Latest Thread Images

DX90. 2X Sabre,1st page: Downloads, info&inst. . ! Lurker0 FW Mod link 1st page !!. .NEW FW! 2.3.0 . . . . .
Mar 12, 2015 at 2:32 AM Post #11,236 of 14,084
e30ernest said:
  I think I am right to say that there is a consensus that the DX90 changes sound after a burn-in period.  My question is, why does it change?  What does burning-in a DX90 actually do?
 
Thanks!
Click to expand...

 
There are 2 possible things where the change can happen. The electronic components in DX90 could change over time. Your head will also adjust in time. How much each factor contributes to the change is up for debate. Afterall iBasso included a burn-in cable with DX90.
 
Mar 12, 2015 at 2:47 AM Post #11,239 of 14,084
jamato8 said:
 
I am amazed, I can still hear to 17khz. Just tested my ears the other day and I am much older than you. 
Click to expand...

 
I can only hear to 19khz, so technically I don't have golden ears
mad.gif
, apparently some people can hear up to 22khz, but I'd like to think that our mind plays a part in how well we actually "hear", through focus, analyzation, pattern recognition and logic etc. Maybe some people are more susceptible to bias than others etc, science doesn't understand how the mind functions on a deep level, so just my speculation.
 
Mar 12, 2015 at 2:56 AM Post #11,240 of 14,084
can't heat the huge difference between Lurker 2.1.5 and Lurker 2.1.8 :frowning2: damn my ****ty ears...
i thought mids thickened with Lurker 2.1.8 at first but could be placebo....

but it sounds great with Dita Truth anyway so it's all good :etysmile:
 
Mar 12, 2015 at 2:58 AM Post #11,241 of 14,084
has anyone heard any noticeable differences with the 2.1.8 filters ?

looks like the 2.1.5FW is more up my alley , but the DF option is intriguing....
 
Mar 12, 2015 at 3:02 AM Post #11,242 of 14,084
proedros said:
  has anyone heard any noticeable differences with the 2.1.8 filters ?

looks like the 2.1.5FW is more up my alley , but the DF option is intriguing....
Click to expand...

I can hear a difference between the two filters. Sharp roll off is very very slightly thicker while the slow roll off is a bit more strident and energetic. The differences are miniscule though and took me quite a lot of A/B before I could come to this conclusion.
 
Mar 12, 2015 at 3:24 AM Post #11,243 of 14,084
proedros said:
  has anyone heard any noticeable differences with the 2.1.8 filters ?

looks like the 2.1.5FW is more up my alley , but the DF option is intriguing....
Click to expand...

 
Not a huge difference, but I feel the Slow Roll-off results in a smoother sound that is more round around the edges while Sharp Roll-off gives you more bite and edge. It's easier to tell while listening to percussion or brass instruments. 
 
Slow might be a bit more musical compared to the sharp sounding more analytical.
 
Mar 12, 2015 at 3:32 AM Post #11,245 of 14,084
uli87 said:
   
Not a huge difference, but I feel the Slow Roll-off results in a smoother sound that is more round around the edges while Sharp Roll-off gives you more bite and edge. It's easier to tell while listening to percussion or brass instruments. 
 
Slow might be a bit more musical compared to the sharp sounding more analytical.
Click to expand...

Strange, it is the opposite for me. But I agree with your description of the difference between the 2 filters. 
 
Mar 12, 2015 at 3:54 AM Post #11,246 of 14,084
Originally Posted by jamato8 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Sure you can. Golden ears. right. (kidding with you)
 
I don't have the patients to listen to cards...
Click to expand...

Presuming that you're a doctor or a dentist, don't you think it's a bit weird to want your patients to check your cards for you?
wink.gif

 
Mar 12, 2015 at 3:57 AM Post #11,247 of 14,084
OK, scratch what I said. There is actually quite a big difference in filters, depending on what track you are listening to. Listening to some acoustic guitar work by Antoine Dufour where there are tons of dynamics with finger picking and guitar slapping and on the Sharp Roll-off setting there is so much more attack to the sound, much more defined. Slow Roll-off makes for a less dynamic sound that could come off as dull but at the same time could sound sweet. 
 
Choosing would depend on the type of music or mood you are in I guess. In most cases, if someone is looking for the most detailed sound, I would stick to Sharp Roll-off.
 
Mar 12, 2015 at 5:03 AM Post #11,248 of 14,084
Slow roll-off sounds a tad smoother than sharp roll-off, more "analogue", imo.
 
I made a comparison between both filter settings with RMAA and here are the results (with my sound card, others' sound cards may show 10 to 20dB better values):
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
PS: This site (http://archimago.blogspot.de/2013/06/measurements-digital-filters-and.html) has summed up the differences between digital filters with good measurement graphs.
 
Mar 12, 2015 at 8:47 AM Post #11,249 of 14,084
I just purchased one. I already do have an AK100 II and so far i really like it, but it doesn't drive my Beyerdynamics T90 really well. Especially on most of my 24bit albums i have the AK100 II at the highest volume setting and i'm still not where i want to be "volume-wise". I guess the DX90 should drive my T90 really well, since the DX50 already did a great job. During the Weekend i will do some A-B Listening between them and then decide which on of them i will keep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 12 (members: 0, guests: 12)
Back
Top