I like putting together these comparisons to provide a side-by-side view of two similar products. My first was a shootout between DAC chips, AK4499 vs ES9038Pro, both in Gustard units. My second was a shootout between AK4499 implementations, Topping vs. Gustard. This is my third and a shootout between the new Gustard twins, one with the flagship AK4499 and the other with the new ES9068AS. Lets get to the nitty-gritty.
Price (current as of 11/10/2020 - not including 11.11 discounts):
Gustard A18: $559.99
Gustard X16: $499.99
Photos (like I said - twins):
Front
Rear
Balanced XLR Dashboards:
SINAD:
Single-ended RCA Dashboards:
Dynamic Range:
Multitone:
IMD:
Linearity:
Jitter:
Filters:
Once again we see two very evenly matched DACs. I find it odd that the less expensive X16 measures better almost across the board than the A18, especially in power supply related noise which is non-existent in the X16. But then you have that little ESS IMD hump in the X16. Still, a few dB here, a few percentage points there, all-in-all they both measure very well and all differences definitely look to be well below the threshold of human hearing.
Note that the X16 also includes MQA.
I've read plenty of subjectivists comparing the "sound" of DAC implementations. A DBX test using these two state of the art DACs would either put those claims to rest or, inconceivably, prove they do indeed sound different. I would love to see a double blind test of these twins.
Hope you found this at least enjoyable if not enlightening.
Martin
Price (current as of 11/10/2020 - not including 11.11 discounts):
Gustard A18: $559.99
Gustard X16: $499.99
Photos (like I said - twins):
Front
Rear
Balanced XLR Dashboards:
SINAD:
Single-ended RCA Dashboards:
Dynamic Range:
Multitone:
IMD:
Linearity:
Jitter:
Filters:
Once again we see two very evenly matched DACs. I find it odd that the less expensive X16 measures better almost across the board than the A18, especially in power supply related noise which is non-existent in the X16. But then you have that little ESS IMD hump in the X16. Still, a few dB here, a few percentage points there, all-in-all they both measure very well and all differences definitely look to be well below the threshold of human hearing.
Note that the X16 also includes MQA.
I've read plenty of subjectivists comparing the "sound" of DAC implementations. A DBX test using these two state of the art DACs would either put those claims to rest or, inconceivably, prove they do indeed sound different. I would love to see a double blind test of these twins.
Hope you found this at least enjoyable if not enlightening.
Martin
Last edited: