Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › The DX90 by iBasso . . . Sound impressions . . . . . . . New Firmware, 2.1.0
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The DX90 by iBasso . . . Sound impressions . . . . . . . New Firmware, 2.1.0 - Page 45

post #661 of 1612
Quote:
Originally Posted by headwhacker View Post

T1 is still better compared to Roxanne in terms of overall tone and timbre. The music still feels a bit more natural on T1 than on Roxanne. If you like the treble of T1 (which is dreaded by some people who hate it) then you will find Roxanne a bit lacking. However, Roxanne as an iem resolves every bit of detail if your source is capable enough (DX90 is more than capable) and to me it provides a listening experience closer to a full-size headphone rather than any iem/ciem I ever tried. Even the JH16 while also good still makes me feel I'm listening to an iem, (that is the sound is coming from inside my head, while Roxanne somewhat gives the illusion the sound is in front of me.)

It has a similar presentation as the Audeze headphones. The thick/deep bass and a relax mids and treble reminds me of LCD-2.

Awesome. Thanks for the quick reply and detailed information. I do tend to EQ/cut the highs on the T1's, but only by a dB or two here and there. It's not too offensive to me. Thanks again.

Oh...are your Roxanne's custom or universal?
post #662 of 1612
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbfoto View Post


Awesome. Thanks for the quick reply and detailed information. I do tend to EQ/cut the highs on the T1's, but only by a dB or two here and there. It's not too offensive to me. Thanks again.

Oh...are your Roxanne's custom or universal?

 

Custom.

post #663 of 1612
Anyone who have tried to pair the vmoda m100 with the dx90? How is the synergy of the 2?
post #664 of 1612
Interestingly, the DX does a better job with T1s than it does with the 880/600s. There is a noticeable difference in volume too.

For some tracks there is no problem (Dire Straights, Alchemy sounds great), but for a lot of my classical, which seem to be recorded at lower gain, I find the DX struggles using the 880s.
post #665 of 1612
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pudu View Post

Interestingly, the DX does a better job with T1s than it does with the 880/600s. There is a noticeable difference in volume too.

For some tracks there is no problem (Dire Straights, Alchemy sounds great), but for a lot of my classical, which seem to be recorded at lower gain, I find the DX struggles using the 880s.

For some classical I have to even turn my fi.Q up higher than normal and it plays much louder, with total control and no distortion, than my very modified Woo Audio 6. Frankly, I wish a lot of classical was recorded with more gain. 

 

I do find that for sound, the DX90 is like it has an external amp and it is only when I need more power, not really sound improvement, that I use an amp. Surprising what iBasso did with the 90. 

post #666 of 1612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pudu View Post

Interestingly, the DX does a better job with T1s than it does with the 880/600s. There is a noticeable difference in volume too.

For some tracks there is no problem (Dire Straights, Alchemy sounds great), but for a lot of my classical, which seem to be recorded at lower gain, I find the DX struggles using the 880s.

Makes sense since T1 is easier to drive than 880/600. At which volume level you set DX90 with T1 when listening to classical?

post #667 of 1612
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamato8 View Post
 

For some classical I have to even turn my fi.Q up higher than normal and it plays much louder, with total control and no distortion, than my very modified Woo Audio 6. Frankly, I wish a lot of classical was recorded with more gain. 

 

I do find that for sound, the DX90 is like it has an external amp and it is only when I need more power, not really sound improvement, that I use an amp. Surprising what iBasso did with the 90. 

 

Now if they only just complete the USB DAC for both Windows and Mac. This is one hell of a bang for a buck DAP.


Edited by headwhacker - 5/2/14 at 10:08pm
post #668 of 1612
Thread Starter 

I want it to work for Mac really bad but it looks like Windows for now, from the email I got. So that is that. For one of the top sounding daps on the market and at the price it is selling for, can't really knock it. 

post #669 of 1612
Depends upon the track - anywhere from 210 to 240. With the 880 I could easily max it sometimes.

Yep. I never owned the 50, but I have to say this is the best perf/price piece iBasso has out - better than the 100 in my opinion.
Edited by Pudu - 5/2/14 at 11:17pm
post #670 of 1612

I also ask them about the USB DAC for Mac and the initial response and they don't know how to do it on Mac yet and told ne to ask again after a month, I guess after the finish the Widows driver.

 

I'm just curious since they have a few USB DAC products in their lineup, I suppose none of their products support Mac right now? Like the DB2 for instance.

post #671 of 1612
Probably not - the DB2 has options other than USB so I doubt they bothered with a Mac driver.

I have one, but no mac to test with (actually I have a mini and a really old macbook, but they both run windows).
post #672 of 1612

The diversity of the Internet never stops to amuse me.

 

 

Dx90 with DT880 600 ohm again here - The airy-ness is strong in this one as the burn in goes on..

 

I have tried the following EQ to make the bass a bit more controlled, feel free to give it a try guys :)

 

Bass ---------------------- Treble

       11 7 7 7 7 9 8 9

 

 

Volume wise it seems alright.. please correct me if I am not using the EQ function correct guys :p

 

Otherwise.. I find that this EQ has ever so slightly made the sound better (?or is this part of the burn in effect)

 

Obviously this would be record specific, and the ones that pleased me the most were vocals.

 

Classicals sound similarly decent.

 

Electric/techno seems fine too..


Edited by philiptw - 5/3/14 at 9:01am
post #673 of 1612

This thing is really falling into place. Another day of run in and the midbass has stepped back to a more appropriate level and it's opened up some more. I was really inconsistent with run in when I got it just because I've been very busy. It's a big deal here.

post #674 of 1612
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodvibes View Post
 

This thing is really falling into place. Another day of run in and the midbass has stepped back to a more appropriate level and it's opened up some more. I was really inconsistent with run in when I got it just because I've been very busy. It's a big deal here.


Time to change your avatar?

:D

post #675 of 1612

I'm still really curious to know if anyone can hear a difference in SQ (probably mostly in terms of bass response) using a higher capacity battery, vs. a standard capacity battery (http://www.head-fi.org/t/714421/the-dx90-by-ibasso-please-post-just-your-reviews-and-impressions/570#post_10492693)

 

 

Also looking forward to lots more user impressions when 2nd batch is released, 4 days from now :L3000:

 

 

.


Edited by Mython - 5/3/14 at 12:23pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › The DX90 by iBasso . . . Sound impressions . . . . . . . New Firmware, 2.1.0