iBasso DX100:24 bit for bit, PG 1> Reviews & Impressions, Downloads, VIDEO, NEW Firmware 1.4.2.
Aug 11, 2012 at 8:23 AM Post #7,411 of 13,500

Turrican2

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Posts
1,037
Likes
313

Here is a picture of my Transportable rig.
Beyerdynamic T1 with Silver Dragona V3
Ibasso PB2+DB2
Ibasso DX100



Really like your setup. How do the T1s perform straight out of the dx-100? Have you tried the LCD-2 with the dx? I own the LCD-2 and was so tempted by the T1s when i bought the lcd-2s, this was before i got thr dx. Just curious if you've compared the 2 straight out of the dx and what your thoughts are
 
Aug 11, 2012 at 6:45 PM Post #7,412 of 13,500

V3ng3anc3

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Posts
189
Likes
11
Really like your setup. How do the T1s perform straight out of the dx-100? Have you tried the LCD-2 with the dx? I own the LCD-2 and was so tempted by the T1s when i bought the lcd-2s, this was before i got thr dx. Just curious if you've compared the 2 straight out of the dx and what your thoughts are


I recently auditioned the hd800, T1, and LCD-2 with the dx100. Eventually it came down to the T1 and LCD-2. In the end i liked the lcd-2 (which i bought) more with the dx-100 plus i prefered its sound signature. The T1s had a much larger sound stage but i preferred the intimacy of the LCD. With the lcd and dx100 i could, IMO, distinguish individual instruments more clearly and detailed. Plus i preferred the bass from the LCD compared to the T1. I felt both performed well with the dx100, neither sounded underpowered or thin. But ive yet to listen to either with a full sized amp.
 
Aug 12, 2012 at 11:46 PM Post #7,413 of 13,500

lee730

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 9, 2011
Posts
16,804
Likes
451
Hey guys I discovered something rather interesting regarding the DX100 and the firmwares. What I did was update to 1.2.3 then restore it back to factory settings to get the intended settings of the new firmware. Then I selected play all albums or play all playlists. Then I reverted back to 1.1.7 and did not do a factory reset this time. Now I have all my cover art showing up on 1.1.7 and IMO I get to keep the better sound (no overemphasized bass or artificial detail). I'm actually able to make out more micro detailing on the 1.1.7. Best part is EQ is left off.
 
 
Aug 13, 2012 at 12:25 AM Post #7,414 of 13,500

hkppl

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 3, 2012
Posts
466
Likes
45
Quote:
Hey guys I discovered something rather interesting regarding the DX100 and the firmwares. What I did was update to 1.2.3 then restore it back to factory settings to get the intended settings of the new firmware. Then I selected play all albums or play all playlists. Then I reverted back to 1.1.7 and did not do a factory reset this time. Now I have all my cover art showing up on 1.1.7 and IMO I get to keep the better sound (no overemphasized bass or artificial detail). I'm actually able to make out more micro detailing on the 1.1.7. Best part is EQ is left off.
 

Yes, I have tried that also, rollback to 1.1.7 will still keep the album arts, but if you add new songs, the new ones could not show the album arts. Maybe some caching on the tag info by 1.2.3  is not removed after rollback to 1.1.7...
 
Aug 13, 2012 at 12:28 AM Post #7,415 of 13,500

lee730

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 9, 2011
Posts
16,804
Likes
451
True but you could easily get an id tagger for those particular songs. My unit is quite loaded as is (2500+ lossless and a couple mp3s). I tried living with 1.2.3 sound and it just ain't for me. Something about 1.1.7 that really takes you into the recordings and you get real, effortless detail. I see it as an organic and natural sound that has all the detail and none of the flaws.
 
 
Aug 14, 2012 at 4:18 AM Post #7,419 of 13,500

PooJou

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Posts
381
Likes
0
The hardware looks great on this - but my god forking 2.3.x for an mp3 player? Nahh!!
 
I wonder why they didn't go plain ICS or JB - it looks as if all their "apps" are just widgets on a stock launcher anyway?
 
Also did I mention it's ugly :frowning2: - really love the hardware tho (again)
 
Aug 14, 2012 at 5:22 AM Post #7,420 of 13,500

hkppl

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 3, 2012
Posts
466
Likes
45
Quote:
The hardware looks great on this - but my god forking 2.3.x for an mp3 player? Nahh!!
 
I wonder why they didn't go plain ICS or JB - it looks as if all their "apps" are just widgets on a stock launcher anyway?
 
Also did I mention it's ugly :frowning2: - really love the hardware tho (again)

For me, Android 2.3.x is already good enough for a DAP. Actually I have even installed a lightweight but fast launcher for it and disabled most of the fancy UI effects and Wifi to save battery. My DX100 could play around 5-6 hours without charging.
 
Aug 14, 2012 at 5:35 AM Post #7,421 of 13,500

lee730

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 9, 2011
Posts
16,804
Likes
451
Quote:
The hardware looks great on this - but my god forking 2.3.x for an mp3 player? Nahh!!
 
I wonder why they didn't go plain ICS or JB - it looks as if all their "apps" are just widgets on a stock launcher anyway?
 
Also did I mention it's ugly :frowning2: - really love the hardware tho (again)


Well I wouldn't call the DX100 an mp3 player. Its a DAP and is much more suited to lossless music as it is very revealing and warrants such formats (FLAC, WAV, etc). I wouldn't recommend the DX100 to a casual listener, ipods and such fill that niche much better. 2.3 may be old for an android device but this player is tailored towards audiophile quality music and the android system was suppose to be a plus to the experience. From what I see though is there are both pluses and minuses with android. Since android is natively stuck at 16/44 it causes some compatibility issues which has also effected sound quality in various firmwares. It seems since they opted to enable Power Amp again in the new update this has effected the sound quality due to the 16/44 restriction. One reason why I'll stick with 1.1.7. For what its worth the Device does look a lot better in person than from just pictures. I'd say its very close in size to my iphone4 in its otterbox case.
 
