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 36

post #526 of 13841
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmberOzL View Post


DX90 will have a USB DAC/AMP feature? I thought it was USB OTG feature to get extra capacity.

Well they said they are developing USB-DAC functionality, I did not ask if the OTG functionality was still going to be provided unless both can be provided with the USB-DAC enabled when connected to a PC USB port and the OTG selected through the Directory menu.
post #527 of 13841

So, no more USB DAC function on DX50? I thought this will be implemented soon via FW update.

 

Wrong thread..

 

 


Edited by headwhacker - 1/9/14 at 10:59am
post #528 of 13841
Quote:
Originally Posted by headwhacker View Post

So, no more USB DAC function on DX50? I thought this will be implemented soon via FW update.

The discussion above is just for the DX90 only.
post #529 of 13841
Quote:
Originally Posted by headwhacker View Post
 


If I were Ibasso, offer a DAP with balance output with the usual goodies and sell it around 900USD undercuts any flagship from competitors (Calyx, HifiMan, AK,) It might sell like hotcakes. Newbies might drawn into it thinking it's value for money.

 

Think about it, someone new coming in looking for Hi-end DAP will rely mostly on feature set. Ibasso would always come out at the top or near the top of the buyers list :)

 

 

Yeah, but if they want $900 bucks, they're gonna have to work harder on making their DAPs a bit sleeker than the housebrick style of the DX100.

 

Look at the Calyx-M. Yes, it has it's limitations, but it's not a massive brick.

 

Look at the AK120. Again, it has it's limitations, but it's not a massive brick.

 

ZX1....

 

 

I do understand why the DX100 (and HM-901) are bricks, but 18months or so later on, now, and people will expect something a bit sleeker for the money, considering that technology has moved on a bit (mobile version of ES DAC chip, for example). I don't mind a DAP being as wide and tall as the 901/DX100, but I just hope they can start to make flagships a bit thinner.

post #530 of 13841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mython View Post
 

 

 

Yeah, but if they want $900 bucks, they're gonna have to work harder on making their DAPs a bit sleeker than the housebrick style of the DX100.

 

Look at the Calyx-M. Yes, it has it's limitations, but it's not a massive brick.

 

Look at the AK120. Again, it has it's limitations, but it's not a massive brick.

 

ZX1....

 

 

I do understand why the DX100 (and HM-901) are bricks, but 18months or so later on, now, and people will expect something a bit sleeker for the money, considering that technology has moved on a bit (mobile version of ES DAC chip, for example). I don't mind a DAP being as wide and tall as the 901/DX100, but I just hope they can start to make flagships a bit thinner.


I agree, thickness is the biggest problem. Otherwise I would be listening to my music from R10 right now :D

post #531 of 13841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mython View Post
 

 

 

Yeah, but if they want $900 bucks, they're gonna have to work harder on making their DAPs a bit sleeker than the housebrick style of the DX100.

 

Look at the Calyx-M. Yes, it has it's limitations, but it's not a massive brick.

 

Look at the AK120. Again, it has it's limitations, but it's not a massive brick.

 

ZX1....

 

 

I do understand why the DX100 (and HM-901) are bricks, but 18months or so later on, now, and people will expect something a bit sleeker for the money, considering that technology has moved on a bit (mobile version of ES DAC chip, for example). I don't mind a DAP being as wide and tall as the 901/DX100, but I just hope they can start to make flagships a bit thinner.

I would very much prefer this 'The better the dac chip , the thinner it is' rather than 'The better the dac chip , the thicker it is' :rolleyes:

 

Everybody does I guess . :wink: 

post #532 of 13841
Quote:
Originally Posted by hilosxdd View Post
 

I would very much prefer this 'The better the dac chip , the thinner it is' rather than 'The better the dac chip , the thicker it is' :rolleyes:

 

Everybody does I guess . :wink: 

 

LOL - Ah, hold on moment - you missed an important point, though:

 

The newer ES9018-2M variant uses less power, and it's physically smaller:

 

 

and I'm not suggesting that a flagship DAP has to be as powerful as the DX100 - there's loads of desktop gear (and portable amps) with enough power to drive thirsty cans, but a single-box DAP need not be quite that powerful, because users seeking a single-box solution will mostly be using IEMs or CIEMs with it, whilst walking / traveling. So, the battery pack can, potentially, be a bit smaller.

