iFi iDSD Micro DSD512 / PCM768 DAC and Headphone Amp. Impressions, Reviews and Comments.

[Rearwing]

  The DSD1793 specs are just too low for a $500 dac. My denon av receiver have pcm1690 which has same SNR as DSD1793, I know the implementation is better on iFi but I don't expect a big difference. From what I understand, iFi wanted to do something that can play anything and they did it with the lowest cost possible (I don't want to enter into discussion how bad nano idsd jacks/volume control feels like, but sometimes I'm afraid when I plug something into the rca or jack, because the jacks are moving from place and it feels like it's gonna break. Response from ifi: Not all units are built the same. We cannot do nothing about it. End of story). At least it sounds good even if they didn't put some glue around jacks (or something else). Nano iDSD has 104 SNR, it's like they wanted to cut the dynamics (from 113). I know, I know, measurements don't tell the whole story.
They could used PCM1792, DSD1792, PCM1795 (these have crazy numbers even if they are from same manufacturer), AK4490, CS4398, CS4364, CS4384, WM8741, WM8742 and maybe more. They all do DSD in the proper way.

What a strange post. I did my research, liked what I heard and bought the equipment, you were/are at liberty to do the same. Free your mind!

 

[youurayy]

  First time noticing that DSD1793 it's a chip released in 2003 so they used that old chip in a $500 DAC today which is kinda strange. I may not go with micro just because of this, there are so many chips out there and they go with the oldest one. I didn't even had a computer in 2003.

 
I listen to my micro every single day since I bought it. It is so good that the only thing I'm not afraid to upgrade to is the Lampizator. The iFi guys are wizards.
 

 

[HotIce]

  ... iFi wanted to do something that can play anything and they did it with the lowest cost possible ...

 
You realize that for most of the "esoteric" DAC ICs you mentioned, the difference with the DSD1793, for 1+K units purchases price is in the order of $1...$5?
It's hard to imagine that as driving decision on a $500+ class DAC.
As far as SN ratios, have you actually listened it? To my ears it's as dark as it can be (so are many modern DACs decently designed).
Circuit and PCB design matters far more than DAC IS SN ratio, as those are wayyy up there in the audible range.

 

[sandalaudio]

They could used PCM1792, DSD1792, PCM1795 (these have crazy numbers even if they are from same manufacturer)

 
The DSD1793 chip used by iFi is a "voltage output" DAC, while the PCM1792 and PCM1795 are current output. The spec sheet numbers are not comparable, because current output DACs don't have I/V converter built into the DAC chip itself so they can go all out on evaluation circuits.
 
In the iFi implementation of 1793, the chip just acts as a dumb worker running on external filter mode, so it is a pretty modern and intelligent choice even for today. Particularly if they wanted that classic Burr-Brown sound signature with voltage output then 1793 is still the best option.
 
Yes it does tempt us to imagine what if iFi decided to use a PCM1792 and a separate discrete I/V stage etc, but then that's another story and not guaranteed to sound any better.
IF PCM1792 is absolute must then we can always pick up a Fiio X5-II for $299, which has PCM1792 and fantastic opamp output stage, and music player software and LCD screen etc.. etc.. all for the great low price.
 
Aside from the sound quality (which is subjective), the thing I'm most impressed with iFi is that their DSD256/DXD support is rock solid these days, and I can always trust it to play any file I throw at it without glitching. Also it is very tolerant to the quality of USB cable used. I can't say the same for a lot of "high end" USB DACs, which I have had countless issues with noise or drop-out for higher sample rates.

 

[WilliamLeonhart]

It would be awfully nice if some of you of the Batman Club would show up at A/B tests some time, to lay facts behind your statements.
But you call always sick day when they happen.

When I mentioned about audio distortion audibility, I forgot to add some links, in case someone is interested.
Note that these tests are conducted by engineers and/or organizations with no agenda behind, besides the scientific drive:

http://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/human-hearing-distortion-audibility-part-3
http://www.axiomaudio.com/distortion

And then there is the mythical thread, which is always a fun read:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths

Would like to show up any day Im free. I just don't get why people would be so sure that a DAC cannot darken the sound. Yes they SHOULD not darken or brighten the sound, but would it be crazy if a $50 DAC sound the same as a $500 DAC? It's the "sound much better than products of the same prizes" and "sound on par with much pricier equipment" catchphrases that are the fugazi blight of this hobby. And people believe it just because there's no scientific way to prove anything. There're too many factors to take into consideration, including the file type, bit depth and the quality of the source recordings. And like I said, you hear what you hear, so why bother? Go see any doctor and ask them if your hearing ability, your eyesight and your smelling ability vary accordingly to your health and your mental state. Even channel balance will vary by person too.
The Batclub joke is funny on earth 2, thanks.

