help me a lot as I was looking at the DX200 or AK300
help me a lot as I was looking at the DX200 or AK300
[COLOR=000000]Astell & Kern AK300 vs iBasso DX200.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=000000]I think we need to view this mini comparison from multpile angles to be fair.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=000000]Areas like design are important to people, I feel deep down despite AK300 being slightly harder to hold with its sharpish corners (especially without the case) AK have developed some extremely appealing/modern looking players, I do prefer the appearance of AK300 personally overall, it does look closer to what a player should in 2016. Looks aside, I feel the iBasso is easier to wrap your hand around and hold without feeling awkward, especially when accessing the volume wheel and side controls. DX200 has very similar form factor to a (thickish) smartphone which leans in favour for an everyday device, but remember its quite a bit larger than the AK300 (see photo) .Sometimes when you hold an AK unit you can't help feel if you're doing it incorrectly or the units going to slide out of its case unless babied but it will fit inside most pockets. Visually yes, it won me over on day-1. The AK players are well designed.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=000000]We need to consider DX200's amp modules, full Android capabilities, web browsing, (not that I would) installing apps (even Angry Birds if you're crazy enough), this gives the iBasso a huge advantage in features and versatility at roughly the same price, AK300 does have Tidal to be fair but so can DX200! As much I think AK300's UI is pretty consistent without any bugs its also quite simple looking, straight forward, while the Android mode DX200 player is faster, more colourful and I personally feel the swiping motions on DX200 are quicker to use than a back arrow located onscreen. Overall, I can't call an 'obvious' winner on the user interfaces but would lean on the appearance and speed of DX200's Android player, especially those swiping motions. It really is quite fast to use.. I must add though DX200 will need the ability in future firmware for on-screen volume adjustments within the app (we must have this soon).[/COLOR]
[COLOR=000000]And the sound...[/COLOR]
[COLOR=000000]AK300 has a unique house sound with a slight warm tilt to its mid-range, its relatively flat overall which doesn't lend any favours in energy but its timbre and atmosphere makes it sound quite classy, expensive to some degree, I'll always like that about the AK. it does however, always sound too relaxed for me, overly smooth around its mid-range and lacks high levels of detail. DX200 has a very big advantage for people who prefer resolution, clarity, and high energy presentations, AK300 has the kind of mid-range I'm always turning up the volume trying to achieve detail levels my DX90 can practically do, what you end up with is a slightly veiled or under-performing (call it what you will ) mid-range that's lacking vibrancy.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=000000]As an example, if you've ever plugged a portable amp into a source and thought it sounded a bit smoothed over, lacking transparency or missing detail this is how AK300 sounds to me with my Tralucent IEMs, like there's always a light veil over the sound, and it simply cannot keep up with DX200 in this regard. Soundstage wise and air AK300 can hold ground, also its layering but its just missing so much energy and authority compared to DX200 its a little laughable.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=000000](I'm not sure what I'll do with my AK300 atm, its volume wheel is partly faulty, it sounds too relaxed for all my current IEMs and apart from looking pretty awesome and getting used from USB Audio out to my Tralucent DAC doesn't have much of a life here)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=000000]My DX200 has about 20-30 hours on it, so things would have only improved from here. When we consider DX200 is being compared to other flagship players its not really surprising this is the case. What's more interesting is these two players pricing, they're both around the same price in USD yet one strongly pulls away reaching into a higher realm.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=000000]Astell & Kern AK300 vs iBasso DX200.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=000000]I think we need to view this mini comparison from multpile angles to be fair.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=000000]Areas like design are important to people, I feel deep down despite AK300 being slightly harder to hold with its sharpish corners (especially without the case) AK have developed some extremely appealing/modern looking players, I do prefer the appearance of AK300 personally overall, it does look closer to what a player should in 2016. Looks aside, I feel the iBasso is easier to wrap your hand around and hold without feeling awkward, especially when accessing the volume wheel and side controls. DX200 has very similar form factor to a (thickish) smartphone which leans in favour for an everyday device, but remember its quite a bit larger than the AK300 (see photo) .Sometimes when you hold an AK unit you can't help feel if you're doing it incorrectly or the units going to slide out of its case unless babied but it will fit inside most pockets. Visually yes, it won me over on day-1. The AK players are well designed.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=000000]We need to consider DX200's amp modules, full Android capabilities, web browsing, (not that I would) installing apps (even Angry Birds if you're crazy enough), this gives the iBasso a huge advantage in features and versatility at roughly the same price, AK300 does have Tidal to be fair but so can DX200! As much I think AK300's UI is pretty consistent without any bugs its also quite simple looking, straight forward, while the Android mode DX200 player is faster, more colourful and I personally feel the swiping motions on DX200 are quicker to use than a back arrow located onscreen. Overall, I can't call an 'obvious' winner on the user interfaces but would lean on the appearance and speed of DX200's Android player, especially those swiping motions. It really is quite fast to use.. I must add though DX200 will need the ability in future firmware for on-screen volume adjustments within the app (we must have this soon).[/COLOR]
[COLOR=000000]And the sound...[/COLOR]
[COLOR=000000]AK300 has a unique house sound with a slight warm tilt to its mid-range, its relatively flat overall which doesn't lend any favours in energy but its timbre and atmosphere makes it sound quite classy, expensive to some degree, I'll always like that about the AK. it does however, always sound too relaxed for me, overly smooth around its mid-range and lacks high levels of detail. DX200 has a very big advantage for people who prefer resolution, clarity, and high energy presentations, AK300 has the kind of mid-range I'm always turning up the volume trying to achieve detail levels my DX90 can practically do, what you end up with is a slightly veiled or under-performing (call it what you will ) mid-range that's lacking vibrancy.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=000000]As an example, if you've ever plugged a portable amp into a source and thought it sounded a bit smoothed over, lacking transparency or missing detail this is how AK300 sounds to me with my Tralucent IEMs, like there's always a light veil over the sound, and it simply cannot keep up with DX200 in this regard. Soundstage wise and air AK300 can hold ground, also its layering but its just missing so much energy and authority compared to DX200 its a little laughable.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=000000](I'm not sure what I'll do with my AK300 atm, its volume wheel is partly faulty, it sounds too relaxed for all my current IEMs and apart from looking pretty awesome and getting used from USB Audio out to my Tralucent DAC doesn't have much of a life here)[/COLOR]
[COLOR=000000]My DX200 has about 20-30 hours on it, so things would have only improved from here. When we consider DX200 is being compared to other flagship players its not really surprising this is the case. What's more interesting is these two players pricing, they're both around the same price in USD yet one strongly pulls away reaching into a higher realm.[/COLOR]
