or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear ›  DX90. 2X Sabre,1st page: Downloads, info&inst. . ! Lurker0 FW Mod link 1st page !!. .NEW FW! 2.3.0 . . . . .
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DX90. 2X Sabre,1st page: Downloads, info&inst. . ! Lurker0 FW Mod link 1st page !!. .NEW FW! 2.3.0 . . . . . - Page 221

post #3301 of 13841
Quote:
Originally Posted by piotrekfronc View Post
 

I have  HM901 and HDPr10 and had DX50 and can tell one thing, ibasso Dx50 was LAME :( Cowon Z2 is much better than DX50, in fact Z2 with BBE enabled compares well to DX100.

 

Hearing DX50 is not much different from DX50 means DX90 must be lame too.

 

I don't get what you are saying. How did you conclude DX90 is lame just by listening to DX50.

post #3302 of 13841

Btw I used to have intruder from RSA, it has this typical laid back burrbrown dog signature, very well controlled bass but noise levels at unacceptable 80Db (sorry, its like that). I sold it shortly after, Intruder was noisiest dac/amp I ever experienced.

Intruder employed the OPA1632 inside (which is why it has very typical BB laid back signature).


Edited by piotrekfronc - 4/16/14 at 10:16am
post #3303 of 13841

Im saying that if opinions conclude DX90 to be similiar to DX50 then it must be lame :)

 

I hope thats not the case!

post #3304 of 13841

Must say, I'm not really feeling those Burn-In Man songs. An Ant Screaming In The Vacuum Of Space is probably my favourite of them but not sure I can recommend the others tbh.

post #3305 of 13841
It's quite amusing watching people post pictures of their new DX90, due to it's clone like appearance of DX50, for observers like us there's really not much to get intrigued by besides a different number on the battery casing.  :pAnd I mean that honestly no offence to anyone, especially BucketInABucket who just posted pictures.
post #3306 of 13841
Quote:
Originally Posted by piotrekfronc View Post
 

Im saying that if opinions conclude DX90 to be similiar to DX50 then it must be lame :)

 

I hope thats not the case!

 

Did you already see that opinion already here or anywhere?

post #3307 of 13841
Quote:
Originally Posted by piotrekfronc View Post
 

Im saying that if opinions conclude DX90 to be similiar to DX50 then it must be lame :)

 

I hope thats not the case!

Every single opinion posted so far has said the opposite. 

 

I also very much disagree with your comparison of the Z2 to the DX100.

post #3308 of 13841
Quote:
Originally Posted by headwhacker View Post

I don't get what you are saying. How did you conclude DX90 is lame just by listening to DX50.

I think his logic is: A=Red, B=Blue, therefore A=Blue!
post #3309 of 13841
Who keeps count?? Dx90 delivered in france . yay!

I almost bought the dx50 until I learn about the long scanning time.

Hope this one scans 64gb fa$t
Edited by telecaster - 4/16/14 at 6:16am
post #3310 of 13841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sorensiim View Post

The internal amp of the DX90 is better than the single ended output of the PB2, but the balanced output has them both beat. That being said, unless you want to go balanced or crave a specific signature I see absolutely no reason for adding an amp. This thing is a beast.

Exactly the same can be said with the SR71-B for me
post #3311 of 13841

Which earphones you use? The DX100 is awesome (I switched to HDP version) but Cowon Z2 has advantage of BBE software (hardware is just a wolfson) which can really improve the quality. Personally I prefer the DX100 but I did blind comparison and what it is that Cowon Z2 was with BBE showing serious quality (well, then its not a same sound thou)...

post #3312 of 13841
Quote:
Originally Posted by piotrekfronc View Post

Btw I used to have intruder from RSA, it has this typical laid back burrbrown dog signature, very well controlled bass but noise levels at unacceptable 80Db (sorry, its like that). I sold it shortly after, Intruder was noisiest dac/amp I ever experienced.
Intruder employed the OPA1642 inside (which is why it has very typical BB laid back signature).

I was under the impression that all RSA amps have the markings sanded off the opamps. My Intruder did.
post #3313 of 13841

Mine had too, but there are ways to identify chips ;)

 

Thats not so difficult, also DX50 has the dual AD chip in there... but didnt bother confirming :)

post #3314 of 13841
Quote:
Originally Posted by piotrekfronc View Post

Btw I used to have intruder from RSA, it has this typical laid back burrbrown dog signature, very well controlled bass but noise levels at unacceptable 80Db (sorry, its like that). I sold it shortly after, Intruder was noisiest dac/amp I ever experienced.
Intruder employed the OPA1642 inside (which is why it has very typical BB laid back signature).

Very surprised by what you have said, of all the amps I have that have a dark background, the intruder is the best. I never had an noise issues or hiss for that matter to me it's a very well made low noise, low distortion amp. I guess our mileage differ. With the DX90 according to current owners, unless you want to tap into balanced, won't require an amp at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFlight View Post

I was under the impression that all RSA amps have the markings sanded off the opamps. My Intruder did.

Right on! wink.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by piotrekfronc View Post

Mine had too, but there are ways to identify chips wink.gif

Thats not so difficult, also DX50 has the dual AD chip in there... but didnt bother confirming smily_headphones1.gif

Really??? Unless you got a scope and even with that, you won't be able to tell with the multitude of op amps on the market which one it is.
Edited by musicheaven - 4/16/14 at 6:23am
post #3315 of 13841

They sand off those chips to hide the real value I guess :))) Because normal professionals dont have much trouble to check on whats  being used :)))

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear ›  DX90. 2X Sabre,1st page: Downloads, info&inst. . ! Lurker0 FW Mod link 1st page !!. .NEW FW! 2.3.0 . . . . .