• 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!

Gustard A26 DAC & Streamer Review

Rate this DAC and Streamer

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 2 0.8%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 10 4.2%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 95 39.7%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 132 55.2%

  • Total voters
    239

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
46,023
Likes
256,872
Location
Seattle Area
This is a review and detailed measurements of the Gustard A26 network streamer and balanced stereo DAC. It was sent to me by Shenzhenaudio and costs US $1,499.
Gustard A26 DAC and Streamer Balanced stereo review.jpg

The case is extremely heavy and stout. It looks more modern than previous Gustard products which I much appreciated. FYI the display is near white, not blue as you see in the image. Back side shows the differentiation from typical balanced DAC:
Gustard A26 DAC and Streamer Balanced stereo remote control review.jpg


The Ethernet "LAN" input allows streaming from Roon player or UpNP servers. The interface was easy to navigate with the remote. I like the longer timeout on such settings as Filter so you could change them without going through the menu sequence again.

Gustard A26 Measurements
Let's start with our usual dashboard of USB in and XLR output with volume adjusted by -2 dB to get us nominal 4 volts output:
Gustard A26 DAC and Streamer Balanced Measurements.png

Combination of noise and distortion lands at -120 dB which is well below threshold of audibility so transparency is proven. Competition is tough though:
Best streamer stereo review 2023.png
Zooming in:

Best streamer stereo review zoom 2023.png


Here is dashboard with RCA output:

Gustard A26 DAC and Streamer RCA Measurements.png


Still transparent. Same when we use the LAN input and stream to it:
Gustard A26 DAC and Streamer Balanced Roon Measurements.png


The reason SINAD is not any better despite vanishingly low distortion spikes at -135 dB is because noise while excellent, is not class leading (as far as DACs are concerned):
Gustard A26 DAC and Streamer Balanced DNR Measurements.png


Multitone showcases the superbly low distortion:
Gustard A26 DAC and Streamer Balanced Multitone Measurements.png


There is a bit of jitter/spikes but fortunately well below audibility:

Gustard A26 DAC and Streamer Balanced Jitter Measurements.png


Linearity is perfect:
Gustard A26 DAC and Streamer Balanced Linearity Measurements.png


IMD is excellent but again, a touch noisier than best of the best DACs:
Gustard A26 DAC and Streamer Balanced IMD Measurements.png


We have the usual AKM DAC filters:
Gustard A26 DAC and Streamer Balanced Filter Measurements.png

Gustard A26 DAC and Streamer Balanced Frequency Response Measurements.png


We see the impact of noise once again in our wideband THD+N measurement:
Gustard A26 DAC and Streamer Balanced THD vs Frequency Measurements.png


Conclusions
The Gustard A26 gives up a tiny bit of measured performance compared to best of the best DACs but compensates by giving you a streamer. I am quite fine with that trade off especially since performance is provably transparent still. The overall design is professional looking and fits better in a home stereo rack than many desktop products do.

Overall I am happy to recommend the Gustard A26 DAC and streamer.

-----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/
 
Thanks, @amirm. I was thinking about getting one to measure, you just saved me quite a lot a work.:)

PS: adding threshold of hearing line was a good idea.
The Ethernet "LAN" input allows streaming from Roon player or UpNP servers.
About that. I was surprised that such a company could announce a streamer with Roon Ready certification. Doesn't seem to be already the case...
 
Last edited:
Not really cheap, but top performance.

Sidenotes: Voltage switching, twice?
Toslink outputs seem to be losing their hatches more often than before.
 
Toslink outputs seem to be losing their hatches more often than before.
This came with removable rubber covers for all ports. I took out the ones I used for testing.
 
About that. I was surprised that such a company could announce a streamer with Roon Ready certification. Doesn't seem to be already the case...
It nicely showed up in Roon list of streamers so I assume it is certified.
 
This isn't quite the equivalent of an Aurender music server, is it?

