Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › iBasso DX90. Dual Sabre, 1st page latest FW download & general information/instructions . . . . . . . . . .
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

iBasso DX90. Dual Sabre, 1st page latest FW download & general information/instructions . . . . .... - Page 12

post #166 of 8236
Most of the features are already available, the storage seems a bit difficult and the balanced output might be a bit big to fit in the chassis. The DX90 could implement these features for a couple hundred more though since it's already a dual DAC but it would be a lot bigger.
post #167 of 8236
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicHolyGhost View Post
 

who got the X5 thread locked by mod? :(

Hopefully they can just clean it up and reopen it. 

 

------------------------

 

Working with the new UI/FW for the DX50 and it works great so far. Since the UI will be the same for the DX90, with possibly a few differences, it will fantastic to get a fully mature UI right off the bat! 

post #168 of 8236

I have a question, please: What is the advantage of having two ES9018K2M chips versus one ES9018, for example? Channel separation, sound stage?

post #169 of 8236
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by irrational View Post
 

I have a question, please: What is the advantage of having two ES9018K2M chips versus one ES9018, for example? Channel separation, sound stage?

Lower crosstalk, and in my experience running them in parallel, a slightly more dynamic and transparent sound, if implemented correctly. R and L channel are getting their own power and I have always found it better to divide up the power supply, even to these low power requirements, as possible. I have even used a little inductor to the R and L feed of a dac chip and gotten a nice improvement. 

post #170 of 8236
Quote:
Originally Posted by irrational View Post
 

I have a question, please: What is the advantage of having two ES9018K2M chips versus one ES9018, for example? Channel separation, sound stage?

I guess since es9018k2m is designed for portable devices, it does not require additional I/V stage and etc. Also the power consumption can be lowered.

post #171 of 8236
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamato8 View Post
 

Lower crosstalk, and in my experience running them in parallel, a slightly more dynamic and transparent sound, if implemented correctly. R and L channel are getting their own power and I have always found it better to divide up the power supply, even to these low power requirements, as possible. I have even used a little inductor to the R and L feed of a dac chip and gotten a nice improvement. 

 

In typical dual vs. dual mono (i.e. WM8740 vs 2x WM8740, or ES9018K2M vs 2 x ES9018K2M), maybe. But 2 channels ES9018K2M vs vanilla 8 channels ES9018? I am not too sure the above still hold true. That's more like apple to orange than apple to apples.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rkyoto View Post
 

I guess since es9018k2m is designed for portable devices, it does not require additional I/V stage and etc. Also the power consumption can be lowered.

 

ES9018 can be configured to run as either current-out or voltage-out, so you don't need an I/V stage if you don't want to. But it does need a differential-to-single stage. However, the same is probably also required on ES9018K2M in dual mono setup, hence explaining why the 7 opamps in DX90.

post #172 of 8236
Thread Starter 

All speculation. I have designed and built preamps and other equipment. If you go by specs, you have specs. I can build a preamp with 1929 27 tubes that will trounce most anything out there and that is, well fairly old stuff and it doesn't look so great when you pick out the specs of the tube but it is pure music, true music, when implemented right. Solid bass, open, transparent and a sound stage you can walk into. I have a feeling the sound is going to be fine though and worthy of the music it will play. 

post #173 of 8236

If the screen is going to be the same small low resolution one from the DX50 I'm not going to be very happy. I love touch screen, but you really need a bigger screen and higher resolution to actually take advantage of what touch can offer. I wouldn't mind the same size screen only as long as it was higher resolution though, as I'm just not happy with the number of items the DX50 screen can display at the moment.

post #174 of 8236
Quote:
Originally Posted by T.R.A.N.C.E. View Post
 

If the screen is going to be the same small low resolution one from the DX50 I'm not going to be very happy. I love touch screen, but you really need a bigger screen and higher resolution to actually take advantage of what touch can offer. I wouldn't mind the same size screen only as long as it was higher resolution though, as I'm just not happy with the number of items the DX50 screen can display at the moment.

 

having the same screen size but a higher resolution doesn't help with touch controls at all.  

 

A 5" screen thats 1920x1080 won't have better touch response than a 5" 1280 x 720 screen.  

 

If you want a higher res. screen thats understandable but it won't change touch performance at all. 

post #175 of 8236
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by T.R.A.N.C.E. View Post
 

If the screen is going to be the same small low resolution one from the DX50 I'm not going to be very happy. I love touch screen, but you really need a bigger screen and higher resolution to actually take advantage of what touch can offer. I wouldn't mind the same size screen only as long as it was higher resolution though, as I'm just not happy with the number of items the DX50 screen can display at the moment.

Pretty sure it is the same but will find out. 

post #176 of 8236
Quote:
Originally Posted by TekeRugburn View Post
 

 

having the same screen size but a higher resolution doesn't help with touch controls at all.  

 

A 5" screen thats 1920x1080 won't have better touch response than a 5" 1280 x 720 screen.  

 

If you want a higher res. screen thats understandable but it won't change touch performance at all. 


it will have the opposite effect as the cpu and gpu (if a dedicated one is there)will have to push more pixels,,u can see the benchmarks of sets with 720p and 1080p screens with same processors.

720p will trounce 1080p by a good lead in onscreen performance

post #177 of 8236
I think the dx50 screen is small and fit for purpose. I just hope larger screen will not consume more battery
Edited by CosmicHolyGhost - 12/28/13 at 9:59pm
post #178 of 8236
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicHolyGhost View Post

I think the dx50 screen is small and fit for purpose. I just hope larger screen will not consume more battery


it will ofcourse unless they put a bigger battery

 

or they use the white magic screens by japan displays limited that uses an extra white pixel in addition to rgb format

post #179 of 8236
Quote:
Originally Posted by sardar17 View Post
 


it will have the opposite effect as the cpu and gpu (if a dedicated one is there)will have to push more pixels,,u can see the benchmarks of sets with 720p and 1080p screens with same processors.

720p will trounce 1080p by a good lead in onscreen performance

 

we're not talking about video processing performance.  We are talking about touch controls.  will it register when you touch the digitizer, will it notice when you stop touching.  Not animation processing.  

post #180 of 8236

The capacitance layer and the LCD screen are two different things, thus touch sensitivity and resolution don't always have a direct relationship. You can have a lousy touch screen with really high pixel count or vice versa.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › iBasso DX90. Dual Sabre, 1st page latest FW download & general information/instructions . . . . . . . . . .