[M-13]

  They far from suck and pre-ring effects are debatable (I agree with you

). The slow filter exhibits very good ring and group delay characteristics in all areas. Doesn't mean that you can't find one that you prefer.

 

So I'm edumacating myself again. I read that Resonessence article several times in the past, but I guess I forgot some of the finner details. It's been over a year. And for some crazy reason I thought the sharp filter was for pre-ringing and slow filter was for the group delay, kinda like the Concero IIR/Apodizing filter combo. (opps...)
 
I'm thinking the slow filter is inherently superior now. At least on paper, so I will give that a hard listen later to confirm this. I agree that the classic FIR (brickwalling) is probably a bit overkill.
 
*I think the slow filter does have more extended harmonics (and air) and better imaging/staging cues because of this. Not sure what I was smoking when I thought it had more pre-ringing, perhaps the larger stage made the sound more "dispersed" and I confused it with blurryness (pre-ringing)...

 

[droid23]

I'd really like to have three filters to choose from e.g.
> "2.0.0 style" or mid roll-off
> sharp roll-off
> slow roll-off
...or even more variants to select from

 
IMO: on the one hand, the slow roll-off seems to be the better choice for everyday use. But on the other hand, there are some electronic music albums which really benefit from the sharp roll-off.
 
I honestly think, that the two choices we have now are a little bit too far away from each other in terms of sound signature. I miss something "in the middle".

 

[M-13]

  I'd really like to have three filters to choose from e.g.
> "2.0.0 style" or mid roll-off
> sharp roll-off
> slow roll-off
...or even more variants to select from

 
IMO: on the one hand, the slow roll-off seems to be the better choice for everyday use. But on the other hand, there are some electronic music albums which really benefit from the sharp roll-off.
 
I honestly think, that the two choices we have now are a little bit too far away from each other in terms of sound signature. I miss something "in the middle".

Honestly... there was probably nothing in the middle. Ibasso was using either the slow or fast filter in 2.0.
 
I don't think they have the budget to create custom filters yet, and so they were using one of the two defaults. The difference in sound we hear from 2.0 is probably due to something else that changed with the firmware. Maybe the decoding engine...

 

[musicheaven]

Honestly... there was probably nothing in the middle. Ibasso was using either the slow or fast filter in 2.0.

I don't think they have the budget to create custom filters yet, and so they were using one of the two defaults. The difference in sound we hear from 2.0 is probably due to something else that changed with the firmware. Maybe the decoding engine...

They are using an over sampling filter, it's inevitable, like I said it's most likely the sharp. If someone got a contact from ESS tech to find out please do!

I'd really like to have three filters to choose from e.g.
> "2.0.0 style" or mid roll-off
> sharp roll-off
> slow roll-off
...or even more variants to select from :tongue_smile:

IMO: on the one hand, the slow roll-off seems to be the better choice for everyday use. But on the other hand, there are some electronic music albums which really benefit from the sharp roll-off.

I honestly think, that the two choices we have now are a little bit too far away from each other in terms of sound signature. I miss something "in the middle".

Set it to slow and use the EQ at the end to shape it.
That's the best you are gonna get short of going for another DAC that allows custom filters like the WS8741 PCM digital filters. None of the Sabre dacs do including the ESS9018 reference dac.

 

[Tony1110]

Was all set to go ahead with the firmware update. Glad I stopped by to read this thread.

Does anybody have any advice as to what the definitive micro SD card for the DX90 is? (I'm still listening to the same 4 albums stored in the player's internal memory.) I've read about problems with the Sandisk Extreme cards and I have a feeling the 128gb will slow the DX90 down.

 

[pOOB73]

  I like the new firmware, and also the ability to choose filters. I missed this feature as I usually prefer the sharp filter with my Sabre implementations. I did so with the Concero and also now with the Ibasso.
 
Pre-ringing is the artifact I would rather eliminate instead of phase incoherence. For those of you new to this, you guys should go educate yourselves about inherent artifacts created by modern sigma-delta conversions. I believe Resonessence had a nice long article explaining it somewhere on their site.
 
And I found it for you guys:
 
http://resonessencelabs.com/digital-filters/

Here's another thread which makes it quite clear what slow/fast roll off in digital filters does and how it affects sound (or not).
 
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=92825
especially:
 
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=a760bcb20d138a4f057178d4c64558d3&showtopic=92825&view=findpost&p=781883
and
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?s=a760bcb20d138a4f057178d4c64558d3&showtopic=92825&view=findpost&p=781849

 

[musicheaven]

Was all set to go ahead with the firmware update. Glad I stopped by to read this thread.

Does anybody have any advice as to what the definitive micro SD card for the DX90 is? (I'm still listening to the same 4 albums stored in the player's internal memory.) I've read about problems with the Sandisk Extreme cards and I have a feeling the 128gb will slow the DX90 down.

