iBasso DX100 Reference DAP - ES9018 inside

[lee730]

I completely agree with you on the sound staging. I can clearly hear the difference when comparing the recordings. 24/96 has better instrument separation, vocals are more detailed. There is definitely more micro detailing apparent. There is more air in these recordings. This is very apparent to me in Pink Floyds "Hey You" and Ozzys Diary of a Mad man song. Even pinks purple rain and KC and the Sunshine band sound a lot better in 24/96. The more revealing your cans are as well as the output source, the better.
Quote:

[size=medium]Kay, difference between 16bit vs 24bit:[/size]
 
[size=medium]Audio waves get more breathing room from top and bottom, waves don’t feel compressed. Which depends on waves and recordings but 24bits can increase sound stage and help with instrument placement (from what I hear). Mostly vocals and acoustic songs tend to benefit from this the most I hear. It could sound same but using good cans almost always gives better results.[/size]
 
[size=medium]44.1KHZ vs  96KHZ vs 192KHz:[/size]
 
[size=medium]Human hearing is at 70khz something, which is optimal human hearing level. The closer it is to 70 khz the better it should sound to you.  That’s why 96khz is main stream (and arguably more than you will ever need). The real difference between 44.1 and 96khz is about 250 times better digitally. However, it won’t sound 250 times better to your ears but it will sound better (to my ears about 20% better). 192 KHz is overkill. However, what happens with 192khz is that the lows tend to sound better because of what I understood somehow frequency waves that you cannot hear still affect other frequencies that you are able to hear. Which tends to make the song lows sound better (they do sound better but not by much).[/size]
 
[size=medium]That’s what I remember reading, hope it helps.[/size]
 
 
 

 

 

[turokrocks]

Quote:

Not sure if that could be due to a lot of people not having the right equipment for playback at 24/192. In that case your sound card would most likely down sample which would be downgrading it.

I confirm, one needs really high end /studio equipment  for 24/192 (its even called studio quality )

 

[turokrocks]

Quote:

[size=medium]Kay, difference between 16bit vs 24bit:[/size]
 
[size=medium]Audio waves get more breathing room from top and bottom, waves don’t feel compressed. Which depends on waves and recordings but 24bits can increase sound stage and help with instrument placement (from what I hear). Mostly vocals and acoustic songs tend to benefit from this the most I hear. It could sound same but using good cans almost always gives better results.[/size]
 
[size=medium]44.1KHZ vs  96KHZ vs 192KHz:[/size]
 
[size=medium]Human hearing is at 70khz something, which is optimal human hearing level. The closer it is to 70 khz the better it should sound to you.  That’s why 96khz is main stream (and arguably more than you will ever need). The real difference between 44.1 and 96khz is about 250 times better digitally. However, it won’t sound 250 times better to your ears but it will sound better (to my ears about 20% better). 192 KHz is overkill. However, what happens with 192khz is that the lows tend to sound better because of what I understood somehow frequency waves that you cannot hear still affect other frequencies that you are able to hear. Which tends to make the song lows sound better (they do sound better but not by much).[/size]
 
[size=medium]That’s what I remember reading, hope it helps.[/size]
 
 
 

Thank you.
 

 

[Jalo]

If you mean as the benefits from diminishing returns yes. 24/96 is much more widely used and the difference is minimal if any between 24/192. Especially from a portable stand point 24/192 is just overkill and a huge waste of space.

Lee, I felt there are two issues with what you've said. First, when we talk about "portable", we are not talking about the usual stuff like nano, clips, Fiio etc. With what we have now like foster, solo, balance amps like SR71b, Pb2, and balance DAC like DB2, and high end phone like jh/13/16, wes5, UE etc, and I will Include the DX100 also. I believe these portable gears are very capable in revealing the differences in the different format. Even though it may not be possible to play higher format on the iPod platform. That is what make the DX100 so exciting.

