Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › $999 Calyx M with DXD + DSD, 64GB + SD + µSD storage
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

$999 Calyx M with DXD + DSD, 64GB + SD + µSD storage - Page 157

post #2341 of 5552
Quote:
Originally Posted by the wizard of oz View Post

No, the DX100 does use the desktop grade ES9018. The DX90 uses the mobile version.
dx21.jpg

 

WOW! I am impressed...

post #2342 of 5552
Quote:
Originally Posted by piercer View Post
 

 

WOW! I am impressed...

 

And hifiman stuffed TWO desktop ess9018 into hm901... having said that, dac chips are just part of the equation, as the sound will also depend A LOT on the circuitry and components around the DAC chip(s)...  I'm still a firm believer that it is easier to design for good sound in a larger space than a smaller one, and with a bigger power supply than a smaller one.  

post #2343 of 5552

ES9018K2M offers 2 channels per DAC chip, as opposed to the 8 channels of the desktop ES9018 variant, apparently, but many are saying that the DX90 (dual ES9018K2M) sounds wonderful, and D&A are no slouches with ES9018 desktop DACs, so their faith in their implementation of a single ES9018K2M in the Calyx-M is unlikely to be misplaced.

 

On a purely physical level, I posted a comparison pic of each chip in the DX90 thread, back in December:

 

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/697035/ibasso-dx90-dual-sabre-es9018k2m-new-amp-section-review-imforation-1st-page/285#post_10115514

 

 

As we all know, implementation is a major factor, so, given that D&A have plenty of practice with the ES9018 desktop chip in their desktop 'Femto' DAC, I remain confident that they'll have done a decent job in this, their first DAP venture.

 

It remains to be seen how much subjective 'grunt' they've managed to achieve from the casually-quoted approx 90mw power output, which, of course, is where the big brick DAPs (HM-901 and DX100/HDP-R10) excel (but they're too big for those of us who actually use a DAP in our pocket, rather than in a rucksack/on a workdesk - as it is, the jump from 160g to 230g has been a big letdown for me and put the Calyx-M perilously close to HM-901 250gram / DX100 265gram brick territory, in spite of the M being circa 10mm thinner).

 

 

Actually, whilst we're on the topic of the various pros/cons/implementations of ES9018 variants, if any of you care to chip-in, James (fiio) is asking for feedback on the topic here:

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/715336/in-favor-of-double-es9018m2k-or-single-es9018

 

 

.


Edited by Mython - 4/28/14 at 12:04pm
post #2344 of 5552

Those are bricks because of their thickness not weight.  Talking about the weight of a bag of chips here ;)

post #2345 of 5552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solude View Post
 

Those are bricks because of their thickness not weight.  Talking about the weight of a bag of chips here ;)

 

No, they are bricks because of their weight and because of their thickness.

 

Anyone who has attempted to walk around town with a 265g  DX100 stuffed in their jeans/pants/trousers pocket will, unfortunately, know this all too well :confused_face: 

 

It's not a DX100s thickness that tries to pull your trousers down, it's the weight!

post #2346 of 5552
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkcc View Post
 

 

And hifiman stuffed TWO desktop ess9018 into hm901... having said that, dac chips are just part of the equation, as the sound will also depend A LOT on the circuitry and components around the DAC chip(s)...  I'm still a firm believer that it is easier to design for good sound in a larger space than a smaller one, and with a bigger power supply than a smaller one.  

Ok, now this needs to be ask, why the hell would you stuff two ESS9018 inside?  What does the 16 channels do for us?  Does SQ scale up with more channels?

 

:popcorn: 

post #2347 of 5552

Same reason they do two of any dac... marketing ;)  Now if they were balanced dacs and only using stereo dac chips then two makes sense but otherwise... marketing.

post #2348 of 5552

Does anybody know what it is about the AK240's design that creates good SQ?  Is there any explanation for it?  I'm just curious what it is in it's design makes it perform better than the others.  Same goes for the 901.

post #2349 of 5552

Well the most obvious answer is that the AK models are discrete designs and not opamp chains like the rest of them.

post #2350 of 5552

I haven't seen any internal shots of either the AK240 or M but Calyx typically uses opamps.

post #2351 of 5552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solude View Post
 

Well the most obvious answer is that the AK models are discrete designs and not opamp chains like the rest of them.

Can you expand on this?  Or have any links with more explanation on this?  I don't know about discrete designs vs opamp chains.

post #2352 of 5552
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverEars View Post

Ok, now this needs to be ask, why the hell would you stuff two ESS9018 inside?  What does the 16 channels do for us?  Does SQ scale up with more channels?

popcorn.gif  


Good question... below some relevant discussion from another thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClieOS View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ag8908 View Post

What does the eight way output of the full strength 9018 mean? Can you hear those eight things if you're, say, playing a ripped CD file (16 bit, 44.1 khz wav file no loss)? Or do you need a very high resolution file to hear it (like a 24 bit 96khz file, of which very few exist)? Thanks

Okay, might be a bit confusing here but you don't actually hear an 'eight way output' on ES9018 - you just hear two, left and right. The 8 cores are working as 2 groups, 4 each, to output 2 channels sound. This is just like having quad cores processor in your smartphone doesn't mean the screen will divide into 4 portion, each run by a single cores. Instead , the internal workload is divided by 4, then recombined to give you a faster processing speed. The benefit is not limited to HD files either, because better is better (higher SNR, etc) and it can be heard regardless whether it is 16/44.1 or 24/192. Of course, implementation is the key.


My view in the same thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkcc View Post


...

Balanced out / balanced DACs are more for "buzzword compliant" than for real benefit to SQ but since it's good for marketing, you should also consider that.  If space allow, 4-pin mini xlr would be best, else I like my 901's single jack trs/trrs toggle design better than my AK240's separate jacks (well I understand its 3.5mm jack is already combo for Opt out).

I believe the circuitry around the dac can deliver more difference than e number of DAC/cores used. However, when all else being equal, I can believe more cores/dac is better for sq but at the expense of battery/heat.
post #2353 of 5552

Not sure about linking the banned guy.  ;-)  The O2 is good but it isn't as good as he thinks. He is pretty black and white in his approach.

 

To the best of my knowledge, all current DAPs have opamps. The Hugo (which is not a DAP), might be fully discrete?

 

Discreet circuitry properly done can be excellent though. My Pico Power uses opamps but has a discreet output stage. I still have not heard a portable amp that can compete.  

post #2354 of 5552

I didn't think it was relevant at all that he was banned and i know of his rep but sure, i take your point. ) 

 

I guess all i was getting at is that to say the AK240 sounds as good as it allegedly does is because is uses discrete circuitry is a small part of the story. That alone does not indicate by itself that the Calyx M would be inferior. 

post #2355 of 5552

True but the day I find an amp or dac that uses opamps and buffers that sounds as good as even simple discrete circuits... hasn't come yet.  They measure well by virtue of massive open loop gain that require massive feedback loops to bring them back down to usable levels.  Some are better than others but most most opamps are built to win the spec war.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › $999 Calyx M with DXD + DSD, 64GB + SD + µSD storage