 

[HotIce]

Would like to show up any day Im free. I just don't get why people would be so sure that a DAC cannot darken the sound. Yes they SHOULD not darken or brighten the sound, but would it be crazy if a $50 DAC sound the same as a $500 DAC? It's the "sound much better than products of the same prizes" and "sound on par with much pricier equipment" catchphrases that are the fugazi blight of this hobby. And people believe it just because there's no scientific way to prove anything. There're too many factors to take into consideration, including the file type, bit depth and the quality of the source recordings. And like I said, you hear what you hear, so why bother? Go see any doctor and ask them if your hearing ability, your eyesight and your smelling ability vary accordingly to your health and your mental state. Even channel balance will vary by person too.
The Batclub joke is funny on earth 2, thanks.

 
Sure you will show up 

It seems you have not read any of the documents I posted the links, and the ones listed within the as reference (especially the distortion studies conducted on multiple population samples).
But here are some easier to digest videos, which objective people would appreciate:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woU6_Pexoj0

 

[Duncan]

Very strange direction the past few posts have gone in...

Better not tell all the fans of the TDA1541S2 DAC that its design is the best part of 35 years old...

Don't always chase the numbers, graphs or otherwise, but instead chase what sounds good to you...

 

[WilliamLeonhart]

Sure you will show up 
It seems you have not read any of the documents I posted the links, and the ones listed within the as reference (especially the distortion studies conducted on multiple population samples).
But here are some easier to digest videos, which objective people would appreciate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woU6_Pexoj0

Yeah I will, just take into consideration that I live in VN, Malaysia and SG.
And I have. Know what? People barely provide a good enough test case to begin with. Low impedance cans, low bitrate recordings or PCM for DSD dacs, then they say it all sound the same. Well point well proven.
Honestly I refuse to waste my time on all these "researches" and youtube videos. Are they supposed to alter what I hear? Am I suppose to go objective when I my ears are personal?

PS: Instead of throwing out some studies can you actually explain what all of this has to do with the claims that all amps DACs sound the same? My point is simple: they don't sound the same, your hearing varies and you hear what you hear. Just kindly disprove it and I can happily sell off all my stuffs. Thanks

 

[iFi audio]

Very strange direction the past few posts have gone in...

Better not tell all the fans of the TDA1541S2 DAC that its design is the best part of 35 years old...

Don't always chase the numbers, graphs or otherwise, but instead chase what sounds good to you...

 
We couldn't agree more.
 
The TDA1541A* S2 is the king in our book too as we use the 1541A in the CD-77, with among other things, Dynamic Element Matching to bring the linearity closer to the S2!
 

 
Putting aside discussion about the merits of sonics for one moment, let's look at this from a business point of view:
 
Back then CD was in its infancy and vinyl was the dominant format (yes, some of us at AMR/iFi are THAT old!) And when CD was conceived, 'MultibIt' chipsets were produced at a time when performance was the 1st priority. It was only when CD became the dominant format later on that profit became the 1st criteria. One example is digital volume controls -  a digital volume control is only placed inside a DAC for one main reason; cost (certainly isn't for sound quality!)
 
Getting back to the Burr-Brown in the micro iDSD, we use the last MultiBit chip developed by Burr-Brown Japan before the TI takeover.  Japanese attention to detail and fastidiousness meant this chip has a rather impressive sonic pedigree to it.
 
So yes, we love MultiBit chipsets and are proud. 'Classic' or 'Cutting-Edge' we don't care. It just needs to pass the listening test.
 
*And this is before one gets bogged down in the the implementation of the TDA1541A which requires a lot of off-board components which allows for squeezing even more out!

 

[HotIce]

Yeah I will, just take into consideration that I live in VN, Malaysia and SG.
And I have. Know what? People barely provide a good enough test case to begin with. Low impedance cans, low bitrate recordings or PCM for DSD dacs, then they say it all sound the same. Well point well proven.
Honestly I refuse to waste my time on all these "researches" and youtube videos. Are they supposed to alter what I hear? Am I suppose to go objective when I my ears are personal?

