[Dadracer]

It's worth pointing out that is the iCAN and not the iCAN SE so I can't tell you what difference there is.

 

[dharma]

About 'balanced'...
 
here are two posts, do there are 'valid' points?
http://www.head-fi.org/t/795365/sennheiser-hd800-s-impressions-thread-read-first-post-for-summary/120#post_12306902
http://www.head-fi.org/t/260346/ignorance-cure-needed-balanced-vs-unbalanced#post_11558111

 

[sandalaudio]

  About 'balanced'...
 
here are two posts, do there are 'valid' points?
http://www.head-fi.org/t/795365/sennheiser-hd800-s-impressions-thread-read-first-post-for-summary/120#post_12306902
http://www.head-fi.org/t/260346/ignorance-cure-needed-balanced-vs-unbalanced#post_11558111

 
Aside from the objective merits, I think there are sound quality benefits in many cases. A huge part of it is how the amplifier is designed and built to operate in balanced mode. I found the HDVD800+HD800 sound great in balanced mode. Big mains powered desktop amps are easy to deliver in that sense. Portable gear can be more difficult to justify.
 
Just as one example, I tried the new JH Audio Rosie on my AK240. Rosie comes with two cables. Ordinary 3.5mm stereo, and 2.5mm balanced. Listening on 3.5mm stereo was perfectly fine, but on the 2.5mm balanced cable, I found my AK240 begin to exhibit terrible distortion on loud transients. I noticed that the amp started capping out above 70% volume position.
 
This was not because balanced is "bad", but more about whether the DAP power supply and the amplifier can cope with delivering ample current to drive low impedance multi-BA IEMs that have big peaks and troughs in the load impedance.
 
 
More to the point is (since this is a micro iDSD thread), would people be willing to spend more money (and bigger chassis) to have the micro iDSD with balanced amplification.

 

[iFi audio]

Quote:

So I understand the difference good cabling can make (have a Mercury cable and iPower too) but, sincerely, does that mean I'm wasting time trying to go balanced?

 
Not necessarily wasting time, but you may find a greater return on investment by taking other routes than going balanced. If the cabling is already 'balanced' and terminated directly into a 6.3mm plug you get usually another 3 times (10dB) improvement over the 3.5mm plug with balanced wiring and any benefit balanced in itself can give is further erroded.
 
 

  If so, should I have gone with the iCan SE instead of a good balanced amp?

 
This is hard to say. You should see if you can borrow an iCAN SE or take your setup to a local meet where an iCAN SE will be around, listen and decide for yourself.
 
 

The iDSD already has a pretty good amp (been more than happy with it the past year) but I also planned to add an iTube which meant I'd need an external amp. Even looked at the Retro 50 as a possible all-in-one solution but couldn't justify spending two grand on another single-ended device especially when the balanced iCan Pro was in the works.

 
We find that with the Tubestate build into iCAN SE, it delivers a very large chunk of 'Tube Magic' in itself and even our tube loving chief designer (who has a Nixie clock on his Android Phone - with tubes for numbers) does not use a iTube with the iCAN SE. He does use the iTube in his Speaker setup, which is more what the iTube was designed for (3D Matrix for speakers, optional preamp function). Some of the senior staff still hold onto the iTube with the iCAN SE. Neither are right nor wrong.
 
So try the different combinations and decide for yourself.
 
 

  Since I already have some decent headphone cables and, if there isn't much improvement going from 6.3mm to balanced, should I revisit upgrading to the Retro 50 (even though I'd lose one DAC chip in replacing the Micro with it)?

 
Again, this only you can answer, you might want to see if you can to get to spend some time from another customer or an iFi retailer.
 
The Retro is a rather different product from the micro lineup. For starters it is a full tube Amplifier. And it has and plays everything under the sun.
 
By the way, dont get too hung up on the second DAC Chip in the iDSD micro which was used to meet our Signal/Noise target for the micro which also ended up giving us a dual-mono design into the mix. In the Retro the tube amplifier has slightly higher noise than the single DAC Chip (this is one of the limitations of Tubes), so there is not much of a point fitting two DAC's here. But does 1 or 2 DACs effect the enjoyment of either? Nope as it is only one aspect.
 
 
Cheers.

 

[iFi audio]

  About 'balanced'...
 
here are two posts, do there are 'valid' points?
http://www.head-fi.org/t/795365/sennheiser-hd800-s-impressions-thread-read-first-post-for-summary/120#post_12306902
http://www.head-fi.org/t/260346/ignorance-cure-needed-balanced-vs-unbalanced#post_11558111

 
Yes, good points made in both posts. In the end balanced or not is not a reliable arbiter of quality.
 
