Hi all, had a mini meet with Tiger Ears
@Vitaly2017 over the weekend after a lot of demoing the good stuff, speakers and then flagship headphones - we finished off with a 45 mins dedicated to porta-fi DX300 vs DX320.
First off, I don't want to rain on anyone’s parade here but both sources albeit being phenomenal values for the money are not on the level of my past owned SP2000CU and even less so the Hugo2. That being said, Hugo2 is outstanding in sound but annoying in usability, and SP2000CU has sharp edges and poor user interface/ slow processing.
Another thing to note, unlike the above, DX320 is more of a side-grade than an upgrade, objectively speaking here. I do agree the 320 is generally better sounding than 300, but they trade blows more so than anything. Where a Hugo2 is perhaps 20% better than DX320, SP2000cu is perhaps 10-12% & then DX320 being about 5% better than DX300.
Iem’s tested on both DAP’s are:
VE Phonix, VE EXT, IE900, IER-M9
Also use my KSE1200, IER-Z1R, MEST Indigo, MEST, EX1000 & ER2XR commonly with DX300
DX320:
- This DAP is quite nuanced in dynamic contrast, has sharp enough leading edges and transients, but also not too much.
- Technicals are great but not top flight, but the voicing has a bit of forgiveness thanks to this.
- Bass thumps and has fast decay and snappy speed.
- Imaging is fantastic and precise in positioning well developed & rendered instruments cohesively
- Staging is quite intimate and focalized in center stage and not so much in width. This also allows for more engagement factor and sense of dynamic. It’s quite intimate, to my surprise.
- This is my first experience with a device using ROHM dac’s and I can say it’s neat. I would call this a neutral/ fun source with above average dynamics and great detail/ overall fidelity.
DX300:
- Detail is more “apparent” though this is mostly due to the more expansive presentation
- Staging from left to right and up to down (x & y) is much further reaching compared to the DX320, though it struggles to push out depth in the Z axis
- It’s a more holographic, large and surrounding experience, but at the same time there is less layering/ relief/ texture magic vs the DX320, which does a better job of portraying music more realistically
- DX300 has a hard time with transient speed and attack. It has a sense of deadness and bloom to it, and tends to add a sense of decay. This works absolutely fantastic with BA drivers and bringing them into realism, but the fact is, this player has a bit of a dead/ plastic timbre
- DX300 has more lingering midbass/ fullness which is very nice with some iem’s, but a bit bloomed relative to DX320. It’s a technical drawback, but in my case a musical plus side to my ears
- DX300 also has more sense of air, whereas as the DX320’s smoothed off top end brings music more into focus/ sharpness, at the expense of etherealness
- The DX300 sound is very blown out and extended. Things linger a little longer, there's a certain looseness, silkiness to the sound, kind of like tube amps.
While comparing, I found myself slightly preferring the DX320 overall in my critical analysis, yet every time I was switching songs to compare, felt more immersed with the DX300. This was maintained with all iem’s except perhaps IE900 which I liked on DX320 slightly more.
Both units were running stock amps.
Both units running filter D1 (though usually I run D3 on DX300, but DX320 only has 2 options)
Both units were on High gain
Both units running Tidal
Both units using stock amp cards
Both units being less than 30 hours burnt in
I encourage
@Vitaly2017 to chime in as well, as I think he also found it surprising how both units traded blows rather than one being a direct upgrade. I believe he enjoyed the more detail of the DX300 a lot, but overall still preferred the DX320 factoring all components of sound.
For me, I’m not sure I want to sell my DX300 just yet now, but will keep it listed on Head-Fi as I am hoping to get a Hugo2 again. If anyone is interested in a trade please say hello
