or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › The DX90 by iBasso . . . Sound impressions . . . . . . . New Firmware, 2.5.1 . . .
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The DX90 by iBasso . . . Sound impressions . . . . . . . New Firmware, 2.5.1 . . . - Page 25

post #361 of 3032
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mython View Post
 

 

With only 1 card slot available, I personally would not even consider playing DSD on the DX90, anyway (USB DAC mode may be a different matter).

 

DSD files are just insanely large :eek:

With a 128gb card, you can get plenty of files on there. How many DSD are there that you want? I don't have that many that interest me and the 128gb for now, is more than enough. 

post #362 of 3032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mython View Post

With only 1 card slot available, I personally would not even consider playing DSD on the DX90, anyway (USB DAC mode may be a different matter).

DSD files are just insanely large eek.gif

Same here, the card gets filled up rather quickly and I find 24/96 more than acceptable, blind test me on that and 24/192 I can guarantee you I would fail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamato8 View Post

With a 128gb card, you can get plenty of files on there. How many DSD are there that you want? I don't have that many that interest me and the 128gb for now, is more than enough. 

I yet to receive my card I bought over a month ago, at that point I'll see if that'll be enough.
Edited by musicheaven - 4/20/14 at 3:38pm
post #363 of 3032
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamato8 View Post
 

With a 128gb card, you can get plenty of files on there. How many DSD are there that you want? I don't have that many that interest me and the 128gb for now, is more than enough. 

 

 

I have, and desire, no DSD files at all.

 

But if I did, I would downsample them to PCM before loading them onto a card for the DX90 (related discussion)

 

 

Why waste memory space with resolution which the DAP is unable to fully decode, anyway?

 

(I'm not dissing the DX90, I'm just saying I see no point in feeding it DSD)

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by musicheaven View Post


Same here, the card gets filled up rather quickly and I find 24/96 more than acceptable, blind test me on that and 24/192 I can guarantee you I would fail.
I yet to receive my card I bought over a month ago, at that point I'll see if that'll be enough.

 

Yeah, I've arrived at pretty-much the same conclusion - I suspect I might (might) be able to sense slight differences on a high-end fullsize hi-fi system, because of the more apparent spacial cues rendered by a high-end loudspeaker (fed by equally high-calibre electronics), but for DAP playback, through CIEMs, I can't, hand-on-heart, reliably hear any discernible difference between 24/192 and 24/96)

 

But I now view that as a good thing, as it frees me up to buy music at cheaper mid-hi-res, rather than rip-off uber-high-res, and it allows me to comfortably fill my memory cards with mid-hi-res albums rather than fewer uber-hi-res albums. :beerchug:

 

 

 

...and @ Jamato, I'm not getting at you personally :smile: and I really don't want to drift into the age-old pointless Sound Science debate about Hi-Res discernibility - My point was really just that the DX90 does not decode DSD natively, so why use so much of the relatively-limited memory space.

 

 

Peace.

 

 

 

Oh, and FWIW, I'm becoming more & more convinced that the DX90 may be my next DAP purchase (I love the sound of the DX100, and the compactness of the DX90, with similar SQ, is very appealing).

 

.


Edited by Mython - 4/20/14 at 4:07pm
post #364 of 3032
Glad to hear that the 90 is not so far removed from the Hugo. I also assume that Jamato has more hours on his 90 than the other fellow that owned the 90 and the Hugo.
post #365 of 3032
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mython View Post
 

 

 

I have, and desire, no DSD files at all.

 

But if I did, I would downsample them to PCM before loading them onto a card for the DX90 (related discussion)

 

 

Why waste memory space with resolution which the DAP is unable to fully decode, anyway?

 

(I'm not dissing the DX90, I'm just saying I see no point in feeding it DSD)

 

 

 

Yeah, I've arrived at pretty-much the same conclusion - I suspect I might (might) be able to sense slight differences on a high-end fullsize hi-fi system, because of the more apparent spacial cues rendered by a high-end loudspeaker (fed by equally high-calibre electronics), but for DAP playback, through CIEMs, I can't, hand-on-heart, reliably hear any discernible difference between 24/192 and 24/96)

 

But I now view that as a good thing, as it frees me up to buy music at cheaper mid-hi-res, rather than rip-off uber-high-res, and it allows me to comfortably fill my memory cards with mid-hi-res albums rather than fewer uber-hi-res albums. :beerchug:

 

 

 

...and @ Jamato, I'm not getting at you personally :smile: and I really don't want to drift into the age-old pointless Sound Science debate about Hi-Res discernibility - My point was really just that the DX90 does not decode DSD natively, so why use so much of the relatively-limited memory space.

 

 

Peace.

 

.

Good point. 

post #366 of 3032
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicheaven View Post

I yet to receive my card I bought over a month ago, at that point I'll see if that'll be enough.

 

 

eek! :eek:

 

I hope it turns up soon - I guess there was a world-wide demand for them that exceeded supply. Sandisk are no doubt working hard to fulfill demand, but I suspect there may be a lot of failed silicon wafers on their production line.

post #367 of 3032
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicheaven View Post

I yet to receive my card I bought over a month ago, at that point I'll see if that'll be enough.

