[Whitigir]

LKS has a dual 9038 unit: https://www.shenzhenaudio.com/l-k-s-audio-mh-da004-dual-es9038pro-flagship-dac-dsd-input-coaxial-bnc-aes-ebu-for-dop-usb-i2s-optical-audio-decoder.html

I have my concerns about the pricing of the X-Sabre Pro as well, I feel it would rule its niche at $1200 but that $1700 is putting it in competition with some of the better R2R units and other alternatives.

As well I think it's an oversight to not have all the newest bells and whistles such as the XU208. I have the original X-Sabre and the Singxer has completely put new life into it. I love the sound of the X-Sabre as fed by the F-1: cleaner, clearer and smoother. There is no way to know if  the Singxer would make a difference on the X-Sabre Pro, but it would be nice to have it in place there in any event.  

XU208 Is Xmos, the LsK doesn't use Xmos, and they stated that by using a more discrete design of USB card, they could have better power supply running and receiving from USB input, which to them sound better than any Xmos. The $1599 version is the one with the upgraded USB card and 82FS clocks. I never heard or witness the differences about this USB card, but I can say that OowerSupply is very important. So I picked it up

 

[LoryWiv]

The newly release Audi-gd NFB 1.38 also uses Sabre 9038, is 1/2 the price of the Matrix or LKS, and offers an  Amanero or XMOS208 USB interface. But I note it has a single DAC chip rather than dual like the LKS (not sure if the Matrix Pro is single or dual.). As the 9038 chip has 8 channels, is it necessarily superior to use dual chips rather than single and delegate 1/2 the channels of the single dac chip to each, left and right? I currently have an iDSD Micro with dual 9018 I am looking to upgrade, and appreciate thoughts as to whether the dual DAC design is a true technical and sound quality advantage or mostly marketing "hype."

 

[ArthurPower]

The picture of the X-Sabre Pro board that was posted is only part of the unit. There is a display/control board and power supply board. Separate compartments isolate each section in the case.

The use of dual DAC chips can make a nice improvement when using chips with only two channels. Now that we have eight channel DAC chips that are being used in a stereo design (4 per channel) the use of dual chips has very little value.

 

[Whitigir]

The newly release Audi-gd NFB 1.38 also uses Sabre 9038, is 1/2 the price of the Matrix or LKS, and offers an  Amanero or XMOS208 USB interface. But I note it has a single DAC chip rather than dual like the LKS (not sure if the Matrix Pro is single or dual.). As the 9038 chip has 8 channels, is it necessarily superior to use dual chips rather than single and delegate 1/2 the channels of the single dac chip to each, left and right? I currently have an iDSD Micro with dual 9018 I am looking to upgrade, and appreciate thoughts as to whether the dual DAC design is a true technical and sound quality advantage or mostly marketing "hype."

Yes, to use each chip for Mono application, you can get the absolute best performances out of each chip, or highest Dynamic range and signal to noise ratio, also ThD is lowest possible. That is why dual chip is the best that these chips can be. Beside that, the LsK has discrete class A output stage

 

[MLGrado]

  I currently have an iDSD Micro with dual 9018 I am looking to upgrade. 

 
iDSD Micro is dual Burr Brown DSD1793.  The iDAC two has a single DSD1793, I believe.  
 
I upgraded from the iDSD Micro to a W4S DAC-1LE.  It was a nice upgrade, but nowhere near as much as one might have expected for the price increase.  I don't know if the iDSD is truly the mythological 'giant killer', but, it does compete very well with DACs that cost a lot more.  If I could go back and do it again, I would have saved some more $$$ and gotten something that was significantly better, whatever that may be.  
 
I have my eyes on this X-Sabre Pro among others.  I really want the iFi iDSD Pro.  But its still in prototype form, I believe.  iFi says it is coming soon, but I am getting impatient....

 

[Whitigir]

iDSD Micro is dual Burr Brown DSD1793.  The iDAC two has a single DSD1793, I believe.  

I upgraded from the iDSD Micro to a W4S DAC-1LE.  It was a nice upgrade, but nowhere near as much as one might have expected for the price increase.  I don't know if the iDSD is truly the mythological 'giant killer', but, it does compete very well with DACs that cost a lot more.  If I could go back and do it again, I would have saved some more $$$ and gotten something that was significantly better, whatever that may be.  

I have my eyes on this X-Sabre Pro among others.  I really want the iFi iDSD Pro.  But its still in prototype form, I believe.  iFi says it is coming soon, but I am getting impatient....