Also, when we have time we will look into how, many 'balanced' Amplifiers and DAC's are structured; as we are launching balanced products in the Pro line.
 
But as a hint, many 'Balanced' amplifiers actually use a balanced to unbalanced conversion circuit: a single-ended volume control > a single-ended Headphone Amplifier > then a second set of amplifiers to invert the output of the first headphone amplifier.
 
To add further insult, many DAC Chip's have balanced outputs, however most DAC's available on the market first convert this to single-ended for the single-ended output and add further circuits to generate a balanced output.
 
For those who kept count, yes, that is FIVE times amplification in series from DAC Chip to Headphones!
 
By comparison most single-ended Headphone amplifiers simply have the volume control followed by the headphone amplifier and the single ended output in the DAC usually has just one amplification circuit as well, so only TWO times amplification (usually Op-Amp's) in series.
 
This is not to say that that the SE system will reliably sound better, but having fewer amplification stages and if the budget is identical being able to spend two to three times as much on the SE amplification stage(s) than for balanced mean there is a good chance of the result being better.
 
It is worth noting that a lot of the extra work and delays in the Pro line come directly from a serious effort to avoid the 'common practice' in balanced DAC's and AMP's and instead having a circuit that is equally simple for balanced or single ended operation. More about that another day in the Pro Series thread.
 
Cheers.

 

[iFi audio]

  I would really like to have some more in depth comparison between the iCAN SE and the iDSD Micro as regards the amp and the amp only. From the circuitery to the signature, if there's any difference and whatnot. Thanks

 
Hi,
 
At the core, the designs of the iCAN SE and Headphone Amplifier in the iDSD Micro are similar, but the precise implementation differs. Actually, the Headphone Amplifier in the iDSD micro is best described as derived from the original iCAN but adapted to limitations of less space AND limitations of battery power as found with the portable iDSD micro, but with extra power from higher voltage power rails.
 
Both use a circuit structure of Volume Control -> Voltage Amplification stage -> Power Buffer.
 
In the iCAN SE (and original iCAN) the Tubestate¹ discrete circuit handles the voltage amplification. In the iCAN SE we have further fine-tuned the Tubestate circuit as compared to the earlier iCAN. If there is enough power available to support Tubestate circuitry, it sounds warmer, more natural and yet more detailed than Op-Amps. By comparison, the voltage amplification stage in the iDSD micro is a TI Soundplus J-Fet Op-Amp. This is a very good part and you rarely find something at its level of performance in affordable gear, but it is an Op-Amp. The differnece between these two solutions to produce the voltage amplification is not 'night and day,' but it is there and it favours Tubestate.
 
Other than this core active element for voltage amplification, the iCAN SE (and previous iCAN) also differ by adding substantial extra Class A biasing to the output buffer. What Class A does is to reduce the so-called 'crossover distortion' present in Class AB solid-state circuitry. Crossover distortion may be pushed to low levels using feedback, but it is pernicious in that it has a spectrum and nature that gives it a dissonant, unpleasant character. Even a small amount may give a feeling of edginess.
 
Again, the circuit used in the iDSD micro is rather good already in this respect and will stay in Class A for much of the music dynamic range. But adding Class A biasing simply pushes the onset of crossover distortion to much higher current levels, so much more of the music's dynamic range is free from crossover distortion. The cost is again additional current. In the iCAN SE Tubestate and Class A Bias account for an extra around 2.5 Watt power consumption over the headphone amplifier in the iDSD micro. In terms of power draw from the battery, this would cut the operating time in each mode about in half, which we felt unacceptable for a portable device. It is portable after all!
 
The final difference is how the iCAN SE and iDSD operate their power.
 
In the iCAN SE we have a mains powered 15V/1.5A powersupply (to which the iCAN SE internally generates -15V). We then have substantial additional power supply capacitance combined with LC filters which gives 'cleaner and stiffer' power supply rails. Discrete zero feedback, low noise regulator circuits are then used to further remove noise from the power supplies and lower the power rail impedance (again making the power supply 'cleaner and stiffer'). The discrete regulators are followed by Elna Silmic power supply capacitors buffering the final power to the audio circuits. In the original iCAN, the powersupply was +/-9V and the regulators were lower power and no Elna Silmic capacitors were employed; otherwise the powersupply is similar to the SE.
 
By comparison in the iDSD, we need to step up a 3.7V (nominal) battery to provide power. And while the iDSD micro has LC filtering it has to make do with only one quarter of the total power supply capacitance of the iCAN SE (as a result of space constraints) and it misses the discrete regulators and Elna Silmic capacitors (again, no space).
 
