Dear colleagues, could you (if there are some ingeneers but not only listeners) could you test the headphone output (only this) of DX90 about its linearity with 2.1.5 and vs the 2.1.8? With the same impedance course.
I must repeat - the bass in 2.1.8 is so hard for me. Tested the 2.1.8 just now again
I'd suggest you to find a chance to try headphones with linear impedance, like Audeze LCD-X or 3, HiFiMan HE-400 or 500, Oppo PM-1... I provided examples based on impedance measurements published here. Or, try low impedance models. Zero output impedance of DX90 my be the reason of your problem, whether it is related to high avg impedance or/and impedance (non-)linearity at low frequencies of your headphones.
i found something depending the exFAT problems ( no scanning cache written to SD &
everytime after powering on the DX90 it asks for scanning the card )
First i could confirm, that not the cards are the issue. I've tested this with many
brands like SanDisk, Sony, NoName.
Secound the exFAT filesystem is not the "real" problem maker ( Tracks are allways playing ) :
I started with a complete wiped Card ( ! removed partitions !, wiped with zeros )
This card i formatted under Windows to exFAT ( the exFAT partition is set automatically ).
I looked at the partition table and the ! hole ! capacity is used for exFAT.
( starting from first block to the last )
This formatting / partitioning gives the scanning issue.
I wiped the card one more time like i wrote before, but now i formatted it with
the SDcard.org tool. The interesting thing here is when looking at the
partition table, not the hole capacity is used for exFAT. There is a blank
16MB block left INFRONT of the exFAT partition. This card will work with no issue.
A friend bought a new 64GB SanDisk card and confirmed that it was partitioned
"out of the box" with the SDcard.org method and that there is a free area infront
of the exFAT partition. My Sony cards were shipped with the microsoft
method and give the scanning issue. So the partioning with this free area infront
of the exFAT partition could make the issue. Could be that this free space is used
for swapping or file system caching action and the DX Data Cache is not written
if not detected...
It's up to you to fix this if wanting a better Microsoft compatibility.
Dear colleagues, could you (if there are some ingeneers but not only listeners) could you test the headphone output (only this) of DX90 about its linearity with 2.1.5 and vs the 2.1.8? With the same impedance course.
I must repeat - the bass in 2.1.8 is so hard for me. Tested the 2.1.8 just now again
I am no engineer (at least I come from a family home of engineers and personally I am also into the technical background of audio) but can provide measurements of the DX90's headphone output.
Here it is:
I used the UE Triple.Fi 10 as load as it reacts very critical when connected to a source with rather high output impedance and/or big coupling capacitors and the DX90 fulfills none of those two criterias which leads to one of the best frequency responses with a critical load I have ever seen.
As you can see, this is a very linear response meaning the output impedance is very very close to 0 Ohms.
With 2.1.5, the frequency response was just as linear as it is now.
I am no engineer (at least I come from a family home of engineers and personally I am also into the technical background of audio) but can provide measurements of the DX90's headphone output.
Here it is:
I used the UE Triple.Fi 10 as load as it reacts very critical when connected to a source with rather high output impedance and/or big coupling capacitors and the DX90 fulfills none of those two criterias which leads to one of the best frequency responses with a critical load I have ever seen.
As you can see, this is a very linear response meaning the output impedance is very very close to 0 Ohms.
With 2.1.5, the frequency response was just as linear as it is now.
Forgive my ignorance of sound science, but is this objective evidence that suggests the differences in SQ between firmwares are based in perception rather than some demonstrable change in frequency response?
Forgive my ignorance of sound science, but is this objective evidence that suggests the differences in SQ between firmwares are based in perception rather than some demonstrable change in frequency response?
I am no engineer (at least I come from a family home of engineers and personally I am also into the technical background of audio) but can provide measurements of the DX90's headphone output.
Here it is:
I used the UE Triple.Fi 10 as load as it reacts very critical when connected to a source with rather high output impedance and/or big coupling capacitors and the DX90 fulfills none of those two criterias which leads to one of the best frequency responses with a critical load I have ever seen.
As you can see, this is a very linear response meaning the output impedance is very very close to 0 Ohms.
With 2.1.5, the frequency response was just as linear as it is now.
Forgive my ignorance of sound science, but is this objective evidence that suggests the differences in SQ between firmwares are based in perception rather than some demonstrable change in frequency response?
If you hear any differences they definitely are not caused by a change in the device's frequency response.
There are quite a few examples that don't match with the measurements, for example:
The FiiO X3 has got a lower output impedance than the iPhone 4 which means it has about 0.5dB more highs in combination with the UE TF10. Surprisingly the FiiOactually sounds a bit darker than the iPhone.
Another thing: the Phonitor 2 has got very good values and is also capable of driving IEMs with multiple BA transducers due to its low noise and low output resistance, yet I've experienced a pretty disappointing personal listening reception combined with the UERM: the sound seemed to be not refined, lacked of micro details and was kindo of washed out. I really didn't expect that when I listened to it.
The funny thing is, after I told that to others they replied that they heard of reviewers telling the exact same things even when the Phonitor was connected to active speakers.
Personally I am convinced that differences between amplifiers and DAPs are rather low in most cases but some gear sounds worse than other although it measures as good as other gear does.
The funny thing is that I wasn't biased by other reviews when I listened to music with the Phonitor but experienced the same things as others, the same goes for the DX90 where the first thing I noticed was its better soundstage and later on I read that others also reported a wide soundstage.
In general I am not someone who isn't convinced that a cable or different powertrain makes a difference at all (honestly all firmware releases sound the same to me) and am convinced that the differences in amplifiers and DAPs are negligibly small in most cases if there is only few noise and a low output resistance but the phonitor experience really made me wonder if some devices are significantly worse than others despite measuring well. I wouldn't say the phonitor sounded bad at all, but there was definitely a small audible difference which I blame on the long signal path in the Phonitor.
A blind test with exactly the same volume on each device would be nice.
If someone hears differences others don't doesn't necessarily mean they aren't there as everybody perceives things differently and our mind is very powerful and not easy to discover.
I'd suggest you to find a chance to try headphones with linear impedance, like Audeze LCD-X or 3, HiFiMan HE-400 or 500, Oppo PM-1... I provided examples based on impedance measurements published here. Or, try low impedance models. Zero output impedance of DX90 my be the reason of your problem, whether it is related to high avg impedance or/and impedance (non-)linearity at low frequencies of your headphones.
You're absolutely right! But (you know, as I wrote) I have some anothel models of phones (such as GMP 435S - with 35 Ohms of impedance)... but! the DT 990's sound (yes, the local sound from the local model) is more suitable for me than from anothers. Not "coloured" - only just mine!
Whom how (and what)
If someone hears differences others don't doesn't necessarily mean they aren't there as everybody perceives things differently and our mind is very powerful and not easy to discover.
So pleased there seems to be a logical explanation to the scanning problem that bugged me for 6 months. A specific formatter brought relief but for months I and many others were trying different solutions whereas the majority had no problem and suggested it must be tagging/firmware/card etc, etc.
So pleased there seems to be a logical explanation to the scanning problem that bugged me for 6 months. A specific formatter brought relief but for months I and many others were trying different solutions whereas the majority had no problem and suggested it must be tagging/firmware/card etc, etc.
And as I see the majority of the new FW is a right scanning . And that's all I see. Still beta. Not complains to iBasso (thanks at all!) but...
Just now I have fun without "the right scanning", having rich bass (DT 990/250, but with no terribles). And with 2.1.5. Noth. pers. to iBasso programmers, because your HW is more about absolutely perfect.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
