Sabaj A20d 2023 DAC & HP Amp Review

[uwotm8]

Rossini looks better IMO, the 3rd harmonic is same level or lower and there are no high order harmonics present unlike in the Sabaj. Harmonics decay monotonically.

First rival what comes to my mind is Loxjie D40 Pro

 

[NTK]

I refer you to Amir's review here <https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...hord-mojo-2-review-portable-dac-hp-amp.34160/>,
"You get the full audio band to nearly 22 kHz and then excellent attenuation. This is what I hope every DAC chip/company implements instead of the lazy ones we see where cut off is at 24 kHz."

Also see any reviews of devices using ESS DACs.

I will have to say in this case Amir is wrong. The math is very clear that in order for the "image" to "reflect" back to below 20 kHz with a 44.1 kHz sampling rate, the frequency of the image must be >24.1 kHz. Therefore 24.1 kHz should be the frequency where the stopband attenuation is specified.

 

[DearSX]

This looks like all the pre/HP/DAC most anyone needs. All its missing is the 12v trigger to a power amp and an EQ.

 

[amirm]

I assume the usa version comes with a remote.

It does. I meant to mention that as I forgot to put it in the picture.

 

[Tovarich007]

Well, all in all, one more very good performer for not much money from a now rather well know chinese brand.
Though, I don't like much the handsets on the front, that's useless, fake pro look.
The new Toppings of the 7 Pro Sabre series and the two brand new SMSL DO300EX DAC and DO400 DAC are much more to my taste as for styling, at approximately the same price level for the two last ones (the Topping 7 new series are separate DAC/Head amps combos and about 2 times more expensive, though reasonably priced considering their quality level).

IMO, comparisons based on pure objective measured performances with the ultra (too much) expensive DSC Rossini are irrelevant : they're not intended for the same market nor the same use, they're not based on the same technology as for the DCS. Yes, top range pro and high end brands like DCS, Merging, Prism Sound, etc, are making VERY expensive products, but they're also making VERY good ones. Reliability on the long term and brand services matter too, not only the price tag nor the pure SInad ! I never heard of a major recording, broadcasting or mastering studio using Sabaj or Topping Dacs (maybe it will change soon, but now, that's it).

Now, I would ask for an important precision : in his review, Amir says the first setting shows much more distorsion and spurious tones. How is called this setting, is it the default one ?
It should have been preferable to tell us more about that and to specify precisley which is this setting, in order to avoid some disappointment for buyers who could use this setting by default. And why is it so much worse than the others, which seems to me a flaw.

 

[amirm]

Even if it were the case, has anyone ever successfully detected such differences in a proper double blind test when the distortion products are >110dB down?

Doesn't matter in this case. dCS is being sold based on objective facts that it is a more accurate DAC implementation. The test I ran shows that is not the case compared to an ultralow cost DAC. To that end, JA's summary is incorrect (based on this single test at least):

"Overall, the dCS Rossini Apex's measured performance was beyond reproach.—John Atkinson"

The right comment would have been, "while this is excellent performance for a discrete DAC implementation, better results can be had using integrated circuits at much lower cost."

 

[amirm]

IMO, comparisons based on pure objective measured performances with the ultra (too much) expensive DSC Rossini are irrelevant : they're not intended for the same market nor the same use, they're not based on the same technology as for the DCS.

They are actually. The customer for both DACs wants the best digital to analog converter they can get. The "use" is absolutely the same. This DAC matches and beats dCS (again, in this one common test) so the customer better pause and think about that. The marketing message around expensive DACs will carry them forward for a while longer but folks need to start to wonder where the story ends.

 

[The Dragon]

They are actually. The customer for both DACs wants the best digital to analog converter they can get. The "use" is absolutely the same. This DAC matches and beats dCS (again, in this one common test) so the customer better pause and think about that. The marketing message around expensive DACs will carry them forward for a while longer but folks need to start to wonder where the story ends.

