[Esprit]

The most obvious maybe on Mytek. From what I have, I like the Yulong DA8 the most. And keep coming back to DA8 when i want to listen most musically engaging sound from my setup.
 

The Mytek is analytical, the Yulong rounder. After months these days I returned to Mytek and I am enjoying it again...
Is the Micro transparent or forgiving?

 

[technobear]

My favorite pairing so far with the Micro iDSD xD

You seem to have the 'Standard' filter engaged there. Try the 'Bit-Perfect' filter

 

[earfonia]

  The Mytek is analytical, the Yulong rounder. After months these days I returned to Mytek and I am enjoying it again...
Is the Micro transparent or forgiving?

 
Right, especially the headphones output. I'm not a fan of Mytek headphones output, lacking in bass. The Mytek line out is more natural sounding. When paired with good amp, the Mytek is pretty good.
 
 

You seem to have the 'Standard' filter engaged there. Try the 'Bit-Perfect' filter

 
What differences you hear with different filter settings?

 

[MLGrado]

 
 
What differences you hear with different filter settings?

 
 
Hearing differences in filter settings can be a difficult task, imo.  I think to do so requires sufficiently revealing gear.  Combined with my Grado RS1 headphones, or with my Bowers & Wilkins bookshelves, the iDSD Micro is quite able to reveal differences in filters.  Not so much with my Sennheiser HD558 headphones, which are a quite forgiving and not very revealing headphone.  
 
That said, the biggest difference to be heard is between 'Standard' and 'Bit-Perfect'.  In standard, well, it sounds more, ahem, digital.  Things with a lot of high frequency content, like cymbals, sound a tick less natural, with a certain 'edge' or 'digital fuzz' that is just characteristic of digital.  In bit perfect, much of this is remedied.  It sounds smoother, more natural, less dirty.  Decays are smooth, not 'noisy'.
 
It is actually a difficult observation to put into words.  You just have to hear it for yourself to really understand. 

 

[jhwalker]

   
 
Hearing differences in filter settings can be a difficult task, imo.  I think to do so requires sufficiently revealing gear.  Combined with my Grado RS1 headphones, or with my Bowers & Wilkins bookshelves, the iDSD Micro is quite able to reveal differences in filters.  Not so much with my Sennheiser HD558 headphones, which are a quite forgiving and not very revealing headphone.  
 
That said, the biggest difference to be heard is between 'Standard' and 'Bit-Perfect'.  In standard, well, it sounds more, ahem, digital.  Things with a lot of high frequency content, like cymbals, sound a tick less natural, with a certain 'edge' or 'digital fuzz' that is just characteristic of digital.  In bit perfect, much of this is remedied.  It sounds smoother, more natural, less dirty.  Decays are smooth, not 'noisy'.
 
It is actually a difficult observation to put into words.  You just have to hear it for yourself to really understand. 

I hear very large differences in PCM music between "Bit Perfect" and "Minimum Phase", which my is 2nd choice.  Bit Perfect sounds very clear and crisp, while Minimum Phase has a bit of a rolled-off, softer treble profile.  I prefer Bit Perfect, but find some 44/16 music sounds better with the Minimum Phase filter - glad to have both

 

[ati832]

where are you guys buying this amp from as I cannot find it anywhere yet, anyone know how to purchase one in the UK. 

 

[g3act]

  where are you guys buying this amp from as I cannot find it anywhere yet, anyone know how to purchase one in the UK. 

 
There are a couple of places.  I got mine from Audiologica, but they also sell them at Mains Cables R Us.
 
I have been following this thread and the Crowd Designed thread for months, but never contributed.  Felt it was time to join...
 
 
I love mine.  Got it about 3 days ago from Richard @ Audiologica ( very helpful friendly chap).  A massive step up from my previous Dac/PreAmp/Headphone Amp ( Musical Fidelity M1SDAC)
 
I could quite easily listen to this for hours and hours and hours without getting listener fatigue, something I cannot say for the MF.  It just sounds so natural and fluid.  I always wondered what people meant when they said "Analogue Sounding" (having never owned a turntable ) but now I do!!!

 

[JeffDee]

Hello all! I'm a big newby to head-fi gear. I own a iBasso dx90 with the Hifiman HE-500. I'm looking to upgrade the dac for even better analog sound. Is the micro a step forward, or a leap forward?
And what about Chord's Hugo? This unit gets all raving reviews?! Does the ifi matches the performance of the Hugo at 1/3 of it's price?

 

[BillsonChang007]

Nice. I haven’t heard the AKG K702 60th Anniversary Edition yet but I had an AKG K701 in the past which was a bit to analytical for me. 

The Annie is not as analytical as them IMO

As for why am I in standard, I wish to test everything step by step xD IMO, I feel no difference between the polarity

 

[ati832]

Im looking to upgrade to this I currently have the ifi Ican is this idsd really 10 times more powerful its hard to believe that it is or have I got the specs wrong ifi ican 400mw output compared to the idsd 4000mw, can anyone enlighten me.

 

[BillsonChang007]

Hello all! I'm a big newby to head-fi gear. I own a iBasso dx90 with the Hifiman HE-500. I'm looking to upgrade the dac for even better analog sound. Is the micro a step forward, or a leap forward?
And what about Chord's Hugo? This unit gets all raving reviews?! Does the ifi matches the performance of the Hugo at 1/3 of it's price?

Power wise, yes but I am not sure about the DAC part.

