Luxsin X8 DAC & HP Amp Review

[davmol]

Correct, in this case it was connected to an amp that has a bypass mode that simply passes signal through unaltered to avoid any potential influence the amp's signature might have to the comparison.

Yea it was obviously volume matched or else would not be very useful comparison, I even went to go as far as lowering the DAC's volume one step whenever I found something having an advantage and listen again. The differences found are no way huge and mostly noticeable because of the quick switching possibility. Having mastered music for 14 years as a hobby paying close attention to various differences when making small adjustments to EQ, stereo width/soundstage, phase adjustments, reverb, dynamics control/compression/limiting, obviously helps in these cases too (trained ears).

If you can tell the difference level-matched using a multimeter then it seems the next stop would be a controlled blind test, to rule out any visual biases.

 

[robbiekhan]

The X8 has enhanced my current IEMs in a big way (Fosi IM4), they are very neutral IEMs by default that scale tremendously to EQing or tuning options. With the X8 PEQing made a good deal of difference, but the biggest difference was not using PEQ but instead the settings inside the "Effects" menu, here you can adjust lows, mid, highs along with other tuning settings. This is where the IM4s started to sound more like a headphone than an IEM.

So whilst the AI PEQ in the X8/X9 are excellent, one should play around with the Effects menu too as you may find this even better.

I am in NOS and bypass mode for every output source btw.

My HE1000ses needed no sound tuning at all, just sounds so good and I intend to get the Arya Organic in the summer too to see how they are compared to HE1000se.

The bulk of my use with the X8 now is as the DAC and pre-amp feeding the power amp and speakers. For either use, it is excellent.

 

[Chagall]

That is highly subjective and therefore useless for all of us
Just read Yesterday a guy saying the exact opposite than what you say

Funny how we can have black or white

But as long as people believe they are happy, i am fine with opinions

I agree that opinions are fine, but they do create confusion. Especially when people attribute special sonic properties to DAC chips or brands while admitting that they would not expect to hear a difference in a proper blind test.

What matters with DACs today is much more practical: inputs, outputs, PEQ, DSP, volume control, output voltage, reliability, usability, and even looks. Those are real reasons to prefer one DAC over another. “ESS sound” or “AKM smoothness” is not.

I'm here because I value measurements, because they can show when a product is a complete dud, and because I bought the D10s and L30 based on, among other things, the reviews these got in here. And I am glad I did!

Fair enough, sorry for being dismissive. I do think there is plenty of room for personal preference with speakers and headphones. There is nothing wrong with owning two or three headphones because they sound and feel different. But chasing some kind of DAC magic is, in my opinion, mostly a waste of time and money.

 

[Winne]

Does it have a DRE on/off setting?

Filteroptions...

 

[CedarX]

Filteroptions...

Tks even if it’s not the DRE setting.
Does it come with NOS (non-oversampling) set as default? Due to CS431xx idiosyncrasies, selecting NOS also deactivates DRE.

 

[Winne]

U can switch On/Off DRE in NOS Mode. If I remember correctly, NOS was turned on. I've had the X8 for quite a while and have experimented a lot with the settings.

 

[gtg465x]

Tks even if it’s not the DRE setting.
Does it come with NOS (non-oversampling) set as default? Due to CS431xx idiosyncrasies, selecting NOS also deactivates DRE.

Defaults were:
Filter: Short Delay Sharp Roll-off
DRE: Off

I found this interesting tidbit in the manual, referring to the DRE setting:
“After enabling this function, the system's dynamic range is increased by approximately 7 dB. Within certain volume ranges, distortion may be affected”

 

[zonk]

FYI firmware issue for X8/X9.

- v1.0.026 for X8
- v2.0.0.5 for X9

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...x9-smart-stereo-dac-preamp.63563/post-2609534

I just wonder how many firmware upgrades these units need.

Cheers

 

[Gremlins]

General question, but does these dacs have filter options?

In the few dacs i have listened to, i was never able to hear a difference in filters.
Amir mesurements of filters show they work in inaudible range , so why do compagnies still offer filter change as if it was a good feature?

 

[Karmacoma]

General question, but does these dacs have filter options?

In the few dacs i have listened to, i was never able to hear a difference in filters.
Amir mesurements of filters show they work in inaudible range , so why do compagnies still offer filter change as if it was a good feature?

Because proposing multiple options, even pointless ones, is a basic marketing trick.
And you don't want to lose the customers who are convinced they hear something.

 

[Bland_username42069]

General question, but does these dacs have filter options?

In the few dacs i have listened to, i was never able to hear a difference in filters.
Amir mesurements of filters show they work in inaudible range , so why do compagnies still offer filter change as if it was a good feature?

“The midrange feels slightly muddled with filter 1 but the highs really sparkle.”
“Filter 2 has a dynamic slam that no other filter brings but the highs are slightly veiled”
“It lacks a certain rhythmic precision that my CH Precision Dac has but that’s to be expected given it is x100 more expensive”
“Filter 3 turns it into a giant killer”

Etc etc. these people seem an important part of the market so…

I do like the way they brought PEQ to everyone through tools to assist users. It’s a very well thought out idea. Design is really smart in my opinion. I’d be delighted to have this as a preamp in my system.

 

[Mike123]

Amir mesurements of filters show they work in inaudible range

Moreover, they do not work at all, because all the musical material has already been filtered in the studio and does not contain a signal beyond half the sampling frequency.

