Review and Measurements of E1DA 9038S BAL Portable DAC & Amp

[staticV3]

@gcompari

So if I get G3 I get also:
- 88.2, 176.4 (352.8?)

Here's every sample rate that the S G3 and 9038D supports:

drivers for Win 7, 8.x and 10

http://www.comtrue-inc.com/index.php/downloads2/category/4-ct7601

it's the only source I found for reliable measures about headphones

In my testing I found that both RAA and rtings consistently produced the best measurements and, subsequently, the best EQ presets for full-sized headphones.

you may sell 100x or more products if you add the analog gain control

analog gain means a mechanical solution means a new and bigger housing and PCB, a potential point of failure, and an entry point for dust and moisture.

A ferromagnetic metal case will better to stop EMI

again, no space inside the housing for cage-style shielding

the problem about the lose of many seconds at the start of tracks

with the S G3 and the 9038D sample that I'm currently testing there's absolutely no pause when changing sample rate in foobar Wasapi push

 

[staticV3]

PS: The Senn CX X.00 lineup according to measurements has catastrophically little pinna gain and a lot of midbass bleed. It boggles my mind how anyone could prefer it over the HD600, especially when you EQ the headphone.

 

[Veri]

9038D sample

 

[Artaois]

It's been confirmed by a member of the Discord server that the 9038S G2 works with the PS4. I would assume that the G3 therefore works as well, but I cannot say for sure.

Good to hear! Hopefully that translates to the 9038D as well.

 

[IVX]

gcompari
in case if you so much like good crosstalk, you better stay as close as possible to the ideal topology aka balanced one. I did not measure Meizu crosstalk but I.m sure the problem is common GND node(plug+jack+cable), because I have the same thing with 9038D(no-load -114db, 32ohm -80db). However, as you may know, LP has -30db(R2R about -40db) crosstalk and I don't remember if anybody complained about that.
DivineCurrent
too big power is frequently a source of problems. For example, 9038S, and especially D due to unbalanced topology, have annoying pop-noise if you using high-sensitive IEM with it. Yesterday I prepared special FW for 9038SG3 where are switched off Standby and MUTE functions to avoid all clicks even sacrificing the power-saving. I hope this month we'll release the Tweak app for Android, where these functions will be manageable, and a lot more.

 

[gcompari]

PS: The Senn CX X.00 lineup according to measurements has catastrophically little pinna gain and a lot of midbass bleed. It boggles my mind how anyone could prefer it over the HD600, especially when you EQ the headphone.

Sorry you can't mix Sennheiser CX X.00 together: CX 1.00 and CX 2.00 are good. The others I don't know. My sources for analysis are:
- Inner Fidelity Sennheiser HD 600 test
- Inner Fidelity Sennheiser CX 1.00 test
- Inner Fidelity Sennheiser CX 2.00 test
- RAA Sennheiser HD 600 test
- RAA Sennheiser CX 1.00 test
- RAA Sennheiser CX 2.00 test
where are your "measurements"?

Because they are IEM, pinna is bypassed.
Inner Fidelity measures are made by a microphone in the auditory canal.
I prefer the HP circum-aural and over-hear and the measurements with a microphone aligned to the head profile because our ears are all different and the selectivity and the sensibility are different for each individual in the word.
If an HP sends a signal in front of my ear, and its freq. resp. is perfectly linear, what happens in the hear canal it is a problem that doesn't matter.
Statistical artificial hears (for me) aren't interesting methods of measurement, because "statistic" is a science that, if I don't eat a chiken and you eat a chicken, we tell us we have eat 1/2 chicken each. For me two perfect linear transducer in front of my ears are enough.

If we start to arguing the sounds don't reach the ears from the side but from the front, we can't go very far because in the city where I live there is the "Teatro alla Scala di Milano" that you perhaps know: its stage is 16m large and the "boccascena" where the orchestra plays is the same. In the first file of chairs, at the center, you can hear sounds from 0 degrees to near +/-70 degrees, so the pinna and so on, cause different types of "transfer function" for each musical instrument. Even with speakers you can't solve the problem.

