[DaYooper]

This is like claiming we were brought by storks to our families.

You mean we weren"t?

 

[aaf evo]

I’m so confused here, what should the “DAC volume” be at? Lol.

 

[DaYooper]

#427 checking in

427 big block dap, vroom vroom.

 

[Shiloh65]

I’m so confused here, what should the “DAC volume” be at? Lol.

Max it

 

[DarginMahkum]

Doesn't Lurker modify the ROM? Thereby meaning modifications are possible. I won't argue about sound improvements, everyone hears different and we all bring our own bias and expectations. It's easy to convince yourself of something, specially if you paid for it.

Subtle changes can be exhausting to find and even then it's more of a feeling then anything.

ROM (comes actually from another abbr. but is the usual name) image -> a package of a complete operating system, applications, _compiled_ kernel and drivers and system settings. You can add or remove applications and implement systems settings, services etc. This is what both Lurker and Fidelizer modifies. The tools to preprare this image is available, which is what they use. What can influence the sound here is a system level DSP / equaliser, which is not available on iBasso platform and is not claimed by him. You can influence the general system behavior by modifying some scripts and then packing them together, which is what he does (if he does), for example, for the cpufreq governer. Other than that you can influence the kernel via system calls, ioctl() calls which has to have an open interface for a specific driver - for an NDA protected driver, it is not available

Kernel -> aka the Linux kernel, open source system. You can tweak parameters for application scheduling schemes and influence the responsiveness etc. There is nothing here to influence the sound quality. It is a yes or no level. If something does not work, it either stops working or you notice that it is not working by the cracks in the sound, or cannot change the bitrate / frequency etc.

Driver (module) -> Can be open or closed and is normally compiled together with the kernel. In our special case what can influence the sound could be the module parameters given. In our case, the DAC chip information is provided under NDA (non-disclosure agreement) and iBasso cannot publish any information about it, including the driver source code, module parameters etc. It can have settings for some registers 'inside' which are neiter accesable nor documented for outsider (aka NDA). Basically although there might be an extremely small possibility to influence the sound here for an outsider, it is very unlikely. It can have the possibility of being modified from user space (applications) via ioctl() calls, which can modify filter settings etc. There are other methods also but let's assume this is the method. They are again closed.

Sound chip firmware -> This may or may not exist. It is (possibly) the FW of the DAC chip and / or its DSP unit. In can also include the acoustic path related filter parameters. This image is normally CRC protected and most probably encrypted. The content layout would not be available even for iBasso. Normally the chip maker would either provide this image or tools to prepare it.

Among these 4, you can only modify the first one and influence the behavior of the other 3. Kernel will not give you the tools to influence the sound, so left are the other two. And these are closed! Without the under NDA provided information, you cannot influence these.

I am not going to copy paste everything here but these were his claims for audio improvement:

• . Kernel optimizations for audio I/O and remove non-audio services
  . ฺFull Build configuration optimized for better sound quality
  . Applied low-level system/kernel optimizations for best sound quality
  . Audio driver configuration optimized for neutral sound reproduction

1: As said, you cannot influence the sound quality by modifying the kernel. You need to reach the other two levels.
2: Full build configuration? What full build? Is there an half build? This is the system image. There is nothing there to influence the sound if you are not installing a system level DSP software, which is in our system not possible. Besides, he does not claim this and just says optimisation. Optimised what? I can understand if he would say "I removed bloatware", but that again has no influence on sound.
3: Again, just like the first one: Nope.
4: Among the 4, this is the only thing that can influence the sound, but you need to have the tools and information from ESS and you will not get it if you are not a manufacturer. Even for that I left an open door and asked him openly last year, and no response.

I only trust Lurker here, and he never claims that he can influence the sound.

 

[DarginMahkum]

You mean we weren"t?

