stuck limo
Formerly with Light Harmonic/LH Labs
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2016
- Posts
- 1,979
- Likes
- 1,778
@Currawong R2R question was a general product question not a Diablo question. 
Can you handle the Beast! Introducing the iDSD Diablo 2!!
- Thread starter iFi audio
- Start date
It’s unfortunate that such an expensive device keeps its battery charged at 100% when in desktop mode, that’s not very good for battery life… I would consider buying this product if a firmware update changes the way desktop mode works so that the battery is stored around 50-80% in desktop mode, but I will have to pass if that does not happen. Spending 1300$ on a product who’s battery life will be tanked in 1 year does not make sense for me.
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2013
- Posts
- 17,499
- Likes
- 13,300
I had that thought as well! Turns out these "Wings" are quite useful, I have found a bunch of uses for them! Nice little addition...
Cheers!!
I had that thought as well! Turns out these "Wings" are quite useful, I have found a bunch of uses for them! Nice little addition...
Cheers!!
Are the wings made of metal?
Got the Diablo 2 in today and have been listening to it most of the afternoon. Just wanted to quickly comment on the volume imbalance issue, this unit has essentially perfect channel balance.
Obviously it's going to vary some from pot to pot/unit to unit, but if this particular one is any indication it's a LOT better at low levels. The addition of the iematch also helps to mitigate this issue basically entirely.
Low gain 50mV output:
Med gain 4V output:
Obviously it's going to vary some from pot to pot/unit to unit, but if this particular one is any indication it's a LOT better at low levels. The addition of the iematch also helps to mitigate this issue basically entirely.
Low gain 50mV output:
Med gain 4V output:
weexisttocease
Headphoneus Supremus
That's great news. What are your first sound impressions?Got the Diablo 2 in today and have been listening to it most of the afternoon. Just wanted to quickly comment on the volume imbalance issue, this unit has essentially perfect channel balance.
Obviously it's going to vary some from pot to pot/unit to unit, but if this particular one is any indication it's a LOT better at low levels. The addition of the iematch also helps to mitigate this issue basically entirely.
Low gain 50mV output:
Med gain 4V output:
Notice any changes to the noise floor when BT is enabled, and if so does it go silent when you pause playback?Got the Diablo 2 in today and have been listening to it most of the afternoon. Just wanted to quickly comment on the volume imbalance issue, this unit has essentially perfect channel balance.
Obviously it's going to vary some from pot to pot/unit to unit, but if this particular one is any indication it's a LOT better at low levels. The addition of the iematch also helps to mitigate this issue basically entirely.
Low gain 50mV output:
Med gain 4V output:
Full measurement post is up, video review to follow in a few weeks: https://goldensound.audio/2023/11/24/ifi-idsd-diablo-2-measurements/
TLDR:
- Overall performance/behaviour is effectively identical to the original Diablo.
- iEMatch works nicely to provide about a 7dB noise floor improvement (though of course will increase output impedance, possibly changing FR of IEMS, try with/without to see what works best on your IEMs)
- Power spec is indeed far below what is claimed. Actual power capability is about 1.6W, not 5W. If you want to go by peak power instead of RMS power then it's about 2.5W. iFi attained the '5W' spec using their own power test which is vastly easier than either a proper continuous power test (how basically all amplifier power specs are given) or peak power (which there is an industry standard set out for in CEA-2006.). If you were to test other amps in the same way a lot of '6W' amps might suddenly be 10W or 15W amps.
This is a good product, 1.6W in a portable (1.1W when unplugged) is still quite a bit, and the features of the Diablo 2 are very nice with many welcome changes over the original.
But in my view the way iFi is presenting the power capability of this device is simply misleading and unethical. They don't spec their other amps this way so I'm not sure why it's different here.
TLDR:
- Overall performance/behaviour is effectively identical to the original Diablo.
- iEMatch works nicely to provide about a 7dB noise floor improvement (though of course will increase output impedance, possibly changing FR of IEMS, try with/without to see what works best on your IEMs)
- Power spec is indeed far below what is claimed. Actual power capability is about 1.6W, not 5W. If you want to go by peak power instead of RMS power then it's about 2.5W. iFi attained the '5W' spec using their own power test which is vastly easier than either a proper continuous power test (how basically all amplifier power specs are given) or peak power (which there is an industry standard set out for in CEA-2006.). If you were to test other amps in the same way a lot of '6W' amps might suddenly be 10W or 15W amps.
This is a good product, 1.6W in a portable (1.1W when unplugged) is still quite a bit, and the features of the Diablo 2 are very nice with many welcome changes over the original.
But in my view the way iFi is presenting the power capability of this device is simply misleading and unethical. They don't spec their other amps this way so I'm not sure why it's different here.
Last edited:
Considering a lot of the interest in this product seems to be, at least in part, related to its "beast" power, this is disappointing.
That is true of course but advertising aside the Diablo has a sh..t load of power nevertheless and far more than 99% of people will ever need.
I use my Diablo from IEM, 300 ohm HD600 to 13 ohm Aeon Noire planars and none need more than the lowest gain to drive them well and to silly volume.
I won’t buy the 2 because I have no need for the features and Golden demonstrated that the new one has no practical performance advantage over the original.
What you named isn't hard to drive. There are plenty of headphones that are difficult to drive, and people who own them end up looking for portable solutions such as this which claim to delivery such power. I have some doubts that those people represent less than 1% of the buyers interested in this product as you claim.