So, from the PDFs before linked, you can see the Inner Fidelity measurements:
- No story about the "square wave" and "impulse" tests: the CX 1/2 are incomparably better
- No story about isolation (with the HD-600 you disturb other people, you are disturbed by other people and you add to the original acoustic ambiance some aspect of the room where you are), the crosstalk is pathetic because you hear the sounds between the two speakers of the HP.
- Frequency response (RAW): -3dB @50Hz, -7dB @13kHz, +13dB@3,15kHz where the ears sensitivity is max. Difference between channels is 12dB at 9kHz.
The CX 1.00 channels perfectly match. +7dB @30Hz, +3dB@10Hz, so 2.5 octaves more. -3dB@15kHz. No peaks more than 7dB. The CX 2.00 has a little minor bass emphasis.
- Distortion: 1% THD at 90Hz/100dB, 9% THD at 20Hz/100dB. Please note that from Flechter & Munson curves, 9% THD at 20Hz/100dB SPL means, if the 2^ harmonic is the major contributor, that at 40Hz we hear, for example, 8% of 2^ harmonic amplified by near 20dB (10x) i.e. 80% amplitude of the fundamental, so we nearly hear the distortion at the same level of the fundamental. Please tell me what you can equalize to get 12Hz (min audible freq.) from the HD-600 w/o reach 200% of THD or more...
THD for the CX 1/2.00 is near 0.1% 20Hz-20kHz bw @100dB SPL. Probably, if you have "pinna gain" problems, you can equalize something with 0.1% of THD at 100dB SPL, all audio band.

 

[gcompari]

@gcompari
In my testing I found that both RAA and rtings consistently produced the best measurements and, subsequently, the best EQ presets for full-sized headphones.

Sorry I don't equalize anything: I don't like to revert to High/Bass/Loudness vintage amplifier controls. I like "bit perfect" devices, so for me any signal alteration is an heresy.

@gcompari
analog gain means a mechanical solution means a new and bigger housing and PCB, a potential point of failure, and an entry point for dust and moisture.

In your housing you have now an USB connector and a 2,5mm jack connector: do you think a good dip switch (2 or 4 dip) may change anything about dimension, failure, dust and moisture? I have an original 1984 IBM PC with a lot dip switch inside and it works today as in 1984!
If this is it impossible, just start to sell two version of the #9038: "high gain"/"low gain": people will be able to choose the version that better matches its requirements...

@gcompari
again, no space inside the housing for cage-style shielding

Why a Faraday Cage in the housing? Just change the metal of the case. If this is it impossible, at least short to the GND the actual aluminium case: zero costs, zero efforts.

@gcompari

with the S G3 and the 9038D sample that I'm currently testing there's absolutely no pause when changing sample rate in foobar Wasapi push

[/QUOTE]

Good!

 

[JohnYang1997]

Sorry you can't mix Sennheiser CX X.00 together: CX 1.00 and CX 2.00 are good. The others I don't know. My sources for analysis are:
- Inner Fidelity Sennheiser HD 600 test
- Inner Fidelity Sennheiser CX 1.00 test
- Inner Fidelity Sennheiser CX 2.00 test
- RAA Sennheiser HD 600 test
- RAA Sennheiser CX 1.00 test
- RAA Sennheiser CX 2.00 test
where are your "measurements"?

Because they are IEM, pinna is bypassed.
Inner Fidelity measures are made by a microphone in the auditory canal.
I prefer the HP circum-aural and over-hear and the measurements with a microphone aligned to the head profile because our ears are all different and the selectivity and the sensibility are different for each individual in the word.
If an HP sends a signal in front of my ear, and its freq. resp. is perfectly linear, what happens in the hear canal it is a problem that doesn't matter.
Statistical artificial hears (for me) aren't interesting methods of measurement, because "statistic" is a science that, if I don't eat a chiken and you eat a chicken, we tell us we have eat 1/2 chicken each. For me two perfect linear transducer in front of my ears are enough.

