[Currawong]

 

@bmichels
I'm not sure I get you, as a Hugo costs about as much as an AK240.

Not in Europe : I just Paid my HUGO 1450€ while à AK240 cost 2400€ !

 
Ahh, forgot you were in Europe and the Hugo is made there.
 
Anyhow, for a fun diversion while I wait for the Audeze cans to arrive back:
 

  This makes me feel old:
 

 

 

[Saraguie]

And  " Sony ZX1 + HUGO "   v/s  AK240 alone ?    

The "combo solution" is cheaper than the AK240 alone, and offers (1) a better UI, (2) access to google apps and .. (3) access to radio & streaming sites !  (hello Qobuz and other HighRes streaming sites for unlimited music & discovery)

Is it a portable solution?

 

[bmichels]

Is it a portable solution?

well ...  transPortable

 

[Saraguie]

  well ...  transPortable

I was just at the NY show, I'll be dammed I forgot to find a Hugo to have a listen. I know its a fine piece of equipment. Maybe it was a blessing I didn't cause I do not need one! It is a serious piece if transPORTABLE equipment  

 

 

[purk]

   
The AK240 is definitely a noticeable step up from the Sony. Music from the Sony sounds a bit forced, whereas from the AK240 sounds effortless and the more subtle textures of notes are apparent on excellent recordings.
 
 

 
Amos, I'm not saying that the ZX1 will now match the sound quality of the AK240, but the updated firmware does make the sound more effortless.  Bass is rendered better and in similar fashion to the DX100.  If you can convince Sean to perform the update, you should really do it.  I curiouson your thoughts of the ZX1 after the update.  Others in  the ZX1's threads also noticed similar sonics improvements after the firmware update.  The update also makes the ZX1 DSD-capable.  

 

[DMinor]

Just pick up the most transparent one and you are done. The DAP (amp included) is supposed to bring the analog signals to the phones with no or least coloring (disturbance) and then let your phones to dictate the sound signature.
 
So the question is, are you able to tell which one is the most transparent? That one should be able to give you the most open, airy and effortless sounding.

 

[Fafner]

Amos, I'm not saying that the ZX1 will now match the sound quality of the AK240, but the updated firmware does make the sound more effortless.  Bass is rendered better and in similar fashion to the DX100.  If you can convince Sean to perform the update, you should really do it.  I curiouson your thoughts of the ZX1 after the update.  Others in  the ZX1's threads also noticed similar sonics improvements after the firmware update.  The update also makes the ZX1 DSD-capable.  

Dsd capable,but not dsd native I guess

 

[purk]

Dsd capable,but not dsd native I guess

that...i cant confirm but the original S-master module does DSD natvely.

 

[Bluebear]

 
that...i cant confirm but the original S-master module does DSD natvely.

It is not DSD-native. I have previously posted this on the Chord Hugo thread already. The DSD file is downsampled to PCM 24-bit/176.4-kHz and eats more battery due to the work of conversion during playback. So the ZX1 cannot act as a transport for Hugo to achieve native DSD playback nor does it play DSD natively. Same for NW-F885/886/887. Playing back of DSD natively depends purely on whether the DAC chip used in the DAP supports native DSD or not and if the firmware has enabled using the hardware. The only 2 DAPs that currently supports native DSD are AK240 and the upcoming Calyx M because of the DAC chips used inside. Technically, the DX90 should be capable of native DSD since it uses the same DAC as Calyx M but iBasso has not enabled it in its firmware support.

 

[purk]

It is not DSD-native. I have previously posted this on the Chord Hugo thread already. The DSD file is downsampled to PCM 24-bit/176.4-kHz and eats more battery due to the work of conversion during playback. So the ZX1 cannot act as a transport for Hugo to achieve native DSD playback nor does it play DSD natively. Same for NW-F885/886/887. Playing back of DSD natively depends purely on whether the DAC chip used in the DAP supports native DSD or not and if the firmware has enabled using the hardware. The only 2 DAPs that currently supports native DSD are AK240 and the upcoming Calyx M because of the DAC chips used inside. Technically, the DX90 should be capable of native DSD since it uses the same DAC as Calyx M but iBasso has not enabled it in its firmware support.

Thanks for the information on DSD.  I'm just delight that the ZX1 does sound more effortless & refined now after upgrade.  

 

[Currawong]

Originally Posted by purk /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Amos, I'm not saying that the ZX1 will now match the sound quality of the AK240, but the updated firmware does make the sound more effortless.  Bass is rendered better and in similar fashion to the DX100.  If you can convince Sean to perform the update, you should really do it.  I curiouson your thoughts of the ZX1 after the update.  Others in  the ZX1's threads also noticed similar sonics improvements after the firmware update.  The update also makes the ZX1 DSD-capable.  

 
Sean was fine with the update, so I did it last night. I'll re-compare it with the AK240 later. The Audezes came back so I wanted to compare with them first, which is not a priority with the Sony IMO. 
 

  Just pick up the most transparent one and you are done. The DAP (amp included) is supposed to bring the analog signals to the phones with no or least coloring (disturbance) and then let your phones to dictate the sound signature.
 
So the question is, are you able to tell which one is the most transparent? That one should be able to give you the most open, airy and effortless sounding.

 
Which means the AK240 and $2500 before headphones or IEMs, which, IMO, are going to be $1k and up to be worth bothering with the AK240 (I'm thinking the UERM or better). That means a $3500-$4100 rig (US market prices -- I'm going to ignore Europe and the Hugo for now, sorry!). Do you know the expression TNSTAAFL? 

