Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › DX50 a new smaller DAP from iBasso. Spec. page 1. Impressions start on page. . .
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DX50 a new smaller DAP from iBasso. Spec. page 1. Impressions start on page. . . - Page 82  

post #1216 of 3609
The TP was already expensive and the new price is nuts...but repeating it over 4 threads is just beating a dead horse...I think most people agree so let's agree to agree once and for all.

The DX50 cannot reasonably sound as good as the DX100, unless they wish it to replace the dx100 which does not seem likely. Otherwise if the DX50 sounds as good, is smaller, cheaper or even at the same price, what is the point of the DX100? As I see it, there are too, non exclusive options. Either it is a lower range player aiming to compete with the X3 and it will not sound as good as the DX100. Or the SQ will be close to that of the DX100, but only with iems.
post #1217 of 3609

Like I said, it's usually not so much of a downgrade in SQ, but a downgrade in functions. The step down in SQ won't be so significant compared to the step down in features of the lower model across many different brands. My 2c

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mimouille View Post

The TP was already expensive and the new price is nuts...but repeating it over 4 threads is just beating a dead horse...I think most people agree so let's agree to agree once and for all.

The DX50 cannot reasonably sound as good as the DX100, unless they wish it to replace the dx100 which does not seem likely. Otherwise if the DX50 sounds as good, is smaller, cheaper or even at the same price, what is the point of the DX100? As I see it, there are too, non exclusive options. Either it is a lower range player aiming to compete with the X3 and it will not sound as good as the DX100. Or the SQ will be close to that of the DX100, but only with iems.
post #1218 of 3609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mimouille View Post

The TP was already expensive and the new price is nuts...but repeating it over 4 threads is just beating a dead horse...I think most people agree so let's agree to agree once and for all.

The DX50 cannot reasonably sound as good as the DX100, unless they wish it to replace the dx100 which does not seem likely. Otherwise if the DX50 sounds as good, is smaller, cheaper or even at the same price, what is the point of the DX100? As I see it, there are too, non exclusive options. Either it is a lower range player aiming to compete with the X3 and it will not sound as good as the DX100. Or the SQ will be close to that of the DX100, but only with iems.

It really isn't that hard to understand why iBasso would really want dx100 replaced and get dx50 to sound as close to dx100 as possible. Dx100 is already yesteryear with way less hype and wow than when we initially all bought it. Those in awe yesteryear had already bought it... not much new dx100 sales are to be made anymore for customers lookong at $800+ level DAPs now anymore. As an actual paying customer for all these 3 daps I would even venture to say AK120 and HM901 are both a class above dx100 for different reasons. AK100 for achieving similar sonic performance in a way nicer overall package. Hm901 for achieving better sound, expandability, longer battery life, plus more effective UI. Ibasso needs a new flagship and not clanging on last year's darling and hamper it's new star entrant. There is no cannabalisation of profits here. If anything, a dx50 with respectable performance and competitively priced against other brand's flagships, they gain more sales, more market share, or at least stellar reps and creds from competition.

I hope I make sense.
Edited by kkcc - 7/15/13 at 10:39am
post #1219 of 3609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mimouille View Post

The TP was already expensive and the new price is nuts...but repeating it over 4 threads is just beating a dead horse...

Yeah, that is a fair point....lol.

 

post #1220 of 3609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achmedisdead View Post

Yeah, that is a fair point....lol.

 

Is that Psy?

post #1221 of 3609
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkcc View Post




It really isn't that hard to understand why iBasso would really want dx100 replaced and get dx50 to sound as close to dx100 as possible. Dx100 is already yesteryear with way less hype and wow than when we initially all bought it. Those in awe yesteryear had already bought it... not much new dx100 sales are to be made anymore for customers lookong at $800+ level DAPs now anymore. As an actual paying customer for all these 3 daps I would even venture to say AK120 and HM901 are both a class above dx100 for different reasons. AK100 for achieving similar sonic performance in a way nicer overall package. Hm901 for achieving better sound, expandability, longer battery life, plus more effective UI. Ibasso needs a new flagship and not clanging on last year's darling and hamper it's new star entrant. There is no cannabalisation of profits here. If anything, a dx50 with respectable performance and competitively priced against other brand's flagships, they gain more sales, more market share, or at least stellar reps and creds from competition.

I hope I make sense.


Do they still make the hm901?

post #1222 of 3609
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Chavez View Post


Do they still make the hm901?

lol. HM901, seems to be hit in Asia but in Europe we can't even smell it.

post #1223 of 3609
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmberOzL View Post

Is that Psy?

I think it must be. I found it in a Google search the other day.

post #1224 of 3609
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkcc View Post




It really isn't that hard to understand why iBasso would really want dx100 replaced and get dx50 to sound as close to dx100 as possible. Dx100 is already yesteryear with way less hype and wow than when we initially all bought it. Those in awe yesteryear had already bought it... not much new dx100 sales are to be made anymore for customers lookong at $800+ level DAPs now anymore. As an actual paying customer for all these 3 daps I would even venture to say AK120 and HM901 are both a class above dx100 for different reasons. AK100 for achieving similar sonic performance in a way nicer overall package. Hm901 for achieving better sound, expandability, longer battery life, plus more effective UI. Ibasso needs a new flagship and not clanging on last year's darling and hamper it's new star entrant. There is no cannabalisation of profits here. If anything, a dx50 with respectable performance and competitively priced against other brand's flagships, they gain more sales, more market share, or at least stellar reps and creds from competition.

I hope I make sense.


