[bharat2580]

I am still cool with 2.2.0. Any reason to change? That's still the warmest signature, right? Pretty happy with the sound. Don't need any more detail. I really like the speed and separation and bass clarity of 2.2.0. Haven't tried anything else, but every time I read about another firmware it seemed that they were all brighter than 2.2.0. I have let go of the DAC dreams for my MacBook Pro. I can use my emotiva if I really need to. So... Anyone compare 2.2.0 with the latest? Or with any of the other updates?

i was on 2.2.0 and 2.1.0, 
now on the latest, its good a bit faster and all good things of the 2.2.0 
 
also i am on the lurker now, almost the same just wanted to try, but try lurkers small one for 2.4 its a tiny software, the sound sig is very very different its muddy somehow but the soundstage is 50 times the other firmware, try it for fun,  and you may got to 2.4.0 won't hurt.

 

[mpawluk91]

Damn it's been a while since I've been on here, I still have lurkers original firmware! Am I doing ok or did I miss out on something amazing???

 

[lian00]

Damn it's been a while since I've been on here, I still have lurkers original firmware! Am I doing ok or did I miss out on something amazing???

There is a new firmware version from Lurker for DX90 - lighter.

 

[mpawluk91]

There is a new firmware version from Lurker for DX90 - lighter.

Does it sound a whole lot different? I really like his first one. He does a good job

 

[lian00]

Does it sound a whole lot different? I really like his first one. He does a good job

I did not notice any difference - well with my hi fi devices.

 

[mpawluk91]

I did not notice any difference - well with my hi fi devices.

Maybe it saves battery and keeps the good sound, if I recall (don't crucify me if I'm wrong) the original lurker did something like make the dx90's cpu run on full power all the time so the music somehow was played better.
I don't make or change software but that guy is good at what he does in my opinion because it sounds way better than stock. I'd love for him to make a dx50 firmware

 

[rumlyne]

  We are working on a FW release for the DX90 and DX50. I don't have a date but it is an active update.

 
Hey Paul! Do you plan on implementing otg+charge? That would come in handy at times!

 

[Paul - iBasso]

   
Hey Paul! Do you plan on implementing otg+charge? That would come in handy at times!

You can try a dual USB cable or the computer.

 

[rumlyne]

 
You can try a dual USB cable or the computer.

If you mean an otg+power- / y-cable, that I have and that doesn't work. What do you mean with by computer? Charge it from the computer? That works but also no OTG.

 

[barok232]

By design the Sharp/Slow roll off filters will affect ultrasonic frequencies. In short if the source file is well mastered with little ultrasonic noise, then using the Slow filter or No filter will be best. If the source file contain much ultrasonic noise, then using Fast filter can give a "cleaner" sound.

I suspect the 2.00 firmware does not have the filter enabled.

The Fast/Slow rolloff filters will have no or very little effect on mp3 or other compressed files playback, as ultrasonic frequencies were discarded durung the encoding process already.

Regarding the 2 digital filters I have to say that the bold part does not seem to be true neither by ibasso manual (where it states that the filters affect the frequencies as to how they will fade) nor by my own ears. It's about ALL frequencies, not only ultrasonic frequencies! 
 
At first I liked the slow roll-off. It creates a very positive feeling. But after hours of listening I have come to conclude that the sharp roll-off is more faithful to how the songs are supposed to sound (the way they were mastered). The slow roll-off practically sustains every frequency a bit longer (smoother curve fadeout) and this creates 3 major problems: 
 
1) Tonality problem: Many notes/frequencies sustained create unwanted harmonies and generally a messy sounding result. (Listening at high volume will make you dizzy)
 
2) Compromised articulation: First note overlaps the attack of the next one. Staccato could end up being impossible with this filter
 
3) Chaotic vibrato: Due to the above a voice singing sounds unnatural as if being autotuned or messed somehow
 
These were my observations on the matter. Of course everybody should choose what they like, but I think this is the case with these filters: Sharp roll-off seems closer to the truth than slow roll-off, at least in regards to this device, the ibasso dx90. (Headphones shouldn't change this fact either, why would they?)
 
(excuse my english if not clear at times, I am not a native speaker)
 
PS: I LUV my ibasso!!!!

 

[borrego]

  Regarding the 2 digital filters I have to say that the bold part does not seem to be true neither by ibasso manual (where it states that the filters affect the frequencies as to how they will fade) nor by my own ears. It's about ALL frequencies, not only ultrasonic frequencies! 
 

 
I suggest you to read the FR graphs for the ESS9018 Fast/Slow filters at the lower portion on this page: https://hifiduino.wordpress.com/sabre32/

 

[mpawluk91]

I suggest you to read the FR graphs for the ESS9018 Fast/Slow filters at the lower portion on this page: https://hifiduino.wordpress.com/sabre32/

That was intense trying to take all that info in lol someone smarter than myself should read this!

 

[bharat2580]

the point was that the filter affects the audio-range and not only ultrasonic range, i  guess. 

 

[mpawluk91]

It'd be nice if someone can give their impressions between the two. I couldn't tell the difference last time I checked and I'm not near my player

 

[bharat2580]

In fast you have a bit more extension.
Can use slow to tame the highs depends on your earpiece