Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › iBasso DX100:24 bit for bit, PG 1> Reviews & Impressions, Downloads, VIDEO, NEW Firmware 1.4.2.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iBasso DX100:24 bit for bit, PG 1> Reviews & Impressions, Downloads, VIDEO, NEW Firmware 1.4.2. - Page 628

post #9406 of 12738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorensiim View Post

Yeah it's been coming and going, now it seems like it's here to stay frown.gif

Nope, I get an error when I try to turn it on...


Soren -

 

I just had a similar problem with mine after I did a factory reset in preparation for rooting it.  After doing about a half a dozen factory resets, the problem went away.  No idea why.  What finally worked was doing a factory reset, then before doing anything else, immediately getting a wi-fi connection to my router.  Then I was able to set up my Google acct, etc.

 

The symptom mine displayed was that it went through an endless loop of connecting and disconnecting with the router.

 

The other thing I noticed is that if it is in near vicinity of other strong wi-fi signals, it won't connect to my router.  I was sitting at my desk, with my tablet and phone both at arms length.  When I turned off the wi-fi on both of those, the DX100 connected faster and more reliably.

 

Hope this helps.

post #9407 of 12738

I was just trying to take a picture of the error I get - then it just turned on the wifi. blink.gif

post #9408 of 12738

I've been wanting to get a portable DAP like the DX100 or HM-901 for about a month now. In the past year I migrated from 320k mp3 to FLAC files on my Android phone and recently started yearning to take the hardware to the next level. I was leaning towards waiting for the HM-901, but got tired of the actual waiting and pulled the trigger on the DX100 just yesterday. At the same time I also ordered the Audeze LCD-2 from another place to go along with it. Now it's a race to see which one arrives first.

 

I've already started purchasing and downloading 24-bit 96kHz flac files in anticipation of my new setup. It's mind-boggling that just one album takes 1.2 GB! I'm afraid a 24-bit 192kHz album will take up an entire 32 GB card. Looks like I'll be buying microSD cards in bulk!

 

Anyways, soon enough I'm sure to have bunches of questions for the experts here.

 

Greetings,

Walter

post #9409 of 12738
Quote:
Originally Posted by walteroly View Post

I've been wanting to get a portable DAP like the DX100 or HM-901 for about a month now. In the past year I migrated from 320k mp3 to FLAC files on my Android phone and recently started yearning to take the hardware to the next level. I was leaning towards waiting for the HM-901, but got tired of the actual waiting and pulled the trigger on the DX100 just yesterday. At the same time I also ordered the Audeze LCD-2 from another place to go along with it. Now it's a race to see which one arrives first.

 

I've already started purchasing and downloading 24-bit 96kHz flac files in anticipation of my new setup. It's mind-boggling that just one album takes 1.2 GB! I'm afraid a 24-bit 192kHz album will take up an entire 32 GB card. Looks like I'll be buying microSD cards in bulk!

 

Anyways, soon enough I'm sure to have bunches of questions for the experts here.

 

Greetings,

Walter

 

For your first hifi set up, you're doing pretty well! Both the DX100 and LCD-2's have their downsides (like comfort for the LCD-2's, for some, and clunkiness of the DX100) but they both have a terrific sound, especially if you're fairly young.

 

Personally, I think it's more important to have a well mastered track than one which is 24bit 96khz. I've been blown away by 16bit 44.1khz flac tracks and pretty disappointed with 24bit 96khz and 192khz tracks in the past, which lets me know that it's not really the format and size that makes the difference. As long as it's lossless (16/44.1) you can't go wrong. And you'll fit soooo much more music on as well.

post #9410 of 12738
On the plus side, if you can lug the LCDs around with you, you won't even notice the size/weight of the DX. o2smile.gif

Congrats on some fine gear!
Edited by Pudu - 12/5/12 at 10:11pm
post #9411 of 12738
Quote:
Originally Posted by temporaryname View Post

 

Personally, I think it's more important to have a well mastered track than one which is 24bit 96khz. I've been blown away by 16bit 44.1khz flac tracks and pretty disappointed with 24bit 96khz and 192khz tracks in the past, which lets me know that it's not really the format and size that makes the difference. As long as it's lossless (16/44.1) you can't go wrong. And you'll fit soooo much more music on as well.

 +1.  I get that most of this hobby is trying to squeeze out that last 5%, but I find the differences between lossless files to be so minimal that I can only tell them if I'm straining so hard that I won't be enjoying the music anyway.  Hell, I'm happy with 320kbhps mp3s though biggrin.gif

post #9412 of 12738
Quote:
Originally Posted by temporaryname View Post

 

For your first hifi set up, you're doing pretty well! Both the DX100 and LCD-2's have their downsides (like comfort for the LCD-2's, for some, and clunkiness of the DX100) but they both have a terrific sound, especially if you're fairly young.

 

Personally, I think it's more important to have a well mastered track than one which is 24bit 96khz. I've been blown away by 16bit 44.1khz flac tracks and pretty disappointed with 24bit 96khz and 192khz tracks in the past, which lets me know that it's not really the format and size that makes the difference. As long as it's lossless (16/44.1) you can't go wrong. And you'll fit soooo much more music on as well.


