Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › The DX90 by iBasso . . . Sound impressions . . . . . . . New Firmware, 2.1.5
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The DX90 by iBasso . . . Sound impressions . . . . . . . New Firmware, 2.1.5 - Page 64

post #946 of 1915

Coming back to scan times taking for ever, today I bought a new card reader and filled my 64GB class 10 card. Insterting the card in the dx90 it asks me if I want to rescan the library and ofcourse I want to do this. Using a stopwatch it took close to two minutes for the DX90 to scan my card. Is this normal or am I doing something wrong?

post #947 of 1915

This being the first scan is probably correct. Future scans with few changes should be a lot faster

post #948 of 1915

 

Very true if only the ESS Sabre DAC can directly drive your head phones through its output pins for you to enjoy the -135dB noise floor

post #949 of 1915

Yeah that's why I switched over to using the line out as a headphone out. Great sound, unbelievable dynamics and of course no more veil on my cans, wow!

post #950 of 1915
Quote:
Originally Posted by headwhacker View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by highfell View Post

So it arrived yesterday. Only had time to listen to side one of The Final Cut (flac) by PF.



I played the DX90 through the PB2 balanced out to HD600s, which is my 'definitive' set-up at home.



Wow - unbelievable. The clarity & separation of the instruments is stupendous. The DX90 is an obvious uplift from the DX50. Like others have mentioned, you begin to hear details that were hidden before. It is like a veil of mist has been burnt away by the sun on a clear sunny morning.



I realise it is early days, but I am very impressed so far and pleased to have made the decision to upgrade.

 



You are only using the DAC in DX90. For me, the biggest star is the amp section. I imagine if DX50 has the same amp configuration as DX90 the gap may be narrower.

Yep. I only bought the DX90 for the improvement of its DAC not the AMP part. And as mentioned above, I was very impressed and continue to be. I also wanted to compare like with like, to ensure that I thought it was worth making the upgrade.

I have two fabulous headphone amps and I intend to enjoy them combined with the LO of the DX90. I take your point that the Amp part of the DX90 over the DX50 might be proportionately better than DAC's relative improvement, but that doesn't worry me and actually I have been surprised by how much better the DX90 sounds.


I realise that this is getting somewhat ahead of myself, but I am done with upgrading until IBasso brings out the DX150, then I might jump-in again.
post #951 of 1915

@pauldgroot: Oh, what an interesting idea! ...I just started auditioning...

There's really something about it...on very first listening I hear that the bass on my newly bought NAD Viso HP50 are reduced when i use the line out but the cans sound maybe more detailed!!??

 

Let's give it a try for some time^^

 

Many thx for suggesting :)


Edited by droid23 - 5/13/14 at 10:21am
post #952 of 1915
Quote:
Originally Posted by droid23 View Post
 

@pauldgroot: Oh, what an interesting idea! ...I just started auditioning...

There's really something about it...on very first listening I hear that the bass on my newly bought NAD Viso HP50 are reduced when i use the line out but the cans sound maybe more detailed!!??

 

Let's give it a try for some time^^

 

Many thx for suggesting :)

 

 

That may well be due to differences in the output impedance of the LO vs that of the HO (broadly-speaking, HO generally tends to be lower OI than the OI of the LO)

post #953 of 1915
Quote:
Originally Posted by borrego View Post
 

 

Very true if only the ESS Sabre DAC can directly drive your head phones through its output pins for you to enjoy the -135dB noise floor

 

Agree, but -115dB on high gain for the DX90's HO is no slouch either. The point is implementing the digital volume control on the DAC is not as bad as you think in terms of SNR

post #954 of 1915
Quote:
Originally Posted by headwhacker View Post
 

 

Agree, but -115dB on high gain for the DX90's HO is no slouch either. The point is implementing the digital volume control on the DAC is not as bad as you think in terms of SNR

 

The -115dB LO of DX90 is exactly the reason I max out the DX90 internal volume control and connect it to external AMP with volume control at later stage. It is the only way to get that level of S/N from DX90.

post #955 of 1915

After using the DX90 for a little more than a week, I must say the internal amp section is quite decent for a DAP. I wonder if the OPA1611s at the amp section are Class A bias as it does not seem I can get longer battery life just using LO.