 

---

 
Anyhow, back to impressions. 
 
Anytime I buy cables for headphones now I have them terminated in a 4-pin mini-XLR so I can add tails for whatever headphone socket I need to connect to. It can allow for a (slightly delayed) A/B comparison between components if they use different tails. 
 
I thought I'd give the Cypher Labs rig a good run today. I first compared playing the same music using my iPhone as a transport for the Algorithm Solo -dB, then my computer using an Oyaide NEO USB cable. There was a jump in clarity via the latter. Thankfully the Algorithm Solo degrades gracefully with lesser transports, simply losing clarity rather than sounding unpleasant and harsh as I've experienced with some. It sounded nice as a DAC in my main system and obviously while not as competent as my Master 7, still did a capable job at 1/3rd the price and I still felt like listening with it in the chain, which is the main thing. I've had a few digital components through which, after listening for a minute were like "That was OK but I don't want to listen any more."
 
That being said, the main thing I wanted to compare was using the LCD-X balanced from both the CL rig and AK240. The results were kind of boring: Same story as with everything else. The AK240 sounds more effortless and detailed with the best recordings. With plenty of music it was hard to compare, also partly because the FR of the LCD-X isn't as suited to picking out the subtleties of instruments as much as my HD-800s are. Balanced cables for the HD-800s aren't here yet.
 
Then the HM-901. Same story again. BUT, I love the particular "sound" of the balanced card. It really makes me want to listen and sounds -- I don't really know how to put it -- dynamic? 
 
So the AK240 scores again where: Everything is the best available: Headphones, IEMs and music and being able to fit in your pocket is essential. Everything else is still great in its own way, but the other rigs don't do everything as well as the AK240, eg: being both sonically outstanding while being pocketable and having an excellent UI.  The other units have their own advantages the AK240 doesn't, such as the Sony's more flexible and nicer screen and UI and size, or the HM-901's ability to take a full-size SD card and change the battery and amp cards easily to suit what one wants to listen with. The X5, of course, is well-built and sounds good while being about half the price of the Sony.

 

[DMinor]

   
Which means the AK240 and $2500 before headphones or IEMs, which, IMO, are going to be $1k and up to be worth bothering with the AK240 (I'm thinking the UERM or better). That means a $3500-$4100 rig (US market prices -- I'm going to ignore Europe and the Hugo for now, sorry!). Do you know the expression TNSTAAFL? 

 
Honestly if it's really that much better then I don't see cost in that range as an issue for music you can enjoy everyday. For those who want to bring his own lunch, that's 10 bucks saving a day for a yr. Not that difficult.

 
But when it comes to in-ear audio, I will reserve my doubt on a piece of $2.5K brick being much better from that headphone out until I hear it (and I may never or need). One thing I know, is you don't need to spend a ton to achieve a transparent source for your phones - if you are willing to spend time and effort trying/experimenting things besides buying and selling. Audio is indeed amazing animal which could surprise you unexpectedly sometimes.
 
My point is, when it comes to evaluate these dap's, the most transparent one is always the winner. With that, the music just moves freely with a breeze in an open space. The term, muddy, is the worst enemy of transparency. I hate muddy sounding, even just slightest muddy sounding ruins music to my ears. There are times that muddy sounding comes from the albums, and you can't do anything about it other than getting rid it from your library for good.

 

[bmichels]

 
 
Anytime I buy cables for headphones now I have them terminated in a 4-pin mini-XLR so I can add tails for whatever headphone socket I need to connect to.

 
very good idea !  I will do the same now   thanks
 
PS: still believe that you need to introduce the HUGO in the tests if you want to avoid the "boring usual conclusion": AK240 win...

 

[Currawong]

  But when it comes to in-ear audio, I will reserve my doubt on a piece of $2.5K brick being much better from that headphone out until I hear it (and I may never or need). One thing I know, is you don't need to spend a ton to achieve a transparent source for your phones - if you are willing to spend time and effort trying/experimenting things besides buying and selling. Audio is indeed amazing animal which could surprise you unexpectedly sometimes.
 
My point is, when it comes to evaluate these dap's, the most transparent one is always the winner. With that, the music just moves freely with a breeze in an open space. The term, muddy, is the worst enemy of transparency. I hate muddy sounding, even just slightest muddy sounding ruins music to my ears. There are times that muddy sounding comes from the albums, and you can't do anything about it other than getting rid it from your library for good.

 
And doubt you should! I sure did. I'd say it's an all-or-nothing thing: Everything has to be excellent, including the music. It's for people who are willing to spend the money and listen to music where that last bit of clarity is everything, yet you want it to fit in your pocket. It's for people whom what it is, is exactly what they are after. 
 
What you describe though in your point is what I feel the AK240 is. But again: TNSTAAFL -- It's $2500. Maybe Vinnie can mod it to make it better still, but that will be another large sum on top of that. You can get very good sound and a very enjoyable listening experience out of the other three (or an AK100 or AK120). Heck, for the majority of my music, once playlist support is added, I could well enjoy listening from the X5 with a pair of Parterres and both fit in my pocket nicely.
 
Transparency: That is whatever we say it is. Real transparency has to exist inside ourselves first -- we are opaque, muddied by many things, especially our beliefs and ingrained thought patterns, but this is rather off-topic. 

 

[DMinor]

 
we are opaque, muddied by many things, especially our beliefs and ingrained thought patterns

 
That's what I call "fooling ourselves"