So all in all, the differences between iCAN SE micro (and iCAN original) and iDSD micro is simply that the fundamentally similar circuitry in the iCAN SE is far more optimised and has a better powersupply, because we have by far more space and power (mains) available to work with than the amplifier in the iDSD micro.
 
At the end of it all, one cannot take a BMW and compare it to an MX-5 and say it doesnt handle quite as well! Horses, courses and all that.

 
 
¹ Read more about Tubestate here:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/790869/ican-micro-se-thanks-to-meze-you-guys-are-great-things-are-a-rockin/75#post_12184763

 

[Johnnystuff]

  ....juicy post....

 
 
This post is so full of awesome I feel like reading it costed me 350 bux

 

[rickyleelee]

agree. always learn new thing with iFi guys. I would say only 300 bux though

 

[dharma]

Thanks everybody! Sorry to 'crossreference' different posts from different threads... my 'written English' is not so good to 'interprete' these questions what I wanted to more understand about 'balanced/non-balanced' debates in differents sources... thank You again!

 

[HotIce]

 
Hi,
 
At the core, the designs of the iCAN SE and Headphone Amplifier in the iDSD Micro are similar, but the precise implementation differs. Actually, the Headphone Amplifier in the iDSD micro is best described as derived from the original iCAN but adapted to limitations of less space AND limitations of battery power as found with the portable iDSD micro, but with extra power from higher voltage power rails.
 
Both use a circuit structure of Volume Control -> Voltage Amplification stage -> Power Buffer.
 
In the iCAN SE (and original iCAN) the Tubestate¹ discrete circuit handles the voltage amplification. In the iCAN SE we have further fine-tuned the Tubestate circuit as compared to the earlier iCAN. If there is enough power available to support Tubestate circuitry, it sounds warmer, more natural and yet more detailed than Op-Amps. By comparison, the voltage amplification stage in the iDSD micro is a TI Soundplus J-Fet Op-Amp. This is a very good part and you rarely find something at its level of performance in affordable gear, but it is an Op-Amp. The differnece between these two solutions to produce the voltage amplification is not 'night and day,' but it is there and it favours Tubestate.
 
Other than this core active element for voltage amplification, the iCAN SE (and previous iCAN) also differ by adding substantial extra Class A biasing to the output buffer. What Class A does is to reduce the so-called 'crossover distortion' present in Class AB solid-state circuitry. Crossover distortion may be pushed to low levels using feedback, but it is pernicious in that it has a spectrum and nature that gives it a dissonant, unpleasant character. Even a small amount may give a feeling of edginess.
 
Again, the circuit used in the iDSD micro is rather good already in this respect and will stay in Class A for much of the music dynamic range. But adding Class A biasing simply pushes the onset of crossover distortion to much higher current levels, so much more of the music's dynamic range is free from crossover distortion. The cost is again additional current. In the iCAN SE Tubestate and Class A Bias account for an extra around 2.5 Watt power consumption over the headphone amplifier in the iDSD micro. In terms of power draw from the battery, this would cut the operating time in each mode about in half, which we felt unacceptable for a portable device. It is portable after all!
 
The final difference is how the iCAN SE and iDSD operate their power.
 
In the iCAN SE we have a mains powered 15V/1.5A powersupply (to which the iCAN SE internally generates -15V). We then have substantial additional power supply capacitance combined with LC filters which gives 'cleaner and stiffer' power supply rails. Discrete zero feedback, low noise regulator circuits are then used to further remove noise from the power supplies and lower the power rail impedance (again making the power supply 'cleaner and stiffer'). The discrete regulators are followed by Elna Silmic power supply capacitors buffering the final power to the audio circuits. In the original iCAN, the powersupply was +/-9V and the regulators were lower power and no Elna Silmic capacitors were employed; otherwise the powersupply is similar to the SE.
 
By comparison in the iDSD, we need to step up a 3.7V (nominal) battery to provide power. And while the iDSD micro has LC filtering it has to make do with only one quarter of the total power supply capacitance of the iCAN SE (as a result of space constraints) and it misses the discrete regulators and Elna Silmic capacitors (again, no space).
 
So all in all, the differences between iCAN SE micro (and iCAN original) and iDSD micro is simply that the fundamentally similar circuitry in the iCAN SE is far more optimised and has a better powersupply, because we have by far more space and power (mains) available to work with than the amplifier in the iDSD micro.
 
At the end of it all, one cannot take a BMW and compare it to an MX-5 and say it doesnt handle quite as well! Horses, courses and all that.

 
 
¹ Read more about Tubestate here:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/790869/ican-micro-se-thanks-to-meze-you-guys-are-great-things-are-a-rockin/75#post_12184763

 

Hmm, doesn't the SE use the 6120A2 for HP amp?
Very good IC, but how is that "Tube State"?

