unit should measure. I am not taking shots at his measurements; for all I know he may be right and he may also be right that other units measure better than the exaSound in one or more ways.
I might not have been so surprised to read a "review" like this in the heyday of Audio, High Fidelity and Stereo Review magazines, who preached that equipment that "measured the same must sound the same." But as The Absolute Sound, Stereophile, and countless other online forums have established beyond question, two pieces of equipment that measure the same may in fact sound very different from one another.
Even John Atkinson, an esteemed reviewer mentioned in the article, and whom I admire a great deal, rigorously tests equipment in the eternal hope of finding strong correlation between testing and listening. Sometimes he finds a correlation; sometimes he doesn't. He has admitted many times in his articles that he is puzzled why one of his reviewers in Stereophile thought so highly of a unit when he thereafter found that it "measured poorly" for one reason or another. What John Atkinson has never done, to my knowledge, is simply publish a set of measurements and then write negatively of any product, without any comment about the way that unit actually sounds. I think it is safe to say that by the year 2020 the accepted wisdom in the world-wide audiophile community is that measured testing is not a strong correlator of how a particular piece of gear sounds.
I kept reading this exaSound review, hoping to find a few words of wisdom, following the graphs and charts, of what the reviewer actually thought about the sound of the e32 in his system. Maybe he would find that it sounded as poorly as he believed it measured. Or maybe he would be pleasantly surprised to find that it sounded good in spite of his measurements. Or something in between. But, after spending a significant part of my evening in reading and re-reading his review, as well as all comments that followed, I could not find a single word or sentence in the review of how the writer found the exaSound e32 to actually sound when playing music in his system. All he discussed were the measurements and his unhappiness with same. In short, it was not a "review" at all and I am pissed that he called it a review. I am annoyed that he trashed the hard work of a manufacturer without at least commenting on the sound of the unit. I am annoyed that I took the time to read the article without learning anything about what someone else felt about the sonic merits of the exaSound. I am also annoyed that I felt compelled to take the time to post this response, but I feel strongly that it is unfair to manufacturers and readers to comment on the worth of any audio unit without a thoughtful and intelligent discussion of how that unit actually sounds. Should the same writer (and I have no desire to research who he may be) post such "reviews" about other equipment in the future, I would ask that he simply entitle the article "My Measurements" and not mislead the uninformed reader into believing they are reading an actual review.
(P.S. To write this missive, I was forced to become a member of this website. That included passing a "find the bicycles in the pictures" security test, which apparently I did not pass. But I am proud to say I finally passed the "find the fire hydrants" test. I am not sure why an audio forum has a strict security protocol. Even though I feel I earned my membership, I am pretty sure the editor-in-chief of this website will be pleased to learn I have no plans to visit again in the future.)
Last edited:
I don't see your reasons to concern here. Exasound E32 is not measuring very well on RCA single-ended outputs, but in balanced mode it is quite good measuring, especially the jitter J-test. You need to understand that this is a site where audio equipment get measured, so not many juicy reviews can be found here, unless are backed up by some sort of measurements.
I personally think that E32 is neutral enough, even with it's 3'rd harmonic with only 90dB away from the fundamental, although linearity and multi-wave test files might say more about it's neutral sounding.
I admire J.A. as well, I do like his measurements and tests he did at Stereophile. However, Amir is doing this work for free, so he can publish his thoughts without any worries, especially if he thinks some device doesn't measures as its price indicates. In this particular case, the E32 simply don't measure so well on the RCA out, but why not checking how it really measures on balanced-outputs?
Here is a new measurement set for you:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...headphone-amp-on-sale-from-asr-lab-sold.4808/
As you can see, it has a SINAD of 114dV @4.635V RMS in balanced mode, without traces of ESS thump, so definitely a good sounding DAC.
I personally think that E32 is neutral enough, even with it's 3'rd harmonic with only 90dB away from the fundamental, although linearity and multi-wave test files might say more about it's neutral sounding.
I admire J.A. as well, I do like his measurements and tests he did at Stereophile. However, Amir is doing this work for free, so he can publish his thoughts without any worries, especially if he thinks some device doesn't measures as its price indicates. In this particular case, the E32 simply don't measure so well on the RCA out, but why not checking how it really measures on balanced-outputs?
Here is a new measurement set for you:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...headphone-amp-on-sale-from-asr-lab-sold.4808/
As you can see, it has a SINAD of 114dV @4.635V RMS in balanced mode, without traces of ESS thump, so definitely a good sounding DAC.
I am sure that @amirm will not be willing to change the way registration is done on his website, mostly due to the several robots and spiders out there that are trying to hack any bit of Internet they can find as being unprotected enough. As for revisiting this website, I see no real reasons not doing this in the future; after all you can find here many designers and engineers from all over the world, so you can only gain some new knowledge by revisiting.
When have they done that?
There's your problem...
Your loss.
I'm proud of you too. Way to stick with it.
I hope you feel better after all that...
Last edited:
You know what? I have next to no technical experience with electronics, so my opinion is worth about the same as Don's. However, a technical review such as this focuses on design decisions and engineering competency, as seen in the measurements.
People may decide to arbitrarily advocate or dismiss products based solely on this type of information, but it is actually information - not opinion. It is a benchmark for comparison. It may not translate directly to what one hears, that is personal and subjective, but this review (and many like it) is very helpful.
What would be the harm in purchasing the E-32 and the comparison Beringer, and comparing them in the listening room? The takeaway seems to be the E-32 is a competent device but really should be better, given the resources of the company and the MSRP. At least the ASR review gives something to work from, rather than an opinion piece in a magazine or online blog.
These measurements give a very useful steer to the subjective audiophile who is willing to be open minded, one just has watch for one's own cognitive dissonance!
People may decide to arbitrarily advocate or dismiss products based solely on this type of information, but it is actually information - not opinion. It is a benchmark for comparison. It may not translate directly to what one hears, that is personal and subjective, but this review (and many like it) is very helpful.
What would be the harm in purchasing the E-32 and the comparison Beringer, and comparing them in the listening room? The takeaway seems to be the E-32 is a competent device but really should be better, given the resources of the company and the MSRP. At least the ASR review gives something to work from, rather than an opinion piece in a magazine or online blog.
These measurements give a very useful steer to the subjective audiophile who is willing to be open minded, one just has watch for one's own cognitive dissonance!
They really have not, to do so would require controlled listening tests, without such controls their sighted opinions are worthless, even to themselves. This is all part of the great big HIFI scam, the good news is that we know know that great gear at low prices exists, in the case of DACs surprisingly low priced DACs are provably transparent, from memory this DAC is as well, so it's not surprising it sounded good to you, better measuring DACs than this won't sound better or worse than this, if you apply listening test controls.
mcdonalk
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2020
- Messages
- 65
- Likes
- 38
I subscribed to Audio Magazine for many years. Audio Magazine equipment reviews did indeed include both measurements and observations, using each to validate (or not) the other. In my experience, this type of review is ideal, and to my knowledge, this type of comprehensive review is not done today. (Maybe Stereophile does, but I'm not familiar with Stereophile these days.) If you want to dig deeper, I refer you to the following archive of Audio Magazines. Beware, though, it is a mind trap:
https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Audio-Magazine.htm
https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Audio-Magazine.htm
Similar threads
