After a fair amount of use, here are my impressions after burning in a DX80. The unit was provided by iBasso with a request to scour it for any current and future firmware issues. Having the DX80 in the house allows me a great opportunity to compare it to my beloved DX100 and DX90.
I won’t go into the full feature set as that is well documented elsewhere. However, for how I use a DAP, the following features are a big deal to me:
That’s pretty much it, I’m a simple guy. Since that describes my primary goals for a DAP, I’ve carried some pretty large “portable” systems over the years that were several components strapped together with Velcro. I never minded because my requirements were very simple…sound first and convenience later.
When iBasso jumped into the DAP market with the DX100 I was skeptical. How can you fit all that goodness into one box and not compromise sound quality? Long story short, after I heard one my paradigm shifted and my stable of venerable iRiver H140’s soon found themselves on ebay.
While the DX100 sound quality and output features were fantastic, I soon learned the Achilles heel of iBasso DAPS…firmware. I had never had any issues with other iBasso products (amps), but I found the DX100 buggy and inconsistent in behavior and experienced a lot of pain in those early days. To iBasso’s credit they continued to kick out firmware until the unit was reliable and usable.
When the DX90 was released I purchased one for my son and was soon impressed. It sounded nearly as good as the DX100 and since I was in the market for a spare DAP, I purchased one for myself. While I enjoy the DX90 as it plays very nice with my JH-13’s, it also has had its own firmware woes which (again) over time improved with firmware releases.
Enter the DX80. Obviously designed as the next generation to the DX90 size format, does it deliver compared to its predecessors? The following is comparing the DX100 (firmware 1.4.2), DX90 (firmware 2.2.0 L0) and DX80 (firmware 1.1.2 and 1.1.4). The DX100 and DX90 firmware selected was based on my opinion of them representing the best sound those units have to offer.
Build/Design
When iBasso went to the DX90, I appreciated the front physical buttons which made it much easier to use the unit while on the go, without having to turn the screen on as seen with the DX100. The DX80 continues that approach but gets a svelte design upgrade. If you haven’t handled a DX80 yet, I don’t think the average consumer will be disappointed by the build quality. It is very solid and appears well put together on the outside. It is easy to hold and engage the functions. All ports are well labeled. I was surprised to see the physical gain switch removed and unfortunately, the return to an internal proprietary battery power source.
GUI
The DX80 onscreen GUI is IMO a significant upgrade over the DX90. It is really very simple as a DAP should be. All of the same primary functions of the DX90 are there. Wiping across the unit reveals three main screens providing access to available functions (music selection, now playing, and settings). The bigger album art is nice (I know, “you don’t listen to album art” but I still like to look at it once in awhile). Even out of the box I found the interface snappy and responsive… until I tried to scan my songs and use the unit. All I can say is that if you get a unit with firmware 1.1.0, don’t bother until you install 1.1.2 or 1.1.4. Thanks to iBasso for the fast firmware improvements, but I am befuddled how the relatively polished DX80 was released with that original firmware.
Firmwares 1.1.2/1.1.4 still have their quirks. While scanning my 6,500 files, I found that the unit would often scan only some of the files. The total track counter accessed by long pressing the album art was very helpful here. This lets me know whether all files have been recognized by the unit. The good news is that after three attempts which included some factory resets, all songs on my 64 mb card were recognized. This minor issue continues with 1.1.4 but has not been a real problem. (Note: If you haven’t picked this up yet, for anyone having any issues with the DX80, try a factory reset first and go from there.)
I have noted some minor issues most of which have already been documented by others and represented on the bug thread (such as track change thumps) but to be honest while not yet perfect, the DX80 has already (IMO) achieved a degree of reliability.
Sound
Test gear (volume matched):
JH-13 (not FP)
Audio-Technica ESW9
Audio-Technica ESW9LTD
Audio-Technica W1000X
Grado RS-1 (semi-vintage)
Tracks LAME VBR MP3 (which will be suitable for the purposes of a direct DX80/90/100 relative performance comparison)
These impressions were largely developed with the 1.1.2 and then revisited when the 1.1.4 was released. Unlike iBasso’s other historical offerings, I am not detecting a sound difference between the two firmwares.
Most easily noticed is that the DX80 provides an “energetic” presentation, more so then both the DX100 and DX90. The DX80 breathes some excitement and dynamic punch into the music. I am wary when I experience this with a source, as it is often the result of artificially boosted lows and highs. However, as I spent more time with the DX80, I decided that however iBasso had tuned this device, the end result was something more natural sounding than artificial.
Rotating through my usual test tracks, some comments on the ones below:
“Furnace Room Lullaby” – Neko Case
This track contains some good micro detail, a sense of space and vocal highs that can bring chills with the right setup. Through the song there is a lot of micro detail in the playing in the acoustic guitar. For instance, at approximately 18 seconds into the track there is some micro detail in the acoustic guitar work which appears on both channels, secondary sounds of the guitar pick at work. I’ve heard plenty of combinations that will not render these sounds, but the DX80 presented that detail clearly and properly to the best detail producing cans I own (JH-13’s and to a lesser extent my RS-1’s). The highs also sounded fantastic, completely on par with my expectations in coming from the DX100. During this track it was first noticed that the DX80 was doing a fine job at separation and layering, as Neko’s voice was pleasantly distinct and coming from a separate space then the bass line and guitar, which each had their own space.
“Dream” – Priscilla Ahn
This track is my favorite for checking midrange and blackness of the background. In my opinion this track is very well recorded, and the female vocals can almost sound like a binaural recording with the right setup. The DX80 rendered this track beautifully, with the vocals sounding like I was there and not wearing headphones. Similar to the DX100 and DX90, I hear no hiss or unwanted background noise in the blank spaces of this track even with my JH-13’s. I don’t have golden ears but if I hear any hiss I am highly intolerant of it. (I do have some hiss related commentary in towards the end, but I believe a hiss free background is what one can expect from the DX80, even with IEM’s.)
“Blue Orchid” – White Stripes
This track has a crazy overwhelming wall of bass. If a headphone or source can properly represent the bass in this song without being bloated or woolly, it should do well on many other bass demanding tracks. The DX80 did great here, letting me hear the texture and fullness of the bass, not just a solid wall of it. This track also did a nice job at re-affirming that the DX80 can maintain some separation and layering even when things get busy.
I’ve seen others say that the DX80 has more bass than the DX90. If it does, it is slight as I found the DX80, 90 and 100 all to have a similar amount of bass, but there were some differences in how it was presented/textured. The DX80 and 100 sounded closer to me, with the DX90 bass sounding slightly less flushed out.
To my surprise, as I cycled through tracks I began to spend more time directly comparing the DX80 to the DX100 vs. the DX90. In reality, the sound of all three models is very close, they are all excellent. But of course there are minor differences on the margins that can be noted.
One difference which may be a sweet spot for my use is the DX80’s tendency to provide some dynamic energy without sacrificing warmth or an organic musical presentation. I commonly use the DX90 on the go with either my JH-13’s or Audiotechnica ESW9 (or ESW9LTD if I’m brave enough to take them out of the house). All three of those headphones have an admirable characteristic, in that I can listen to them for hours with no fatigue. I find them, especially the AT’s, polite, laid back and easy on the ears while still sounding great. However, I sometimes wish the AT’s in particular had just a little more punch. The DX80 breathes this life into these headphones and sounds great. However, with the ESW9LTD it may be a bit much..but the ESW9 or JH-13 with the DX80 has rapidly become my favorite portable option.
In comparing all three, if someone wishes to be exceptionally picky, the DX90 could be 3rd chair. The DX80 and DX100 both make the DX90 sound very slightly flat, more clinical and less engaging. For overall presentation, my ears tell me the DX100 and DX80 are closer in presentation than the DX90. I did not spend much time with the DX80’s lineout as I rarely use that feature, however it sounded just fine compared to the others. As expected, the DX80 digital out sounded exactly the same as the signal provided by the DX100 and DX90.
Conclusion
DX80
Pros: Energetic/dynamic presentation, detail producing, excellent instrument separation and layering, more intimate presentation with decent soundstage, perhaps a great companion for headphones with a more polite or laid back presentation
Cons: Potentially fatiguing, some firmware improvements yet to come, proprietary replacement battery, makes me wonder why I spent nearly $800 on my DX100.
Note on hiss:
If anyone is experiencing a hiss that is changed by manipulating the headphone cable, I believe this is not typical of a properly working DX80. My unit experienced a moderate hiss mostly in the right channel with only one of my headphones. This headphone worked fine in every other source and I could make the hiss increase/decrease upon moving the cable around or twisting the jack. The hiss was always there, play or pause, and at the same intensity regardless of volume level or gain. I was especially perplexed as my JH-13's did not reveal this hiss. I began to suspect there was an issue with my DX80 that was being revealed by the specific impedance of the headphone showing the problem (an ESW9LTD and to a much lesser extent the ESW9).
iBasso sent a replacement DX80 which does not show this issue at all, and I find the unit to have a blissfully black background. I'm not sure if this is a shielding issue or something else, but I recommend you connect with the iBasso folks to sort it out if you are experiencing this.
