[Ichos]

Dear friends here is my full review of the iBasso DX320, including AMP12 and AMP13 plus brief comparison to the DX300 and detailed comparison to the FiiO M17.

https://www.head-fi.org/showcase/ibasso-dx320.25723/review/29546/

Thank you for reading.

 

[ozz007]

The Soft TPU Clear Case completely solves the sensitive buttons issue. I have to press firmly on the button with the case on. The leather case is simply a bad design.

Here's the exact one I'm using: Soft TPU Clear Protective Shell Skin Case Cover for iBasso DX320 DX300 Music Player
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005002099962793.html?spm=a2g0o.order_list.0.0.44231802Jw7r1P

For charging, I always put it on a phone stand and charge it with the screen in upright portrait orientation. The phone stand's bottom isn't covered so charging is no problem.

For uneven battery drain, I simply look at the one that drains faster and forget about the one that drains slower. Ignoring what can be ignored is the key to mitigate stress imo. After battery calibrates, it will have 8-10 hours of play time from my experience.

Thank you I order the case.
Ibasso really needs togo back and rethink the desined.

 

[Alien HP]

So based on what I read, there is no sense to switch from DX300 to DX320.

 

[DAPpower]

So based on what I read, there is no sense to switch from DX300 to DX320.

If you are satisfied with the DX300 then you should stick with it but overall the DX320 is an audible upgrade over the DX300. Not to mention it can decode DSD512 and other perks.

 

[hartphoto]

Unintentional finding… DX320 batts at 100a/100d. Used Amp11mk2 for ~45 minutes trying different IEM tips on 7hz Timeless, then connected to BT transceiver/amp 2.1 system in an RV. After 18 hours continuous playing of a local playlist, DX320 battery level is 97a/36d. Pretty awesome.

 

[Whitigir]

Unintentional finding… DX320 batts at 100a/100d. Used Amp11mk2 for ~45 minutes trying different IEM tips on 7hz Timeless, then connected to BT transceiver/amp 2.1 system in an RV. After 18 hours continuous playing of a local playlist, DX320 battery level is 97a/36d. Pretty awesome.

Yepe, a real 2 dedicated separated battery cells

 

[jamato8]

Dear friends here is my full review of the iBasso DX320, including AMP12 and AMP13 plus brief comparison to the DX300 and detailed comparison to the FiiO M17.

https://www.head-fi.org/showcase/ibasso-dx320.25723/review/29546/

Thank you for reading.

Nice right up. But the comparison to the 17 I do not agree with. The 17 is very powerful but the top end is more artificial and is not as natural. People listen to too much digital music and not enough naturally produced sounds. The DX320 is more musical, natural. The 17 is extended only because of the digital edge it has not the musical edge. Everything can be emphasized, that doesn't mean better or natural or for that matter, normal when it comes to "real" 'music. Many people have become accustomed to just the digital sound and expect that when a true reference is real music/voice in a setting where sounds are not digitized and abnormalized (my own word). Listen to birds, footsteps, a stringed instrument, voice, singing voice etc. You don't hear an unnatural high frequency or in any of the frequencies, you hear real sound. We try to trick our mind by overemphasizing, exaggerating but we often don't take the time to validate with real sound.

So in that context, I do not agree the 17 is better in the areas of sound you mention and If I want a different sound, to a degree, like changing venues or rooms where something is happening, I change the amp modules of the DX320.

 

[Ichos]

Nice right up. But the comparison to the 17 I do not agree with. The 17 is very powerful but the top end is more artificial and is not as natural. People listen to too much digital music and not enough naturally produced sounds. The DX320 is more musical, natural. The 17 is extended only because of the digital edge it has not the musical edge. Everything can be emphasized, that doesn't mean better or natural or for that matter, normal when it comes to "real" 'music. Many people have become accustomed to just the digital sound and expect that when a true reference is real music/voice in a setting where sounds are not digitized and abnormalized (my own word). Listen to birds, footsteps, a stringed instrument, voice, singing voice etc. You don't hear an unnatural high frequency or in any of the frequencies, you hear real sound. We try to trick our mind by overemphasizing, exaggerating but we often don't take the time to validate with real sound.

So in that context, I do not agree the 17 is better in the areas of sound you mention and If I want a different sound, to a degree, like changing venues or rooms where something is happening, I change the amp modules of the DX320.

