[audio123]

My take on the iBasso DX160. Enjoy & Happy Listening, as always!

 

[Tential]

@Tential , in your opinion, what DAP running Android uses a recent SoC?

It's not an opinion.
These are facts, and you could look them up too. But I'll assist you.
The current socs are as follows
Exynos 7872 (14 nm)
Snapdragon 425 (28 nm)
Snapdragon 430 (28 nm)
These old rockchip cpus that Ibasso and other companies use on the audiophile community because you aren't familiar with this stuff.

That's 4 socs. No name socs that say 8 cores are almost always the old crappy rockchip cpu. It's why they refuse to actually explicitly say the name of the SoC.

So the Exynos is the latest (14 nm process is far newer than 28 nm process and if you don't know what a node shrink is, then just understand that's a massive improvement.)
The dap using that Exynos is the fiio m11.

Snapdragon is used by hiby, Shanling(430), and cayin.

Also, please don't fall into the trap that a manufacturer optimizes their dap to better use the SoC. I know it sounds reasonable. But it's just not how this situation works. When they say they optimize the os, it's for removing android src. Not making it magically faster, and there isn't a way to overcome such large differences in chip performance through software.

Anyway, I listed all the socs, so you can confirm for yourself the release date of a few socs.

 

[Layman1]

It's not an opinion.
These are facts, and you could look them up too. But I'll assist you.
The current socs are as follows
Exynos 7872 (14 nm)
Snapdragon 425 (28 nm)
Snapdragon 430 (28 nm)
These old rockchip cpus that Ibasso and other companies use on the audiophile community because you aren't familiar with this stuff.

That's 4 socs. No name socs that say 8 cores are almost always the old crappy rockchip cpu. It's why they refuse to actually explicitly say the name of the SoC.

So the Exynos is the latest (14 nm process is far newer than 28 nm process and if you don't know what a node shrink is, then just understand that's a massive improvement.)
The dap using that Exynos is the fiio m11.

Snapdragon is used by hiby, Shanling(430), and cayin.

Also, please don't fall into the trap that a manufacturer optimizes their dap to better use the SoC. I know it sounds reasonable. But it's just not how this situation works. When they say they optimize the os, it's for removing android src. Not making it magically faster, and there isn't a way to overcome such large differences in chip performance through software.

Anyway, I listed all the socs, so you can confirm for yourself the release date of a few socs.

Hi and thanks for this information; it's useful to know!

Of course, if various DAP manufacturers all announced tomorrow that they were using the most modern and superfast SoC's in their new DAPs, I would be delighted.
But this is mainly - I think - simply because it's human nature to hope to have the best of everything and the latest/greatest things.
Indeed, that's pretty much the basis upon which the audiophile industry continues to develop

However, even if iBasso *are* using an older Rockchip SoC, I can't honestly say that I'm finding my user experience to be compromised in any way.
Again, in actual practical use, the DX160 is proving to be rewardingly fast and responsive.

So whilst I totally get where you're coming from, and would certainly be happy to have an upgraded SoC (for reasons described above!) I have to be honest and admit that I simply am not noticing any significant drawbacks in my user experience with the existing one and hence find little basis for discontent

 

[Tential]

Hi and thanks for this information; it's useful to know!

Of course, if various DAP manufacturers all announced tomorrow that they were using the most modern and superfast SoC's in their new DAPs, I would be delighted.
But this is mainly - I think - simply because it's human nature to hope to have the best of everything and the latest/greatest things.
Indeed, that's pretty much the basis upon which the audiophile industry continues to develop

However, even if iBasso *are* using an older Rockchip SoC, I can't honestly say that I'm finding my user experience to be compromised in any way.
Again, in actual practical use, the DX160 is proving to be rewardingly fast and responsive.

So whilst I totally get where you're coming from, and would certainly be happy to have an upgraded SoC (for reasons described above!) I have to be honest and admit that I simply am not noticing any significant drawbacks in my user experience with the existing one and hence find little basis for discontent

If given this information, you're still happy with the user experience that's not bad at all.
It's information. As you've intuitively noticed, if you're happy with the performance great!
If you need more performance, you know what to advocate for.

