DX90. 2X Sabre,1st page: Downloads, info&inst. . ! Lurker0 FW Mod link 1st page !!. .NEW FW! 2.3.0 . . . . . | Page 338 | Headphone Reviews and Discussion - Head-Fi.org

wickson · May 16, 2014 at 8:33 PM

We should start a collection and buy doc2008 a dx90... He's working magic with the dx50, talented guy.

Just ported 2.0 to the dx50

Mython · May 16, 2014 at 8:39 PM

wickson said:
We should start a collection and buy doc2008 a dx90... He's working magic with the dx50, talented guy.

Just ported 2.0 to the dx50

(genuine question): Won't iBasso offer this soon, to DX50-owners, anyway?

wickson · May 16, 2014 at 8:42 PM

mython said:
(genuine question): Won't iBasso offer this soon, to DX50-owners, anyway?

Not until the end of the month and he did bring rockbox to the dx50..... He also ported the different sound sigs from different firmware versions too.
But.... yes, the release is inevitable.

Mython · May 16, 2014 at 8:45 PM

wickson said:
He also ported the different sound sigs from different firmware versions too.

Ahh, now that's quite cool, I admit

As for Rockbox, I know what it is, but let me ask you: does it have any significant advantages over a modern firmware like that provided by iBasso on the DX50/90 or, say, Fiio on the X5?

Firmwares in 2013/2014 devices offer substantially better functionality than older DAPs, so I wonder if there is much benefit to Rockboxing a recent DAP.

wilman0527 · May 16, 2014 at 8:47 PM

mython said:
Well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see, won't we? :blink:

Perhaps they have changed the microSDcard access and data-buffering policy in the firmware, but iBasso saying it's fixed doesn't prove it actually has been fixed. I must say, I'm disappointed to hear of this issue (and the random 2-second truncation of certain tracks), so long after the DX50's release.

And, with no disrespect to iBasso (I actually like iBasso), and no disrespect to you, either, comparing it to the Hugo is... laughable. The Hugo is a very advanced and highly customised circuit design, and the cells are much more substantial than the one employed in the DX50/90, too.

I want the DX90 to perform well, as I applaud iBasso for bringing this level of SQ to this affordable price-point, instead of greedily price-gouging like iRiver. I really hope they can walk-their-talk and genuinely put these issues to bed. If they can, I'll happily join the DX90 owners club.

.

As a person who ear tested the ak120 240 and dx90 using dt770 pro 250 ohm I liked the 240 best but there was little difference between the dx90 and that's why I returned the 240 I also tried the 120 and found it lacked bass compared to both. I was look oxen for a portable solution without a amp and if the ak120 could match the bass I would have kept it.

musicheaven · May 16, 2014 at 8:47 PM

mython said:
(genuine question): Won't iBasso offer this soon, to DX50-owners, anyway? :confused_face(1):

wickson said:
Not until the end of the month and he did bring rockbox to the dx50..... He also ported the different sound sigs from different firmware versions too.
But.... yes, the release is inevitable.

DX90 first, then DX50 that seems to be the order. They have limited resources and right now the DX90 is their cash cow.

musicheaven · May 16, 2014 at 8:52 PM

mython said:
That sounds kinky! :wink_face:

It's funny you mentioned that because it comes in pairs

wickson · May 16, 2014 at 8:53 PM

Mython
Rockbox is limited to 16/44.
It does have replay gain, better eq and some claim it sounds better on the dx50 vs the stock firmware. Sold my dx50, I have no idea if this is true.

Mython · May 16, 2014 at 8:57 PM

wickson said:
@Mython
Rockbox is limited to 16/48.
It does have replay gain, better eq and some claim it sounds better on the dx50 vs the stock firmware. Sold my dx50, I have no idea if this is true.

Mehh.... so basically, it's not really worth Rockboxing a DX90, then

I think sometimes people change firmwares (or root their cellphones) mostly because it makes them feel empowered in influencing the operation of their device, rather than necessarily achieving substantial gains in performance.

That's OK - more power to them, but if there's marginal returns on the hassle, then I personally won't bother. It's all-good. Each to their own, etc. etc.

wickson · May 16, 2014 at 9:00 PM

I would really be more interested in the balanced output mod.

Mython · May 16, 2014 at 9:02 PM

wickson said:
I would really be more interested in the balanced output mod.

Yep, me too. Sorensiim said, a month or so ago, that he'd be willing to try a mod, since the standard DX90 circuit topology is apparently 95% of the way there, anyway, so a mod should be easy. I did click on the recently-posted foreign link, but it didn't seem sufficiently detailed to me.

Hopefully, someone here on Head-fi will post an appropriate explanation of how to accomplish it, soon

.

jj69 · May 16, 2014 at 9:17 PM

wickson said:
We should start a collection and buy doc2008 a dx90... He's working magic with the dx50, talented guy.

Just ported 2.0 to the dx50

Ditto.

However, having just received my DX90, I will admit that the stock firmware is not the sonic disaster that the DX50 has been from day one. It will be interesting to see if the "sound signature" changes with every firmware upgrade like the DX50 and DX100 before it. If iBasso (or more likely Rockchip) has finally resolved the morphing sound signature problem once and for all, I might actually be able to live with the stock firmware. In a strange way, I kind of like its simplicity. Still, the stock DX90 firmware doesn't have anywhere near the the features and versatility of Rockbox, and like the DX50 firmware, gapless doesn't always work correctly.

The DX90's hardware, on the other hand, is unquestionably better than the DX50. I would attribute at least 85% of the improvement to the much superior amplification stage. After the DX50, I just don't trust Rockchip to get the most out of the hardware, so I'm looking forward to a Rockbox port.

musicheaven · May 16, 2014 at 9:25 PM

The only problem with the RockBox is the limited resolution available which for me is a deal breaker and last time I tried, the interface was horrible, hope that's been fixed.

jj69 · May 16, 2014 at 9:51 PM

musicheaven said:
The only problem with the RockBox is the limited resolution available which for me is a deal breaker and last time I tried, the interface was horrible, hope that's been fixed.

I downsampled all of my high res audio to 44/16 using MBIT+ in the iZotope RX software. It saves a massive amount space, with no sonic downside that I can hear using the DX50. I'm beginning to believe high res playback for practical uses is little more than a gimmick.

Even if you are a staunch supporter of high res playback, if you had to choose between native high res playback with deeply flawed codec (DX50 stock firmware) or downsampled playback with a flawless codec (Rockbox), which would you choose? My suggestion would be to try both before reaching any conclusions.

headwhacker · May 16, 2014 at 9:52 PM

mython said:
My guess is that it may be either a power management or data buffering issue. Whether firmware tweaking would be sufficient to address that (or whatever else it might be), is anyone's guess.

I'm still likely to buy a DX90, but I would like to know that this issue has been successfully dealt with before I do (as well as the random truncation of the first 2, or last 2, seconds of each track, which has been reported by many users).

.

Downsampling it at least to 24/96 would be the best solution.

Latest Thread Images

wickson

100+ Head-Fier

Mython

Headphoneus Supremus

wickson

100+ Head-Fier

Mython

Headphoneus Supremus

wilman0527

Head-Fier

musicheaven

Headphoneus Supremus

musicheaven

Headphoneus Supremus

wickson

100+ Head-Fier

Mython

Headphoneus Supremus

wickson

100+ Head-Fier

Mython

Headphoneus Supremus

jj69

500+ Head-Fier

musicheaven

Headphoneus Supremus

jj69

500+ Head-Fier

headwhacker

Headphoneus Supremus

Users who are viewing this thread