Second, with regard to the differences between 24/96 and 24/192 and whether it is worth the memory space. It is a moot issue for the most part because we don't really get to choose the format most of the time as they either come in one or the other. But I guess you could get the 24/192 and down convert it into 24/96.

Still, using the above estimate, 1g will give you 5 24/192 songs. So a 64g will give you approximately 300 to 400 hires tracks and that is pretty good for me.

 

[lee730]

Well 400 songs isn't bad but when comparing it to basic flac files its a huge difference. Whats nice about this product is the micro SD card slots which make having all these file possible regardless. I agree with you that this DX100 should be revealing enough and of course with Custom IEMs it would very well be worth it. But still comparing this thing to a good desktop rig DAC and amp it will not compare still. You are still limited on how much you can get from a portable set up. Put it this way. The Hifiman 801 still looses out to overall transparency and quality a DACport LX puts out and the LX costs a fraction of the costs the 801 costs... This is where I am talking about diminishing returns. So picture how much better the more expensive home set ups scale when compared...
 
Quote:

Lee, I felt there are two issues with what you've said. First, when we talk about "portable", we are not talking about the usual stuff like nano, clips, Fiio etc. With what we have now like foster, solo, balance amps like SR71b, Pb2, and balance DAC like DB2, and high end phone like jh/13/16, wes5, UE etc, and I will Include the DX100 also. I believe these portable gears are very capable in revealing the differences in the different format. Even though it may not be possible to play higher format on the iPod platform. That is what make the DX100 so exciting.
Second, with regard to the differences between 24/96 and 24/192 and whether it is worth the memory space. It is a moot issue for the most part because we don't really get to choose the format most of the time as they either come in one or the other. But I guess you could get the 24/192 and down convert it into 24/96.
Still, using the above estimate, 1g will give you 5 24/192 songs. So a 64g will give you approximately 300 to 400 hires tracks and that is pretty good for me.

 

 

[Jalo]

With regard to the difference between 16/44 and the hires format, sometimes it is not only what more you hear but also what you don't hear. May be because of the hires process, the recording engineers usually take careful precaution in the recording process and as a result, there is a significant amount of reduction in noise or noise floor. Background is more black, signal to noise ratio is higher etc. All that translate into a more in vivo experience.

 

[lee730]

Quote:

With regard to the difference between 16/44 and the hires format, sometimes it is not only what more you hear but also what you don't hear. May be because of the hires process, the recording engineers usually take careful precaution in the recording process and as a result, there is a significant amount of reduction in noise or noise floor. Background is more black, signal to noise ratio is higher etc. All that translate into a more in vivo experience.

The fact that there is less compression or no compression at all is probably the biggest upgrade. While I was comparing adeles 21 album to its 24/96 version; it is clear that the 16/44 version is significantly more harsh in the vocal and treble range. On the 24/96 album it isn't fatiguing and smoother. I can make out more overall detail as well. More room between the instruments and better placement within the sound stage.

 

[Jalo]

Lee, totally agree with you on the portable vs desktop comparison. But if we are sitting 36000 feet up in the air, and you have your Dacport at home and I have my DX100 singing in my ears, I like to compare the sq with you then

 

[turokrocks]

Quote:

Lee, totally agree with you on the portable vs desktop comparison. But if we are sitting 36000 feet up in the air, and you have your Dacport at home and I have my DX100 singing in my ears, I like to compare the sq with you then

Laptop+Dacport LX?

 

[Mischa23v]

let’s not forget that dx100 uses a desktop dac and a really impressive one too (yea yea how they implement it will make huge difference), that's why most people here are worried about battery life. Using good cans (JH-16, LOD-2) and good amp + dx100 (if built in amp wasn’t sufficient, specs say otherwise) you should pretty much equal any desktop dac + amp in price range of 800-1200$ or be really close to it and amp (at least using custom in ear monitors). Of course the higher end really expensive ones will sound better. But for a portable rig to sound this good and be able to play 192khz/24bit (you really cannot complain). I mean when you start comparing high end gear, it becomes a matter of preference and opinion on what sounds better, but they all equally sound amazing.  I doubt anyone would argue that this isn't a desktop sounding rig.
 
lol one of perks of being engaged to a sound engineer, gosh I know a lot of pointless stuff.
 

