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 377

post #5641 of 7877
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMaestro335 View Post


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

Interesting you say 2.0.5 is bassier than 2.0.0, I find 2.0.0 bassier than 2.0.5 and 2.0.5 lacking lower bass altogether. I used both types of phones, warmer and bright but no matter which one the results yielded were the same. I would go with the last suggestion. ;) 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel777 View Post
 

 

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

 

That was suggested earlier to @jamato8 and he is ok with that, just look at the post from the impression thread and see if you can provide the info as he expects it. We really only need one location and the impression thread would make more sense as you provide your impressions and we should know what the gear you used was when you did.


Edited by musicheaven - 5/25/14 at 1:03pm
post #5642 of 7877

May be the question has been already answered, but i have ordered a micro sd card 128 GO for my DX90.

will it work with or not ?

normally i should ask the question before ordering, but, it is already done

thx 

post #5643 of 7877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel777 View Post
 

May be the question has been already answered, but i have ordered a micro sd card 128 GO for my DX90.

will it work with or not ?

normally i should ask the question before ordering, but, it is already done

thx 

The answer is a big YES, I currently have it with only 40Gb left on the card and it works without any problem, I gather that you ordered the Sandisk 128Gb correct? If so you should be fine.

post #5644 of 7877
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicheaven View Post
 

The answer is a big YES, I currently have it with only 40Gb left on the card and it works without any problem, I gather that you ordered the Sandisk 128Gb correct? If so you should be fine.

 

Thanks !

yes it is scandisk 128Gb.

sam

post #5645 of 7877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel777 View Post
 

May be the question has been already answered, but i have ordered a micro sd card 128 GO for my DX90.

will it work with or not ?

normally i should ask the question before ordering, but, it is already done

thx 

 

As long as it's an authentic 128GB SD/micro SD it should work. I already have a 128GB full SD card long before the 128GB microSD became available. I am using a micro SD to full SD extender/Adapter so I don't need to by another card for at least in the near future.

post #5646 of 7877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel777 View Post
 

 

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

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by musicheaven View Post
 

Interesting you say 2.0.5 is bassier than 2.0.0, I find 2.0.0 bassier than 2.0.5 and 2.0.5 lacking lower bass altogether. I used both types of phones, warmer and bright but no matter which one the results yielded were the same. I would go with the last suggestion. ;) 

 

 

To be honest it feels like the slow roll off on 2.0.5 gives more bass definition and more rumble than 2.0.0. This is both on Roxanne and T1. But I never bother to go back to 2.0.0 and verify this myself because I am very much satisfied with what 2.0.5 offered especially with the Digital Filter.

post #5647 of 7877

Slow roll if warmer. I think the low bass perspectives have to do with associated kit. I prefer the leaner balance of steep roll but the more natural perspective and musicality of slow roll. I've always felt this player great but it could be leaned out a bit. It would be even more synergistic with slow roll.

post #5648 of 7877
2.0.5 sound amazing with my pfe232 , zero audio tenor, jvc fx850, sig pro and w3000 anv.
No lack of bass in either FW, the new FW is more musical and moved the soundstage more in front of my head than side to side.
Which is the way it should be.
post #5649 of 7877
Quote:
Originally Posted by headwhacker View Post

 

To be honest it feels like the slow roll off on 2.0.5 gives more bass definition and more rumble than 2.0.0. This is both on Roxanne and T1. But I never bother to go back to 2.0.0 and verify this myself because I am very much satisfied with what 2.0.5 offered especially with the Digital Filter.

 

I agree, 2.05 has superb definition, texture and timbre to its bass. While 2.00 just had more bass, both mid bass and sub, not more bass extension, just louder bass all round, which caused a slight loss of texture and definition imo, but the increased bass can definitely be enjoyable if you have bass light phones or are a bass head or enjoy the bass impact etc.  2.00 really does have flat bass, meaning sub bass and mid bass are both level and not boosted , many people don't like this as it takes away from the mid bass impact, most people enjoy a slight mid bass boost over sub bass. Even Jerry Harvey tunes all his iems like jh13,16, roxx to have a midbass boost over sub bass as its the only way to communicate bass impact without sub bass rolling over it. I personally also prefer a slight mid bass boost over sub bass, but my iems take care of that (most but not all iems/phones naturally do have a slight mid bass boost), which is probably why I really like the bass on 2.05 :D But regardless, A DAP should have perfectly flat response, any coloration you want should be added by your iems/headphones, not the dap.

 

My main problem with 2.00 is actually the aspect I first loved most about it, its 3D presentation and vivid imaging. But after some serious listening, as awesome as the effect is, I have realized it is being unnaturally created by the tuning of the dacs/codecs and is not what a reference dap should be doing. I could also occasionally hear some channel mismatch, stereo image artifacts, image overlap and even overly separated image, 2.00 was definitely altering the music presentation, sometimes it sounded really "cool" (but not reference), other times it sounded exceedingly fake. 2.00 was messing with the recording to create something else. Soundstage width left to right on 2.00 is compressed, Vocals would always be in the middle of your head and slightly compressed/overlaped in stereo image, while bass would kinda be behind my head and inflated/ with separated stereo image (causing the bigger bass imo), while treble would be on top of my head, and originate more from left/right rather than a coherent image (lessening the treble sharpness imo). So mids=overlapping stereo image, bass and treble= overly separated stereo image, this was what was causing the "3D" sound of vocals dead centre, treble up top spread left/right, bass booming behind and around you, this is all my IMO though after comparing firmwares several times, and bear in mind I first liked 2.00 better!

