Originally Posted by kkcc
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