No it's not, the player is more limited than the speed of the microSD card. I have the Sandisk 128gB version and no difference in speed compared to the 64 gB. I prefer the Sandisk because they give me the least trouble, they just work period, then I can move onto the player issues lol. Others seem to also like the Samsung 64 gB cards so that's another option. By the way take your stuff out of the internal and move it to the external cards, leave the extra mem for building the larger library reference which points to your external library. 5gb internal is just too little to do anything serious there.

 

[musicheaven]

- double post.

 

[musicheaven]

I think steep is always the default but before the option was given, the DX90 could have been using either, Just clarifying for others. You can see the filter slopes ESS uses in the link I gave on the previous page.

.

Thanks I guess the ESS website is let's say incomplete. That site seems to be pretty good with engineering data, nice read before going to sleep.

Just curious though how did you manage to get this site? Lots of useful info for the DAC tweakers.

 

[T.R.A.N.C.E.]

  I'd really like to have three filters to choose from e.g.
> "2.0.0 style" or mid roll-off
> sharp roll-off
> slow roll-off
...or even more variants to select from

IMO: on the one hand, the slow roll-off seems to be the better choice for everyday use. But on the other hand, there are some electronic music albums which really benefit from the sharp roll-off.
I honestly think, that the two choices we have now are a little bit too far away from each other in terms of sound signature. I miss something "in the middle".

 
I'm of the same mind, my guess is that the sharp filter was used on 2.00, but compared to current firmware, the note decay/thickness was still in between the current slow and sharp filters. A middle ground option similar sounding to 2.00 would be great, even if its not a filter, just a sound setting.  Aside from that, bring back the layering and imaging of 2.00 while keeping the frequency balance and wide sound stage of 2.05 would be perfection imo. I am completely torn as to whether I prefer 2.00 or 2.05 even after going back and forth between firmwares several times, they both do some different things better than each other imo.

 

[musicheaven]

I'm of the same mind, my guess is that the sharp filter was used on 2.00, but compared to current firmware, the note decay/thickness was still in between the current slow and sharp filters. A middle ground option similar sounding to 2.00 would be great, even if its not a filter, just a sound setting.  Aside from that, bring back the layering and imaging of 2.00 while keeping the frequency balance and wide sound stage of 2.05 would be perfection imo. I am completely torn as to whether I prefer 2.00 or 2.05 even after going back and forth between firmwares several times, they both do some different things better than each other imo.

Do me a favor and send the request to iBasso and see what they'll tell you but please insist on getting an explanation as to why they still get sound variances when burning firmware that has nothing to do with the changes.

 

[droid23]

I just read in a whitepaper of ESS, that the SABRE³² Reference audio DAC series, especially the ES9018 features "Customizable filter characteristics which allow a user programmable filter for custom roll-off response". Here's the source (PDF)
 
Hmm...If I understand that correctly, this sounds very good and might enable iBasso to tweak these filters after all^^ and I really hope, that this also applies for the ES9018K2M used in our DX90!!??

 

[depaor]

I'm on Ver 2.05 using slow roll-off. I'm listening to Ian Shaw "Drawn to All Things". Wow: clear as a whistle, and everything where it should be. I'm very much delighted with my DX90.
 
For those who are finding that ver 2.05 is somehow muddying the sound, have a listen to Eva Cassidy. I don't think I've heard her with more clarity. 
 
I initially listened to Ver 2.05 with my B&W P5s. I had to turn the volume down to 170. I'm now listening on my Shure SRH840s and I had to shove the vol up to 185. I don't think the volume change was as obvious on Ver 2.0.
 
Well done iBasso. I'm very happy with v 2.05. If I need a change of aural-scape, I can always load up V 2.0, or turn on the Sharp Roll-Off. The UI is now easier to use: sensitivity of the screen has backed off a little. I don't use Shuffle much or playlists at all...just listen to albums.
 
regards,
 
depaor

 

[borrego]

 
There is no such thing as "no filter". All DACs need to have a filter. This is how they work, otherwise there would be no sound.
 
Ibasso was using either the fast or slow filter before. Unless they had a custom filter they made but then got rid of suddenly.

 
Thank you for pointing this out to me.

 

[musicheaven]

I just read in a whitepaper of ESS, that the SABRE³² Reference audio DAC series, especially the ES9018 features "Customizable filter characteristics which allow a user programmable filter for custom roll-off response". Here's the source (PDF)

Hmm...If I understand that correctly, this sounds very good and might enable iBasso to tweak these filters after all^^ and I really hope, that this also applies for the ES9018K2M used in our DX90!!??

The DAC only allows few options depending on the source which is what they are doing now. Look at the diagram on the second page and see the doc goodvibes has provided, it's more indicative to what's available. Read my part about which vendor provides a better choice.

Originally Posted by M-13


There is no such thing as "no filter". All DACs need to have a filter. This is how they work, otherwise there would be no sound.

Ibasso was using either the fast or slow filter before. Unless they had a custom filter they made but then got rid of suddenly.

Wrong buddy, there will be sound but with aliasing that's why they add a band pass filter is to limit the output response to the audio band only from the source and remove the digital noises generated from the conversion.