[BeBop Lives]

  X5 vs. DX90 >>> LCD2
This is a tough one for me as I have been spoiled by my Mjolnir as well as m2man's 10K setup, so I know what the LCD2s and the rest of the Audeze family are capable of. Having said that, to be fair, for this comparison I will only focus on how the LCD2s compare to other headphones plugged into the DAPs which mainly for me would be my HD595. I know in advance that they blow other options away so this is not fair, but I promise not to wine too much about how much more LCD2s get out of a 10K setup. I will tell you right now, the LCD2 provides the best sound I have gotten from either DAP.

1. X5: Volume 95 of 120 is my normal listening level, but I can turn the volume all the way up to 120 on high gain without any distortion nor shoutyness. While the signature stays warmer with the X5, it seems to be able to pull of a blacker background at the same time. The X5 feels like it powers the LCD2 better, but both DAPs are very capable. The sounds stage feels normal for an LCD2 on the X5 while the DX90 widens it. The top end is all there, but in a smoother more natural integration while the DX90's more apparent top end draws out the layering and details. The  X5's more congested soundstage can make some of the messy songs sound noisy while the DX90 spreads them out making it more forgiving of poor masterings. Bottom line is that this combination rocks and would make most anyone - but the most fussy high-end desktop owners - happy.
2. DX90: Volume 225 of 255 is comfortable but higher than my normal listening level, but there is distortion at about 240 on. I would probably listen at 215. Yes, the LCD2 rocks with the DX90 so let me focus on characteristics. The first thing that stands out is the wider sound stage that catches me off guard every now and then as it is not a normal characteristic of the LCD2s. The LCD2s are a very euphoric HP so the euphoric DX90 signature plays very well with it bringing it closer to the LCD-X signature adding a more euphoric mid section sweatening the vocals. The other thing that stands out is that the top end is more apparent - like when I use my Mjolnir - brightening the typically darker signature. Bottom line is that this is a very nice sounding pairing that I could listen to for hours.

Thank you so much for the insight.......It helps to make certain decisions understanding that subjective is the word. Your volume levels and headphone matching helps dramatically.   I waited until the 3rd batch on the DX50 and passed on the X3.  Happy with said decision.  However, with the DX90, I passed on the initial offering and went for the X5.......Most satisfied.  I shall wait for the DX90 FW upgrades to reach a satisfactory level before I try the unit and do my own comparison. Again Thanks and enjoy!

 

[Barra]

 

  X5 vs. DX90 >>> LCD2
This is a tough one for me as I have been spoiled by my Mjolnir as well as m2man's 10K setup, so I know what the LCD2s and the rest of the Audeze family are capable of. Having said that, to be fair, for this comparison I will only focus on how the LCD2s compare to other headphones plugged into the DAPs which mainly for me would be my HD595. I know in advance that they blow other options away so this is not fair, but I promise not to wine too much about how much more LCD2s get out of a 10K setup. I will tell you right now, the LCD2 provides the best sound I have gotten from either DAP.

1. X5: Volume 95 of 120 is my normal listening level, but I can turn the volume all the way up to 120 on high gain without any distortion nor shoutyness. While the signature stays warmer with the X5, it seems to be able to pull of a blacker background at the same time. The X5 feels like it powers the LCD2 better, but both DAPs are very capable. The sounds stage feels normal for an LCD2 on the X5 while the DX90 widens it. The top end is all there, but in a smoother more natural integration while the DX90's more apparent top end draws out the layering and details. The  X5's more congested soundstage can make some of the messy songs sound noisy while the DX90 spreads them out making it more forgiving of poor masterings. Bottom line is that this combination rocks and would make most anyone - but the most fussy high-end desktop owners - happy.
2. DX90: Volume 225 of 255 is comfortable but higher than my normal listening level, but there is distortion at about 240 on. I would probably listen at 215. Yes, the LCD2 rocks with the DX90 so let me focus on characteristics. The first thing that stands out is the wider sound stage that catches me off guard every now and then as it is not a normal characteristic of the LCD2s. The LCD2s are a very euphoric HP so the euphoric DX90 signature plays very well with it bringing it closer to the LCD-X signature adding a more euphoric mid section sweatening the vocals. The other thing that stands out is that the top end is more apparent - like when I use my Mjolnir - brightening the typically darker signature. Bottom line is that this is a very nice sounding pairing that I could listen to for hours.