Do any of the likes of Topping, SMSL, Gustard et al offer the equivalent of an Aurender, at a better price while still delivering quality output?
 
I'm convinced ASR had an impact on pushing the conversion performance competition

So... can we now dunk on anyone who doesn't make a perfect anti-imaging filter? Something that looks like the one in Motu Ultralite Mk5 should be the standard.
 
PS: adding threshold of hearing line was a good idea.
I find that adding this line may be a good Idea, but calling it the "threshold of hearing" is not. If we want to promote science I think we need to be rigorous with terminology and this isn't. This is an In house mathematical calculation of proven inaudibility under any circumstance of anything below that but semantically it is not threshold of hearing. Threshold of hearing refer to audiology and anything other than a SPL value does not make sense. It goes against a century of using that term for something else, like Fletcher Munson for example. I find this confusing and actually everybody have a different threshold of hearing.
 
Last edited:
Gustard have no Roon Ready or Roon Tested certification.
On the Roon Community the use of Roon for volume control of these devices is said to be terrible, so you are tied to the physical volume control.
Otherwise, user comments are that it is a very good product outside of a Roon environment.
There is stiff competition. The new Innuos Pulse Mini is quite a lot cheaper (40% cheaper in UK), Roon Ready and has Innuos's fantastic streaming app, which I prefer to Roon for a standalone system.

I'm only commenting because I see these are sold on Amazon UK (currently not in stock) and Amazon's normal return policy applies for non-defective items. The conditions are strict. I'm wondering if anyone has successfully made a return and got a refund with this seller. (It is fulfilled by Amazon from a Chinese seller.) They say in a comment that there is a 2-year warranty, to me not worth the card it's printed on, I only ever buy domestically with the normal consumer protection. Surely one day these manufacturers will arrange national distribution and Roon Certification, or is that asking too much?
 
Ah, it's the digital filter and modulator for the two other DACs.
Well it's a DAC. It cannot be the digital filter for an other "DAC" By definition the output of a "DAC", is analog.
 
I find that adding this line may be a good Idea, but calling it the "threshold of hearing" is not. If we want to promote science I think we need to be rigorous with terminology and this isn't. This is an In house mathematical calculation of proven inaudibility under any circumstance of anything below that but semantically it is not threshold of hearing. Threshold of hearing refer to audiology and anything other than a SPL value does not make sense. It goes again a century of using that term for something else, like Fletcher Munson for example. I find this confusing and actually everybody have a different threshold of hearing.
I'd name it "theoretical limit of audibility" or so. And yes exactly, everyone's TOH is different. Probably most people would be perfectly happy with anything above "the orange group" - but still, the better is the enemy of the good.
First world problems :)
 
I find that adding this line may be a good Idea, but calling it the "threshold of hearing" is not. If we want to promote science I think we need to be rigorous with terminology and this isn't. This is an In house mathematical calculation of proven inaudibility under any circumstance of anything below that but semantically it is not threshold of hearing. Threshold of hearing refer to audiology and anything other than a SPL value does not make sense. It goes again a century of using that term for something else, like Fletcher Munson for example. I find this confusing and actually everybody have a different threshold of hearing.
I think it is a fair point. Maybe a different name would be better. Any suggestions?

Thinking about it a bit more, it is tough to be Amir isn't it. The variety of audience of his reviews makes it very hard I think. In one side, he can be scientifically rigorous and accurate and end up with a name like "the line below which the noise, distortion and other deviations from the original source signal would no longer have any perceivable negative impact on the listening experience of the average listener under normal listening conditions", be somewhat accurate at the expense of brevity and being easily understandable for the average Joe who pops up every once in a while, asking for best amp under $500; or he can go with something like "it does not matter to the consumer" line but than get a lot of heat from people who are knowledgeable in the field and point out why that statement is not accurate. Given experts already know better, personally I think it is fine to lean on the side of consumers.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom