[SilverEars]

Thanks for the update. It would be nice if somebody can give us live updates(quick impressions of each gear, maybe headfi twitter?) of the show like how Engadget or the Verge does.  I don't think Chesky is a good track for comparisons.

 

[cooperpwc]

Thanks for this, Currawong. I look forward to hearing more impressions.
 
Reading this, and the posts from T.R.A.N.C.E. and others, it looks like I have to add the ZX-1 to my list of must hears.

 

[Solude]

 
What I did hear I liked. It was probably on the darker/smoother side of things, compared to, say, the Sony ZX-1, which I prefer. 

 
People are going to read that depending on bias but I think it says M > ZX1 =)  Bummer about having to wait a while.  Might have to get that Cypher stack after all.

 

[doublea71]

   
People are going to read that depending on bias but I think it says M > ZX1 =)  Bummer about having to wait a while.  Might have to get that Cypher stack after all.

I can't tell if he prefers the dark/smooth signature of the M or the ZX-1.

 

[Sauntere]

 
I can't tell if he prefers the dark/smooth signature of the M or the ZX-1.

 
I read it that he prefers the M. Yeah read it again and it is definitely the M.

 

[kkcc]

I read it that he prefers the M. Yeah read it again and it is definitely the M.

I would prefer the M over zx1 soundwise as personally I like natural/accurate instrument timbre which at times I find lacking from zx1. I see M and zx1 having quite opposite design or tuning objectives - M is more full, organic, lush, dark; zx1 more crisp, transparent, sharp, neutral. My ideal is somewhere in the middle that's why I like ak240 & dx90, but different people will have different preferences.

While I prefer M's ound over zx1, I still don't know which one I will pick if these are the only choices. Taking into account overall DAP performance, (zx1 is more pocketable, android UI, support streaming apps, cheaper, probably longer battery, but no expandable memory) zx1 does seems like the more all rounded choice.

 

[cooperpwc]

I had read Currawong as preffering the ZX-1 but now, on rereading, I think that you are all correct. He prefers the M.
 
Which is great! I want to like the M. I like the concept; I like the interface.

 

[doublea71]

Grammatically-speaking, the 'which' that follows 'ZX-1,' points to the ZX-1 as the thing ('which' is a relative pronoun) it is referring to rather than the subject, 'It'. This is my understanding, but I've been wrong before. Reading between the lines, I think he means the M, too. Teaching English grammar can sometimes make it harder to know exactly what a person means - I get caught up in the minutiae of syntax and semantics...anyways, I'm dying to hear these two, but I suspect the M is a better match for my iems. Unfortuntely, Saigon isn't the best place to seek out auditions. If only Jaben would set up camp here....

 

[cooperpwc]

^You might teach it but I disagree. The comma after ZX-1 points the preference back at the M.
 
It is true that I misread it the first time and I think that Currawong would be the first to admit that it was not his clearest statement ever.

 

[Bluebear]

  Grammatically-speaking, the 'which' that follows 'ZX-1,' points to the ZX-1 as the thing ('which' is a relative pronoun) it is referring to rather than the subject, 'It'. This is my understanding, but I've been wrong before. Reading between the lines, I think he means the M, too. Teaching English grammar can sometimes make it harder to know exactly what a person means - I get caught up in the minutiae of syntax and semantics...anyways, I'm dying to hear these two, but I suspect the M is a better match for my iems. Unfortuntely, Saigon isn't the best place to seek out auditions. If only Jaben would set up camp here....

 
The way I interpret it is if Currawong wrote it without any commas to break the flow of the sentence when referring to the ZX-1 in the middle of his sentence, then I would interpret it as he was saying "which he prefers" refers to ZX-1 as the subject of reference just immediately preceding the relative pronoun "which". But since he added commas to break the flow of his sentence between the ZX-1 and the "which", it then renders the subject of reference further back to the front of the sentence prior to the comma leading to the ZX-1, in which case I think he is referring to "It" which is Calyx M.

 

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

Well, I can imagine full sound vs thin is completely personal preference. To me personally a thinner note presentation is more natural for bass and treble, but a thicker presentation for mids is more natural. I've been playing with my new DX90 all day and comparing to ZX1. I find them equally proficient, and even their frequency balance and tonality is very similar being neutral.
 
The biggest difference between them is a thicker vs thinner note presentation, So its as I first said, DX90 has more natural mids, ZX1 has more natural bass, treble and sound stage. I just can't have enough of how wide open and transparent the ZX1 sounds, while the fuller sound of the DX90 has more body and weight behind many instruments and vocals which is very pleasing, but it also has a smaller sound stage and less treble airiness than ZX1.
 