I would add to your statement that this very forum, and you specifically, have been instrumental leveling the playing field for so-called audiophile DACs by using scientific facts and state-of-the-art measurement techniques. Much respect, sir.

 

[GXAlan]

They are actually. The customer for both DACs wants the best digital to analog converter they can get. The "use" is absolutely the same. This DAC matches and beats dCS (again, in this one common test) so the customer better pause and think about that. The marketing message around expensive DACs will carry them forward for a while longer but folks need to start to wonder where the story ends.

Can you run some of the other tests that Stereophile does for comparison ?

1) Channel separation (not shown) was superb, at >125dB in both directions below 1kHz decreasing to a still excellent 113dB at the top of the audioband.

2) Fig.17 dCS Rossini Apex, balanced output, F6, 24-bit TosLink data, HF intermodulation spectrum, DC–30kHz, 19+20kHz at 0dBFS into 100k ohms, 44.1kHz data

 

[polmuaddib]

The "use" is absolutely the same

With all due respect, i would argue that their function is the same, but their "use" isn't. And not all audiphiles are the same. We have a tendency to box people and simplify personalities, when the truth is we are different.
We have different social status, income and other interests beside audio, but all that comes into play when we choose our audio toys. And toys they are, whether we compare them to watches or cars, wine, whatever. For some people, they are trophies.
My point is there is more to HiFi device beside how they sound (measure) and I am also against judging people's choices.

That said, I strongly feel that measurements and their explanation is extremely important, so that some poor middle class soul doesn't get a second mortgage to buy dCS thinking it will sound 100 times better then a Sabaj. For that purpose alone, ASR is doing an immense service to the community.

 

[amirm]

With all due respect, i would argue that their function is the same, but their "use" isn't. And not all audiphiles are the same. We have a tendency to box people and simplify personalities, when the truth is we are different.

There is no confusion there. We know that brand, status, etc. matter to consumers. It is just that no self-respecting high-end audiophile would admit that is why they are buying something. They think and say it is the best sound/performance.

I had a multi-thousand dollar DAC that I replaced with a Topping. There is a feeling of emptiness that comes from putting such a small box in my rack instead of the massive DAC I had in there before. But I did do the switch because it was the right thing to do. The Topping is more performant in every regard.

 

[GXAlan]

There is no confusion there. We know that brand, status, etc. matter to consumers. It is just that no self-respecting high-end audiophile would admit that is why they are buying something. They think and say it is the best sound/performance.

+1. I lost my respect as an audiophile once I brought the Bose 901 into one of my primary systems.

Still, the biggest problem in audiophoolery today is separating math from not-math.

Think about computers. No one wants a vacuum tube computer for computation. It might be cool to own one as it would be cool to own an Antithykera replica. But technology moves forward.

For DACs, the main reason to get a dCS is the reason one might want something Western Electric. It’s cool to have something that draws back to the Typhoon fighter.

But just as tubes were once better than germanium solid state amplifiers, discrete components were once better than ICs. In the present day, the amount of refinement and economies of scale for ICs means that DACs from AKM and ESS are incredible. For all those who seem to disparage these budget high performance DACs as being from China, it’s important to remember that AKM is Japanese and ESS is American. It’s the global collaboration that has led to the gear we have now. You can certainly find products manufacturered/assembled outside of China with the same AKM or ESS technology.

I had a multi-thousand dollar DAC that I replaced with a Topping. There is a feeling of emptiness that comes from putting such a small box in my rack instead of the massive DAC I had in there before. But I did do the switch because it was the right thing to do. The Topping is more performant in every regard.

+1. Time moves on. The key, is that when your multithousand dollar DAC came out, you had years of enjoyment.

It’s no different that radar cruise control and automatic emergency braking being something that was a multi thousand dollar option that is today standard on many cars.

We just want the established audio luxury companies to innovate like Porsche. Rear engine has a lot of downsides compared to electric or a mid-engine design. But the 911 continues to evolve with measured performance.

If they don’t innovate like Porsche, then innovate like Toyota and give me something with longevity and reliability that will never suddenly die on me when powering it on.

