• 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 X16 Balanced MQA DAC Review

I’m glad to tell you that X16 has passed the hearing test. After waiting for the certification documents to be completed, a certificate will be issued and then delivery can be made. Looking forward to this day soon. Friends, thank you very much!
Great news!
 
I’m glad to tell you that X16 has passed the hearing test. After waiting for the certification documents to be completed, a certificate will be issued and then delivery can be made. Looking forward to this day soon. Friends, thank you very much!
At long last :cool::cool:
 
I'm surprised by the amount of bullshit the other members has spewed after my reply.

Anyway every Amp (without a pre-amp) requires a certain amount of input voltage to reach maximum capacity...
I think I resemble that remark. lol.

Perhaps we should realize we are not arguing the same point? I am arguing how to get someone to 'normal', far from maximum listening levels, with highest fidelity. Where, you are only looking at maximum but not above (clipping)? Both are valid. Both should be part of the 'equation' to achieve best fidelity w/o a preamp.

I am one of these people who goes directly from a DAC to an amp. Balanced out from an ApplePi usually, hope soon to be this X16 in question - let's be a little bit on topic - source either Roon or Volumio, and "volume trim" offered in three places,
1. by the software
2. an Emotiva balanced Control Freak, so the the DAC could operate at maximum resolution (and as I should have got into in my original post, SNR).
3. analog input pad (all my amps either have variable trim on them, or selectable attenuation at -6dB increments; amp are from Rane to three different tube amps from Audio Research.

I realize now I left the last two important tidbits out of earlier posts. That was a mistake. They play a vital role in being able to go right from a DAC to an amp, at max fidelity, far from max volume.

Yes, I get it. You're post I quoted is amounting to saying 'well, if you don't attenuate, simply going by the specs of max output of the DAC vs. input sensitivity of the amp, the math says you're guaranteed to clip the amp ... so you MUST use the volume trim in the DAC.' Single quote, as I paraphrase.

Well Yes, absolutely to the first part (before the ellipsis); it is unquestionably true. But I say, well no, to the last part. Using the volume control of the DAC -exclusively- is not really the best way to get to 'normal' listening levels. To remove the confusion whether a DAC uses negative dB or 0-100 or 0-120 scales, or whatever, I'll just use percentages: if you need to get to 10% - say - 40% out of 100%, doing that -exclusively- in the DAC is not going to give someone the best fidelity. Using an analog pad allows the DAC to operate at a higher output, so higher resolution (there comes a point in digital attenuation where tiny variations in the signal between two samples amount to the same digital value, i.e. what I simplify as saying resolution is lost), higher SNR, less volume resampling be it at high bit in software of the player or in this case internal within the DAC at I believe 32-bits internally.

I advocate a hybrid approach of only modest attenuation in the digital domain, and analog attenuation.

Edit: hurrah, to certification!
 
Last edited:
I think I resemble that remark. lol.

Perhaps we should realize we are not arguing the same point? I am arguing how to get someone to 'normal', far from maximum listening levels, with highest fidelity. Where, you are only looking at maximum but not above (clipping)? Both are valid. Both should be part of the 'equation' to achieve best fidelity w/o a preamp.

I am one of these people who goes directly from a DAC to an amp. Balanced out from an ApplePi usually, hope soon to be this X16 in question - let's be a little bit on topic - source either Roon or Volumio, and "volume trim" offered in three places, 1. by the software
2. an Emotiva balance Control Freak, so the the DAC could operate at maximum resolution (and as I should have got into in my original post, SNR).
3. analog input pad (all my amps either have variable trim on them, or selectable attenuation at -6dB increments; amp are from Rane to three different tube amp from Audio Research.

I realize now I left the last two important tidbits out of earlier posts. That was a mistake. They play a vital role in being able to go right from a DAC to an amp, at max fidelity, far from max volume.

Yes, I get it. You're post I quoted is amounting to saying 'well, if you don't attenuate, simply going by the specs of max output of the DAC vs. input sensitivity of the amp, the math says you're guaranteed to clip the amp ... so you MUST use the volume trim in the DAC.' Single quote, as I paraphrase.

