[Vitandus]

The end of the chain is the most important factor in all of these. Prevaricating and never being happy with source - to me - is just mental masturbation after a point. Spend the time and money on different IEMs and headphones, and be happy!

 

[Amber Rain]

Dear friend,

Thanks for the interest in our products.
Currently, we could not tell too much information of M11Plus. You could pay attention to the update information in our website: www.fiio.com.
It is not available yet but it will come soon. We haven't arranged the shipment to the seller in UK yet.

Best regards

@FiiO

Thanks for your reply.

However to clarify, I was asking if there would be any further shipments to the UK of the original M11 Plus Ltd (with the AKM DAC)?

This is because I am on a waiting list for one!!!

 

[dmac6419]

Well lets say different. It depend on what you looking for. But for me interesting your opinion why do you think so. I have dx160 and i like it a lot for what it is and how it sounds ( not its working speed sadly) and it souds so good with my timeless that i actually dont need to upgrade it to dx240 as for me they sound really close. M11 plus is different and fiio tuned it very differently from ibasso dap for different task. For my ears sound is much dryer, neutral not so engaging but at the same time more hi fi with great control and gives oportunity to hear your iem more truthfully. But if you looking for pure enjoyement and not so dependant on music source quality perhaps dx160 was more made for this. M11plus is like an audiophile tool that is dead neutral. So for me they both sounds according their greators philosophy but it is only preferences. Metal for example i like to listen with dx160 much more as it gives more body to low end and colors it more fun for what this genre needs. But m11 plus makes other thing great. So IMO best to have both

Brought the m11 plus for the THX 78 wanted that sound for certain

 

[dmac6419]

The first cassette walkman is even better, way better.
Without arguments - a provocative declaration.

I still have my Sony walkman and several other cassette player's,so what are you saying, didn't I say it sounds better to me or you can't comprehend,let me know if I'm wrong.

 

[jaxz]

The first cassette walkman is even better, way better.
Without arguments - a provocative declaration.

Indeed my friend

 

[whitedragem]

I am coming back to the topic I mentioned a few months ago - AKM vs ESS chips.
If it were not for the fire in the AKM factory and the lack of their chips on the market, would the products of the DAC, DAC-Amp, DAP etc... types be in the minority or not be produced with these chips?
Until now, the FIIO has never moved towards the ESS - is it a matter of lower-quality ESS or contracts with AKM for cheaper components and not better but cheaper than ESS?

The last products of FIIO K9 or M11 Plus ltd with AKM chips are advertised as unique, last chips on the market before the fire and will not be on the market for a long time - are they exceptional in quality?

Sort of;
depends on what they end up feeding really- most users buy DAC chips for the SPEC sheet output.

some users buy them for the sound quality output.
There were a few companies, ‘back in the day’, that made audiophile DAC chips.
Over time they mostly got bought out, by large consumer electronics orientated megacorps. (that wanted the interest in their products (due to the brand recognition the forefather DAC chips held), to ‘better sounding DAC designs’, to likely avoiding lawsuits for ‘lifted circuit IPs’ -ie all the standard business reasons that leads to a company being bought up!!)
Some of the original ‘built for ultimate sound quality‘ chip designs are still around, or have evolved, but most circuit layouts got redone in the move to Direct Stream Digital compatibility.
Some brands do things differently (like my jaw hit the floor when I saw the Sabre layout putting oversampling at the start of the pathway..),.. and it is true that some DAC chips may favour certain music file formats (eg PCM vs DSD) or have an effect on the sound that may lean towards musicality or ‘spec sheet warring’.

I’d advocate that consumers stop buying based PURELY on spec sheet, but it is hard to tell strangers to trust other strangers’ opinions,.. and so it mostly falls to having to build a ‘personal opinion’, which is super hard to truly build unless all other aspects of the chain are high end reference/neutral kit (the resultant change in sound is the DAC chip arguable (DAC unit as a whole really).
Given most of us buy a DAC somewhere along the way, and usually before we realise just how important such a part can be (but really shines when the user has a nice transport to feed it from).. the notion of changing a DAC (for a different house sound) seems like what many people do.

I’d rather all my kit be studio neutral, and then alter the sound via the speakers (/headphones).. but ‘many paths to the summit’.

Much of what is written in audio threads about system synergy, and a mix of parts in ‘said system’ that might be WARM or COOL can mean a ‘tug of war’ that outputs something ‘in the middle’ akin to a neutral setup (with character).
I mostly aim for DAC chips that are legacy from the days when DAC chips were built for Sound Quality and not SPEC SHEET WARFARE.