If we start to arguing the sounds don't reach the ears from the side but from the front, we can't go very far because in the city where I live there is the "Teatro alla Scala di Milano" that you perhaps know: its stage is 16m large and the "boccascena" where the orchestra plays is the same. In the first file of chairs, at the center, you can hear sounds from 0 degrees to near +/-70 degrees, so the pinna and so on, cause different types of "transfer function" for each musical instrument. Even with speakers you can't solve the problem.

So, from the PDFs before linked, you can see the Inner Fidelity measurements:
- No story about the "square wave" and "impulse" tests: the CX 1/2 are incomparably better
- No story about isolation (with the HD-600 you disturb other people, you are disturbed by other people and you add to the original acoustic ambiance some aspect of the room where you are), the crosstalk is pathetic because you hear the sounds between the two speakers of the HP.
- Frequency response (RAW): -3dB @50Hz, -7dB @13kHz, +13dB@3,15kHz where the ears sensitivity is max. Difference between channels is 12dB at 9kHz.
The CX 1.00 channels perfectly match. +7dB @30Hz, +3dB@10Hz, so 2.5 octaves more. -3dB@15kHz. No peaks more than 7dB. The CX 2.00 has a little minor bass emphasis.
- Distortion: 1% THD at 90Hz/100dB, 9% THD at 20Hz/100dB. Please note that from Flechter & Munson curves, 9% THD at 20Hz/100dB SPL means, if the 2^ harmonic is the major contributor, that at 40Hz we hear, for example, 8% of 2^ harmonic amplified by near 20dB (10x) i.e. 80% amplitude of the fundamental, so we nearly hear the distortion at the same level of the fundamental. Please tell me what you can equalize to get 12Hz (min audible freq.) from the HD-600 w/o reach 200% of THD or more...
THD for the CX 1/2.00 is near 0.1% 20Hz-20kHz bw @100dB SPL. Probably, if you have "pinna gain" problems, you can equalize something with 0.1% of THD at 100dB SPL, all audio band.

Many errors with your reasoning and knowledge I don't even know where to start.

 

[gcompari]

gcompari
in case if you so much like good crosstalk, you better stay as close as possible to the ideal topology aka balanced one. I did not measure Meizu crosstalk but I.m sure the problem is common GND node(plug+jack+cable), because I have the same thing with 9038D(no-load -114db, 32ohm -80db). However, as you may know, LP has -30db(R2R about -40db) crosstalk and I don't remember if anybody complained about that.

Meizu HiFi DAC and Meizu HiFi DAC Pro are rated -55dB at 32 ohms (1kHz and 10kHz).
At the time of LP and R2R we had only LP and R2R, so we can't complain so much: there wasn't any other option.
That is a 30Hz sinusoid (-3dB referred to 0dB recording level V.U. meter, metal tape) of the Sony Walkman Professional WM-D6C, one the most expensive HiFi portable cassette recorder of the 80' years: do you accept this now?

The german norms DIN 45.000 for HiFi devices stated a minimal crosstalk of 50dB at 1kHz between stereo channel for HiFi amplifiers: but the DIN 45.500 norms were published in the year 1966.
Sorry for the joke, but probably at the time of the Edison's gramophone, nobody complained about crosstalk at all: it was monophonic...
Seriously speaking, crosstalk is one of primary parameter for all multichannel linear systems (audio, video, etc.) so signals from one channel to another are modification of the original message that we must always avoid.

P.S. I think that for many of us the Meizu HiFi DAC is a mystery: @amirm "destroyed" the "not-pro" version and promoted the "pro" version, but with very different results from the link someone published before in ASR (Meizu HiFi DAC Pro vs. Meizu HiFi DAC). Most off all don't have an AP Analyzer and we can't understand why there is so great difference between @amirm's results and the Lenny's results: are your tests nearer to @amirm's tests or to Lenny's tests?

 

[gcompari]

Many errors with your reasoning and knowledge I don't even know where to start.