 

[lee730]

Quote:

Lee, totally agree with you on the portable vs desktop comparison. But if we are sitting 36000 feet up in the air, and you have your Dacport at home and I have my DX100 singing in my ears, I like to compare the sq with you then

You could connect the DACport to your laptop

 

[Mischa23v]

[size=10pt]I highly doubt that a usb dac using your laptop power supply will sound better than ES9018 DAC Chip if it's done well. Unless you plan on coughing up 15k dollars for first class ticket so you can get your own bedroom and living room, so you can hook up your 2k amp + 3k dac + 5k cans + 1k wiring. To your laptop so you can enjoy what you call a portable rig. Otherwise, I'll jog, take to work, school, hospital (where work), my dx100 + pico slim + jh 16 pros with tons of HD + [/size][size=medium]Vinyl[/size][size=10pt] audiophile quality music.[/size]
 
[size=10pt]Quote:[/size]
[size=10pt]Originally Posted by lee730 [/size]
 
[size=10pt]You could connect the DACport to your laptop [/size]
 

 
 

 

[lee730]

I wouldn't be surprised if that's not the case. Its still a portable DAP and will be limited by this regardless of the chip. Put it this way. The Studio V has a medium quality DAC when compared to the likes of the T51 or even the 601 and it still sounds noticeably better than these units-none-the-less. This is due to the implementation as you have said. The amp section also plays a major roll along with the internals.
 
Quote:

[size=10pt]I highly doubt that a usb dac using your laptop power supply will sound better than ES9018 DAC Chip if it's done well. Unless you plan on coughing up 15k dollars for first class ticket so you can get your own bedroom and living room, so you can hook up your 2k amp + 3k dac + 5k cans + 1k wiring. To your laptop so you can enjoy what you call a portable rig. Otherwise, I'll jog, take to work, school, hospital (where work), my dx100 + pico slim + jh 16 pros with tons of HD + [/size][size=medium]Vinyl[/size][size=10pt] audiophile quality music.[/size]
 
[size=10pt]Quote:[/size]
[size=10pt]Originally Posted by lee730 [/size]
 
[size=10pt]You could connect the DACport to your laptop [/size]
 

 
 

 

 

[Jalo]

Quote:

[size=10pt]I highly doubt that a usb dac using your laptop power supply will sound better than ES9018 DAC Chip if it's done well. Unless you plan on coughing up 15k dollars for first class ticket so you can get your own bedroom and living room, so you can hook up your 2k amp + 3k dac + 5k cans + 1k wiring. To your laptop so you can enjoy what you call a portable rig. Otherwise, I'll jog, take to work, school, hospital (where work), my dx100 + pico slim + jh 16 pros with tons of HD + [/size][size=medium]Vinyl[/size][size=10pt] audiophile quality music.[/size]
 
[size=10pt]Quote:[/size]
[size=10pt]Originally Posted by lee730 [/size]
 
[size=10pt]You could connect the DACport to your laptop [/size]
 

 
 

That, I think is an extremely great setup.  The only thing I'll change is the JH cable for my Piccolino
 
 

 

[lee730]

Quote:

I wouldn't be surprised if that's not the case. Its still a portable DAP and will be limited by this regardless of the chip. Put it this way. The Studio V has a medium quality DAC when compared to the likes of the T51 or even the 601 and it still sounds noticeably better than these units-none-the-less. This is due to the implementation as you have said. The amp section also plays a major roll along with the internals.
 


 

 


Quote:

That, I think is an extremely great setup.  The only thing I'll change is the JH cable for my Piccolino
 
 

I know its a good setup especially for portable. The point is that it won't necessarily surpass a cheaper home rig or even portable rig as the LX is portable but not portable like a DAP for that matter...
 
I'm still torn between the SE 5 Way or SA-43. Those are the 2 that I want....