I agree to an extent. There are some 24/192 and 24/96 files that really aren't better than the 16/44 versions. But then there are well recorded ones where it just blows you away. I happen to have quite a few of those tracks and I can confidently say 24/192 and 24/96 has the potential to blow 16/44 clear out of the water. Just no comparison when these types of well recorded tracks are compared. At least not to my ears.

post #9413 of 12738
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisSC View Post

 +1.  I get that most of this hobby is trying to squeeze out that last 5%, but I find the differences between lossless files to be so minimal that I can only tell them if I'm straining so hard that I won't be enjoying the music anyway.  Hell, I'm happy with 320kbhps mp3s though biggrin.gif

Agreed! 320kbps mp3 is a damn fine sounding format.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post


I agree to an extent. There are some 24/192 and 24/96 files that really aren't better than the 16/44 versions. But then there are well recorded ones where it just blows you away. I happen to have quite a few of those tracks and I can confidently say 24/192 and 24/96 has the potential to blow 16/44 clear out of the water. Just no comparison when these types of well recorded tracks are compared. At least not to my ears.

I'm a little cynical about those differences. No doubt they'll exist, but whether it's because it's just better quality or if they use a refined mastered version for the higher bitrate version to encourage people to pay extra for it. Same how some sneaky balanced amp manufacturers make the balanced headphone out of their amp sound nicer than the single ended headphone out so when people compare it they'll walk away swearing how balanced technology makes a night and day difference, giving the manufacturers and retailers more leeway to raise the prices on balanced amps because god damn it those customers will pay for their perceived increase in sound quality! very_evil_smiley.gif

 

Don't mind me, I'm just a tad bitter. Feel free to ignore my sentiments.

 

Back to the format comparison, a good test would be to downsample an awesome sounding master of 24bit 192khz (or preferably 96khz because of this) to 16bit/44.1khz and see if we can tell a difference between the downsampled file and the original high res version. Like I said above, I don't trust these businesses to provide an identical master for each format because they have more to gain by providing a nicer sounding one in the higher bitrate and charging more for it that way.

post #9414 of 12738

I don't mind double dipping as long as they don't butcher the "re-master" (or as I like to call it, "Hey, I think if we re-record the bass line or the drums it will sound "Eleventy billion" times better like One Ozzy Osborone or one Megadeth).

 

lol

 

("Eleventy Billion" is from SNL's Celebrity Jeapordy where Toby McGuire plays a brilliant Keanu Reeves)

post #9415 of 12738
Quote:
Originally Posted by figgie View Post

I don't mind double dipping as long as they don't butcher the "re-master" (or as I like to call it, "Hey, I think if we re-record the bass line or the drums it will sound "Eleventy billion" times better like One Ozzy Osborone or one Megadeth).

 

lol

 

("Eleventy Billion" is from SNL's Celebrity Jeapordy where Toby McGuire plays a brilliant Keanu Reeves)

 

A lot of remasters are just louder, which really sucks. That is why a lot of old vinyls sound better than CDs, because the mastering sucks on the re-masters. 

post #9416 of 12738

I'll prob chime in or noob things up with questions.  Mine just got delivered by UPS.  Don't know how much I dig the box lol....seems a bit overkill for a DAP....then again this would be the first DAP I paid over $500 USD for....the other stuff is less....hardcore.

post #9417 of 12738

Sorry about the stupid question, but... when I am at home, can I plug the DX100 into my Desktop DAC, and bypass the DX100 internal DAC & AMP in favor of my high-end DAC ?  Which connection will I use then ?  Will the DX100 pass native 24/96 or 24/192 to the DAC without downsampling ? 

post #9418 of 12738

I think it will only work if your external DAC supports those formats. You use Coaxil or Optical to do this.
 

post #9419 of 12738

Another question:

 

PCs and MAC need additional software like PureMusic or amara to be able to play Bitperfect through USB to an external dac .... how comes DAP like the DX100 do not need this ?  Are you sure that the DX100 play the file in the native bitrate format what ever the format is ?

 

 

And...

 

another question: are there any rumor for a 128 Gb version of the DX100 now that Samsung is manufacturing a 128 Gb Memory chip for mobile phone ?


Edited by bmichels - 12/6/12 at 4:25pm
post #9420 of 12738
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmichels View Post

Sorry about the stupid question, but... when I am at home, can I plug the DX100 into my Desktop DAC, and bypass the DX100 internal DAC & AMP in favor of my high-end DAC ?  Which connection will I use then ?  Will the DX100 pass native 24/96 or 24/192 to the DAC without downsampling ? 

Look at your DX100 - There are optical and coax outputs. They will output the native resolution, be it 16/44.1, 24/192 or anything in between.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmichels View Post

Another question:

 

PCs and MAC need additional software like PureMusic or amara to be able to play Bitperfect through USB to an external dac .... how comes DAP like the DX100 do not need this ?  Are you sure that the DX100 play the file in the native bitrate format what ever the format is ?

 

 

The fact that the DX100 is not a PC, nor a MAC, has something to do with this. Yes, it plays the file at their full resolution, it is what it was made to do. PC's and MAC's were made for spreadsheets, word processing and funny pictures of cats. Then later, somebody found a way to make them play music, using additional software.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › iBasso DX100:24 bit for bit, PG 1> Reviews & Impressions, Downloads, VIDEO, NEW Firmware 1.4.2.