Plase try...

 

[JohnYang1997]

Meizu HiFi DAC and Meizu HiFi DAC Pro are rated -55dB at 32 ohms (1kHz and 10kHz).
At the time of LP and R2R we had only LP and R2R, so we can't complain so much: there wasn't any other option.
That is a 30Hz sinusoid (-3dB referred to 0dB recording level V.U. meter, metal tape) of the Sony Walkman Professional WM-D6C, one the most expensive HiFi portable cassette recorder of the 80' years: do you accept this now?
View attachment 79072
The german norms DIN 45.000 for HiFi devices stated a minimal crosstalk of 50dB at 1kHz between stereo channel for HiFi amplifiers: but the DIN 45.500 norms were published in the year 1966.
Sorry for the joke, but probably at the time of the Edison's gramophone, nobody complained about crosstalk at all: it was monophonic...
Seriously speaking, crosstalk is one of primary parameter for all multichannel linear systems (audio, video, etc.) so signals from one channel to another are modification of the original message that we must always avoid.

P.S. I think that for many of us the Meizu HiFi DAC is a mystery: @amirm "destroyed" the "not-pro" version and promoted the "pro" version, but with very different results from the link someone published before in ASR (Meizu HiFi DAC Pro vs. Meizu HiFi DAC). Most off all don't have an AP Analyzer and we can't understand why there is so great difference between @amirm's results and the Lenny's results: are your tests nearer to @amirm's tests or to Lenny's tests?

Main difference is that pro version has much more power with low impedance load. This is the sole reason Amir recommends it over non pro version. I like non pro version for it lower noise.
In terms of crosstalk, it's embedded in 3.5mm jack. Go and build a device with excellent crosstalk with 32ohm. Or just simply shut it up....

 

[JohnYang1997]

Plase try...

You don't know what's pinna gain and why it's important to regain that in frequency response. You don't know what's drum reference point and relation of HATS measuring different sources. You don't know how to interpret square wave(and impulse response) and you have no idea about the connection between frequency response and square wave(and impulse response). You don't know about minimum phase system. You don't know how they behave. So basically almost everything you said in that post is wrong.

 

[IVX]

Actually, the way to get a lot better crosstalk with 3,5mm jack does exist. Need to use TRRS 3.5mm jack and balanced 4-wire cable, however, the compatibility with 3-wire unbalanced cable will be funky, in the case if 3.5mm plug will be TRRS also but as a GND used only S from trrS, the crosstalk could be even worse. But as I already said, even -50db@1kHz crosstalk is fine for precise stereo-image.

 

[bobdipa]

You don't know what's pinna gain and why it's important to regain that in frequency response. You don't know what's drum reference point and relation of HATS measuring different sources. You don't know how to interpret square wave(and impulse response) and you have no idea about the connection between frequency response and square wave(and impulse response). You don't know about minimum phase system. You don't know how they behave. So basically almost everything you said in that post is wrong.

Sorry JonYang1997,
I have followed this very interesting thread reading all the opinions about the E1DAx (all versions). But Reading Your offensive sentences to gcompari I cannot avoid to write THAT YOU ARE COMPLETELY UNTRUSTED PEOPLE because You have written different sentences regarding the gcompari Knowledge which are not sustained by any documented element shareble to all of us. You are unmistakably UNTRUSTED PEOPLE probably because "BIASED" from money income and some high-tech company belonging. I hope not for your ignorance. In any case please put Your excuses If You want to retrieve a little bit of trustability. In the opposite position I have to thank for the very good explanations sustained from clear measures (from Inner fidelity or other sources) of gcompari questions and propositions: always he do not force or impose his opinion but he gives to the other readers (like me) the same data and results which show to all of us the same sentence about what is a good product and what is a bad (and many times expensive) product. I hope my position give to all of other users more deference and more measures and facts to derive a correct and unbiased technical opinion.

 

[staticV3]

...what is going on here?