The same chip in a range of different (total) circuitry does vary the output quality and sometimes even capability (like iFi do with the BB PCM1793 DAC chip, where the top six bits go through some sort of ‘out of order code’ process, essentially giving a little more resolution or gradation, like a ladder DAC, in the critical hearing range that excites us humans. (with noticably greater detail in the playback due to clever design)).
Everyone forgets the ‘DAC is the whole circuit’ aspect, yet the CS4398 in my Creative E5 can’t touch the CS4398 in my Questsyle QP1R. Is it the clock chips or the power isolation or board layout or.....?

From the times I hang out on EE threads, those discussing DAC chip ‘projects’ where they alter circuits and talk endlessly about various OpAmps; state that the improvement in the AKM chips from 4490 to 4493 was ‘something’ and ‘noticable’, and the jump to the 4497 was substantial, whereas the jump with the 4499 was PURELY for the voltage output. (more output power); suggesting that the 4497 and 4499 sound isn’t one to chose between, but rather whether a device featuring EITHER OF THESE DAC CHIPS, MEETS POWER OUTPUT NEEDS.

Given the market hasn’t been interested in Sound Quality as the number one metric for approx two decades (we have had two decades of format war and ‘new tech’), modern DAC chip designs mostly seem to be built to be
A) low powered
B) multichannel
and the market cares about:
C) re equalising or sample rate converting to some crazy high spec sheet number or capable of some esoteric format (768khz/DSD1024 etc)

Products are naturally built to hit these targets first and foremost

A company using an old or ‘outdated’ DAC CHIP is a GOOD THING, and more consumers should understand that such decisions are likely done for the right reasons.
(depending on brand you buy, that might be to SAVE $ or to IMPROVE Sound Quality)

It is true that Sabre chips were overlooked for a period, due to the requisite outboard circuitry costs to ‘complete the circuit’ meaning that ‘better DAC chips’ could be used in the first instance (with less coin needed to the full circuit), and given consumers only look at ‘one or two chips’ or SPEC SHEET NUMBERS when comparing products, this mostly worked very well.
Now with AKM 4499 requiring outboard circuitry $, Sabre is probably about to swing to being ‘market champion’..

I miss me my Wolfson/Burr Brown and AKM goodies... but really it is ALWAYS implementation.
An average chip in a phenominal circuit, by an engineer who knows redbook audio, is going to make a great 44khz 16bit capable DAC.
As for what anyone else needs and what SHOULD be prioritised in DAC design, that is a ‘can of worms’.

Too many people believe that scientific THEORY and REALITY are always aligned.
Much ‘digital theory’ is sound, but in the realworld is a joke.. whether it is worth arguing these semantics when a change of headphone TYPE will bring 150x more altering of the sound,.. it all is mostly academic.
Most modern consumer DACs are digital compatible (they will absolutely pass said digital source through the DAC chip with a resultant analogue wave output), but hardly any do so capably.

 

[Amber Rain]

Sort of;
depends on what they end up feeding really- most users buy DAC chips for the SPEC sheet output.

some users buy them for the sound quality output.
There were a few companies, ‘back in the day’, that made audiophile DAC chips.
Over time they mostly got bought out, by large consumer electronics orientated megacorps. (that wanted the interest in their products (due to the brand recognition the forefather DAC chips held), to ‘better sounding DAC designs’, to likely avoiding lawsuits for ‘lifted circuit IPs’ -ie all the standard business reasons that leads to a company being bought up!!)
Some of the original ‘built for ultimate sound quality‘ chip designs are still around, or have evolved, but most circuit layouts got redone in the move to Direct Stream Digital compatibility.
Some brands do things differently (like my jaw hit the floor when I saw the Sabre layout putting oversampling at the start of the pathway..),.. and it is true that some DAC chips may favour certain music file formats (eg PCM vs DSD) or have an effect on the sound that may lean towards musicality or ‘spec sheet warring’.

I’d advocate that consumers stop buying based PURELY on spec sheet, but it is hard to tell strangers to trust other strangers’ opinions,.. and so it mostly falls to having to build a ‘personal opinion’, which is super hard to truly build unless all other aspects of the chain are high end reference/neutral kit (the resultant change in sound is the DAC chip arguable (DAC unit as a whole really).
Given most of us buy a DAC somewhere along the way, and usually before we realise just how important such a part can be (but really shines when the user has a nice transport to feed it from).. the notion of changing a DAC (for a different house sound) seems like what many people do.

