Emm labs xds1 vs esoteric k1?

[joey_v]

Thoughts on the above?

[Masterlu]

I do, but I'll chime in later.

[joey_v]

I do, but I'll chime in later.

Yes please

[jdandy]

http://pcaudio.kr/attache/14.39.151.30_119_204_137_7_emmlabs-xds1-IMG_3013-large.jpg



http://www.hi-fi.ru/upload/iblock/ce4/ce42ac6db5c969b4af3ed14df3b12387.jpg

[Masterlu]

Rather than me say which one I prefer over the other, I will simply state the following.

I have sold more K01/K01x to previous owners of the Emm labs xds1 than any other single model. When I enquired why, I was told even more than the K01/K01x SQ they made the transition for better reliability.

This in no way is a slam against the Emm labs xds1, as I don't own one. But I will say I did consider both the line, and the machine.

It just wasn't for me.

[Toccata]

Visually, there's no contest: the Esoteric wins.

[apogee]

Hi,just wondering how good does the dac inside the k01 compare to emm labs dacx2 or other,l have trouble choosing between the k01 or emm labs (xds1,dacx2 with tsdx)
Thank you
apogee

[joey_v]

Unless I'm mistaken.. aren't the DACS in the Emm in-house while the Esoteric are AKM?

[cmalak]

Unless I'm mistaken.. aren't the DACS in the Emm in-house while the Esoteric are AKM?

yes

[cma29]

Visually, there's no contest: the Esoteric wins.

+1

[Bluemcintosh]

If you like the organic sounds my vote goes to EMM

[doggiehowser]

I think you have to decide what you want to pay for.

The biggest chunk of the Esoteric goes into the transport. It is built like a tank and the construction shows.

To get an idea of how expensive that is - just compare the cost of dCS's transports:
- The current flagship Vivaldi uses the same transport IIRC as the K01 series.
- The last generation (Scarlatti?) uses the same "lower level" Esoteric transport that is also used in the EMM Labs and Playback Designs. And there is a noticeable price gap between the two

I think the Vivaldi transport alone costs about as much as the Esoteric K01 and the Vivaldi transport doesn't even have a DAC built in :)

That said, I have to say once I had heard a properly implemented DirectStream DAC, it was hard for me to go back to conventional DAC chips.

I understand that designers using off the shelf DAC chips can voice their DACs accordingly - improving the analog output stages, the DSP before the DAC conversion, the power supplies etc.

But the simplicity and the clarity of a DSD DAC is just special to me. I ended up having 3 :)

Here's my take - I would look very carefully at the XDS1v2 but before buying, I would want to make sure EMM Labs delivers DSD2x USB compatibility. I have heard they were going to make that available but that has been 3 years of waiting.

I have the XDS1 (the original) and they have stopped making firmware updates for it even though the architecture appears to be identical to the new models. The fact that they recently announced a DA2 that does USB DSD2x is a bit worrying to me and the press release suggests the older DAC2X/XDS1v2 will be limited to DSD1x inputs.

I would love to be proven wrong but it is a gamble.

Another option is the Playback Designs MPS-5. It uses the same Esoteric transport as the XDS1(v1 and v2) and the Scarlatti transport. It supports DSD2x over the USB-X and USB-XT connections. It is a bit old but I have been impressed with the level of support from Playback. The USB-XT device is something I might consider for a later stage.

The new kid on the block is the PS Audio DirectStream DAC. In some respects, Ted Smith has taken the concepts that Andreas and Ed Meitner built on and went a bit further. I am marvelling at how well it sounds for a fraction of the price of those two.

The downside - no SACD transport for now. I understand PS Audio is hard at work on making one so for now, I use a computer based transport.

Hope this helps.

[cmalak]

I think you have to decide what you want to pay for.

The biggest chunk of the Esoteric goes into the transport. It is built like a tank and the construction shows.

To get an idea of how expensive that is - just compare the cost of dCS's transports:
- The current flagship Vivaldi uses the same transport IIRC as the K01 series.
- The last generation (Scarlatti?) uses the same "lower level" Esoteric transport that is also used in the EMM Labs and Playback Designs. And there is a noticeable price gap between the two

I think the Vivaldi transport alone costs about as much as the Esoteric K01 and the Vivaldi transport doesn't even have a DAC built in :)

That said, I have to say once I had heard a properly implemented DirectStream DAC, it was hard for me to go back to conventional DAC chips.

I understand that designers using off the shelf DAC chips can voice their DACs accordingly - improving the analog output stages, the DSP before the DAC conversion, the power supplies etc.

But the simplicity and the clarity of a DSD DAC is just special to me. I ended up having 3 :)

Here's my take - I would look very carefully at the XDS1v2 but before buying, I would want to make sure EMM Labs delivers DSD2x USB compatibility. I have heard they were going to make that available but that has been 3 years of waiting.

I have the XDS1 (the original) and they have stopped making firmware updates for it even though the architecture appears to be identical to the new models. The fact that they recently announced a DA2 that does USB DSD2x is a bit worrying to me and the press release suggests the older DAC2X/XDS1v2 will be limited to DSD1x inputs.

I would love to be proven wrong but it is a gamble.

Another option is the Playback Designs MPS-5. It uses the same Esoteric transport as the XDS1(v1 and v2) and the Scarlatti transport. It supports DSD2x over the USB-X and USB-XT connections. It is a bit old but I have been impressed with the level of support from Playback. The USB-XT device is something I might consider for a later stage.

The new kid on the block is the PS Audio DirectStream DAC. In some respects, Ted Smith has taken the concepts that Andreas and Ed Meitner built on and went a bit further. I am marvelling at how well it sounds for a fraction of the price of those two.

The downside - no SACD transport for now. I understand PS Audio is hard at work on making one so for now, I use a computer based transport.

Hope this helps.

The nice thing about the DirectStream is the utilization of the FPGA at the core of the D2A process, allowing for constant upgradeability by pushing new firmware as Ted Smith continues to refine his thoughts on digital conversion. Do you find that the latest firmware upgrade (Pikes Peak) agrees with you the most in terms of SQ attributes or do you prefer a prior firmware version?

My only concern is actually related to the primary benefit I highlighted which is by using a FPGA, as Ted Smith continues to push out new firmware updates, it may get confusing to lock down the sound of the unit against a constantly moving target. I guess you can always roll back to an earlier firmware that may represent your sonic preferences/priorities but it can also become confusing to keep track of all that.

[doggiehowser]

Actually FPGAs aren't a new thing - Chord, dCS, EMM Labs and Playback Designs all use similar FPGA processing in their DACs.

I think Ted, being a software guy, might be the first to do a lot more with the same FPGA than the others - with the sampling of input data at 10xDSD to remove the need to sync the clock with the external signal, and to do what he calls the lossless volume control in 10xDSD space.

Personally, I don't think you are losing anything with each new firmware revision - what the new OS does is to refine the process further. 1.2.1 improved on the SQ particularly in the bass which was a common complaint - while addressing some of the shortcomings of the measurements.

1.2.3 IMHO brought an improved midrange without IMHO any loss to the detail, texture, layering I was used to in 1.2.1