I won’t go into the full feature set as that is well documented elsewhere. However, for how I use a DAP, the following features are a big deal to me:
- A simple and reliable GUI
- A high quality digital transport to feed my desktop DAC and Amp for no compromise sound
- A great sounding headphone out that drives my headphones with authority and doesn’t make me miss my home setup when I’m on the go.
That’s pretty much it, I’m a simple guy. Since that describes my primary goals for a DAP, I’ve carried some pretty large “portable” systems over the years that were several components strapped together with Velcro. I never minded because my requirements were very simple…sound first and convenience later.
When iBasso jumped into the DAP market with the DX100 I was skeptical. How can you fit all that goodness into one box and not compromise sound quality? Long story short, after I heard one my paradigm shifted and my stable of venerable iRiver H140’s soon found themselves on ebay.
While the DX100 sound quality and output features were fantastic, I soon learned the Achilles heel of iBasso DAPS…firmware. I had never had any issues with other iBasso products (amps), but I found the DX100 buggy and inconsistent in behavior and experienced a lot of pain in those early days. To iBasso’s credit they continued to kick out firmware until the unit was reliable and usable.
When the DX90 was released I purchased one for my son and was soon impressed. It sounded nearly as good as the DX100 and since I was in the market for a spare DAP, I purchased one for myself. While I enjoy the DX90 as it plays very nice with my JH-13’s, it also has had its own firmware woes which (again) over time improved with firmware releases.
Enter the DX80. Obviously designed as the next generation to the DX90 size format, does it deliver compared to its predecessors? The following is comparing the DX100 (firmware 1.4.2), DX90 (firmware 2.2.0 L0) and DX80 (firmware 1.1.2 and 1.1.4). The DX100 and DX90 firmware selected was based on my opinion of them representing the best sound those units have to offer.
Build/Design
When iBasso went to the DX90, I appreciated the front physical buttons which made it much easier to use the unit while on the go, without having to turn the screen on as seen with the DX100. The DX80 continues that approach but gets a svelte design upgrade. If you haven’t handled a DX80 yet, I don’t think the average consumer will be disappointed by the build quality. It is very solid and appears well put together on the outside. It is easy to hold and engage the functions. All ports are well labeled. I was surprised to see the physical gain switch removed and unfortunately, the return to an internal proprietary battery power source.
GUI
The DX80 onscreen GUI is IMO a significant upgrade over the DX90. It is really very simple as a DAP should be. All of the same primary functions of the DX90 are there. Wiping across the unit reveals three main screens providing access to available functions (music selection, now playing, and settings). The bigger album art is nice (I know, “you don’t listen to album art” but I still like to look at it once in awhile). Even out of the box I found the interface snappy and responsive… until I tried to scan my songs and use the unit. All I can say is that if you get a unit with firmware 1.1.0, don’t bother until you install 1.1.2 or 1.1.4. Thanks to iBasso for the fast firmware improvements, but I am befuddled how the relatively polished DX80 was released with that original firmware.
Firmwares 1.1.2/1.1.4 still have their quirks. While scanning my 6,500 files, I found that the unit would often scan only some of the files. The total track counter accessed by long pressing the album art was very helpful here. This lets me know whether all files have been recognized by the unit. The good news is that after three attempts which included some factory resets, all songs on my 64 mb card were recognized. This minor issue continues with 1.1.4 but has not been a real problem. (Note: If you haven’t picked this up yet, for anyone having any issues with the DX80, try a factory reset first and go from there.)
I have noted some minor issues most of which have already been documented by others and represented on the bug thread (such as track change thumps) but to be honest while not yet perfect, the DX80 has already (IMO) achieved a degree of reliability.
Sound
Test gear (volume matched):
JH-13 (not FP)
Audio-Technica ESW9
Audio-Technica ESW9LTD
Audio-Technica W1000X
Grado RS-1 (semi-vintage)
Tracks LAME VBR MP3 (which will be suitable for the purposes of a direct DX80/90/100 relative performance comparison)
These impressions were largely developed with the 1.1.2 and then revisited when the 1.1.4 was released. Unlike iBasso’s other historical offerings, I am not detecting a sound difference between the two firmwares.
Most easily noticed is that the DX80 provides an “energetic” presentation, more so then both the DX100 and DX90. The DX80 breathes some excitement and dynamic punch into the music. I am wary when I experience this with a source, as it is often the result of artificially boosted lows and highs. However, as I spent more time with the DX80, I decided that however iBasso had tuned this device, the end result was something more natural sounding than artificial.