Talk about being impatient...how could I be so patient when the Idsd Pro had been all the talk of the town for a year....and the 9038Pro was announced 6-7 months ago and the LsK is already using 2X of it . Ifi lost me this time

 

[LoryWiv]

   
iDSD Micro is dual Burr Brown DSD1793.  The iDAC two has a single DSD1793, I believe.  
 
 

You are right, sorry I misspoke!

 

[MINORISUKE]

I own X-Sabre Pro, and think that its biggest advantage is the "sync" mode through MCLK in I2S or clock synchronisation extracted from the input signal.
Connected with SU-1 via an HDMI cable, I can hear the difference cleary between "sync" and "async."  In "async," the internal 100MHz CCHD-957 is used, in "sync," CCHD-575 in SU-1.
X-Sabre Pro uses x1 ES9038PRO, whereas LKS MH-DA004 x2.  LKS, however, does not support the "sync" mode.  Pin No.10/12 in HDMI LVDS are void.  I wonder if a dual configuration without "sync" is superior to a singe one with "sync."  Of course, dual + "sync" is the best.
For other ES9038PRO DACs, Oppo Sonica DAC is with x1 and without "sync" mode.  I know nothing about Audio-gd products.
It seems that X-Sabre Pro is one of the few DACs that support "sync" mode.

 

[Whitigir]

I own X-Sabre Pro, and think that its biggest advantage is the "sync" mode through MCLK in I2S or clock synchronisation extracted from the input signal.

Connected with SU-1 via an HDMI cable, I can hear the difference cleary between "sync" and "async."  In "async," the internal 100MHz CCHD-957 is used, in "sync," CCHD-575 in SU-1.

X-Sabre Pro uses x1 ES9038PRO, whereas LKS MH-DA004 x2.  LKS, however, does not support the "sync" mode.  Pin No.10/12 in HDMI LVDS are void.  I wonder if a dual configuration without "sync" is superior to a singe one with "sync."  Of course, dual + "sync" is the best.

For other ES9038PRO DACs, Oppo Sonica DAC is with x1 and without "sync" mode.  I know nothing about Audio-gd products.

It seems that X-Sabre Pro is one of the few DACs that support "sync" mode.

LKS has upgraded USB card option too !

 

[MINORISUKE]

LKS has upgraded USB card option too !

 
I do not understand why my post was quoted to state the USB input of LKS DAC.
What I described is the clock which controls ES9038PRO, and has nothing to do with USB input.
MH-DA004 works only in "async" mode and uses the internal 100MHz clock to control ES9038PRO, regardless of the clock quality of the USB input.

 

[LoryWiv]

  I own X-Sabre Pro, and think that its biggest advantage is the "sync" mode through MCLK in I2S or clock synchronisation extracted from the input signal.
Connected with SU-1 via an HDMI cable, I can hear the difference cleary between "sync" and "async."  In "async," the internal 100MHz CCHD-957 is used, in "sync," CCHD-575 in SU-1.
X-Sabre Pro uses x1 ES9038PRO, whereas LKS MH-DA004 x2.  LKS, however, does not support the "sync" mode.  Pin No.10/12 in HDMI LVDS are void.  I wonder if a dual configuration without "sync" is superior to a singe one with "sync."  Of course, dual + "sync" is the best.
For other ES9038PRO DACs, Oppo Sonica DAC is with x1 and without "sync" mode.  I know nothing about Audio-gd products.
It seems that X-Sabre Pro is one of the few DACs that support "sync" mode.

Thanks for sharing your experience, MINORSUKE. That is really interesting and important....for those of us less technically savvy would've assumed that having the SU-1 earlier in the chain than the DAC would result in benefit from the SU-1's improvements in USB implementation including clock...hadn't considered the DAC would bypass it and use it's own. The more I learn the less I know!

 

[LoryWiv]

Regarding dual versus single 9038, the 9038 has 8 channels. Although I'm sure some would disagree, dual dac design may be less important when you have that many to allocate for the left / right channels if you are doing stereo not multi-channel.

 

[Whitigir]

Mono 9038 gains 5 more extra DB in dynamic range, which brings it to be the top DAC on the market. 140DB

 

[LoryWiv]

Mono 9038 gains 5 more extra DB in dynamic range, which brings it to be the top DAC on the market. 140DB

Point taken, Whitigir.

 

[LoryWiv]

Deleted.