[ReizeiMako]

  The changes with 2.2.0:
 
1. Sound

.
 
2. Bugs fixed from 2.1.8.
 
3. Delete and add to playlist functions are enabled under Directory category.

4. Improved M3U/M3U8 playlist support.

So can we use Foobar to create playlist for DX90 right now?

 

[hk6230]

My DX90 still can't rescan library. Once selected, my DX90 shows "Media scanning..." then black screen. I can also hear a clicking sound. Pressing power on/off, screen turns on and show "Ready". My Music -> All Music shows blank. This problem exists since 2.1.8FW. Was told this issue will be fixed in 2.2.0FW. Apparently, this problem is still not resolved.

 

[shane55]

Yup, can't wait to hear more about the "4. Improved M3U/M3U8 playlist support."
 
Details, please. Thank you.

 

[dafos58]

  Yup, can't wait to hear more about the "4. Improved M3U/M3U8 playlist support."
 
Details, please. Thank you.

+1
 
Initial impression of 2.2.0: nothing wrong! Gapless is working, sound (for my ears) is a mix between 2.1.5 L2 and 2.1.8. 
2.1.8 for my ears was to excessive. 2.2.0 is more lifely than 2.1.5 but still remains a good separation. Punchy lows, but not to much, clear highs, voices a little bit recessed, but still in balance. No fatigue for my ears, so untill now, Ibasso, I'm happy!

 

[KT66]

L/R balance still not working properly.

 

[nc8000]

L/R balance still not working properly.

In what way ?

 

[KT66]

The left and right work the wrong way round.
Put the balance on +1 to Right and you only get sound in left speaker, at vol 255, I use an external amp

 

[Lurker0]

The left and right work the wrong way round.
Put the balance on +1 to Right and you only get sound in left speaker, at vol 255, I use an external amp

It is wrong from your side Just don't make the volume 255! The volume control is implemented in DAC, and the balance control is implemented via that volume control. When the volume level value reaches the maximum possible, it can't be increased even more. In this arithmetics, 255+1=0.

 

[henkie196]

  It is wrong from your side Just don't make the volume 255! The volume control is implemented in DAC, and the balance control is implemented via that volume control. When the volume level value reaches the maximum possible, it can't be increased even more. In this arithmetics, 255+1=0.

If that's the case, they really should've built in some overflow protection. Either lower the other channel by one, or just cap it at 255 (though the latter would effectively disable the channel balance at maximum volume).

 

[Lurker0]

 

  It is wrong from your side Just don't make the volume 255! The volume control is implemented in DAC, and the balance control is implemented via that volume control. When the volume level value reaches the maximum possible, it can't be increased even more. In this arithmetics, 255+1=0.

If that's the case, they really should've built in some overflow protection.

It will not work correctly anyway: either the levels would be incorrect another way at high volume levels, or the highest volume couldn't be reached even at zero balance. So, better not to touch things that work and decrease the volume level once you clearly hear incorrect output.

 

[T.R.A.N.C.E.]

Waiting for Lurker's firmware 2.2L 

 

 

[HiFiChris]

Is there anybody else out there who prefers the stock fonts (L1) over the "Roboto Condensed"-based ones (L0)?

 

[henkie196]

  It will not work correctly anyway: either the levels would be incorrect another way at high volume levels, or the highest volume couldn't be reached even at zero balance. So, better not to touch things that work and decrease the volume level once you clearly hear incorrect output.

Why wouldn't the highest volume be reached at zero balance? Of course, I don't know the firmware implementation, but it would seem to me that with zero correction you should be able to reach the highest volume normally.
 
I can also find no advantage in having to manually tone down the overall volume in case of balance correction in order to get it to work correctly, rather than just having the software do that for me. In fact, if no-one told me that that would be the way to correct it, I might never even figure that out by myself (I'd only ever use maximum volume in case of using the line out, and then I'd not necessarily think to fiddle with the volume on the DAP itself).
 
Well, I guess it's a limitation of using a digital volume control, though it appears to me to be an unnecessary limitation.

 

[fonsocm]

  Is there anybody else out there who prefers the stock fonts (L1) over the "Roboto Condensed"-based ones (L0)?

 
+1

 

[Lurker0]

Ladies and Gentlemen!
 
I'm happy to tell you that the only thing I'll do with FW 2.2.0 is to replace fonts and enable adb in 'Charge only'. Both changes were never considered as affecting the sound signature. All other changes I ever made to DX90 firmware are already incorporated by iBasso! It finally happened

 
So, this time I'm back to what I've started from almost a year ago (make Latin and Cyrillic characters better looking for my eyes), and, I hope this will remain the same in the future.
 
Reminder: I have a modded DX90, which sounds different than the stock version!
Disclaimer: People's preferences and tastes are different!
 
This is the first time since last summer that I listen to a stock firmware version, and this time I want to express some emotions: OMG! My player never sounded so good ever before!
 
I've downloaded this firmware last night, updated on the player in a bus during a usual morning travel to the office, even before I had a chance to take a look inside for changes. Then I've listened (broken in 2.1.8 and now fixed!) technical test tracks, started the first musical track from my test set, and... I just couldn't stop it and switch to the next one! I've put the player into the pocket, and then listened all my test tracks, sequentially, in full, the first time ever.
 
It's up to you whether you like the result or not, all in all you have a number of firmwares to choose from, but, as for me, I'm quite excited. From this post it is clear that @Paul - iBasso likes the result as well, which makes me semi-confident that, soundwise, things won't go worse in the future

 
From my look into the firmware, I can tell you that iBasso have done another great job by cleaning the firmware from the useless stuff, to the level I just couldn't afford. The primary reason is because it requires a lot of time to check that nothing is broken. It also requires understanding what the OS kernel and remaining software use, again - not for me or any other person who has no access to the full firmware source code. As I understand, they had to make changes into the source code and re-compiled some parts for that purpose. I very much appreciate iBasso efforts! Thank you, iBasso!
 
OK, now I expect that the next player from iBasso would be designed with this experience in mind, with a goal to make the hardware a way that firmware won't affect the sound signature as much

I'm in doubt this goal can be reached due to the device's small size and limited capabilities of the power source, but at least I hope on a try!