Well Yes, absolutely to the first part (before the ellipsis); it is unquestionably true. But I say, well no, to the last part. Using the volume control of the DAC -exclusively- is not really the best way to get to 'normal' listening levels. To remove the confusion whether a DAC uses negative dB or 0-100 or 0-120 scales, or whatever, I'll just use percentages: if you need to get to 10% - say - 40% out of 100%, doing that -exclusively- in the DAC is not going to give someone the best fidelity. Using an analog pad allows the DAC to operate at a higher output, so higher resolution (there comes a point in digital attenuation where tiny variations in the signal between two samples amount to the same digital value, i.e. what I simplify as saying resolution is lost), higher SNR, less volume resampling be it at high bit in software of the player or in this case internal within the DAC at I believe 32-bits internally.

I advocate a hybrid approach of only modest attenuation in the digital domain, and analog attenuation.

What you mentioned is correct, but perhaps not in 2020. and definitely not with the Gustard X16 as its noise floor is so damn low.

1610986795080.png


I can put money on it being completely inaudible to analog pre-amps (with voltage matching).
 
I said no such thing, i just answered his question on how to use the DAC as a pre-amp.
I used a twist on a common cliche of "is amounting to saying", to mean "it has a derivative implication".
 
I’m glad to tell you that X16 has passed the hearing test. After waiting for the certification documents to be completed, a certificate will be issued and then delivery can be made. Looking forward to this day soon. Friends, thank you very much!
See good things come to those that wait
 
I’m glad to tell you that X16 has passed the hearing test. After waiting for the certification documents to be completed, a certificate will be issued and then delivery can be made. Looking forward to this day soon. Friends, thank you very much!

Congratulations, and fantastic news to start the week. Now all we need is for Apos and Shenzhen to slap them on rockets and get them here ASAP, as some people (okay, well, myself in particular) in here will be bouncing off the walls with this news. :D
 
Last edited:
I’m glad to tell you that X16 has passed the hearing test. After waiting for the certification documents to be completed, a certificate will be issued and then delivery can be made. Looking forward to this day soon. Friends, thank you very much!
Woohoo - that means I qualify for a $40 USD refund from ShenzhenAudio as it has been 2 months since I bought it on November 14th... assuming it ships soon..
 
Hi @gustard - Thank you for the MQA certification update!

I have couple of questions:
MQA processing does not seem active seeing how you can select filters that are clearly not MQA compliant.
Q1. Based on the above comment - will you have to update the firmware before shipping?


I am interested in performing the first MQA decode in Roon, Applying Dirac corrections using Minidsp SHD studio and then feeding it to Gustard X16 (using AES EBU) for the decode 2 of MQA (as shown below).
index.php

Image Source : ASR Thread

Q2. Is the above MQA processing possible in Gustard X16?

Q3. Is there any display (indicator) in Gustard X16, which confirms it is receiving/processing MQA files?
 
mqa is just the DEVIL.

Why? Because is another lossy format just like mp3, and you will ending paying MORE, to get less, much less.

Music full of artifacts, DCMA, you name it!

This sum everything:
"With Warner, Universal Music Group, and Sony as major shareholders/partners, it's no wonder that MQA figured so prominently in the CES Hi-res pavilion."
 
mqa is just the DEVIL.

Why? Because is another lossy format just like mp3, and you will ending paying MORE, to get less, much less.

Music full of artifacts, DCMA, you name it!

This sum everything:
"With Warner, Universal Music Group, and Sony as major shareholders/partners, it's no wonder that MQA figured so prominently in the CES Hi-res pavilion."
Come on dude or gal knock it off please enuf is enuf
 
Not to stir the whole MQA pot up, but even if it only sounds like a good quality MP3, that is perfectly fine. A 320 MP3 will sound audibly transparent to the VAST majority of people all the time. Only those people who like to ruin the experience of music for themselves and spend hours deliberately training themselves to spot very, very subtle artifacts that can occur in certain circumstances could ever hope to hear these tiny anomalies. Who to hell would call that listening anyway?

Those who enjoy music listen to the music, they don't try and spot artifacts, straining like they are looking for hidden treasure. It is fine for those who want to do so, each to their own, but to be clear, there is absolutely no doubt that very, very, very, very few people can spot these differences anyway. So that allows me to circle back to my original point, even if MQA is a lossy format, who cares about that aspect, we know for fact that a well done lossy format can sound audibly transparent so that dog won't hunt as they say.

