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 376

post #5626 of 13841
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMaestro335 View Post

I do not agree with this at all! 2.05 with my GR07 MkII sounds amazing! I have a DX50 as well and there is no comparison. The DX90 trumps the DX50 in every way. What phones/IEMs are you using?

I m using Tg334 +000 cable. What ever the case..at least majority of the ppl likes 2.0.0 except the 2 Vietnamese n 1 or 2 more. For 2.0.5 is 50% like n dislike huh? Jamato 2nd try on 2.0.5 n the sound change is inspiring maybe will update to 2.0.5 again to try again..
post #5627 of 13841

2.05 is definitely better for me as well. It was less obvious with the Sig Pro, but more obvious with the K812. There is better detail/cleaner presentation for me and the soundscape which initially seemed smaller now feels just as big but even deeper than 2.0. I like what I'm hearing so far very much... but I do understand people going back to 2.0. I was initially a little confused after switching to 2.05.

post #5628 of 13841
Quote:
Originally Posted by nakedtoes View Post

Managed to restore back to 2.0.0  using TG334 dun quite like the SQ of 2.0.5 unless i use fast roll off + amp gain highest but still doesnt sound as fun as 2.0.0

Same here.... TG334 with 2.0.5 DX90 doesnt match well in sunny and humid little red dot mad.gif
post #5629 of 13841

I'm in the same boat as jamato, I first clearly preferred 2.00 when I first heard 2.05. But After comparing both firmwares several times, I came to the realization that 2.05 is the more reference sound in many ways, once I realized that I could no longer enjoy 2.05, it sounded fake in comparison. I think anyone who is preferring 2.00 must be because it has a better synergy with their phones or they enjoy the 2.00 take on the sound, but I have no doubt in my mind that 2.05 is the more correct sound if not taking into account synergy with phones.

post #5630 of 13841

I use the IE800 with the DX90, and also with the AK100.  They sound great on both.  On the DX90, the overall SQ is more open and dynamic.  The AK100 sounds good, but a "dull" sound in comparison to the DX90.  Bottom line, the DX90 plays music that is more enjoyable. 

 

This is only my subjective impression about the IE800, as I don't have the range of equipment that other people have to compare with.  Or have done the same rigourous comparisons.

I did have the Westone UM1, UM2, and the UE TF10.  I had the TF10 paired with an RS P-51 headphone amp.  Still have the TF10, and did a quick comparison with the TF10 when I got the IE800.  The IE800 makes music much more enjoyable. 

 

I've also come to a conclusion that I prefer dynamic drivers over BA, after previous experiences with cheap Nuforce dynamic earphones, which I found I enjoyed the way they produced music more than the BAs that I had tried.  I hasten to add that this is only my subjective preference within my own experiences, and I have not tried some of the highly rated multiple BA or BA/Dynamic combos, so my preference is not a judgement on them.

 

So the IE800, being a single dynamic driver did not put me off, when comparing against multiple BA drivers.  I also theorize that a single driver, done well, has advantages due to less complexity with complex crossovers, multiple drivers sound interaction.  Multiple sound sources, time delay, cancellation,  differences in efficiency, etc.,  etc.  For loudspeakers, very clean single, or simpler point sources have a purity of sound that stands out.  i.e. It is much harder to engineer a multi (3-4) driver loudspeaker, than a simpler two way driver.  And very simple crossovers have less of an interaction with the sound.  Less is more.   So the same rules should apply to earphones.  The greater the complexity, the more you are putting in the path of the signal.

 

Of course, creating an "excellent" single dynamic driver earphone, which is a very simple point source, compared to 3-8 BA or combination BA/Dynamic drivers, is no small feat.  But if Sennheiser has done it properly, then this gives a choice of a good single driver point source, versus multiple driver implementations.   Another choice, in a different design direction.   There is of course no absolute in any of this.  Just look at what goes on in the loudspeaker arena.  Very strongs opinions by respected people with opposing preferences.  The same in Amplifiers, DACs, etc. 

 

So, I do enjoy the music out of the IE800, and think it is a good sounding earphone.  I don't regret the money spent on the IE800, as I enjoy the music through them, which is saying a lot, as it can very easily go the other way.