I think audiophiles are brought by another bird - possibly this one:

 

[Shiloh65]

Actually to be more specific aaf evo; I put mine at 150 (MAX) and it's great! With that said, I had to turn it down to about 130 when I had my Noble Katana IEMs plugged into the balanced output or they were way to loud and I could barely adjust the volume knob. I also had to turn down the gain to low or mid. YMMV

I’m so confused here, what should the “DAC volume” be at? Lol.

 

[aaf evo]

Actually to be more specific aaf evo; I put mine at 150 (MAX) and it's great! With that said, I had to turn it down to about 130 when I had my Noble Katana IEMs plugged into the balanced output or they were way to loud and I could barely adjust the volume knob. I also had to turn down the gain to low or mid. YMMV

Yeah I played around with it a bit. Seems with more sensitive IEMs 150 will be too much power. Around 130 seems like more than enough. I only got to listen to it for about 10 minutes, enjoyed what I heard so far though. Relative to the DX160 it sounds more bodied and less grainy around the notes which was what I was starting to get fed up with on the 160. Way too early to really give any proper impressions though.

 

[Shiloh65]

Fair enough. It will grow on you. I am really enjoying it; I noticed a change about 25 hours and I am just beyond that as far as listening time. I'm sure more surprises are in store.

Yeah I played around with it a bit. Seems with more sensitive IEMs 150 will be too much power. Around 130 seems like more than enough. I only got to listen to it for about 10 minutes, enjoyed what I heard so far though. Relative to the DX160 it sounds more bodied and less grainy around the notes which was what I was starting to get fed up with on the 160. Way too early to really give any proper impressions though.

 

[gc335]

Yeah I played around with it a bit. Seems with more sensitive IEMs 150 will be too much power. Around 130 seems like more than enough. I only got to listen to it for about 10 minutes, enjoyed what I heard so far though. Relative to the DX160 it sounds more bodied and less grainy around the notes which was what I was starting to get fed up with on the 160. Way too early to really give any proper impressions though.

Congrats on the new toy! I'm looking forward to M15 comparisons and overall impressions.

 

[jamato8]

More time on the Max. Well over 200 hours. Yesterday, I didn't care for it a lot. Dry sounding and a little grainy on the upper mids, just not liquid, smooth or fluid. Of course still burning in. Today, so much different. Violin is back to sounding wonderful, openness and musical expression is all there and dynamics to startle. The noise floor is so low as what noise I do hear is in the recording and not from the Max. One thing that continues is the extreme unbridled openness of the sound, just a joy.

The Max really does take some time to settle in. Got to just keep letting it run or listen and know it will take some time but it is really worth it and power all IEMs and headphones from one device, is also very enjoyable. I am also surprised by the battery life. And on we go. . .

 

[aaf evo]

I don’t know how to post videos here, but something is going on with the UI in a good way. I can speed scroll through my spotify library with virtually no stuttering or very minimal if it does occur, that’s something that the 220 and 160 couldn’t quite pull off. I wonder what gives since it’s using the same CPU?

 

[behemothkat]

I don’t know how to post videos here, but something is going on with the UI in a good way. I can speed scroll through my spotify library with virtually no stuttering or very minimal if it does occur, that’s something that the 220 and 160 couldn’t quite pull off. I wonder what gives since it’s using the same CPU?

I was asking few pages back to share here in thread UI experience on MAX.
Don’t you have any headphones with LDAC to test BT? And some Android 8..10 phone with LDAC to test MAX in BT receiver mode?
Thx!

 

[aaf evo]

I was asking few pages back to share here in thread UI experience on MAX.
Don’t you have any headphones with LDAC to test BT? And some Android 8..10 phone with LDAC to test MAX in BT receiver mode?
Thx!

I’ve never used Bluetooth on any DAP I have so unfortunately I can’t really help there.

I can say with pure confidence that compared to a DX220 and the DX160 the Max has snappier and smoother operation

 

[runningwitit]

Can the 2.5 adaptor be plugged into the 4.4 mm connector, without a balanced headphone connected as I use the single ended 3.5?