I think if it was the case, they would have called it DX200 :) Besides, I heard from the grapevine that iBasso explicitely told distributors that the DX50 would be lower range than DX100. It might be crap.

post #1225 of 3609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mimouille View Post


I think if it was the case, they would have called it DX200 :) Besides, I heard from the grapevine that iBasso explicitely told distributors that the DX50 would be lower range than DX100. It might be crap.

I heard through the grapevine that it'd ship in bubble wrap and without a battery. 

post #1226 of 3609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fizz View Post

I heard through the grapevine that it'd ship in bubble wrap and without a battery. 


No that's the 901 :)

post #1227 of 3609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mimouille View Post


No that's the 901 smily_headphones1.gif



Dang cheapo even skimmed me on the bubble wrap!!!!! Need a file a complaint.... but it does have battery tho so I guess we are even?
Edited by kkcc - 7/15/13 at 9:15pm
post #1228 of 3609
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkcc View Post




Dang cheapo even skimmed me on the bubble wrap!!!!! Need a file a complaint.... but it does have battery tho so I guess we are even?


Some delivery guys are compulsive bubble poppers.

post #1229 of 3609
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkcc View Post




It really isn't that hard to understand why iBasso would really want dx100 replaced and get dx50 to sound as close to dx100 as possible. Dx100 is already yesteryear with way less hype and wow than when we initially all bought it. Those in awe yesteryear had already bought it... not much new dx100 sales are to be made anymore for customers lookong at $800+ level DAPs now anymore. As an actual paying customer for all these 3 daps I would even venture to say AK120 and HM901 are both a class above dx100 for different reasons. AK100 for achieving similar sonic performance in a way nicer overall package. Hm901 for achieving better sound, expandability, longer battery life, plus more effective UI. Ibasso needs a new flagship and not clanging on last year's darling and hamper it's new star entrant. There is no cannabalisation of profits here. If anything, a dx50 with respectable performance and competitively priced against other brand's flagships, they gain more sales, more market share, or at least stellar reps and creds from competition.

I hope I make sense.

 

I see your point but I don't see it the same way.

 

I do not anticipate the DX50 sounding as good as the DX100. I think it'll be aimed at larger sales volume with  'very-good-performance-for-the-price'  , but the successor to the DX100 is more likely to stick with one or more high-end DAC chips. Apparently the ES9018-2M is not just lower power consumption but also significantly lower spec than the ES9018 desktop chip, so it remains to be seen if the ES9018-2M becomes the new darling of the audiophile DAP world or if it languishes in the shadow of it's desktop forebear. Whatever the case, the DX100 successor is likely to be a tasty piece of kit and I doubt iBasso would waste all the kudos they've built with the DX100 by putting out anything less than a statement DAP.

 

Even so, perhaps the bigger question with these DAPs is how willing each vendor is to compromise with regard to the trade-off of power-hunger of the amp section vs. sound quality & reactive-load-driving capability. iRiver have shown that they feel the DX100 and HM-901 are excessively power hungry.

 

It's all to play for, and the fact that different vendors have different design philosophies can only be a good thing for us DAP buyers.

 

 

Let's also not forget that iBasso are relatively small vendors and it does cost rather a lot in R & D to design a serious DAP, so whether they've managed to cover all their costs for the DX100 design effort (and magnesium casting production etc.), yet, is uncertain.

 

.


Edited by Mython - 7/16/13 at 3:32am
post #1230 of 3609
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mython View Post

 

I see your point but I don't see it the same way.

 

I do not anticipate the DX50 sounding as good as the DX100. I think it'll be aimed at larger sales volume with  'very-good-performance-for-the-price'  , but the successor to the DX100 is more likely to stick with one or more high-end DAC chips. Apparently the ES9018-2M is not just lower power consumption but also significantly lower spec than the ES9018 desktop chip, so it remains to be seen if the ES9018-2M becomes the new darling of the audiophile DAP world or if it languishes in the shadow of it's desktop forebear. Whatever the case, the DX100 successor is likely to be a tasty piece of kit and I doubt iBasso would waste all the kudos they've built with the DX100 by putting out anything less than a statement DAP.

 

Even so, perhaps the bigger question with these DAPs is how willing each vendor is to compromise with regard to the trade-off of power-hunger of the amp section vs. sound quality & reactive-load-driving capability. iRiver have shown that they feel the DX100 and HM-901 are excessively power hungry.

 

It's all to play for, and the fact that different vendors have different design philosophies can only be a good thing for us DAP buyers.

 

 

Let's also not forget that iBasso are relatively small vendors and it does cost rather a lot in R & D to design a serious DAP, so whether they've managed to cover all their costs for the DX100 design effort (and magnesium casting production etc.), yet, is uncertain.

 

.

 

Good points, and in fact our thoughts aren't that different.  DX50 won't equal DX100 and from the model nomenclature it is already a given.  The point I had been trying to make is that contrary to many HFer's expectation, my speculation is that DX50 will be much closer to the DX100 than the X3 in terms of price and performance even both are single wm8740 based.

 

It will indeed be a challenge for iBasso to come up with their next flagship.  Ditching Android is a good sign.  I had taken jabs (mostly in jest) at Hifiman's 901 appearance and built issues in the past but having spent a month with it now I respect their team and the product.  It is not easy to make design decisions over form, sound, battery, and price under limited development resources these companies are facing.  Interesting juncture for these Chinese DAP makers.  Personally I still am not sure about iBasso's philosophies.  Fiio's James is clearly on the bang-for-buck mass market aspect and prioritizes entry products.  Hifiman's Fang is almost a egomaniac that believes and is determined to become "world's best" but prioritizing high-ends.  And these is also Colorfly, iHifi etc

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › DX50 a new smaller DAP from iBasso. Spec. page 1. Impressions start on page. . .