 

[manisandher]

The target upper frequency range of audio DAC has always been flat to 20 kHz. With 44.1 kHz sampling rate, Nyquist frequency is 22.05 kHz, therefore the aliasing artifacts above 22.05 kHz are "reflected back" with the mirroring point at this frequency. The aliased component reflected to 20 kHz is thus 22.05 + (22.05 - 20) = 24.1 kHz. This is the reason stop band is specified at 24.1 kHz, because only signals above this frequency are aliased into the pass band.

The math is very clear that in order for the "image" to "reflect" back to below 20 kHz with a 44.1 kHz sampling rate, the frequency of the image must be >24.1 kHz. Therefore 24.1 kHz should be the frequency where the stopband attenuation is specified.

Like many others, you're confusing 'aliasing' with 'imaging'.

Aliasing happens in an ADC, not in a DAC. I repeat, there is zero aliasing occuring in a DAC. In an ADC, as you say, aliasing artifacts will be reflected back above 22.05kHz. In order to avoid them <20kHz, one could argue that the stop band doesn't need to be until 24.1 kHz. Personally, I think we should stick to Nyquist.

Imaging happens in a DAC. Images above Nyquist do not reflect back. However, they may cause IMD <20kHz. And in any event, all distortion, irrespective of where it sits, should be minimised. All DACs should therefore have max attenuation before Nyquist.

Mani.

 

[NTK]

Like many others, you're confusing 'aliasing' with 'imaging'.

Aliasing happens in an ADC, not in a DAC. I repeat, there is zero aliasing occuring in a DAC. In an ADC, as you say, aliasing artifacts will be reflected back above 22.05kHz. In order to avoid them <20kHz, one could argue that the stop band doesn't need to be until 24.1 kHz. Personally, I think we should stick to Nyquist.

You are correct. I wasn't precise with my terminology.

[Edit] Then it would be inconsistent to accept passband roll-off to begin at 20 kHz. Since it is accepted that contents in the region 20-22.05 kHz will not meet the passband requirements, there is no reason not to allow some images to reflect into the 20-22.05 kHz band, and specify anti-imaging filter stop band at 24.1 kHz.

 

[Ajax]

I find some of the comments in this thread very strange. I really don't understand why you would spend more money on a piece of hifi than necessary.

When I listen to music I want the best sound and engineering performance (SOTA) at the lowest price possible. As long as the gear (DAC / Amplifier) is transparent, so I can hear what the musician/mixing engineer wants me to hear, I'm good.

If I want a piece of art or furniture for my home (or jewellery / watch to wear) that's what I'll buy.

 

[AudioSceptic]

Even if it were the case, has anyone ever successfully detected such differences in a proper double blind test when the distortion products are >110dB down?

How about -100, or even -96?

 

[Bmoze]

Does the 2023 Sabaj A20d remote respond well from 10 feet without having to point it with laser focus at the unit?
Thank you!

I doubt it, but I'd like to know this, too. I have two 2022 A20d's, and both remotes are finicky and frustrating. Certainly the brand's weak link, in my experience.

 

[Acerun]

Wouldn't even think of displacing my RME which I would keep any day and twice on Friday.

 

[restorer-john]

I've come to realize if the remote is not reliable, I'm absolutely not interested in the DAC. I wish ASR tested remote capability. When you sit 10 feet away on the couch and you can't get the DAC volume control to work easily with the remote - it's a junk product for me no matter what the SINAD measurement is. This is a problem with all the Topping DACs I purchased. Meanwhile, the RME ADI-2 remote works amazingly well.

I agree with you. But until some other third parties start actually testing the abilities of remotes and their respective receivers and publishing that, there will be little pressure on ASR reviewers to do the same.

Remote volume on a DAC is arguably the most important attribute for all the guys who use them directly into an amplifier.

 

[GXAlan]

Remote volume on a DAC is arguably the most important attribute for all the guys who use them directly into an amplifier.

Second most. Most important attribute is not randomly going to full output.