Thank you for reading.
It is not necessary to agree with everything I write but then I don't recall writing anything about detailed timbre comparison especially in the treble.
Both players have a quite natural timbre but I don't go into in depth comparison.
Moreover I state that the M17 is drier and of course I specifically mention that you can change the sound signature of the DX320 by simply swapping amp modules.
And I am sure that you already know that I listen exclusively to naturally produced sounds so I know exactly what you mean.
In this context the DX320 with the stock amp is not that %100 deprived of treble artificiality like say the DX300 in NOS mode.
Anyway I don't want to start a debate about subjective perception of sound.

 

[jamato8]

Thank you for reading.
It is not necessary to agree with everything I write but then I don't recall writing anything about detailed timbre comparison especially in the treble.
Both players have a quite natural timbre but I don't go into in depth comparison.
Moreover I state that the M17 is drier and of course I specifically mention that you can change the sound signature of the DX320 by simply swapping amp modules.
And I am sure that you already know that I listen exclusively to naturally produced sounds so I know exactly what you mean.
In this context the DX320 with the stock amp is not that %100 deprived of treble artificiality like say the DX300 in NOS mode.
Anyway I don't want to start a debate about subjective perception of sound.

I understand. So the impression I get with more open sounding is a more defined top end and often, blacker background (one devoid of low level sounds induced by the player in question) which I have read a number of reviews referring to as have better extension. Not so much of a debate, though some, as to what you hear and what I hear. Since you post a review, it must also be open to debate, if there is any to be had, just the same as what I may say is open to debate with someone that hears something differently.

 

[IvanE92]

Was always curious is. Is there an objective preference to: low gain with higher volume or high gain with lower volume (assuming you hit the same dB and whatnot w/ no hiss).

 

[jamato8]

Was always curious is. Is there an objective preference to: low gain with higher volume or high gain with lower volume (assuming you hit the same dB and whatnot w/ no hiss).

High gain is straight out of the amp so there is no resistor knocking down the gain. I most always prefer high but sometimes for whatever reason, like mid gain with some IEMs.

 

[NAD Fi]

Was always curious is. Is there an objective preference to: low gain with higher volume or high gain with lower volume (assuming you hit the same dB and whatnot w/ no hiss).

My observations with low/medium impedance IEMs;

Low gain is smooth and warm (not dark) and very analogue

Mid gain is balanced, bass is textured and upper mids and treble are layered. This is the gain I like best for IEMs and seem to be peak ROHM performance.

High gain has the most current supply and the amp becomes aggressive and less nuanced. There is freighter loads of punch, drive & slam. A musical onslaught that bears down really hard, one has to be in the mood for this and even then can only survive a few rounds of ear pounding.

 

[DAPpower]

My observations with low/medium impedance IEMs;

Low gain is smooth and warm (not dark) and very analogue

Mid gain is balanced, bass is textured and upper mids and treble are layered. This is the gain I like best for IEMs and seem to be peak ROHM performance.

High gain has the most current supply and the amp becomes aggressive and less nuanced. There is freighter loads of punch, drive & slam. A musical onslaught that bears down really hard, one has to be in the mood for this and even then can only survive a few rounds of ear pounding.

Agreed, the sound soundstage or the mids seem to be affected in High Gain, Medium Gain seems to be the happy medium in terms of vividnes and balance for iem use.

 

[ipaddy]

Using the DX320 with wireless iem's and headphones.

I believe that usually there isn't much of an advantage in using a superior DAP when using wireless than when using wired iems and headphones. I'm told that much circuitry is bypassed, and so we don't get so much difference (I'm not referring to the obvious reduction in quality caused by wireless--that is a constant, and assuming the same procotol is used, should not vary between daps).

Is this true for the DX320? For example, using an excellent wireless headphone like the PX8, can one expect as much of a difference between using the DX320 and, say, the DX170 or even an old FIIO M11, than the difference when using a wired headphone?

 

[Ichos]

Using the DX320 with wireless iem's and headphones.

I believe that usually there isn't much of an advantage in using a superior DAP when using wireless than when using wired iems and headphones. I'm told that much circuitry is bypassed, and so we don't get so much difference (I'm not referring to the obvious reduction in quality caused by wireless--that is a constant, and assuming the same procotol is used, should not vary between daps).

Is this true for the DX320? For example, using an excellent wireless headphone like the PX8, can one expect as much of a difference between using the DX320 and, say, the DX170 or even an old FIIO M11, than the difference when using a wired headphone?

The quality of the wireless transmitter is always beneficial to the sound but as long that the sources have the same Bluetooth chip or something equally good then I don't think that there is an audible difference.