I’d rather all my kit be studio neutral, and then alter the sound via the speakers (/headphones).. but ‘many paths to the summit’.

Much of what is written in audio threads about system synergy, and a mix of parts in ‘said system’ that might be WARM or COOL can mean a ‘tug of war’ that outputs something ‘in the middle’ akin to a neutral setup (with character).
I mostly aim for DAC chips that are legacy from the days when DAC chips were built for Sound Quality and not SPEC SHEET WARFARE.

The same chip in a range of different (total) circuitry does vary the output quality and sometimes even capability (like iFi do with the BB PCM1793 DAC chip, where the top six bits go through some sort of ‘out of order code’ process, essentially giving a little more resolution or gradation, like a ladder DAC, in the critical hearing range that excites us humans. (with noticably greater detail in the playback due to clever design)).
Everyone forgets the ‘DAC is the whole circuit’ aspect, yet the CS4398 in my Creative E5 can’t touch the CS4398 in my Questsyle QP1R. Is it the clock chips or the power isolation or board layout or.....?

From the times I hang out on EE threads, those discussing DAC chip ‘projects’ where they alter circuits and talk endlessly about various OpAmps; state that the improvement in the AKM chips from 4490 to 4493 was ‘something’ and ‘noticable’, and the jump to the 4497 was substantial, whereas the jump with the 4499 was PURELY for the voltage output. (more output power); suggesting that the 4497 and 4499 sound isn’t one to chose between, but rather whether a device featuring EITHER OF THESE DAC CHIPS, MEETS POWER OUTPUT NEEDS.

Given the market hasn’t been interested in Sound Quality as the number one metric for approx two decades (we have had two decades of format war and ‘new tech’), modern DAC chip designs mostly seem to be built to be
A) low powered
B) multichannel
and the market cares about:
C) re equalising or sample rate converting to some crazy high spec sheet number or capable of some esoteric format (768khz/DSD1024 etc)

Products are naturally built to hit these targets first and foremost

A company using an old or ‘outdated’ DAC CHIP is a GOOD THING, and more consumers should understand that such decisions are likely done for the right reasons.
(depending on brand you buy, that might be to SAVE $ or to IMPROVE Sound Quality)

It is true that Sabre chips were overlooked for a period, due to the requisite outboard circuitry costs to ‘complete the circuit’ meaning that ‘better DAC chips’ could be used in the first instance (with less coin needed to the full circuit), and given consumers only look at ‘one or two chips’ or SPEC SHEET NUMBERS when comparing products, this mostly worked very well.
Now with AKM 4499 requiring outboard circuitry $, Sabre is probably about to swing to being ‘market champion’..

I miss me my Wolfson/Burr Brown and AKM goodies... but really it is ALWAYS implementation.
An average chip in a phenominal circuit, by an engineer who knows redbook audio, is going to make a great 44khz 16bit capable DAC.
As for what anyone else needs and what SHOULD be prioritised in DAC design, that is a ‘can of worms’.

Too many people believe that scientific THEORY and REALITY are always aligned.
Much ‘digital theory’ is sound, but in the realworld is a joke.. whether it is worth arguing these semantics when a change of headphone TYPE will bring 150x more altering of the sound,.. it all is mostly academic.
Most modern consumer DACs are digital compatible (they will absolutely pass said digital source through the DAC chip with a resultant analogue wave output), but hardly any do so capably.

Thanks for the in depth explanation. As someone who doesn't know much about the individual DACs being used in the M11 Plus Ltd, bearing in mind what you have said about implantation, in general what are the likely differences in charastics with the AKM ans ES DACs being used? I.e. is one regarded to be "warmer/colder" or more resolving?

 

[SRKRAM]

Thanks for the in depth explanation. As someone who doesn't know much about the individual DACs being used in the M11 Plus Ltd, breathing in mind what you have said about implantation, in general what are the likely differences in charastics with the AKM ans ES DACs being used? I.e. is one regarded to be "warmer/colder" or more resolving?

I own an M11 pro and M11 Plus LTD. They both use the same DAC and THX amp but sound so different, which shows just how important the implementation is.
AKM DAC are marketed as having 'Velvet Sound' and they do have a reputation for having a smoother sound than ESS DACs, but that reputation probably isn't justified as it is so much to do with the implementation.
It's impossible to forecast how the ESS M11 Plus will sound. You'll just have to wait and listen to one.