 

Too bad the DX90 amp section cannot be fed with the max possible signal strength at my normal listening volume with the EPH-100. It is like putting me as the rider on a MotoGP bike.


Edited by borrego - 5/13/14 at 7:16pm
post #956 of 1915
Quote:
Originally Posted by borrego View Post

The -115dB LO of DX90 is exactly the reason I max out the DX90 internal volume control and connect it to external AMP with volume control at later stage. It is the only way to get that level of S/N from DX90.

If your amp is better than -115dB then it makes sense. But how many portable amps has equal or better level? The O2 is rated at -102 as a reference, I guess that is the best case scenario with the volume pot at the 12 o'clock position. Most amps if not all don't even include it in their spec sheets.

In practical sense you won't be getting the -115 either with an external amp. Then you have to consider other things like analog volume pot.
post #957 of 1915
Quote:
Originally Posted by headwhacker View Post

If your amp is better than -115dB then it makes sense. But how many portable amps has equal or better level? The O2 is rated at -102 as a reference, I guess that is the best case scenario with the volume pot at the 12 o'clock position. Most amps if not all don't even include it in their spec sheets.

In practical sense you won't be getting the -115 either with an external amp. Then you have to consider other things like analog volume pot.

Well there is some benefit technically because the snr would add up. So it makes sense to reduce the snr at all points.
post #958 of 1915
Quote:
Originally Posted by headwhacker View Post


If your amp is better than -115dB then it makes sense. But how many portable amps has equal or better level? The O2 is rated at -102 as a reference, I guess that is the best case scenario with the volume pot at the 12 o'clock position. Most amps if not all don't even include it in their spec sheets.

In practical sense you won't be getting the -115 either with an external amp. Then you have to consider other things like analog volume pot.

 

Yup. at the end neither the PO from DX90 nor PO from portable amp can reach -115dB at listening volume. But "Listing is Believing", and I can easily tell the noise/instrument separation/sound stage improvement I can get from the DX90 teaming with a mid price portable amp like the Arrow 4G. And this is with my lowly Yamaha EPH-100. I can only think if you own the DX90 and a better and more expensive IEM (say, already have spent $700), you owe yourself not teaming up the DX90 with an solid external amp for spending just another $200.

 

Actually, the price of the DX90 + Arrow would still be lower than that of a DX100 or HDP-R10. If the DX90 by itself can reach 90% of what the DX100 can do, then I would say it is quite likely the DX90 + Arrow would beat the DX100 / HDP-R10.

 

Perhaps all these years, I am already addicted to the crossfeed function of the Arrow and cannot stand any POs without crossfeed. And next week I will have my Meier Corda Classic coming in. :etysmile:

post #959 of 1915
Quote:
Originally Posted by borrego View Post
 

 

My view was on "DAC chip level" digital volumne control. Which is different from the "Digital Volume Control" at later stage of the circuit.

 

The problem I was talking was on S/N, not the 16/32 bit accuracy issue you are saying.

 

As long as you are using the DAC at max volume (as most people do), it doesn't matter as you are at the max S/N setting.

Because going through a 2nd A2D-D2A conversion is preferred? There are no free lunches here and a device that doesn't show noise under normal operating conditions has chosen the correct approach which is also less complex.:smile:

 

One example of what is possibly a defective PS does not prove the rule. You can have your opinion but it's a limited view as you seem unwilling to accept other's conflicting experiences or topology discussions. Amp stages always run at a fixed gain and the DX90's is not excessively high. Putting an additional and required dig or analog V control in front of it doesn't change that and you certainly can't put it after. Your argument isn't sound, IMO.

 

You're worried about induced noise of a unique PS but advocate a noise inducing and effectively compressing circuit like crossfade. Where in the circuit of your favored Arrow do you think the analog V control resides?


Edited by goodvibes - 5/14/14 at 8:14am
post #960 of 1915
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamato8 View Post

The DX90 represents more of what is recorded rather than expanding everything.

Are you using your HiFiMAN 560s with the DX90? Enough power or is an amp needed?
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, 2.1.5