ZX1 bass presentation is another love of mine, nothing extra is added at all, bass is extremely defined and textured with no bloom whatsoever, where as the fuller sounding DX90 in comparison to the ZX1 has fuller more bloomy/boomy bass (only in comparison to ZX1). Yet if I had heard the DX90 alone I would have said it has one of the most exquisite bass I've heard. I would also wager most people would prefer the fuller more impactful bass of the DX90 over the leaner tighter ZX1.  
 
I love the treble on the ZX1, so very airy and limitless sounding, While DX90 has very good treble it doesn't sound as airy, but at least its not rolled of or exaggerated, just like the ZX1.
 
The mids of the DX90 is where the the magic happens, just great, while also not as airy and open as ZX1 mids, they just sound more convincing in weight, timbre and naturalness of vocals, male or female.
 
It would really be amazing if a dap could provide both of these sonic elements, sound stage and airiness of ZX1 plus weighty instrumentation and vocals of DX90, bass though is highly divisive preference between lean and accurate vs full and impactful. The DX90 and ZX1 actually complement each other extremely well!
 
I still don't know what to think of the M, several impressions say it is even fuller and smoother sounding than the DX90, which I know would not suit me, so I guess I won't bother with it for now. I am way too happy with my daps at the moment to have any itch to buy a new dap anyway lol.

 

[Sauntere]

  English is so difficult...

 

[Bluebear]

  Well, I can imagine full sound vs thin is completely personal preference. To me personally a thinner note presentation is more natural for bass and treble, but a thicker presentation for mids is more natural. I've been playing with my new DX90 all day and comparing to ZX1. I find them equally proficient, and even their frequency balance and tonality is very similar being neutral. The biggest difference between them is a thicker vs thinner note presentation, So as I first said, DX90 has more natural mids, ZX1 has more natural bass, treble and sound stage. So with the Calyx M being documented as even fuller sounding than the DX90 I can safely cross it off my list.  I just can't have enough of how wide open and transparent the ZX1 sounds, while the fuller sound of the DX90 has more body and weight behind instruments and vocals, it also has a smaller sound stage and less treble airiness than ZX1. ZX1 bass presentation is another love of mine, nothing extra is added at all, bass is extremely defined and textured, where as the fuller sounding DX90 in comparison to the ZX1 has slightly bloated bass. Yet if I had heard the DX90 alone I would have said it has one of the most exquisite bass I've heard, thats how much I like the ZX1 bass. But I would wager most people would prefer the fuller bass of the DX90.  It would really be amazing if a dap could provide both of those sonic elements, sound stage and airiness plus weighty instrumentation and vocals. The DX90 and ZX1 actually complement each other very well!

 
Maybe that can be achieved by pairing the DAP with the right IEM/headphones or amplifier to complement each other's sound signature? But I think that's what everyone on Head-Fi has been trying to do in this audiophile hobby all along. 

 

[doublea71]

Hmmm, totally off topic thanks to me, but I'm really curious now. With a comma, it's a non-defining relative clause (extra, non-essential information) and still points to the item immediately preceding it afaik, but I'll check with some colleagues with more experience - this is exactly the type of thing that would keep me up all night (aside from the conflict in the sea over here, which DID keep me up until about 3am).

 

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

Originally Posted by doublea71 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Hmmm, totally off topic thanks to me, but I'm really curious now. With a comma, it's a non-defining relative clause (extra, non-essential information) and still points to the item immediately preceding it afaik, but I'll check with some colleagues with more experience - this is exactly the type of thing that would keep me up all night (aside from the conflict in the sea over here, which DID keep me up until about 3am).

 
Lol, I think its clear he preferred the M to the ZX1, for two reasons, one because of where he put the comma, but two because he likes the AK240 sound best, which is a darker smooth sound itself, While ZX1 is brighter edgy sounding, and he also says AK240 was clearer sounding than M, which I would attribute to the M sounding even darker and smoother than the AK240! I personally like a brighter thinner presentation like ZX1, so even the DX90 sounds dark and smooth to me, but to most it sounds like a good middle ground, many people seem to think the DX90 even sounds bright and thin which I just don't understand!
 

Maybe that can be achieved by pairing the DAP with the right IEM/headphones or amplifier to complement each other's sound signature? But I think that's what everyone on Head-Fi has been trying to do in this audiophile hobby all along. 

Yes, iem and amps can all change the sound, but the under laying sound of the dap will still be present and the most important being the first part of the sound chain impacting everything after it! If the dap has bad sound stage, even the best iems and amps coming off the dap will suffer in their sound stage and not be using their full potential for example.