Aug 14, 2012 at 7:05 AM Post #7,422 of 13,500

PooJou

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Posts
381
Likes
0
Quote:
For me, Android 2.3.x is already good enough for a DAP. Actually I have even installed a lightweight but fast launcher for it and disabled most of the fancy UI effects and Wifi to save battery. My DX100 could play around 5-6 hours without charging.

 
I honestly don't understand why, in today's market, people are prepared to accept a DAP that has less than fantastic functionality - even if it is for "listening to music" only. To split hairs in this department, especially when they've built it ON TOP of Android is kinda moot isn't it?
 
For the premium price you'd pay, I get that hardware is important, but the sheer jump from 2.3.x to 4.x is really hard to ignore - and I hope that you all understand that.
 
I also understand that the DX100 runs some pretty serious hardware - but that horrible running time could be *much* improved by simply running 4.x instead of 2.3.x. That's simply because gingerbread is *old*.
 
Having said that. I still want one. It seems like a modern day interpretation of my beloved IHP-120 :)
 
Aug 14, 2012 at 7:19 AM Post #7,423 of 13,500

lee730

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 9, 2011
Posts
16,804
Likes
451
Quote:
 
I honestly don't understand why, in today's market, people are prepared to accept a DAP that has less than fantastic functionality - even if it is for "listening to music" only. To split hairs in this department, especially when they've built it ON TOP of Android is kinda moot isn't it?
 
For the premium price you'd pay, I get that hardware is important, but the sheer jump from 2.3.x to 4.x is really hard to ignore - and I hope that you all understand that.
 
I also understand that the DX100 runs some pretty serious hardware - but that horrible running time could be *much* improved by simply running 4.x instead of 2.3.x. That's simply because gingerbread is *old*.
 
Having said that. I still want one. It seems like a modern day interpretation of my beloved IHP-120 :)

 
Do you really think running the newer OS could make a difference? From what I've heard it takes a lot of memory to run it (1 GB usually) and the DX100 only has 500 Mbs of RAM so it would run even slower. Plus they are using a Rock Chip which isn't the greatest to begin with.
 
Aug 14, 2012 at 7:50 AM Post #7,424 of 13,500

Monkii

New Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Posts
1
Likes
0
Quote:
 
I honestly don't understand why, in today's market, people are prepared to accept a DAP that has less than fantastic functionality - even if it is for "listening to music" only. To split hairs in this department, especially when they've built it ON TOP of Android is kinda moot isn't it?
 
For the premium price you'd pay, I get that hardware is important, but the sheer jump from 2.3.x to 4.x is really hard to ignore - and I hope that you all understand that.
 
I also understand that the DX100 runs some pretty serious hardware - but that horrible running time could be *much* improved by simply running 4.x instead of 2.3.x. That's simply because gingerbread is *old*.
 
Having said that. I still want one. It seems like a modern day interpretation of my beloved IHP-120 :)

 
As a person who uses android phone with 1GHz CPU and 512MB ram and updated to 4.x OS, I can warrant that going up to 4.x will seriously screw up the player in terms of power consumption.
Just have a look at forums of various android phones users...all sorts of complaints from upgrading to 4.x OS..........
 
YES, DX100 has serious hardware...but that's all on the audio tech side to make sound quality fantastic...CPU and RAM is pretty basic on the other hand...
 
Aug 14, 2012 at 7:53 AM Post #7,425 of 13,500

PooJou

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Posts
381
Likes
0
Quote:
 
Do you really think running the newer OS could make a difference? From what I've heard it takes a lot of memory to run it (1 GB usually) and the DX100 only has 500 Mbs of RAM so it would run even slower. Plus they are using a Rock Chip which isn't the greatest to begin with.

Unequivocally yes.
 
I've got a Galaxy S here which has a piddly 512mb of ram as well - and it runs ICS completely fine. What slows anything built on Android down = fancy transitions / applications.
 
I'm unwilling to accept that people are simply "ok" with poor design / poor sw implementation when you could have literally had a player that was standard enough (perhaps using similar parts-set) to a Meizu MX or similar device - something popular / standard - added your hardware immenseness on top (and yes, I understand there would have to have been some pretty hefty coding to ensure all of that stuff played nicely) - which you could then run an absolutely beautiful app over the top.
 
That's just my 2c, and I realise there's 400+ pages, and I've no doubt this has come up before - but irrationally, I still want one. I'd probably root it and find a way to run slimICS on it tho...
 
 
 
 
As a person who uses android phone with 1GHz CPU and 512MB ram and updated to 4.x OS, I can warrant that going up to 4.x will seriously screw up the player in terms of power consumption.
Just have a look at forums of various android phones users...all sorts of complaints from upgrading to 4.x OS..........
 
YES, DX100 has serious hardware...but that's all on the audio tech side to make sound quality fantastic...CPU and RAM is pretty basic on the other hand...
 

 
What device are you running? There's a vast difference between the "HTC" ICS implementation and the stock, vanilla implementation.
 
If I had the opportunity to develop a player right now, or even a year ago - ICS would have been a given. EDIT: So the Rockchip RK2918 is a moden Cortex A8 based SoC running at 1.2ghz. Yeah there really is no excuse why this shouldn't be running ICS - it's got the same ballpark performance as the Nexus S and the Galaxy S
 
I moved FROM a Cowon J3, to a hacked up Samsung Galaxy S for this reason - yes, the J3 may sound a tad nicer, but I was sick of the fact that I couldn't have "nice things" - that really was a given 5+ years ago on it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top