PS: Instead of throwing out some studies can you actually explain what all of this has to do with the claims that all amps DACs sound the same? My point is simple: they don't sound the same, your hearing varies and you hear what you hear. Just kindly disprove it and I can happily sell off all my stuffs. Thanks

 
I think your are confusing things, or intentionally trying to put in my mouth things I never said.
Given the same sound A, individual X and Y, reacts to it in a very different way.
Our transducers (ears) are all different, *and* our brains react differently to the same signal.
This is why some people like Pop, other Country, and other again Classical music.
OTOH, given sounds A and B, where D(t) = A(t) - B(t) < 1e-3, saying that individual X can tell the difference, kind of contradicts all the scientific studies (you know, the ones made by professional organizations, using real people, with no agenda behind their back) that have been done.
And I have listed quite a few of them, for reference (and there are much more around - the myth thread here in head-fi contains quite a bit of them).
OTOH, can you point me to one scientifically conducted A/B test, where folks have been able to tell apart audio signals which differ for less than 1e-3?

 

[rickyleelee]

I think your are confusing things, or intentionally trying to put in my mouth things I never said.
Given the same sound A, individual X and Y, reacts to it in a very different way.
Our transducers (ears) are all different, *and* our brains react differently to the same signal.
This is why some people like Pop, other Country, and other again Classical music.
OTOH, given sounds A and B, where D(t) = A(t) - B(t) < 1e-3, saying that individual X can tell the difference, kind of contradicts all the scientific studies (you know, the ones made by professional organizations, using real people, with no agenda behind their back) that have been done.
And I have listed quite a few of them, for reference (and there are much more around - the myth thread here in head-fi contains quite a bit of them).
OTOH, can you point me to one scientifically conducted A/B test, where folks have been able to tell apart audio signals which differ for less than 1e-3?

No need to argue subjective or objective as on a forum, No one convinces the other side so why bother. Like others said, don't buy if this chip is too old for you. waste of solar time and cosmic energy. chill man.

 

[Rearwing]

No need to argue subjective or objective as on a forum, No one convinces the other side so why bother. Like others said, don't buy if this chip is too old for you. waste of solar time and cosmic energy. chill man.

This sentiment could be used on 85% of the threads on here!
 
Sit back and listen to the groove..................

 

[RedJohn456]

I think your are confusing things, or intentionally trying to put in my mouth things I never said.
Given the same sound A, individual X and Y, reacts to it in a very different way.
Our transducers (ears) are all different, *and* our brains react differently to the same signal.
This is why some people like Pop, other Country, and other again Classical music.
OTOH, given sounds A and B, where D(t) = A(t) - B(t) < 1e-3, saying that individual X can tell the difference, kind of contradicts all the scientific studies (you know, the ones made by professional organizations, using real people, with no agenda behind their back) that have been done.
And I have listed quite a few of them, for reference (and there are much more around - the myth thread here in head-fi contains quite a bit of them).
OTOH, can you point me to one scientifically conducted A/B test, where folks have been able to tell apart audio signals which differ for less than 1e-3?

Wrong section of the forum mate. Also generally speaking not all scientific papers are of the highest quality, so it's good to critically evaluate if findings are statistically significant or recognize study design flaws or biases. All good an fun to keep linking and quoting studies but unless it's a meta analysis I wouldn't put too much weight behind these individual papers.

 

[RedJohn456]

Also I can easily tell the difference between my FiiO x7 and the Micro iDSD with line out to my desktop amp.

So I am not sure how anyone can say that all dacs sounds the same?

 

[HotIce]

Wrong section of the forum mate. Also generally speaking not all scientific papers are of the highest quality, so it's good to critically evaluate if findings are statistically significant or recognize study design flaws or biases. All good an fun to keep linking and quoting studies but unless it's a meta analysis I wouldn't put too much weight behind these individual papers.

 
Statistics. I love statistics.
You can find on the net (the ones I linked, and the ones the links link themselves, are only a small part of it) a lot of scientifically conducted (as is, again, real people, no agenda, some basic knowledge of physical processes and theory of measure) studies which shows the inability of the human ear to pick apart signals when the delta is under a given range.
I would say a statistically significant number.
Can you point me to a single, scientifically conducted study, where scientists and audiophiles got together, and verified that human hearing can indeed take apart audio signals which differ, say, less than 1e-3 (or even 1e-2, FWIW)?