 

I'm not suggesting the 15mw approach of the Sony NW-ZX1, but somewhere around 100mw - 200mw @16 ohms


Edited by Mython - 1/9/14 at 12:34pm
post #533 of 13841
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mython View Post
 

 

LOL - Ah, hold on moment - you missed an important point, though:

 

The newer ES9018-2M variant uses less power, and it's physically smaller:

 

I'm not suggesting the 15mw approach of the Sony NW-ZX1, but somewhere around 100mw - 200mw @16 ohms

But you start getting into 200mw and again you need a larger battery and there goes the size. Right now with the batteries that we will most likely have for the foreseeable future, you will have bulk. So maybe a top DAP with lower output power and one that is larger with more output power. If someone is going to use an amp because they want more power then you might as well get a good dap with more power or get the lower output power one and add the amp and you are back to the same size as what people are referring to as bricks. 

 

Frankly, the DX100 and the HM901, to me, are not bricks. They are an all in one that does a great job. I don't find them difficult at all to put into a pocket of a light jacket or the cargo pocket of my pants. If you want ultra light and for IEM then get a smaller dap and add a amp if you need it but you can't have both in one at this time. I do think the DX90 is going to offer some very decent power and with the Sabre dual dacs, well, I think it will put the 2000 dollar daps on their head. 


Edited by jamato8 - 1/9/14 at 1:42pm
post #534 of 13841
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamato8 View Post
 

But you start getting into 200mw and again you need a larger battery and there goes the size. Right now with the batteries that we will most likely have for the foreseeable future, you will have bulk. So maybe a top DAP with lower output power and one that is larger with more output power. If someone is going to use an amp because they want more power then you might as well get a good dap with more power or get the lower output power one and add the amp and you are back to the same size as what people are referring to as bricks. 

 

Frankly, the DX100 and the HM901, to me, are not bricks. They are an all in one that does a great job. I don't find them difficult at all to put into a pocket of a light jacket or the cargo pocket of my pants. If you want ultra light and for IEM then get a smaller dap and add a amp if you need it but you can't have both in one at this time.

 

 

Yeah, I just meant anywhere in the range - 101mw (into 16 ohms) would be fine, if that's the way to stop it being a brick! LOL

 

Calyx-M is 70mw

 

I am a fan of the DX100, but it's not a DAP you can put in the pocket of your jeans and walk around town with. In a jacket pocket, during winter, yes, but not in your jeans during summer.

 

I realise lots of people use the DX100 HM901 on their work desk or bedside table, though.

 

X5 is fairly compact but offers respectable power output (not sure what the figure is, into 16 ohms):

 

http://www.head-fi.org/t/661411/fiio-x5-thread-info-updated-on-jan-2nd-2014/2940#post_10135995

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamato8 View Post
 

.... I do think the DX90 is going to offer some very decent power and with the Sabre dual dacs, well, I think it will put the 2000 dollar daps on their head. 

 

I can't wait to see someone thoroughly embarrass AK.

 

That might sound vindictive, but it's mostly because I simply desire to see someone legitimately burst the tyres on this greed juggernaut they have going, at the moment.

 

 



Edited by Mython - 1/9/14 at 2:19pm
post #535 of 13841
Mython, stop wearing hipster skinny jeans and you can fit hm901 in your pocket.

Hehehe
post #536 of 13841
I would love to see a comparo of the DX90 and the AK240.
post #537 of 13841
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicHolyGhost View Post

Mython, stop wearing hipster skinny jeans and you can fit hm901 in your pocket.

Hehehe

 

 

:tongue_smile:

 

 

Seriously, though... I wear average 'easyfit' jeans (not skinny fit, not loose/baggy fit, just plain ordinary easy fit) and a DX100 (which is basically identical in size to an HM-901) was a no-go for walking around with it in either my front or back pocket!

 

All I can say is if anyone wants to disbelieve me, that's their prerogative, but don't come crying, saying I didn't warn ya!  LOL! :tongue: 

 

 

DX50 is (in an ideal world) about the maximum size I'd be willing to go, in terms of walking around with the DAP in a jeans pocket, during summer.

post #538 of 13841

i dont really wear jeans(mostly cargo) i can decently fit a dx100 sized dap (or stack) but that pocket would have to be empty , not really a comfortable experience honestly

post #539 of 13841

most wanted dap

post #540 of 13841
Quote:
Originally Posted by gikigill View Post

I would love to see a comparo of the DX90 and the AK240.
I can compare prices right now if you want.
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 . . . . .