In favor of double ES9018M2K or single ES9018?

[tomscy2000]

  You don't know what you're talking about. An 8000 mah battery isn't that big at all.

 
 
Since you've suggested the 8000 mAh battery, maybe you can go research the dimensions of what a typical 8000 mAh battery pack is, and tell us? We can then add on about double that thickness for the other parts, e.g. PCB board, screen, etc. and then we can decide whether that final size is acceptable to people. Personally, I'm willing to wager that it'll be far too large for most people to consider as a portable device.
 

---

 
Also, this thread is getting off-topic. We're discussing the merits of (2x) ES9018K2M versus (1x) ES9018S, not the overall specifications for the X7. That discussion should be perpetuated here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/715372/feature-suggestions-for-x7-flagship-dap

 

[Mython]

The issue here is that there are desktop Head-fiers who seem to think that anything that weighs 500g or less, and is the size of a DX100 / HM-901 (or even larger) constitutes 'portable'.
 
 
However, that kind of bulk is utterly useless for head-fiers who use a DAP in their pocket (and I don't mean a jacket pocket, I mean trousers/pants/jeans, because one doesn't wear jackets all summer).
 
 
So, even though DX100 and HM-901 already sound amazing, and can easily drive most cans, some desktop head-fiers still want every flagship DAP to be as bulky as hell.    And for what?
 
 
The leading edge of the marketplace is a DAP with a decent feature list and SQ, but without being a bulky brick that requires a rucksack or bumbag/fannypack to carry it.
 
There simply isn't any point in building a new DAP that's bulky, because one can already buy a DX100, HM-901, or any DAP and stack it with an amp.
 
 
Anyway, this is about DAC chips, so it seems quite obvious to me that the more efficient DAC chips would be preferable (provided they still have flagship SQ, which, happily, it appears they do). That places less demands upon the power supply / battery, aside from the amp stage.
 
 
.

 

[ag8908]

yeah but if you're not going to get any real performance, which requires power, you might as well just stick with your mobile phone. there are chinese mobile phones out there with ESS9018km2 chips. they'll be available in the U.S. soon I imagine.

 

[Mython]

  yeah but if you're not going to get any real performance, which requires power, you might as well just stick with your mobile phone. there are chinese mobile phones out there with ESS9018km2 chips. they'll be available in the U.S. soon I imagine.

 
Who says you're 'not going to get any real performance' from a 9018K2M chip?
 
Just because mobile phones that use that chip don't sound great doesn't mean it's the chips fault.
 
 
I suggest you take a listen to an iBasso DX90 or a Calyx-M and then see if the ES9018K2M fails to achieve 'any real performance'.
 
I certainly intend to, and James wouldn't even ask about possibility of using ES9018K2M for his flagship DAP design, if he didn't think it would perform at flagship level.
 
 
.

 

[tomscy2000]

  yeah but if you're not going to get any real performance, which requires power, you might as well just stick with your mobile phone. there are chinese mobile phones out there with ESS9018km2 chips. they'll be available in the U.S. soon I imagine.

 
What constitutes "real performance" to you and how that "real performance" is achieved?

 

[zikarus]

You have made your point pal, but others may have a different perspective. Let me (kind of) "cite" you: if you want something small go with the players already available being the iBasso DX90 or a X3/5 which deliver the best possible in the range of sizes you seem to prefer.

I am looking for something better than these as well as the other, bigger devices you named.

And since sound depends on (=is) power in the end and power needs volume sizewise, using actual technology, there can be no compromise: you can either build something optimized in size or sound. I don't know, whether one could build something sounding better than let's say the DX90 and still keep its small size. The Tera Player maybe?

But I do know, that one cannot build something sounding significantly (=much) better than the DX90 at a still reasonable price without making such a device significantly larger...

The issue here is that there are desktop Head-fiers who seem to think that anything that weighs 500g or less, and is the size of a DX100 / HM-901 (or even larger) constitutes 'portable'.


However, that kind of bulk is utterly useless for head-fiers who use a DAP in their pocket (and I don't mean a jacket pocket, I mean trousers/pants/jeans, because one doesn't wear jackets all summer).


So, even though DX100 and HM-901 already sound amazing, and can easily drive most cans, some desktop head-fiers still want every flagship DAP to be as bulky as hell.    And for what?


The leading edge of the marketplace is a DAP with a decent feature list and SQ,but without being a bulky brickthat requires a rucksack or bumbag/fannypack to carry it.

There simply isn't any point in building a new DAP that's bulky, because one can already buy a DX100, HM-901, or any DAP and stack it with an amp.


Anyway, this is about DAC chips, so it seems quite obvious to me that the more efficient DAC chips would be preferable (provided they still have flagship SQ, which, happily, it appears they do). That places less demands upon the power supply / battery, aside from the amp stage.


.

 

[musicheaven]

If one is looking for something better than the above, there are plenty of ESS9018 based desktop units, in fact maybe too many. One thing one does not want is another one. So for sure they'll be some serious compromise to make and the battery used in the unt is going to be a critical one. Having power savy components help in reducing the size of that power source. One critical item which is always mentionned in any dac implementation is the source of power for the dac, it must be clean if it has a chance of keeping a low noise floor. So as long FiiO is keeping those critical compromises in mind and provide a reasonable portable unit, the interest will be alive and well.

 

[zikarus]

What will make one or especially you spend 700 for something already available for 400 (DX90)? In my case this could only be a device giving me an upgrade soundwise. Since the DX90 is very good the X7 can only become a success if it will be significantly better than the devices mentioned above. To be better using the same DAC its implementation as well as its amp section need to be upgraded. This can only be achieved with a sufficient internal power supply and all in all more space will be required. My 5c. Oao

Note 3 tapatalking....