 

[Gremlins]

Ok thanks for answers
I really don't get what's going on with these people???

I haven't read anywhere someone that could see Xrays from his tv's .. so why are there guys that can discriminate filters that 1/ are far beyond human sensitivity and 2/ do not work on audio signal because there's none recorded at these frequencies

Has ever someone here met one of these forumer guys and made a live test with him?

I see so called reviewers on YouTube entertaining that mistery, is there's a youtube channel that challenge pubicly these guys?

The guy from iiwi reviews just talk about filters on x8 recently

 

[Endibol]

Because proposing multiple options, even pointless ones, is a basic marketing trick.
And you don't want to lose the customers who are convinced they hear something.

All of these filter options aren’t just pointless but even harmful to the sound and sound staging due to phase and amplitude modulations they cause, especially at higher frequencies.
See a very interesting video with John Siau from Benchmark and Gene DellaSalla from Audioholics. It turns out that the best filter is the one that is closest to the textbook “brickwall” filter:

 

[davmol]

All of these filter options aren’t just pointless but even harmful to the sound and sound staging due to “moving” frequency dependent phase shifts they cause.
See a very interesting video with John Siau from Benchmark and Gene DellaSalla from Audioholics. It turns out that the best filter is the one that is closest to the textbook “brickwall” filter:

This was a very informative video, thanks! I noticed that they discuss the negative effects of non-linear phase modulation and aliasing that is introduced by some of these filters, and that it can encroach on audible bands, particularly at lower sample rates (he mentioned issues at 14khz and above for example).

So this video would support the fact that when listening at a typical 44.1khz, some filters may alter the upper frequenct bands enough to be audible to some people - most likely younger people who are more attuned to 14khz / 15khz and above. Even for those that can hear differences, what they are hearing is a poor reproduction of the track when not using fast-linear/ brick wall.

 

[Robbo99999]

Quite a DAC/amp! No one really needs this DAC/amp (almost), but I see it as kind of a statement piece!

 

[Winne]

• Well, there’s a lot of hot air coming from self-proclaimed audio experts. Ultimately—and this is what matters most—it comes down to whether you enjoy what you’re hearing. With many dynamic headphones, for instance, using filters is actually advantageous; you gain more from the improved resolution than you lose to the artifacts that dynamic drivers might otherwise introduce—artifacts that are often inaudible anyway. With planar magnetic headphones, which tend to be more sensitive in the high frequencies, it might be an issue, but even then, most users won't hear any flaws—especially since many of them use EQ, which inherently alters the sound anyway. The people who always have something to complain about generally come with completely different expectations and mindsets, yet they aren't capable of building their own DAC/amp with their own brand of "voodoo" magic.
  
  Human hearing isn't universally linear; it involves individual interpretation. The very act of recording with a microphone or producing sound with an instrument is never linear, and deviations from linearity are inevitable throughout the entire playback chain. Period. Ultimately, the most important question is whether the sonic "harmony"—from the initial recording to your personal interpretation—works well (or comes as close as possible to doing so) or not. And that’s something neither measurement curves nor deep pockets can solve.
  

 

[amirm]

Human hearing isn't universally linear; it involves individual interpretation.

What is your background in Human Hearing?

 

[Winne]

I don't quite follow the question—what kind of background are you looking for?
I’ve been active in the audio hobby for a good 30 years now. Naturally, I’ve amassed quite a collection of headphones, DACs, and amps. I also enjoy wielding a soldering iron—I’m reasonably competent with electronics and have handled various audio mods and repairs, and I’ve even built my own headphones.

Professionally, I studied sensory science and cognitive psychology—fields that naturally cover "hearing" as auditory perception and the factors that influence it. Logically, I work as a psychiatrist .

By the way, I use music to treat myself , and sometimes my patients, too.

And yes, I do see patients with psychological issues stemming from hearing damage (tinnitus, acoustic trauma, etc.) or from misinterpretations of—or hypersensitivity to—auditory stimuli and the emotions they trigger.

That’s why I’m well aware that a group of people exposed to the exact same sound waves can interpret—or react to—what they’re hearing in completely different ways.

It’s just like how one person might see the color green differently than another; there is no such thing as a universally valid "linear" green, nor is it worth arguing about. You can certainly define a specific shade of green—much like the Harman curve in acoustics—but everyone will still have their own individual "perception" of it.

As with so many other things—and this is what I mean by "mindset"—expectations and judgments (often driven by one's inner perfectionist or Monk) vary so widely that self-proclaimed "experts" might reject something without even perceiving the phenomenon themselves. Simply knowing that "something is there" can trigger rejection or—if convictions are strong—spark an argument, much like the placebo or "voodoo" effect . And lo and behold, that is how I interpreted and answered your question. Whether that was right or wrong is a "relative" matter .

 

[Endibol]

This was a very informative video, thanks! I noticed that they discuss the negative effects of non-linear phase modulation and aliasing that is introduced by some of these filters, and that it can encroach on audible bands, particularly at lower sample rates (he mentioned issues at 14khz and above for example).

So this video would support the fact that when listening at a typical 44.1khz, some filters may alter the upper frequenct bands enough to be audible to some people - most likely younger people who are more attuned to 14khz / 15khz and above. Even for those that can hear differences, what they are hearing is a poor reproduction of the track when not using fast-linear/ brick wall.

John mentioned that even a 14 kHz sign wave (well within the 22 kHz bandwidth resulting from the standard 44 kHz sample rate)) is not reconstructed properly by most filters.