ALO Audio RXMKIII Balanced Portable Amplifier Impressions - Page 5

Looking forward to your impressions! Although somewhat OT, may I suggest for you to try the RxMk3 off the DX100 too. It's a great combination. I'm still 50/50 on whether to keep the CLAS or not. Although its a decent DAC, I personally prefer the DX100's ES9018. At least in my opinion, the the synergy between the ES9018 DAC & the RxMk3 is phenomenal.

Looking forward to this. Can you do DX100>RX3b comparisons please.. Pics would be cool too

I was lucky enough to have a DX100, CLAS, Alo RX3 plus my usual DT1350 and JH16's as well as a pair of HD25's to play with this afternoon for an hour. I was very excited and knew that I had some of the best portable components available today in my possession. I also expected my CLAS RX3 to take a beating....but that wasn't to be.

I listened to the HD25, JH16 and DT1350 all in single ended mode out of the DX100 as well as single ended from the RX3 powering the DX and also single ended with the CLAS combo providing signal.

The DT's sounded thin and harsh from the DX. The darker sounding HD25 tamed the sound and matched better IMO. The smooth top end on my JH also reduced the glitchy top end of the DX.

Next up I ran the line out from the DX to the RX3. The size of the RX3 matches nearly perfectly to the DX. It is almost the same footprint as the RX and CLAS. I felt that the RX added more musicality to the DX. The line out level of the DX is significantly less than the CLAS too which meant that I had to run medium gain for all but the JH. The sound stage was broadened with the use of the RX and bass impact improved.

Next I ran the CLAS RX3 combo. Compared to this the DX sounded thin and particularly harsh in the treble. It is a bit like comparing a high end turntable against a regular CD player. Music had significantly more body, bass was fuller and the treble was much smoother.

Stepping the RX3 up to balanced output only lifted the difference further by adding slightly wider soundstage and improved bass attack. There is also perhaps slightly more midrange detail and texture too.

I listened to two tracks when running this comparison. Metallica's Enter the Sandman and Lana Del Ray, Summertime Sadness. Both were high res 24 bit on the DX and were ALAC on the iPod. Metallica sounded horrible from the DX to the DT1350. It was too much treble energy. The HD25 toned the detail down to a more bareable level.

I can remember reading a lone review of the DX where it was definitely not glowing. Now after listening to the DX myself I can agree with his comments. I think it was Anaxilus but I am not sure. Excuse me if I am wrong.

I spoke to my friend who was keen to hear how his DX compared. I told him that it was not even close and gave him the details. A possible saving grace for the DX is that it only has about 4 hours on it. The RX3 would have about the same. The CLAS, iPod, and all cans/ iems are all well broken in.

I am certainly not looking at selling my CLAS or the RX3 any time soon!

I am looking forward to you having a listen to the RX3. I want to know if you end up with similar findings or if your DX with a few more hours under its belt may have smoothed out and developed some more body.

Anyone that has been drooling over the RX3 can keep drooling in my opinion. It sounds awesome and matches the form of the DX100. Get your cheque books out!

I agree that the Rx3 improved the sound of the DX and perhaps a fully burnt in Dx may add some extra detail that the CLAS could be missing, but on my rig compared to a 4 hour Dx....I would personally keep the CLAS at this stage and avoid the pops of the DX and benefit from the user friendliness of the Apple interface.

Let's see how future better burnt in comparisons go.... The battle may have been fought but the war between the two super portable rigs continues......

 

How does the sound signature, soundstage, bass (not turned up) compare in single-end setup betwen the RX3 and RX2?  I have the RX2 and may be looking to move up, if there's a noticeable difference, albeit in single-end mode  :)

Edited by sunninho - 5/20/12 at 12:18pm

The soundstage is massively bigger with the Rx3 compared to the Rx2. I don't have the Rx2 anymore but I also think the Rx3 has slightly more mid and top end. The Rx2 was a dark amp in my opinion, especially with my Jh16. The Rx3 is much more neutral but still has lots of bass drive.

Awesome, that's what I was suspecting with the Rx2.  It is definitely dark, compared to my other amps (E17/E9) but it's easily overcome with a little EQ or DAC.  Will be saving up for the Rx3, for sure!

Kremer930: Did you try changing the gain setting at all with the DX100 when using the DT's? I find it changes the overall FR slightly.  About the harshness: I've noticed it twice when using the DX100. The first time was when I first used it, as, much like other components I've bought, it seems to need some usage before this goes away. The second was a weird issue one afternoon where the music was distorting (in the digital domain, as i was using the optical output). A restart fixed this.

 

The impressions of the different players are definitely very interesting and I don't doubt there will be people who prefer each player. What would be interesting is to compare how consistent the amps in each player perform, ie: Do they work consistently well with headphones of different impedance and sensitivity, from IEMs to orthos and the various popular German headphones.

Yes. I had to run medium gain with the DT1350 from the DX100. Low gain required way too much volume. I expected that higher gain may give a more bass centric sound in the same way as my ibasso PB2 but it didn't seem to have much of an impact. I also found that the sound signature of the RX3 didn't change too much with changes in gain. The main change was perhaps slightly more texture and a blacker noise floor.

I agree that given the low operating hours on the DX that we should give it benefit of the doubt. Especially since its size and shape matches so well to the RX3.

Interesting findings.. although the DX needs some burn in I can't see it changing that dramatically i.e. sounding poor and then sounding magical after several hours. I have a 2 week old 3rd batch DX that has about 80-100 hours on it so far. The only problem is this whole EQ issue that is really annoying at the moment.

 

It was alway the case that the RX is made to pair with the CLAS and an iPod so it still comes down to iTunes v FLAC player for me and never shall the two meet. If you like the simplicity of iTunes and "smooth" interface of Apple then you will gravitate to that arena. I on the other hand hate iTunes and so Im willing to sacrifice things or even turn a subconscious blind eye to clicks and pops because I want to like Hi-Res Free Open Source Lossless files .

 

Would still like to hear the DX>Rx3 Balanced out. While its still early days and the RX3/CLAS combo sounds better.. if the DX/RX3 Balanced out still lifts the DX100 SQ substantially then I would like to hear that.

 

Bottom line Im happy to see you guys finally get your Rx3's though and finally have a nice form factor "triple deck" transportable beast. Its all good for trans/portable Head-Fi 

 

I really can't say that I have noticed any "harshness" with my DX100 with its amp, sorry guys.  Maybe I am just less picky than most around here.  I do know that I prefer the amp in the DX100 to my SR-71B.  Waiting to listen to the Mk3  in comparison to both....soon though, maybe then I will be able to hear what you guys are talking about.

Hi slwiser.. is that SE or Balanced Out in that you prefer the sound of the DX compared to the 71B?

Both