[EraserXIV]

Interesting thoughts, yes I agree it is unfortunate they continued to use the TE7022. I had a couple of audio-gd's DACs when they were still using that chip and remember them being not so good. It is nice to hear that the performance overall is improved though and comparable to the Dragonfly. I had been looking at this for portable listening and won't really do the most discerning listening in that setting anyway. Very helpful, thanks Tom 

 

 

[Armaegis]

Are they employing a discrete buffer stage now? or another opamp or IC as the buffer chip?

 

[tomscy2000]

  Interesting thoughts, yes I agree it is unfortunate they continued to use the TE7022. I had a couple of audio-gd's DACs when they were still using that chip and remember them being not so good. It is nice to hear that the performance overall is improved though and comparable to the Dragonfly. I had been looking at this for portable listening and won't really do the most discerning listening in that setting anyway. Very helpful, thanks Tom 

 

 
I think people will like the E10K; it's quite the leap ahead of the E10. Also, keep in mind that I've been testing with their very first PCB layout, so the final production version might be even better if they optimize their traces more.
 
I wanted to compare the E10K against the ALO Key, but I don't have a Mac, and The Key has no UAC1 fallback mode, so I had to load drivers, which I didn't want to do. I did also compare it against the C5D, which I like a lot. The C5D delivers a lot for the money, 
 
One of the likely reasons why FiiO chose to stick with the TE7022L is that it has an integrated S/PDIF converter, a feature the others don't have. I imagine they could've used the TE8802L, which has the same S/PDIF function but also has asynchronous support, and just locked it into UAC1 mode so that it works without drivers, but the TE8802L has such a bad reputation amongst the audio community these days because of its driver woes in UAC2 mode that people would've been suspicious regardless.
 

  Are they employing a discrete buffer stage now? or another opamp or IC as the buffer chip?

 
Not a pure unity gain buffer, but the LMH6643, like the E18 and the X5. The LMH6643 is a high current (75 mA), voltage-feedback opamp.

 

[Armaegis]

  Not a pure unity gain buffer, but the LMH6643, like the E18 and the X5. The LMH6643 is a high current (75 mA), voltage-feedback opamp.

 
Ah, I read that differently then. I thought they were using the 6643 as gain stage then something else for buffer. The 8397 has much higher current capability than the 6643, which is why I assumed with the switch there was going to be something else as current buffer.
 
Most of my experience with the 6643 has been rolling it in iBasso amps, where I found it had a warm and relaxed characteristic.

 

[tomscy2000]

  Ah, I read that differently then. I thought they were using the 6643 as gain stage then something else for buffer. The 8397 has much higher current capability than the 6643, which is why I assumed with the switch there was going to be something else as current buffer. Most of my experience with the 6643 has been rolling it in iBasso amps, where I found it had a warm and relaxed characteristic.

 
FiiO likes to use the LMH6643 as a buffer; it's how they use it in both the E18 and X5, so there's no reason to think they'd use it otherwise. While the AD8397 has a lot of current delivery capability, I imagine having to put short-circuit protection around it limits its current delivery quite a bit.

 

[ClieOS]

AD8397 is tricky to get to sound right, in my own experience of it on may portable amps. The only one I really like is the revised AD8397 amp module on HM901. The first version of it (which only saw action in China) actually undermined the SQ of HM901. That's how tricky it is. Personally, I don't think any of the current* FiiO amps that uses AD8397 has really impressed me (*hint: the next one that uses AD8397 is actually really good). I am glad they have chosen to make the change, especially since LMH6643 has been proven well in E18. But it is not just LMH6643 in the E10K. There is also OPA1642, which I assumed is the one that actually handling the voltage gain stage. So in a sense they borrow quite a bit from E18. They are using the same winning formula, I guess.

 

[tomscy2000]

  AD8397 is tricky to get to sound right, in my own experience of it on may portable amps. The only one I really like is the revised AD8397 amp module on HM901. The first version of it (which only saw action in China) actually undermined the SQ of HM901. That's how tricky it is. Personally, I don't think any of the current* FiiO amps that uses AD8397 has really impressed me (*hint: the next one that uses AD8397 is actually really good). I am glad they have chosen to make the change, especially since LMH6643 has been proven well in E18. But it is not just LMH6643 in the E10K. There is also OPA1642, which I assumed is the one that actually handling the voltage gain stage. So in a sense they borrow quite a bit from E18. They are using the same winning formula, I guess.

 
Yep. The AD8397 is a tough cookie to master. I like it on the Concero HP, but that's on the order of the HM-901 in terms of cost.
 
Didn't know they also have the OPA1642 inside, but that'd make sense, as putting voltage gain into the LMH6643 probably wouldn't look so pretty in terms of distortion.

 

[ClieOS]

... Didn't know they also have the OPA1642 inside, but that'd make sense, as putting voltage gain into the LMH6643 probably wouldn't look so pretty in terms of distortion.

 
If you haven't noticed, FiiO actually tends to prefer an opamp+buffer setup rather than a single chip solution.

 

[tomscy2000]

  If you haven't noticed, FiiO actually tends to prefer an opamp+buffer setup rather than a single chip solution.

 
That was my initial instinct, but they never mentioned anything other than the LMH6643 to me, so I though perhaps they did that to simplify things, since the PCM5102A outputs 2V already.

 

[Armaegis]

And the AD8397 basically has its own built in buffer, but yeah I remember when it was sort of popular in the DIY crowd at least in the concept stage, but it usually fell apart in the implementation. I think the original Headroom Air/Bithead used it?

 

[ClieOS]

  And the AD8397 basically has its own built in buffer, but yeah I remember when it was sort of popular in the DIY crowd at least in the concept stage, but it usually fell apart in the implementation. I think the original Headroom Air/Bithead used it?

 
Don't think the original Air/Bithead use it. The last reversion I think.

 

[altrunox]

Finally!
An cheap dac/amp to get rid of my crap computer audio.
 
When it should be avaliable on MP4Nation?
I'm from Brazil...almost impossible to buy from Amazon.
Hope the price will be the same as on Amazon.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

  All in good time...

Alright, well, I'll stick to the E10K for now...

What I can say is that I tried to do my job as a tester to the best of my ability, and that's to try to pinpoint any problems possible.

There was a choice that FiiO had to make between the PCM5102A and a similar competing part (most of you can figure out what that is), and I think they made the right choice here. To me, the E10K is a natural sounding DAC and competes well against the Audioquest Dragonfly 1.2.

To Joe: Did you guys end up enabling the apodizing filter? I couldn't confirm that.

It's my understanding that a filter such as an apodizing filter that aims to decreasing pre-ringing inevitably causes phase shift in the treble and / or treble rolloff (while making no comment on the desirability of an apodizing filter vs the lack of phase shift and / or rolloff ). Since I see neither phase shift nor rolloff in the spec sheet, I'm assuming that it wasn't turned on in the end, tom.

The way I see it, you might need an apodizing filter if you find that you have tested that you can hear a 22.05kHz sine tone (rather than any distortion products produced in the attempt from poor transducers to produce said tone), and thus there exists the possibility that you can hear the ringing at 22.05kHz produced by a brickwall filter for 44.1kHz audio

 

[thesuperguy]

Just wondering, how will the E10K, as far as computer use goes, compare with the E18?

 

[Shawn71]

Subbed.....