Im looking to upgrade to this I currently have the ifi Ican is this idsd really 10 times more powerful its hard to believe that it is or have I got the specs wrong ifi ican 400mw output compared to the idsd 4000mw, can anyone enlighten me.

The iDSD is indeed 4k mW vs iCan's 400mW. The iDSD also features a duo core DAC vs no DAC on iCan. It is more worthy to go for Micro iDSD if you are planning to upgrade both your system's DAC and amp. For purely amp upgrade, there's something else for sure more worthy upgrading.

 

[WNBC]

Some of my previous DACs have been the W4S DAC-2 and Ciunas DAC.  While I could live with either the Ciunas has been my favorite DAC to date so I definitely agree with you about TI vs ESS.  My Micro shows up tomorrow.  Should be fun.
 
 
Quote:

  I really wont describe it as being actually thick and fat (like tube sound) by its own, but it is relatively thicker when compared to iDAC's ESS ES9023 (or ES9018 in a lesser sense). The difference is quite subtle unless you listen to them side by side. One of the things I have always notice between TI and ESS's DAC is that TI always has very good, thicker texture in the mid to lower range where ESS tends to emphasize its upper vocal to treble detail for an airier presentation. This gives ESS a wow factor in the initial listening, but eventually I always get draw back to TI's house sound because it sounds more analog in the long run.

 

[maricius]

I hear very large differences in PCM music between "Bit Perfect" and "Minimum Phase", which my is 2nd choice.  Bit Perfect sounds very clear and crisp, while Minimum Phase has a bit of a rolled-off, softer treble profile.  I prefer Bit Perfect, but find some 44/16 music sounds better with the Minimum Phase filter - glad to have both

What about your thoughts on "Standard?" Does this have an even greater rolled off treble in your opinion or does it sound harsher? I have thought that the BitPerfect to sound more relaxed than the Minimum Phase as the Minimum Phase would be somewhere in between BitPerfect and Standard.

 

[technobear]

Hearing differences in filter settings can be a difficult task, imo.  I think to do so requires sufficiently revealing gear.  Combined with my Grado RS1 headphones, or with my Bowers & Wilkins bookshelves, the iDSD Micro is quite able to reveal differences in filters.  Not so much with my Sennheiser HD558 headphones, which are a quite forgiving and not very revealing headphone.  

That said, the biggest difference to be heard is between 'Standard' and 'Bit-Perfect'.  In standard, well, it sounds more, ahem, digital.  Things with a lot of high frequency content, like cymbals, sound a tick less natural, with a certain 'edge' or 'digital fuzz' that is just characteristic of digital.  In bit perfect, much of this is remedied.  It sounds smoother, more natural, less dirty.  Decays are smooth, not 'noisy'.

It is actually a difficult observation to put into words.  You just have to hear it for yourself to really understand. 

I hear very large differences in PCM music between "Bit Perfect" and "Minimum Phase", which my is 2nd choice. Bit Perfect sounds very clear and crisp, while Minimum Phase has a bit of a rolled-off, softer treble profile. I prefer Bit Perfect, but find some 44/16 music sounds better with the Minimum Phase filter - glad to have both

I agree with both of these. Thank you gentlemen for saving me the trouble of finding the words

The Bit Perfect filter sounds the most real. It has the flow and ease and timing of good analogue. It is the filter of choice for most CDs.

The Minimum Phase filter rounds the sound off a little. It's a bit softer, less real but still with great timing and involvement. It is useful if a recording is a bit harsh. For example yesterday I was listening to early U2 which was recorded at home in the front room of a band member. Great music but a bit hard on the ears in places. The Minimum Phase filter just knocks off the rough edge a little. I also played a bunch of Pretty Lights Music albums and they too are great music but quite harsh. I can listen for longer to these with the Minimum Phase filter.

As for the Standard filter, this is exactly what we have been trying to overcome for 35 years. Sure it preserves the high treble but it adds pre-ringing and post-ringing and sounds hard, glassy and unnatural. We used to call this 'digitalitis'. We thought we had cracked it with upsampling/oversampling to ever higher sampling rates but the Bit Perfect filter shows we were on the wrong path.

 

[maricius]

I agree with both of these. Thank you gentlemen for saving me the trouble of finding the words

The Bit Perfect filter sounds the most real. It has the flow and ease and timing of good analogue. It is the filter of choice for most CDs.

The Minimum Phase filter rounds the sound off a little. It's a bit softer, less real but still with great timing and involvement. It is useful if a recording is a bit harsh. For example yesterday I was listening to early U2 which was recorded at home in the front room of a band member. Great music but a bit hard on the ears in places. The Minimum Phase filter just knocks off the rough edge a little. I also played a bunch of Pretty Lights Music albums and they too are great music but quite harsh. I can listen for longer to these with the Minimum Phase filter.

As for the Standard filter, this is exactly what we have been trying to overcome for 35 years. Sure it preserves the high treble but it adds pre-ringing and post-ringing and sounds hard, glassy and unnatural. We used to call this 'digitalitis'. We thought we had cracked it with upsampling/oversampling to ever higher sampling rates but the Bit Perfect filter shows we were on the wrong path.

MLGrado!! You should put this on your review post!! It will save a lot of curious people in the future from having to enquire regarding the most universally agreed on effects of the three filters.

Technobear, thanks!!


If there is anyone here who right now hears the filters differently, please chime in.