Hi Barra,
 
Thanx for the clear description of SQ with DX90 / Audeze LCD2 combination (I was looking for that).
You connected the LCD2 straight to the DX90 right? If so, I will definitely go for LCD2's instead of the HE-500.

It was directly connected to the DX90. I haven't played with amping yet.

 

[telecaster]

I'm so glad I did get it while they had this in stock... Reading the no lifes ranting about the DAP "trap" and all you poor sheeps buying overpriced ipods makes me laugh hard when I listen to the DX90! The sound is so nice it's not even funny though...
 
If I had complains to makes it would be :
-no listenning while charging from a computer
-touchscreen back buttong (a physical button for navigation in menu please!)
-scroll on touchscreen is a farcry compared to top notch iphones and androids
-while charging from a wall wart there is a slight hum when playback. not strong but it's there.
-no red led for the playback button (that is nice design from the prototypes that didn't make it into prod)
-no line cable included
-resolution on cover art is poor
-UI could be more sexy
 
But all those are so minor compared to what you get:
-so powerful, it can drive full size can
-floornoise is so low, you can't hear it, even max out
-sound is 3D, deep, -controled bass, mastered I would say. Like a full size top desktop kit.
-transparent
-good battery life
-small size (not boxy like how it looks on the web. It's tiny little thing. Cute in real life)
-light as a feather
-aluminium is sexy!
-DIGITAL OUT!!!! oh yeah baby! This is so nice, I can use nice DAC, and I can even use my Digital speakers!! Comon this is a big deal to me! -FLACs playing without ******** or resampling. This is good stuff people!
-line out (not all have this!)
-good quality jacks it seems (kind of beefy metal, not the thin plastic surround you encounter usually)
-selectable gain
-They give you a very nice silicon case (you don't have to pay like all ghouls company makin money on accessories!
-burnin cable is a nice touch (take that in your faces no lifes!)
-usb cable inclued, a nice touch
-screen protection film included! two sheets wow!
-a digital cable coaxial to jack (wow thanks IBASSO!! you are great!)
 
-and most of all, a tremendous good quality of music reproduction (from Lady Gaga to Richard Wagner)... If you don't believe it, well write in on a sheet of paper, roll it very tight in a tube fashion, then go outside in the dark far far away and just kill yourself.

 

[Barra]

 

  X5 vs. DX90 >>> TF10s

1. X5: Bigger more intimate, blacker background, normally recessed mids are pushed forward for much improved signature. Also very noticeable is the fuller fully formed bass that is much more impactful. This is a lot of fun with vocals or my chill music that has a lot of black background that plays into the music.
2. DX90: Wow, wide and very euphoric. The TF10 is warmer than my NT6pro CIEM so the euphoric nature comes through much stronger. Techno that lacks a black background anyways is really fun with the DX90/TF10.

 
While both DAPs bring the TF10 to the top of its game, my NT6pro still wipes the floor with it exposing the weaknesses of lower tier IEMs. However, I won't feel like I am missing as much when I reach for it to mow the lawn or go jogging. Although it is not an NT6pro, it is still fun and my go to IEM for the gym.

Would you generally say, that the DX90 has no black background?

I don't want to say that the DX90 doesn't have any black background, but the core of the X5's signature is all about the black background providing precise instrument placement and supporting detail with power to drive texture that you can feel. The DX90 goes quite when the music stops, but more like in a live performance where you sense space and the musician's pause. The DX90 is all about big airy soundstage and layering to drive intense detail. When comparing to the X5, the DX90's background just doesn't seem as black. However, that may be like comparing the fastest man on Earth to the 5th fastest saying that the 5th fastest is not very fast. He would still make the other 7 billion of us on the planet look foolish in a race.

 

[M-13]

Looks like this thread is moving fast. Since I now have the DX90 I thought I'd join.
 
The speed of attack for bass is amazing on the DX90, very fast.

 

[dc-k]

  Looks like this thread is moving fast. Since I now have the DX90 I thought I'd join.
 