Sure, you may be right on the one percent so let’s call it five percent, perhaps ten if being super generous.
Whatever it is the vast majority of Diablo buyers will never need 5 watts from it.
Can you handle the fake specs!?
So sad that the biggest selling point of a product is not true...
So sad that the biggest selling point of a product is not true...
If you are asking me, yes I can handle the “fake” specs.
This is just a hobby, I don’t see why I should see iFi’s advertising wording as “so sad”.
I am a grown adult with better things to concern myself with than an advertising spec being exaggerated. I listen to music from my Diablo to relax and remove myself from other stressors, it does a great job, that is all I need, if others want to get all concerned go for it, I just tried to inject some perspective.
Thorsten Loesch
Member of the Trade: Studio RaumklanG, Studio Cocktail
Hi Golden,
As expected.
It's disappointing to see that engineers at iFi got no clue how to implement a simple resistive "power soak".
The output impedance should ~ 1 Ohm in the high attenuation setting if they had simply extended , which would still provide ~ 0.2V maximum, which, in case of very high sensitivity IEM's like Campfire Andro's at 140dB/1V would still provide over 120dB peak SPL and an intermediate setting of ~ 3 Ohm output impedance and ~ 0.6V maximum would likely be ok for most high sensitivity IEM's and Headphones.
I remember when I originally designed the Red Label (which got sold as Diablo) I used 5 Cycles of 1kHz (5mS) with a 3:1 ratio between off/on. And I measured in SE mode (which halves the losses and is the better choice for low impedance).
The Headphone Amp is single ended anyway and only generates the balanced output by inverting the SE Output. The whole design was originally Single ended and had to become balanced somehow because S&M insisted they could not sell a SE design and it had to be balanced, even if the balanced output was compromised in performance.
So without additional budget, increased casework size etc. there was no way to create a serious balanced output, that quadruples or at least doubles power over SE. It would have needed a much larger battery, power supply etc. So using the Balanced Output will lower undistorted output power over SE.
So the Balanced Out is rather compromised and is best ignored as marketing feature, UNLESS the headphone's are high impedance and need a LOT of voltage (e.g. AKG K1000), in which case using the Balanced Out of course is the correct choice..
Due to lower noise, distortion and greater available power the SE Output will usually be the better choice both objectively and subjectively, as long as the more limited maximum output voltage (but not reduced Current or Power) is not a problem for the Headphone.
I would suggest that main "performance" measurements should be in SE and that "balanced" are better seen as " supplementary". So I would suggest you re-measure everything in SE, to illustrate to potential customers what is the best connection and operation of this device for maximum performance.
Of course, it will still not come close to 5W RMS per channel, if measured SE.
And just to with, the difference in maximum sound pressure level with a sustained tone is around 5dB, it will be less with Music which has a greater peak to average rating.
Personally I would suggest that using AES-2/2012 is an appropriate means to measure both Speaker "Music Power" handling (which is what it specified for) and Amplifier "Music Power" output in a way that is more relevant in practice and accounts for the dynamic nature of music.
But it should be also referenced against "continuous power", aka RMS, but that's just me.
Thor
As expected.
It's disappointing to see that engineers at iFi got no clue how to implement a simple resistive "power soak".
The output impedance should ~ 1 Ohm in the high attenuation setting if they had simply extended , which would still provide ~ 0.2V maximum, which, in case of very high sensitivity IEM's like Campfire Andro's at 140dB/1V would still provide over 120dB peak SPL and an intermediate setting of ~ 3 Ohm output impedance and ~ 0.6V maximum would likely be ok for most high sensitivity IEM's and Headphones.
I remember when I originally designed the Red Label (which got sold as Diablo) I used 5 Cycles of 1kHz (5mS) with a 3:1 ratio between off/on. And I measured in SE mode (which halves the losses and is the better choice for low impedance).
The Headphone Amp is single ended anyway and only generates the balanced output by inverting the SE Output. The whole design was originally Single ended and had to become balanced somehow because S&M insisted they could not sell a SE design and it had to be balanced, even if the balanced output was compromised in performance.
So without additional budget, increased casework size etc. there was no way to create a serious balanced output, that quadruples or at least doubles power over SE. It would have needed a much larger battery, power supply etc. So using the Balanced Output will lower undistorted output power over SE.
So the Balanced Out is rather compromised and is best ignored as marketing feature, UNLESS the headphone's are high impedance and need a LOT of voltage (e.g. AKG K1000), in which case using the Balanced Out of course is the correct choice..
Due to lower noise, distortion and greater available power the SE Output will usually be the better choice both objectively and subjectively, as long as the more limited maximum output voltage (but not reduced Current or Power) is not a problem for the Headphone.
I would suggest that main "performance" measurements should be in SE and that "balanced" are better seen as " supplementary". So I would suggest you re-measure everything in SE, to illustrate to potential customers what is the best connection and operation of this device for maximum performance.
Of course, it will still not come close to 5W RMS per channel, if measured SE.
And just to with, the difference in maximum sound pressure level with a sustained tone is around 5dB, it will be less with Music which has a greater peak to average rating.
Personally I would suggest that using AES-2/2012 is an appropriate means to measure both Speaker "Music Power" handling (which is what it specified for) and Amplifier "Music Power" output in a way that is more relevant in practice and accounts for the dynamic nature of music.
But it should be also referenced against "continuous power", aka RMS, but that's just me.
Thor
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