 

[JohnYang1997]

Sorry JonYang1997,
I have followed this very interesting thread reading all the opinions about the E1DAx (all versions). But Reading Your offensive sentences to gcompari I cannot avoid to write THAT YOU ARE COMPLETELY UNTRUSTED PEOPLE because You have written different sentences regarding the gcompari Knowledge which are not sustained by any documented element shareble to all of us. You are unmistakably UNTRUSTED PEOPLE probably because "BIASED" from money income and some high-tech company belonging. I hope not for your ignorance. In any case please put Your excuses If You want to retrieve a little bit of trustability. In the opposite position I have to thank for the very good explanations sustained from clear measures (from Inner fidelity or other sources) of gcompari questions and propositions: always he do not force or impose his opinion but he gives to the other readers (like me) the same data and results which show to all of us the same sentence about what is a good product and what is a bad (and many times expensive) product. I hope my position give to all of other users more deference and more measures and facts to derive a correct and unbiased technical opinion.

He was picking on IVX and asking for trouble. Also the way he put things together sounds like he knows everything beyond everyone else. He's so confident but pretty much everything he said was wrong. I haven't seen that many wrong statements in one sitting almost ever. I didn't want to talk all that initially, I just said I didn't know where to start. He asked for it. He said please try. So I went for it.

 

[JohnYang1997]

Sorry JonYang1997,
I have followed this very interesting thread reading all the opinions about the E1DAx (all versions). But Reading Your offensive sentences to gcompari I cannot avoid to write THAT YOU ARE COMPLETELY UNTRUSTED PEOPLE because You have written different sentences regarding the gcompari Knowledge which are not sustained by any documented element shareble to all of us. You are unmistakably UNTRUSTED PEOPLE probably because "BIASED" from money income and some high-tech company belonging. I hope not for your ignorance. In any case please put Your excuses If You want to retrieve a little bit of trustability. In the opposite position I have to thank for the very good explanations sustained from clear measures (from Inner fidelity or other sources) of gcompari questions and propositions: always he do not force or impose his opinion but he gives to the other readers (like me) the same data and results which show to all of us the same sentence about what is a good product and what is a bad (and many times expensive) product. I hope my position give to all of other users more deference and more measures and facts to derive a correct and unbiased technical opinion.

You can get some of the ideas here. Regarding time based measurements.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...inding-value-in-headphone-measurements.15432/
Also this thread for information related to targets and measurements. All very recent.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...easurements-using-brüel-kjær-5128-hats.15352/

 

[gcompari]

You don't know what's pinna gain and why it's important to regain that in frequency response. You don't know what's drum reference point and relation of HATS measuring different sources. You don't know how to interpret square wave(and impulse response) and you have no idea about the connection between frequency response and square wave(and impulse response). You don't know about minimum phase system. You don't know how they behave. So basically almost everything you said in that post is wrong.

I think you are very offensive.

you have no idea about the connection between frequency response and square wave

From my high school reminiscences, this is the relation between Rise Time (Rs) and bandwidth (BW): the maximum slope of the sinusoid of max freq. (max of the first derivative of the function f(t)=A*sin(2*pi*f*t) ) must be equal to the angular coefficient of the "front rise" of the square wave. If the "front rise" is very different from a straight line we use the straight line passing through the dots at 10% and 90% of the front rise of the half square wave.
So:

But, sorry: where do I spoke about BW and Rise Time? But why do I have to show you my knowledge to express an opinion? How do you know my knowledge?

You don't know how to interpret square wave(and impulse response)

Are you shure?
Is this

better than this?

You don't know about minimum phase system.

Do I post something about "minimum phase" systems? ("linear phase" means same delay of all harmonics, "minimum phase" means minimum group delay, if I'm right).

You don't know how to interpret square wave

Probably you haven't even saw the link I posted: a the same level of other links you can find Inner Fidelity - Headphone Measurements Explained - Square Wave Response: there are very basic (but useful) explanations.

You don't know what's pinna gain and why it's important to regain that in frequency response. You don't know what's drum reference point and relation of HATS measuring different sources.