I will say this though. This product is priced in the same range as hiby, Shanling and fiio. So from a simply getting the most from your money standpoint, there's no reason, other than GREED, that Ibasso is giving you the rockchip. There isn't a reason to support Ibasso use of a slower soc, unless you're an owner of the company trying to protect your profit margin (which I would understand ). Otherwise, as a consumer, it doesn't make sense to defend their use of a slower chip, especially when the cost savings aren't passed along. And at this price range OK... MAYBE I could let it slide. But the dx220 max? You're spending thousands and nothing better soc wise? I think that's wrong.

Anyway, I want the information to be more common so people can better choose what they want to advocate for.

 

[Shawnb]

If given this information, you're still happy with the user experience that's not bad at all.
It's information. As you've intuitively noticed, if you're happy with the performance great!
If you need more performance, you know what to advocate for.

I will say this though. This product is priced in the same range as hiby, Shanling and fiio. So from a simply getting the most from your money standpoint, there's no reason, other than GREED, that Ibasso is giving you the rockchip. There isn't a reason to support Ibasso use of a slower soc, unless you're an owner of the company trying to protect your profit margin (which I would understand ). Otherwise, as a consumer, it doesn't make sense to defend their use of a slower chip, especially when the cost savings aren't passed along. And at this price range OK... MAYBE I could let it slide. But the dx220 max? You're spending thousands and nothing better soc wise? I think that's wrong.

Anyway, I want the information to be more common so people can better choose what they want to advocate for.

I bought my DX220 for the sound not for the soc, sane reason I returned my M11.
That’s the reason why I supported Ibasso. Sure it would be nicer to have a better soc but it sounds amazing and that’s matters more to me. So I got the most for my money, the most sound.

 

[jamato8]

If given this information, you're still happy with the user experience that's not bad at all.
It's information. As you've intuitively noticed, if you're happy with the performance great!
If you need more performance, you know what to advocate for.

I will say this though. This product is priced in the same range as hiby, Shanling and fiio. So from a simply getting the most from your money standpoint, there's no reason, other than GREED, that Ibasso is giving you the rockchip. There isn't a reason to support Ibasso use of a slower soc, unless you're an owner of the company trying to protect your profit margin (which I would understand ). Otherwise, as a consumer, it doesn't make sense to defend their use of a slower chip, especially when the cost savings aren't passed along. And at this price range OK... MAYBE I could let it slide. But the dx220 max? You're spending thousands and nothing better soc wise? I think that's wrong.

Anyway, I want the information to be more common so people can better choose what they want to advocate for.

How do you know how much iBasso put into the DX160? Because of a CPU your are calling out that there is greed? You sound more like you are trolling rather than doing anything that is helpful. The DX160 is very fast, sounds great and has an excellent screen. Don't like it for some reason, move on rather than taking up space complaining and really, contributing nothing but sour grapes.

 

[TheNameIsGerald]

It's not an opinion.
These are facts, and you could look them up too. But I'll assist you.

thank you very much for knowledgeably "assisting", @Tential

(PS: if you're offended by being asked your opinion then you're really easily offended. )
(PPS: sorry for having dragged this thread off-topic.)

 

[dharmasteve]

The criticism of the SOC in the DX160 has to be based on empirical experience. If the critics of the chip confuse their emotions with the facts of the empirical usage we are in a strange world. Every person who has the DX160 has spoken of a positive experience. Maybe somebody who has a genuine experience of the DX160 being too slow could say something on this thread. Thankfully life is empirical and not theoretical.

 

[Whitigir]

The Dx160 is not slow. The fact that you open an app and it is opened before you finish saying “oh my god”.....that is fast enough.

I don’t know how much faster do u want from a DAP ? Mind speed ?

 

[Layman1]

I don’t know how much faster do u want from a DAP ? Mind speed ?

I hope not. In the mornings, before I've made coffee, the DX160 responds approximately 326% faster than my brain

 

[Lurker0]

Snapdragon 425 (28 nm)
Snapdragon 430 (28 nm)
These old rockchip cpus that Ibasso and other companies use on the audiophile community because you aren't familiar with this stuff.

