[SciOC]

I just want to add one thing to the r6 pro/dx220/200 debate. I want them both.... Badly....

The ess9028q2m is the mobile version of the ess9028pro, and the Android hardware is much better for running Android. In addition, MSEB is a huge deal for people like me. The mobile DAC version isn't, by any means, greatly inferior to the pro. It's not like jumping from the akm4490 in the dx150 to the dx200 (which, btw, some people think the dx150 sounds better than the dx200' ie. HBB).

If the dx220 has a 9038pro (only one is needed) then the DAC competition is different, but 9028q2m to 9028pro is only a teeny tiny advantage to the dx200.

 

[gc335]

Do we know if iBasso is sticking to the 2.5bal, 3.5ho and 3.5 lo config as previous stock amp module for the 220?

 

[Whitigir]

No information available by far. Only that it is launched on April sometime and it will be at the Chicago show ?

 

[Luke Thomas]

No information available by far. Only that it is launched on April sometime and it will be at the Chicago show ?

When might ibasso even announce a release date?

 

[Fernando Goñi]

I just want to add one thing to the r6 pro/dx220/200 debate. I want them both.... Badly....

The ess9028q2m is the mobile version of the ess9028pro, and the Android hardware is much better for running Android. In addition, MSEB is a huge deal for people like me. The mobile DAC version isn't, by any means, greatly inferior to the pro. It's not like jumping from the akm4490 in the dx150 to the dx200 (which, btw, some people think the dx150 sounds better than the dx200' ie. HBB).

If the dx220 has a 9038pro (only one is needed) then the DAC competition is different, but 9028q2m to 9028pro is only a teeny tiny advantage to the dx200.

ESS9028PRO is an 8 channel architecture, while ESS9028Q2M is a 2 channel architecture, to me this is a very significant difference.

 

[SciOC]

ESS9028PRO is an 8 channel architecture, while ESS9028Q2M is a 2 channel architecture, to me this is a very significant difference.

How is that a big difference in this implementation for use with headphones? I don't understand why that would make any difference in this case...

 

[CobraMan]

How is that a big difference in this implementation for use with headphones? I don't understand why that would make any difference in this case...

Joe and I had a dialog going in the R6 Pro thread about dual mono DAC's versus using having dual DAC each convert both channels then combine the analog signals downstream - which it appears is a key difference in how dual DAC's of the DX90 era differ from the dual DAC's of the R6/R6 Pro (and I believe I read that the M5s also follows the R6/R6 Pro approach). So one could extrapolate this to your question and the 8 channel DAC could be implemented in a few different ways to end up being similar to either dual DAC approach. For the 2 channel DAC - most likely a good reason why the higher end devices utilize dual 2 channel DAC's to achieve higher performance.

Just a thought...

Cheers,
Tim

 

[SciOC]

Joe and I had a dialog going in the R6 Pro thread about dual mono DAC's versus using having dual DAC each convert both channels then combine the analog signals downstream - which it appears is a key difference in how dual DAC's of the DX90 era differ from the dual DAC's of the R6/R6 Pro (and I believe I read that the M5s also follows the R6/R6 Pro approach). So one could extrapolate this to your question and the 8 channel DAC could be implemented in a few different ways to end up being similar to either dual DAC approach. For the 2 channel DAC - most likely a good reason why the higher end devices utilize dual 2 channel DAC's to achieve higher performance.

Just a thought...

Cheers,
Tim

In that case, Two 2 channel DACs makes sense for balanced mode given one can be the + and one the -., but 2 eight channel DACs doesn't seem to me to add anything to a 2 channel setup, they'd just be redundant/not used.

Unless I'm missing something there....

 

[Fernando Goñi]

How is that a big difference in this implementation for use with headphones? I don't understand why that would make any difference in this case...

A digital channel can be used in two ways:

• To convert one digital signal into an Analogue signal (and viceversa). Therefore one DAC with 2 channels is enough for stereo
  
• To increase the apparent sampling speed of a single waveform by, in this particular case, 8 . Suppose, each single individual channel is run at a frequency say F (=1/T) , if you want to use multiple channels( to increase sampling frequency), run them at the speed say 8F . Sample the same waveform at 8 different instants in one T on 8 different channels sequentially. Still, individual channels are run at F frequency only.

