Jump to content
Computer Audiophile

exa

  • Content count

    218
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About exa

  • Rank
    Sophomore Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The only new feature is MQA full unfold up to 384 kHz.
  2. I am sorry, won't be able to get in technical detains. The point I am trying to make is that we do DSD the native-DSD way and PCM the bit-perfect PCM way - just like on our previews models. MQA is done the best-MQA-way that we can implement. Our goal is to bring the best of every format and to support all formats.
  3. For MQA we use MQA filters, for native PCM we do our filter management as before. If you play non-MQA PCM material, the re is no difference between e32 and e32 Mark II. Except if you select the option to use the MQA filter for all PCM streams. DSD of course is processed natively and is not affected in any way by the PCM/MQA settings. The goal of our implementation is to bring the best of every supported format. And in our view the best is the simplest signal processing path.
  4. You kept asking for it and finally we did it - the e32 Mark II DAC offers MQA full decoding. https://exasound.com/e32/e32DACOverview.aspx
  5. I am sorry, we can't encourage the use of underrated power supply.
  6. Different DAC chips, different output stages, different headphone amplifiers...
  7. The current requirement is printed on the back of the e22 DAC, it is 1.5A. You can try it with a smaller PS, at your own risk... The Power supply may become hot, eventually it will burn a fuse or catch fire
  8. exaSound devices are sold with a 30 days money-back warranty. We rarely get returns, and I don't remember a return related to sonic fidelity. There are a number of third-party reviews. We get enthusiastic positive emails from our new customers. You will find them on our blog. The e38 DAC has just been reviewed on Computer Audiophile. https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/38876-multichannel-dac-exasound-e38/?tab=comments#comment-797715 Have a listen, decide for yourself.
  9. Measurements show you that there are no bad errors with your design. The rest is subjective evaluation.
  10. It is a major disappointment for us to see these two cases put in the same basket. We've always been on solid ground with the technologies that contribute to sonic fidelity. We explain how we do it and we actually believe that measurements are important and should correlate with subjective evaluation.
  11. The difference is in the philosophy behind the design. Minimum processing vs. DSP. We believe in minimal processing. One is not inferior to the other, however the result are very different. We consider our approach superior when it comes to acoustic instruments and human voices. This is just an opinion. And nothing prevents you from using as much DSP as you like with our DACs. We give you a minimum-processing baseline to start your quest.
  12. It could have been better if we had some kind of cooperation. Then the 10-12 dB distortion difference and the periodic interference would have been resolved one way or the other. I might have been able to explain about the galvanic isolation and the impact on the noise floor. The stock switching power supply that we use is not grounded to the mains. The e32 DAC is like two devices in one box. The USB/Digital side should float. The analogue site should be grounded by the power amp (or by the audio analyzer), not by the DAC power supply. Finally we could have addressed the "war on proprietary drivers". With our proprietary drivers we do packet streaming the way it is done for example with Ravenna. We've been doing it since 2011. We do error correction and re-clocking. We don't use the asynchronous mode of the standard USB Audio 2.0. We won't be able to achieve the same sonic fidelity with USB Audio 2.0. With the emotional stand on this topic in the review before we had any chance to talk, the bridges were burnt.
  13. It is a normal practice in the industry. Manufactures are given a chance to address factual mistakes before a review is published. The reviewer may not accept the comments, however the manufacturer's notes are made available to the readers.
  14. It was one of the many requests for industry accommodation and we just took the next box and shipped it. We were shocked to see how premature and emotional the review is. From our point of whew it is not about making the measurements objective, it is about making a sensation from the first results.
  15. Thank you for the clarification. We've chosen to measure the way we did, because we wanted our measurements to be comparable with other DACs that used the same measurement settings. Amir used other settings. We could have discussed that. Besides the factors that you've pointed out, the nose floor of the FFT is dramatically different with a 16bit file, 24 bit and 32 bit. I don't know what is the bit depth of the file used by Amir. It looks to me it is not 32bit.
×