"Pinna gain" and other stuff like this is related to support the HK curve: how you can see there "Where Are We At With The Harman Curve?" I'm not alone...

Perhaps you didn't read the Tyll Hertsens's interesting article about HK curve Inner Fidelity Headphone Measurements Explained
You can find very interesting analysis about human hearing, with all the stuff you like: torso, pinna, etc.

Sorry, I don't trust HK curve: is only my opinion. Stop. I you wish, I can explain why.

I prefer a "perfectly linear" transducer from electric signals to pressure: if we get a "convincing" and "definitive" HP equalization curve, we can always to reproduce it in the digital domain and use it if we trust it. If you get a HK native HP and someone discover a new curve, I think it will be a mess to de-equalise and re-equalise a device like this.

 

[JohnYang1997]

I think you are very offensive.


From my high school reminiscences, this is the relation between Rise Time (Rs) and bandwidth (BW): the maximum slope of the sinusoid of max freq. (max of the first derivative of the function f(t)=A*sin(2*pi*f*t) ) must be equal to the angular coefficient of the "front rise" of the square wave. If the "front rise" is very different from a straight line we use the straight line passing through the dots at 10% and 90% of the front rise of the half square wave.
So:

But, sorry: where do I spoke about BW and Rise Time? But why do I have to show you my knowledge to express an opinion? How do you know my knowledge?


Are you shure?
Is this View attachment 79202
better than this?
View attachment 79203


Do I post something about "minimum phase" systems? ("linear phase" means same delay of all harmonics, "minimum phase" means minimum group delay, if I'm right).


Probably you haven't even saw the link I posted: a the same level of other links you can find Inner Fidelity - Headphone Measurements Explained - Square Wave Response: there are very basic (but useful) explanations.



"Pinna gain" and other stuff like this is related to support the HK curve: how you can see there "Where Are We At With The Harman Curve?" I'm not alone...

Perhaps you didn't read the Tyll Hertsens's interesting article about HK curve Inner Fidelity Headphone Measurements Explained
You can find very interesting analysis about human hearing, with all the stuff you like: torso, pinna, etc.

Sorry, I don't trust HK curve: is only my opinion. Stop. I you wish, I can explain why.

I prefer a "perfectly linear" transducer from electric signals to pressure: if we get a "convincing" and "definitive" HP equalization curve, we can always to reproduce it in the digital domain and use it if we trust it. If you get a HK native HP and someone discover a new curve, I think it will be a mess to de-equalise and re-equalise a device like this.

I read all those ages ago. Some are actually incorrect information. You are the one that think you know better but actually don't. @solderdude @Mad_Economist Would you guys please educate this very unique person how impulse response and square wave work in minimum phase system like most headphones?

 

[gcompari]

Main difference is that pro version has much more power with low impedance load. This is the sole reason Amir recommends it over non pro version. I like non pro version for it lower noise.
In terms of crosstalk, it's embedded in 3.5mm jack. Go and build a device with excellent crosstalk with 32ohm. Or just simply shut it up....

Main difference is that pro version has much more power with low impedance load. This is the sole reason Amir recommends it over non pro version. I like non pro version for it lower noise.

Probably you didn't read the @amirm review of Meizu HiFi DAC and Meizu HiFi DAC Pro. Please go back to the reviews and return...

In terms of crosstalk, it's embedded in 3.5mm jack. Go and build a device with excellent crosstalk with 32ohm. Or just simply shut it up....

Sorry one more time, I don't shut up at all: @IVX just told us that he reach 80 dB of crosstalk at 32 ohms with is #9038D. You are wrong again.

 

[JohnYang1997]

Probably you didn't read the @amirm review of Meizu HiFi DAC and Meizu HiFi DAC Pro. Please go back to the reviews and return...


Sorry one more time, I don't shut up at all: @IVX just told us that he reach 80 dB of crosstalk at 32 ohms with is #9038D. You are wrong again.

Ok. I'm wrong.