Rotating through my usual test tracks, some comments on the ones below:
“Furnace Room Lullaby” – Neko Case
This track contains some good micro detail, a sense of space and vocal highs that can bring chills with the right setup. Through the song there is a lot of micro detail in the playing in the acoustic guitar. For instance, at approximately 18 seconds into the track there is some micro detail in the acoustic guitar work which appears on both channels, secondary sounds of the guitar pick at work. I’ve heard plenty of combinations that will not render these sounds, but the DX80 presented that detail clearly and properly to the best detail producing cans I own (JH-13’s and to a lesser extent my RS-1’s). The highs also sounded fantastic, completely on par with my expectations in coming from the DX100. During this track it was first noticed that the DX80 was doing a fine job at separation and layering, as Neko’s voice was pleasantly distinct and coming from a separate space then the bass line and guitar, which each had their own space.
“Dream” – Priscilla Ahn
This track is my favorite for checking midrange and blackness of the background. In my opinion this track is very well recorded, and the female vocals can almost sound like a binaural recording with the right setup. The DX80 rendered this track beautifully, with the vocals sounding like I was there and not wearing headphones. Similar to the DX100 and DX90, I hear no hiss or unwanted background noise in the blank spaces of this track even with my JH-13’s. I don’t have golden ears but if I hear any hiss I am highly intolerant of it. (I do have some hiss related commentary in towards the end, but I believe a hiss free background is what one can expect from the DX80, even with IEM’s.)
“Blue Orchid” – White Stripes
This track has a crazy overwhelming wall of bass. If a headphone or source can properly represent the bass in this song without being bloated or woolly, it should do well on many other bass demanding tracks. The DX80 did great here, letting me hear the texture and fullness of the bass, not just a solid wall of it. This track also did a nice job at re-affirming that the DX80 can maintain some separation and layering even when things get busy.
I’ve seen others say that the DX80 has more bass than the DX90. If it does, it is slight as I found the DX80, 90 and 100 all to have a similar amount of bass, but there were some differences in how it was presented/textured. The DX80 and 100 sounded closer to me, with the DX90 bass sounding slightly less flushed out.
To my surprise, as I cycled through tracks I began to spend more time directly comparing the DX80 to the DX100 vs. the DX90. In reality, the sound of all three models is very close, they are all excellent. But of course there are minor differences on the margins that can be noted.
One difference which may be a sweet spot for my use is the DX80’s tendency to provide some dynamic energy without sacrificing warmth or an organic musical presentation. I commonly use the DX90 on the go with either my JH-13’s or Audiotechnica ESW9 (or ESW9LTD if I’m brave enough to take them out of the house). All three of those headphones have an admirable characteristic, in that I can listen to them for hours with no fatigue. I find them, especially the AT’s, polite, laid back and easy on the ears while still sounding great. However, I sometimes wish the AT’s in particular had just a little more punch. The DX80 breathes this life into these headphones and sounds great. However, with the ESW9LTD it may be a bit much..but the ESW9 or JH-13 with the DX80 has rapidly become my favorite portable option.
In comparing all three, if someone wishes to be exceptionally picky, the DX90 could be 3rd chair. The DX80 and DX100 both make the DX90 sound very slightly flat, more clinical and less engaging. For overall presentation, my ears tell me the DX100 and DX80 are closer in presentation than the DX90. I did not spend much time with the DX80’s lineout as I rarely use that feature, however it sounded just fine compared to the others. As expected, the DX80 digital out sounded exactly the same as the signal provided by the DX100 and DX90.
Conclusion
DX80
Pros: Energetic/dynamic presentation, detail producing, excellent instrument separation and layering, more intimate presentation with decent soundstage, perhaps a great companion for headphones with a more polite or laid back presentation
Cons: Potentially fatiguing, some firmware improvements yet to come, proprietary replacement battery, makes me wonder why I spent nearly $800 on my DX100.
Note on hiss:
If anyone is experiencing a hiss that is changed by manipulating the headphone cable, I believe this is not typical of a properly working DX80. My unit experienced a moderate hiss mostly in the right channel with only one of my headphones. This headphone worked fine in every other source and I could make the hiss increase/decrease upon moving the cable around or twisting the jack. The hiss was always there, play or pause, and at the same intensity regardless of volume level or gain. I was especially perplexed as my JH-13's did not reveal this hiss. I began to suspect there was an issue with my DX80 that was being revealed by the specific impedance of the headphone showing the problem (an ESW9LTD and to a much lesser extent the ESW9).
iBasso sent a replacement DX80 which does not show this issue at all, and I find the unit to have a blissfully black background. I'm not sure if this is a shielding issue or something else, but I recommend you connect with the iBasso folks to sort it out if you are experiencing this.
Very curious as to how fast/reliable scanning/indexing my music would be. My portable library is about 10,000 tracks on 2x 200 GB microSD cards.
Any thoughts?