 

[whitedragem]

Thanks for the in depth explanation. As someone who doesn't know much about the individual DACs being used in the M11 Plus Ltd, breathing in mind what you have said about implantation, in general what are the likely differences in charastics with the AKM ans ES DACs being used? I.e. is one regarded to be "warmer/colder" or more resolving?

I think there is more to it than a ‘chip’ as to how the sound will be subjectively heard..
even if it was objectively altered- that is EVERYONE felt the same way about it; which headfi reviews do seem to suggest- it is the whole DAP/DAC circuit that plays the part too; and lets not forget that software runs on top of the hardware that also can be ‘hardwired’ to give a BASE OUTPUT config(sound).

My understanding is that if a design team know the CHIP well, they can implement a unique or atypical method and do something uncommon.

FiiO engineers learned the chips they use. I have read on the FiiO homepage forums, a tech stating why they used a CPU (access to white DOC info); to gain advantages for AUDIO OUTPUT. This is why I buy their products; they actually are focused on the goal- and play the game of being a business in the modern world brilliantly. Their ongoing product support for ‘beyond end of life’ products- where a DAP may get extended feature or improvement for free, its good consumer positive or ‘quality business’. I’d say ‘friendly’; as most consumers never deal with the big tech companies they buy from. When we do have experiences, such as like the super polite FiiO reps posting on these forums, a business that is honorable in the service strategy and easy to communicate with just comes across as incredible/amazing.
Once upon a time ‘good service’ was standard and products competed with features.
Now, ‘features’ are standard and businesses are competing with service.
When I see great service I am an easy loyal customer.
I became this way due to long hold times on phones and lost factory recall parts etc.. I have learned that poor service and product just isn’t worth my investment (time or coin).

I do my best to buy reliable, and at a price point high enough to thank the planet with not needing to buy ‘another one’.

I’d find a reviewer who holds important the same characteristics as me (and may listen to my favourite musical genres or own similar kit in the rest of their chain etc..) and then trust their insight found via reviews etc, and use that to create a shortlist.
I’d then run that shortlist by my local headfi store (I’m a ‘bricks and mortar’ shopper) and go from there......

As for which chip anyone might prefer, I am sure all chips have poor and strong implementations and/or tunings towards different sound profiles.

regarding the ‘velvet sound’ aspect..
a great neutral sound still can enjoy the altering of the playback with the filter. (sharp roll off, short dela......etc) but that can also be changed up with DSD conversion.
Most DAC chips handle DSD ‘a little’ differently to PCM, and the sound changeup that switching your music to DSD ‘on the fly’ does is ’a top five feature’ to have in a music player.
(HF PLAYER on Android will do it too..),

 

[Ichos]

When I reviewed the M11 Plus I included a comparison to the M11 Pro.
They indeed sounded a little different but differences weren't so pronounced.
I think that the M11 Plus is a little better in overall technicalities and just slightly different in sound presentation and in my opinion it is due to the much better power supply of the M11 Plus.

 

[Ben86]

When I reviewed the M11 Plus I included a comparison to the M11 Pro.
They indeed sounded a little different but differences weren't so pronounced.
I think that the M11 Plus is a little better in overall technicalities and just slightly different in sound presentation and in my opinion it is due to the much better power supply of the M11 Plus.

Compared to ibasso dx240?

 

[Ichos]

Compared to ibasso dx240?

This review is getting a little delayed due to an issue but I will resume as soon as the problem is resolved.

But yes from early comparison they are slightly different.
Not one better than another but slightly different presentations.

 

[123peter]

whitedragem chapeau bas - for developing the topic​

 

[whitedragem]

whitedragem chapeau bas - for developing the topic​

chapeau bas =/= “hats off”; awesome, ‘Merci mon ami’ (? I failed yr 7 french )

Cheers for posting a positive.

Thankyou community for an encouraging ‘place to be’; like the pub in ‘Cheers’, (where everybody knows your name...), kudos (/respect) and well wishes with y’all - may the new year bring with it joy and wellbeing.

 

[FiiO]

@FiiO

Thanks for your reply.

However to clarify, I was asking if there would be any further shipments to the UK of the original M11 Plus Ltd (with the AKM DAC)?

This is because I am on a waiting list for one!!!

Dear friend,

The M11 Plus LTD version is out of stock now. If the seller does not have one, we may not be able to arrange futher shipment to him as well.

Best regards