 

[jbr1971]

I'm not an electrical engineer, but I have been doing some spec comparisons between the ES9018, ES9018K2M, & PCM1792 (which is in the X5). The power draws appear to line up this way:
 
ES9018K2M  mobile      <40mW
ES9018         desktop   100mw
PCM1792      X5            205-335mw (hard to find definitive numbers)
 
If these numbers are right I don't see why going with the ES9018 would be a bad thing if it comes in with lower consumption than the PCM1792. To me the X5 seems to do a very good job with battery life with a single PCM1792.
 
I would hope Fiio's engineers could drag as much battery life out of a single ES9018 as a PCM1792 in a comparable sized package.
 
James, or anyone else, if I am completely off-base please correct me as to the power consumption of the PCM1792 compared to the ESxxxx's.

 

[tinara]

Like stated by someone else before, I'll go for a single ESS9018-K2M because... well, it is a chip build with portable use on mind. Personally when I sew Ibasso making a dual-dac from the ESS-9018K2M, I felt angry. Angry because it's meaningless, just looking power consumption wise between dual ESS9018-K2M and an ESS9018. It's a mistake. Of course, some will say that "Hell, Dual Dac improves SNR and DR!". OK but can your ear it ? When I look to the spec' of a ESS9018K2M, I don't think they need some precious improvements. They're great in fact. So, if you plan to put a battery-hunger screen with Android on top of it, saves power elsewhere (for exemple the DAC chip consumption ).
 
An another benefit, I think for the K2M versus the old brother is that thier implementation is based on SMD instead of fat caps for the ESS9018 (if I recall correctly).

 

[kkcc]

  Like stated by someone else before, I'll go for a single ESS9018-K2M because... well, it is a chip build with portable use on mind. Personally when I sew Ibasso making a dual-dac from the ESS-9018K2M, I felt angry. Angry because it's meaningless, just looking power consumption wise between dual ESS9018-K2M and an ESS9018. It's a mistake. Of course, some will say that "Hell, Dual Dac improves SNR and DR!". OK but can your ear it ? When I look to the spec' of a ESS9018K2M, I don't think they need some precious improvements. They're great in fact. So, if you plan to put a battery-hunger screen with Android on top of it, saves power elsewhere (for exemple the DAC chip consumption ).
 
An another benefit, I think for the K2M versus the old brother is that thier implementation is based on SMD instead of fat caps for the ESS9018 (if I recall correctly).

 
Well I guess this "angry" feeling could be more justified for another brand who has a pricey single wm8740 model and a dual wm8740 model that is double the price, than for a brand that give you 90% SQ of their 100 flagship at a cheaper price....  

 

[Mython]

   
Well I guess this "angry" feeling could be more justified for another brand who has a pricey single wm8740 model and a dual wm8740 model that is double the price, than for a brand that give you 90% SQ of their 100 flagship at a cheaper price....  

 
 

 

[tinara]

   
Well I guess this "angry" feeling could be more justified for another brand who has a pricey single wm8740 model and a dual wm8740 model that is double the price, than for a brand that give you 90% SQ of their 100 flagship at a cheaper price....  

Like you said

My main problem was not specially of much the DX90 is near of the DX100. It is more that they used the ESS9018-K2M without any good reasons. That's assumption, it's only true for me. When Sabre put in market the K2M, I was expect to see dap using it alone with its low power consumption not to use it in dual dac to have 80% of the power consumption of the ESS9018. For the "other" brand :

. We are not going to hijack the thread but i felt "angry" too.

 

[kkcc]

Like you said :wink_face: My main problem was not specially of much the DX90 is near of the DX100. It is more that they used the ESS9018-K2M without any good reasons. That's assumption, it's only true for me. When Sabre put in market the K2M, I was expect to see dap using it alone with its low power consumption not to use it in dual dac to have 80% of the power consumption of the ESS9018. For the "other" brand : :wink_face: . We are not going to hijack the thread but i felt "angry" too.

Lol but then I am he sucker who spend gazilliadriple the price for their "ultimate" model (for now) lol.

Back to the next Fiio flagship, I wonder from PURELY a marketing perspective if it is wise to go with the same dual 9018k2m as the dx90. No matter how they sounded, the mass buying public, even within our niche, is still easily sway by specs and numbers on paper and think they are the same class. With the same DAC setup it might be hard for Fiio to convince this is a new flagship above the x5 who is in the same price (and probably performance) bracket of dx90. What would be the differentiator? Is it an insane amp? Rollable opamps? Fully discrete with god caps? Balanced? Seems nothing could be more "simple" as saying it's "next generation" "quad-dac" "double balanced" .... whatever jargon with 4x 9018k2m chips for 4core per channel than the same 4core per with a single 8core 9018 chip.

Being involved in many product development and commercialization in different fields, I can understand how "buzzword compliant" is important or even critical to floating or sinking. You can't really fault the makers doing that as most buyers aren't as tech/spec/dac savvy as people who take interest in a thread like this. If you read the Schitt start up story you will see Jason insisted on 24/192 for the bifrost even he or Mike are not convinced of any advantage over 24/96....

btw the whole Schitt story (still on-going) is a fantastic read, and schitt even acknowledge how difficult and thin margin making DAPs would be! It would be very interesting if James or other DAP brands would share more on their design decision considerations, constrain, and the final resolutions in future!

 

[quanaris]

Actually Sabre Dac is not the best solution for DAPs. I would take a look at PCMs or AKMs.