And I do not look at the single driver as being a reason to ask: "why are they charging  such a ridiculous price for a simple single driver headphone?".  I think of it rather as "damn, Senheisser really did a great job engineering a single driver to be this good".  A comparison can be made with Kondo's (Audio Note) hand wired SE amplifiers.  How can something this simple be this expensive.....

post #5631 of 13841

Hello Which software to you use to manage the music of DX90 on mac ?

 

Thx

sam

post #5632 of 13841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel777 View Post
 

Hello Which software to you use to manage the music of DX90 on mac ?

 

Thx

sam

 

The good old finder.

post #5633 of 13841
Quote:
Originally Posted by headwhacker View Post
 

 

The good old finder.

Well,

 

i can see that you have JHAudio Roxanne with DX90. How is that Combo ?

which type of JHAudio Roxanne do you have ? because i'm interesting in getting this kind of earphones.

thx 

post #5634 of 13841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel777 View Post
 

Well,

 

i can see that you have JHAudio Roxanne with DX90. How is that Combo ?

which type of JHAudio Roxanne do you have ? because i'm interesting in getting this kind of earphones.

thx 

 

I have the custom Roxanne. While I like it with DX90 a lot of people think it's too dark and thick. If you like the sound of Audeze's I think you will love Roxanne. Remember the bass level is adjustable and the Universal seems to sound different than customs.

 

I strongly suggest you listen to a demo first before you decide. You don't want to waste around $1.5K if it turns out you don't like it's sound signature.

post #5635 of 13841
Quote:
Originally Posted by headwhacker View Post
 

 

I have the custom Roxanne. While I like it with DX90 a lot of people think it's too dark and thick. If you like the sound of Audeze's I think you will love Roxanne. Remember the bass level is adjustable and the Universal seems to sound different than customs.

 

I strongly suggest you listen to a demo first before you decide. You don't want to waste around $1.5K if it turns out you don't like it's sound signature.

 

ok, well understood !

post #5636 of 13841

I have been contemplating whether should I switch from my Sony F887 to the DX90. Has anyone done any comparison yet?

post #5637 of 13841
Quote:
Originally Posted by manutd6389 View Post
 

I have been contemplating whether should I switch from my Sony F887 to the DX90. Has anyone done any comparison yet?


I'm testing F886 and X3... and feel (perhaps i'm wrong) that the F886 is sparkle and has a excellent clarity (and different soundstage) but muddy, lack of speed and impact.

But i know it's impossible :confused_face:


Edited by Silverprout - 5/25/14 at 3:05am
post #5638 of 13841
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMaestro335 View Post


I do not agree with this at all! 2.05 with my GR07 MkII sounds amazing! I have a DX50 as well and there is no comparison. The DX90 trumps the DX50 in every way. What phones/IEMs are you using?


It is fine, but when Ibasso again change SQ at next firmware, do you buy the another IEM, which suits more to the new firmware? Sorry, but it is a bit crazy... I am using etymotic, so according what I have read about 2.0.5 version, probably it would not be a good match...

post #5639 of 13841
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnidrolog View Post


It is fine, but when Ibasso again change SQ at next firmware, do you buy the another IEM, which suits more to the new firmware? Sorry, but it is a bit crazy... I am using etymotic, so according what I have read about 2.0.5 version, probably it would not be a good match...
I actually think it would be a good pairing, being that the etymotics is a very micro detail IEM, and 2.05 is warmer and in my opinion Bassier than 2.00. Compare the 2 and pick a winner!rolleyes.gif
post #5640 of 13841
Quote:
Originally Posted by headwhacker View Post
 

 

I have the custom Roxanne. While I like it with DX90 a lot of people think it's too dark and thick. If you like the sound of Audeze's I think you will love Roxanne. Remember the bass level is adjustable and the Universal seems to sound different than customs.

 

I strongly suggest you listen to a demo first before you decide. You don't want to waste around $1.5K if it turns out you don't like it's sound signature.

 

I'm coming back again,

 

This question is addressed to every body : 

don't you think that it is time to record the Sound Quality from headphone exactly how it sounds ?

i mean record the sound exactly as it sounds with for exemple Westone 4R, Roxanne, V-MODA XS etc.... when the user put theses headphone on his ear.

I don't know how it is possible, but, if it does not exist yet, it would be useful to work on.

oh yep someone can say that, even if the sound is recorded, the headphone you use to listen will transform the SQ. yes but that need to be work on also via a neutral software Or the headphone to use to listen could be indicated etc....

 

it is just an idea .....

 

sam

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 . . . . .