Did you order the 128gb Sandisk from Amazon as well? Mine was ordered over a month ago as well and hasn't shipped either. But for the price, under 120 I couldn't resist.
post #368 of 3032
Quote:
Originally Posted by hykhleif View Post
 

guys how well does the bass play on dx90, i was about to buy the x5 but when i read it lacks in bass and warmth i backed out.

 

I look for a more warm sound sig and nice bass punch, I will use it in my car and also in home with my mad dog headphones

 

also which hugo are u all talking about


The X5 nor the DX90 is particularly "warm". I think the X3 is what you're looking for as that has a lot of bass and is warm/dark at the same time.

 

The DX90 is neutral (or very very close to it), and the X5 is neutral too (but the DX90 is closer to neutral for me).

 

What make the X5 less neutral than the DX90 is the slight bass bloom and slight shelving down of the treble. So it's got more bass than the DX90 while being darker at the same time, sounding comparatively muffled (slightly) and not as open or airy. Notice how I used the word "slight" as this really is the case. It's only slightly off from neutral, and I wouldn't argue if others said the X5 was neutral.

 

The DX90 bass is faster and more precise, while the X5 bass has more bloom with longer decays and does sound a little bit more defined (textured). But this might be because the longer decay allows for more details to shine through. The DX90 bass is fast, precise, and hits hard and goes deep with acceptable texture, the X5 bass sounds sluggish next to it.

 

I honestly think that if somebody can afford both the DX90 and X5 without any problem, than they should probably get the DX90. It's more impressive overall to the average person. The transparency/detail extraction/layering/seperation is kind of jaw-dropping.

 

If you cannot afford the DX90 but can get the X5, then just get the X5 and don't worry about it as the X5 is a great player too.

 

*I have 96 hours on the DX90 now and that Sabre treble sheen is completely gone now, and the bass pitch definition has greatly improved. It sounds more neutral than ever and the transparency/layering/seperation is done with more ease now. The X5 has also improved too and the Fiio house sound is disappearing more and more now, which is pretty cool.

 

** My conclusion so far is that the DX90 is a step above the X5, all things considered. I wouldn't call them equals at this point with my own gear.


Edited by M-13 - 4/20/14 at 4:12pm
post #369 of 3032

I have listened for a few hours to my DX90 on my custom JH16FP, W4R, TF10 and Universal 1964 Ears V8's - the only grain I noticed was the piece of rice I spilled on my desk at lunch. His HAS to be defective or he's trolling - those are the only two options. IMHO


Edited by Ivabign - 4/20/14 at 4:36pm
post #370 of 3032
Well we all hear things differently.
post #371 of 3032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poimandres View Post


Did you order the 128gb Sandisk from Amazon as well? Mine was ordered over a month ago as well and hasn't shipped either. But for the price, under 120 I couldn't resist.

Yep same deal and I am not going to cancel the order either ;)

post #372 of 3032

well all of u talk a bout background noises but no one has considered that some of us have lasting hearing damage. which completely annihilate our capability of hearing clean /clear backgrounds. i pretty sure that a lot of folks have hearing damage without themselves even knowing.

post #373 of 3032
Ibasso's website says they are out of stock on the DX90 the weird thing is that is also says they are $9999.00, that sure beats the price of the AK480! biggrin.gif
post #374 of 3032
Thread Starter 

I get ringing in the ears at times. Here is the interesting point. If I use a good open headphone, or something like the HD650 (I am not crazy about them unless balanced then it is another story), it goes totally away. Strange. If I use IEM's, even at a low volume, I get it after a while. Use the open phones and it seems to relax my inner ear and the ringing goes away. 

post #375 of 3032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mython View Post
 

 

 

I have, and desire, no DSD files at all.

 

But if I did, I would downsample them to PCM before loading them onto a card for the DX90 (related discussion)

 

 

Why waste memory space with resolution which the DAP is unable to fully decode, anyway?

 

(I'm not dissing the DX90, I'm just saying I see no point in feeding it DSD)

 

 

 

Yeah, I've arrived at pretty-much the same conclusion - I suspect I might (might) be able to sense slight differences on a high-end fullsize hi-fi system, because of the more apparent spacial cues rendered by a high-end loudspeaker (fed by equally high-calibre electronics), but for DAP playback, through CIEMs, I can't, hand-on-heart, reliably hear any discernible difference between 24/192 and 24/96)

 

But I now view that as a good thing, as it frees me up to buy music at cheaper mid-hi-res, rather than rip-off uber-high-res, and it allows me to comfortably fill my memory cards with mid-hi-res albums rather than fewer uber-hi-res albums. :beerchug:

 

 

 

...and @ Jamato, I'm not getting at you personally :smile: and I really don't want to drift into the age-old pointless Sound Science debate about Hi-Res discernibility - My point was really just that the DX90 does not decode DSD natively, so why use so much of the relatively-limited memory space.

 

 

Peace.

 

 

 

Oh, and FWIW, I'm becoming more & more convinced that the DX90 may be my next DAP purchase (I love the sound of the DX100, and the compactness of the DX90, with similar SQ, is very appealing).

 

.

 

Going further and down-sampled the same hi-res file correctly to 16/48 you'll be hard-pressed to hear any difference on a test (Blindly).

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, 2.5.1 . . .