 

To my ears 2.05 is close to perfection being dead flat in FR, while also having a nice wide and airy sound stage and the music presentation is now coherent and natural, sound is now as if its coming of a "stage" where all sounds originate from the same ground level but spread up through the air, and range from far left to center to far right. Slow roll is the only reference option imo.


Edited by T.R.A.N.C.E. - 5/25/14 at 7:04pm
post #5650 of 7877
Quote:
Originally Posted by T.R.A.N.C.E. View Post
 

 

I agree, 2.05 has superb definition, texture and timbre to its bass. While 2.00 just had more bass, both mid bass and sub, not more bass extension, just louder bass all round, which caused a slight loss of texture and definition imo, but the increased bass can definitely be enjoyable if you have bass light phones or are a bass head or enjoy the bass impact etc.  2.00 really does have flat bass, meaning sub bass and mid bass are both level and not boosted , many people don't like this as it takes away from the mid bass impact, most people enjoy a slight mid bass boost over sub bass. Even Jerry Harvey tunes all his iems like jh13,16, roxx to have a midbass boost over sub bass as its the only way to communicate bass impact without sub bass rolling over it. I personally also prefer a slight mid bass boost over sub bass, but my iems take care of that (most but not all iems/phones naturally do have a slight mid bass boost), which is probably why I really like the bass on 2.05 :D But regardless, A DAP should have perfectly flat response, any coloration you want should be added by your iems/headphones, not the dap.

 

My main problem with 2.00 is actually the aspect I first loved most about it, its 3D presentation and vivid imaging. But after some serious listening, as awesome as the effect is, I have realized it is being unnaturally created by the tuning of the dacs/codecs and is not what a reference dap should be doing. I could also occasionally hear some channel mismatch, stereo image artifacts, image overlap and even overly separated image, 2.00 was definitely altering the music presentation, sometimes it sounded really "cool" (but not reference), other times it sounded exceedingly fake. 2.00 was messing with the recording to create something else. Soundstage width left to right on 2.00 is compressed, Vocals would always be in the middle of your head and slightly compressed/overlaped in stereo image, while bass would kinda be behind my head and inflated/ with separated stereo image (causing the bigger bass imo), while treble would be on top of my head, and originate more from left/right rather than a coherent image. So mids=overlapping stereo image, bass and treble= overly separated stereo image, this was what was causing the "3D" sound, this is all my IMO though after comparing firmwares several times, and bear in mind I first liked 2.00 better!

 

To my ears 2.05 is close to perfection being dead flat in FR, while also having a nice wide and airy sound stage and the music presentation is now coherent and natural, sound is now as if its coming of a "stage" where all sounds originate from the same ground level but spread up through the air, and range from far left to center to far right. Slow roll is the only reference option imo.

 

This was initially fun for me with 2.00. In fact one of the aspect of DX90 which wowed me. But on several music which I listen to most of the time, the separation is way too much to a point that it starts to bother me. It feels like the imaging is like a sponge or cheese with a lots of empty spaces and several big ones which  weakens that whole structure (presentation).

 

The T1 has a mild boost at mid bass in relation to the sub bass but I never felt the sub bass was lacking in 2.0.5. Without proper measurements between FW we can't be 100% sure but if 2.0.5 has a boosted mid bass it's very mild and it rolls all the way to the low end at a very very shallow slope (maybe < 0.5 dB difference from the peak at mid bass to the bottom end pass 20 Hz.

post #5651 of 7877

Does anyone have a clue as to when the next FW update is due?

post #5652 of 7877
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomlogic View Post
 

Does anyone have a clue as to when the next FW update is due?

2 weeks or so from what has been written a number of times when iBasso has been asked this. 

post #5653 of 7877

Great synergy with the AKG K3003i (Firmware v.2.0.5). Also great with Shure SE846.

Both pick up detail (in their own way). The SE846 sounding natural. The AKG K3003i precise and open. The DX90 allows these i.e.m's to present their designed characteristics.

IE800 sounds a bit 'muddy' (IMO).

BTW DX90 showing a lot of tightening up, right across the frequency ranges, after only about 50 hours of burn-in. Was sceptical about burn-in, but very pleased to be proven wrong.

post #5654 of 7877

Just updated to 2.05, sounding great with the Heir 5.0+ so far

post #5655 of 7877
My DX90 (first batch) is now broken. I got everyting working but only one function is now dead. My DX90 doesn't charge the battery anymore. I tested everything already. I even got a genuine S3 battery... I contacted ibasso and they said to send it back, and I feel it's ok while the shipping is so darn expensive here...
I'm pondering keeping it and sending when there is something really serious and using an external battery charger...
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 . . . . . . . . . .