I am not an MQA fan, I bought the Gustard X16 for other reasons, colour to match my amp, great Bluetooth, futureproof, audbily transparent performance, balanced output, and heck, it looks pretty darn sharp I think. I have Tidal when I stream, but I only pay for the 320 quality and it sounds just fine. So again, if MQA only performs at the same level of audio quality as say a 320 MP3, that means it is more than up to the task of allowing a person to enjoy fabulous sounding audio. IMO.
 
@A Surfer In part, I agree. I am sure if you did a double blind ABX that most, if not all, would fail to discern a difference between MQA and FLAC/320 MP3/etc. In that respect, MQA is "good enough" for our purposes (i.e. listening to music for pleasure). There's probably nothing wrong with it if the goal is getting good wiggly air out of our headphones/speakers.

But I can see someone's objection to the technical merits (let alone the business model, which is a whole `nother thing) of MQA in the same way that I can see someone buying a new DAC when they have one that is perfectly good, for example: myself! I too am not a MQA fan, I also bought the Gustard X16 for other reasons (basically the same as your own), and in doing so I am replacing a Modi Multibit (the old version based on the Modi 2). The Modi isn't broken, and I was perfectly happy with it. Hell, I am perfectly happy with it. But when you look at the technical abilities of the Modi vs the X16, I mean, holy crap, right? 82 vs 121 SINAD, let alone every other parameter? However, I expect to unplug the Modi, plug in the Gustard, and probably not here a whole lot of a difference. I mean, I hope I'm wrong and am blown away, but I'm certainly not expecting anything other than a subtle change at best.

And yet I'm tossing that $499 out there. Why? Because I'm a bit angry that I spent the cash on the Modi for what turned out to be relatively shoddy engineering, and want to reward companies that do their homework and produce a technically sound product. Hell, I probably would have given my money to Schiit again as their latest offerings seem to have WAY better engineering than their old ones, but the Gustard was just priced too well for the performance shown.

So I can totally understand someone not wanting to support what they say is a technically inferior format simply on the merits that it is inferior, even if its inferiority is imperceptible, just like (I assume) my Modi to X16 upgrade will be. On the other hand, I can understand someone not caring about unnoticeable differences one bit. At the end of the day, it's all about what keeps you happy and what sounds good to you. If you get your kicks from A/Bing a track a hundred times to spot the artifacts, go nuts. If you are like us and need ten thousand percent less of that in our lives and music is one brief opportunity to do just that, then go nuts, here's some Ningen Isu, enjoy.

TLDR: As long as we all can recognize there are differences, I don't see anything wrong with deciding if they matter or not to you.
 
@MiradoOne, great arguments and I have to agree with them. As you noted, my defense of MQA was simply founded on the vitriol with which another member was insinuating that MQA will be audibly inferior to lossless because inherent in the lossy format were major anomalies and issues. That is what I take exception to. I do agree with much of the critique about the business model and it did give me pause before buying the X16, but in the end other factors were more compelling to me at this time.

I'm trying to remember the Modi Multibit review, and if I remember correctly there were audible issues stemming from the engineering approach Schiit took. I am someone who has owned several pieces of Schiit gear in the past and I am so happy that the scrutiny of this community helped Schiit to up their game. If the Modius had Bluetooth I would likely have gotten it. Anyway, the X16 I suspect will be almost my last DAC ever, although simply for fun I may try another down the road. Perhaps if a good R2R implementation reaches such great technical measurements I may get tempted to try. Cheers.
 
Hi @gustard - Thank you for the MQA certification update!

I have couple of questions:

Q1. Based on the above comment - will you have to update the firmware before shipping?


I am interested in performing the first MQA decode in Roon, Applying Dirac corrections using Minidsp SHD studio and then feeding it to Gustard X16 (using AES EBU) for the decode 2 of MQA (as shown below).
index.php

Image Source : ASR Thread

Q2. Is the above MQA processing possible in Gustard X16?

Q3. Is there any display (indicator) in Gustard X16, which confirms it is receiving/processing MQA files?

1. No need to update the firmware, the firmware is already perfect;
2. Can support;
3. MQA decode shows OFS
 

Attachments

  • OFS.jpg
    OFS.jpg
    84.4 KB · Views: 374
Back
Top Bottom