So, depending how you use the channels it can be a big difference, I guess this is why DX200 can do DSD512 while R6 not

 

[CobraMan]

In that case, Two 2 channel DACs makes sense for balanced mode given one can be the + and one the -., but 2 eight channel DACs doesn't seem to me to add anything to a 2 channel setup, they'd just be redundant/not used.

Unless I'm missing something there....

I totally agree with you. The power consumption and additional complexity most likely would outweigh any benefits. After all - analog amplification circuits are very efficient and effective at doing their job.

Although - the DX200 does use 2 of the ES9028PRO DAC's but not sure if they run one DAC for each channel or run multiple channels through each DAC before combining. Maybe someone else has some insight into that...

Cheers,
Tim

 

[Whitigir]

A digital channel can be used in two ways:

• To convert one digital signal into an Analogue signal (and viceversa). Therefore one DAC with 2 channels is enough for stereo
  
• To increase the apparent sampling speed of a single waveform by, in this particular case, 8 . Suppose, each single individual channel is run at a frequency say F (=1/T) , if you want to use multiple channels( to increase sampling frequency), run them at the speed say 8F . Sample the same waveform at 8 different instants in one T on 8 different channels sequentially. Still, individual channels are run at F frequency only.

So, depending how you use the channels it can be a big difference, I guess this is why DX200 can do DSD512 while R6 not

Yes, Hardware implementations . Thank you for saying it better than I do. Not only does DSD512 needs a lot of power, processing speed, but also clock precision’s and very low jitter controls. Without a good engineering efforts, most likely DSD512 would not process right.

Even my Amanero piece within my desktop DAC have problems with some filters on DSD512 while the DX200 does not

 

[SciOC]

A digital channel can be used in two ways:

• To convert one digital signal into an Analogue signal (and viceversa). Therefore one DAC with 2 channels is enough for stereo
  
• To increase the apparent sampling speed of a single waveform by, in this particular case, 8 . Suppose, each single individual channel is run at a frequency say F (=1/T) , if you want to use multiple channels( to increase sampling frequency), run them at the speed say 8F . Sample the same waveform at 8 different instants in one T on 8 different channels sequentially. Still, individual channels are run at F frequency only.

So, depending how you use the channels it can be a big difference, I guess this is why DX200 can do DSD512 while R6 not

Ahhh, I see.

A digital channel can be used in two ways:

• To convert one digital signal into an Analogue signal (and viceversa). Therefore one DAC with 2 channels is enough for stereo
  
• To increase the apparent sampling speed of a single waveform by, in this particular case, 8 . Suppose, each single individual channel is run at a frequency say F (=1/T) , if you want to use multiple channels( to increase sampling frequency), run them at the speed say 8F . Sample the same waveform at 8 different instants in one T on 8 different channels sequentially. Still, individual channels are run at F frequency only.

So, depending how you use the channels it can be a big difference, I guess this is why DX200 can do DSD512 while R6 not

Thanks for the explanation of point two. I'm not sure this really could have much impact on Fidelity outside of being capable of dsd512 (something I personally care nothing about). If it did, the gain would be, at best, quite minimal, and it would have a high energy cost.


That being said, I really wish Hiby would have upgraded the DAC in the pro to the 9038, and I hope ibasso does so in the dx220.

 

[Whitigir]

Ahhh, I see.

Thanks for the explanation of point two. I'm not sure this really could have much impact on Fidelity outside of being capable of dsd512 (something I personally care nothing about). If it did, the gain would be, at best, quite minimal, and it would have a high energy cost.


That being said, I really wish Hiby would have upgraded the DAC in the pro to the 9038, and I hope ibasso does so in the dx220.

Higher Dynamic range upto 135Db where as Q2M is only upto 129Db.

9038Pro even if using Single Chip can only obtain 137Db of dynamic range, where as ES9028Pro mono can only attain 135Db. However 9038Pro in Dual configuration can attain upto 140Db, the industry highest Dynamic range.

Ak4499EQ is coming 2 years later, which is out by May this year, and will be able to do similar

 

[Luke Thomas]

When might ibasso even announce a release date?

Not sure. Hopefully within a month we can get a release date from Ibasso.

 

[Whitigir]

Release date is somewhere April