The speed of attack for bass is amazing on the DX90, very fast.

I see you have sig pro, have you used them straight from the DX90?

 

[Nirmalanow]

  got it from iBasso/Miniaudio club in HK. They do have a page, but im not sure if im allowed to post it here. 

maybe u can google it
 
I have Dx50, Dx90, Dx100 with me. heres my rough comparison of their Line Out. and fyi Dx100 (es9018), Dx90 (es9018k2m), Dx50 (8740). My set up: DAP->amp->Q701
sorry for my poor english
powerful/ punchy: 100>90>50
sound stage/ "airy" : 90>100>50
accuracy: 100>90>50
"aftertaste" (idk how to explain this in english sorry) : 90~100>50
mid-bass: 90~100>50
Dx90 and Dx100 LO are more powerful and all-round, while Dx50 gives a more plain and soft expression

Thanks. That is helpful. Seems like the DAC alone is much better than the one in the DX50, and even excels in some categories over the DX100.

 

[jamato8]

I think that what some may be hearing as a black back ground or the difference with the DX90 is that the DX90 is picking up everything on the recording. You get ambient sounds, which would give the impression of not as black a background but it is possible that black background doesn't really exist. I hear the same thing with the Hugo, and I don't know of a much better translator of music than the Hugo. I hear ambient movement, sounds that have been captured in the recording but often lost in the translation. 
 
I think that is one area the DX90 excels with, capturing so much of the detail of the recording, not loosing in the electronics and then presenting it to be heard, musically. With a S/N of 119 and crosstalk of 114, if everything else is done right, so much will get through of the original recording. 

 

[telecaster]

I agree, you really extract a lot from the recording. I think the DX90 has very advance power supplies all around. There is such ease at producing even the most thunderous bass, all the detail in the treble is there too, it's very natural sound, never harsh. It's a sign that the electronics is running cool and easy. Black background has always been about inexistant noisefloor, that's about it. What you hear is very good power supplies and good rendition of micro détails. The DX90 is blacker than the black background. There is just NO noisefloor...

 

[jamato8]

A very low noise floor will get out of the way of those ambient cues, which to me, is what is happening. As mentioned, I also hear this with the Hugo, which I am glad I purchased, though expensive, as it gives me a great handle on a top digital converter to analogue. I would not describe the Hugo as a black background, I hear the space which gives a much greater rendition of the original event. 

 

[telecaster]

I wouldn't say the DX90 has the best sound of the world in a DAC and amp, BUT, for a portable you don't give up that much. It's really incredible actually. I guess the Hugo must be such a threat! Hope I could try it one day! Pretty rare this side of the channel.

 

[M-13]

  I see you have sig pro, have you used them straight from the DX90?

Yup, and it is goooood

 

[thegunner100]

Got my dx90 about 1.5hrs ago. First impression is that I actually don't feel like I need to use an external amp with the UERMs. Second is that I feel like the dx90 sounds better than the ak120, based on memory. Lastly... no hiss with the UERMs!

 

[highfell]

Thanks. That is helpful. Seems like the DAC alone is much better than the one in the DX50, and even excels in some categories over the DX100.

I really enjoy the DX50 into my PB2 and Leckerton. Especially with the PB2, it sounds amazing now with the Muses01 OPamps. I am not going to be selling my Amps.

I am becoming very tempted to jump for the Dx90. The reviews are obviously very positive.

So my question is : leaving aside the Amp of the DX90 which I won't be using, is the DAC of the DX90 worth the upgrade from the DX50? How much better is it really?

 

[jamato8]

I really enjoy the DX50 into my PB2 and Leckerton. Especially with the PB2, it sounds amazing now with the Muses01 OPamps. I am not going to be selling my Amps.

I am becoming very tempted to jump for the Dx90. The reviews are obviously very positive.

So my question is : leaving aside the Amp of the DX90 which I won't be using, is the DAC of the DX90 worth the upgrade from the DX50? How much better is it really?

To me, the DX50 is very musical and I enjoy it very much. The DX90 presents more layering, more impact to the imaged sources of sound, so it is different and for me, worth having both as they are different.