Spoiler: Click to face the facts

Snapdragon 425 was designed in 2013, Snapdragon 430 was designed in 2014, RK3368 was designed in 2015. Don't be confused by official announce dates! E.g. Snapdragon 425 sheet clearly states that battery tests were performed in February 2013

They all are made by 28nm process.

CPU: 4x A53 cores, up to 1.4GHz / 8x A53 cores, up to 1.4GHz / 8x A53 cores, up to 1.5GHz
RAM: LPDDR3@667MHz / LPDDR3@800MHz / LPDDR3@800MHz
GPU: Adreno 308@500 MHz / Adreno 505@450MHz / PowerVR@600MHz
Video playback: 1080p@30fps / 1080p@30fps / 4Kx2K@60fps

The conclusion: by its capabilities, RK3368 outperforms both Snapdragons.
Note: iBasso does not run RK3368 at its full speed for a good reason: to make a better DAP!

Snapdragons have Hexagon DSP, LTE modem stuff, GPS/GLONASS/Beidou, 802.11ac MIMO, advanced sound processing for voice calls, security etc. that are useless in a DAP but end user paids for.

Snapdragons have Bluetooth 4.1 embedded, RK3368 does not, and DX160 has Bluetooth 5.0.

Snapdragons have built-in power controller with QC 2.0 / 3.0 support. RK3368 does not, and DX160 has both QC and modern PD support.

Snapdragons require much more programmer's efforts to produce a firmware (=more cost).

Also I find modern technologies like BT 5.0 and PD charging useful in a DAP, especially for no additional cost.

Personally, I prefer to pay for iBasso efforts invested in sound rather than for useless SoC and system programmers. From my POV, any iBasso DAP outperforms (sound wise!) any other DAP with the same price but based on a "new" platform. Prove me if you think I'm wrong

 

[superuser1]

I doubt anyone is trolling, all of us want best value for money here!

 

[DaYooper]

Spoiler: Click to face the facts

Snapdragon 425 was designed in 2013, Snapdragon 430 was designed in 2014, RK3368 was designed in 2015. Don't be confused by official announce dates! E.g. Snapdragon 425 sheet clearly states that battery tests were performed in February 2013

They all are made by 28nm process.

CPU: 4x A53 cores, up to 1.4GHz / 8x A53 cores, up to 1.4GHz / 8x A53 cores, up to 1.5GHz
RAM: LPDDR3@667MHz / LPDDR3@800MHz / LPDDR3@800MHz
GPU: Adreno 308@500 MHz / Adreno 505@450MHz / PowerVR@600MHz
Video playback: 1080p@30fps / 1080p@30fps / 4Kx2K@60fps

The conclusion: by its capabilities, RK3368 outperforms both Snapdragons.
Note: iBasso does not run RK3368 at its full speed for a good reason: to make a better DAP!

Snapdragons have Hexagon DSP, LTE modem stuff, GPS/GLONASS/Beidou, 802.11ac MIMO, advanced sound processing for voice calls, security etc. that are useless in a DAP but end user paids for.

Snapdragons have Bluetooth 4.1 embedded, RK3368 does not, and DX160 has Bluetooth 5.0.

Snapdragons have built-in power controller with QC 2.0 / 3.0 support. RK3368 does not, and DX160 has both QC and modern PD support.

Snapdragons require much more programmer's efforts to produce a firmware (=more cost).

Also I find modern technologies like BT 5.0 and PD charging useful in a DAP, especially for no additional cost.

Personally, I prefer to pay for iBasso efforts invested in sound rather than for useless SoC and system programmers. From my POV, any iBasso DAP outperforms (sound wise!) any other DAP with the same price but based on a "new" platform. Prove me if you think I'm wrong

Good thing I'm not trying to make phone calls on my DX220 MUSIC player.

 

[CobraMan]

The Dx160 is not slow. The fact that you open an app and it is opened before you finish saying “oh my god”.....that is fast enough.

I don’t know how much faster do u want from a DAP ? Mind speed ?

They want it to react before they think - therefore no need to think at all...

Cheers,
Tim

 

[iFi audio]

You weren't lying, that thing is bloody gorgeous.

Agreed! Translucent = good!