 

[technobear]

Hmm, doesn't the SE use the 6120A2 for HP amp?
Very good IC, but how is that "Tube State"?

This has already been covered in the appropriate thread:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/790869/ican-micro-se-thanks-to-meze-you-guys-are-great-things-are-a-rockin/360#post_12371532

 

[Triodemode]

Just picked up the iUSB 3.0 and will use us it as the power source for my iDSD micro.  The question I have is, down the road when the internal battery goes bad can the iUSB be used as the sole supplier of power to my iDSD, or does the battery still have to be present and charged?

 

[Matter]

There is too much to be read here so pardon if this has been asked.
 
I am looking to build up a full iFi set and I am really confused by all the iFi products that I do not know where to begin and which product to begin with.
 
My previous dac/amp was the Centrance Dacmini that I purchased years ago and I am looking for something that can compete and do better than that.
I am also curious how the iTube can come in as well as the purifier.
 
So can someone please enlighten me on where I can start?
 
Also, with iFi constantly generating newer versions of their products, I do not know when I should make the purchase for fear that they may manufacture a new iDSD for example soon.
 
Thank you very much!

 

[iFi audio]

 

Hmm, doesn't the SE use the 6120A2 for HP amp?
Very good IC, but how is that "Tube State"?

 
Hi,
 
This is actually described in the very post you quoted, where it says: "Voltage Amplification stage -> Power Buffer", it is used strictly as buffer to produce more current than the Tubestate circuit provides.
 
Cheers.

 

[iFi audio]

  The question I have is, down the road when the internal battery goes bad can the iUSB be used as the sole supplier of power to my iDSD, or does the battery still have to be present and charged?

 
Hi
 
The iDSD micro requires a battery to be present and to hold at least some charge in order to turn on. If the battery fitted is totally dead, it will not turn on.
 
However, it is perhaps important to understand the definition of 'bad battery.' Generally a modern battery is considered 'expired' once its capacity has dropped to 70% of rated capacity. It means the battery is still functional, but no longer meets the minimum specification on capacity.
 
If operated in 'cyclic' mode, that is charged fully and discharged fully, around 300 - 400 complete charge cycles are possible before this point is reached. To reach this cycle life it is important to avoid frequently charging the battery when very low (< 15 Degrees) or very high temperatures  (> 35 degrees Celsius) prevail, as this will shorten lifespan/number of cycles. As iFi products use modern batteries, as they lack the so-called 'memory effect,' so there is no penalty from partial charge cycles (read: we recommend to keep topping-up!).
 
The iDSD micro will operate in 'cyclic' mode if turned off 'hard' and recharge the battery to 100% charge state for maximum capacity in (portable) use. So if the battery is charged and discharged every day it will show appreciable loss of capacity after about 1 year of use, but will likely remain usable at reduced (and further declining) capacity for several more years.
 
An alternative mode is (incorrectly) referred to as 'float-charging' from the old lead acid batteries used in this mode. Here the iDSD is meant to be always powered and thus the battery is re-charged only to around 80% charge state. This charge was in independent research found to give the overall largest increase in 'shelf life.' This is used automatically if the iDSD micro remains turned on during charging. If enough external power is available (e.g. 1.5A from the iUSB3.0 or from a BC 1.2 Compatible charger or Hub) the battery will very rarely or never draw upon to deliver power. Under such conditions a 'floated' lifespan (with the same definition of 70% capacity) of 3-5 years over a temperature range of 10 to 40 Degrees Celsius is expected, longer with less extreme temperatures.
 
It should be noted that at 70% capacity the battery is still fully functional and has only lost 30% of its capacity (due to chemical reactions). So it is likely to last at continuously reducing capacity for more than time span that it took to get to 70% capacity given continued identical use.
 
So in practice, an iDSD micro that is used at normal room temperature and run of a permanent power source with enough current¹ and is permanently switched on, should operate trouble and maintenance free for likely at least 7 - 10 years if not more. Replacement batteries are available, just ask your retailer/distributor to have the iDSD serviced.
 
One last caveat, try avoiding hard drops of the iDSD nano or micro, lithium based batteries tend to take excessive mechanical shock quite badly, in addition to the mentioned avoidance of excessive heat or cold during charging. For discharging fairly high temperatures of up to 60 degrees Celsius and fairly low temperatures down to as low as - 10 degrees Celsius are acceptable but will decrease lifespan as well, so better to keep Lithium Polymer batteries at a reasonable comfortable room temperature.
 
¹In this context 'power source with enough current' means a power supply or charger that offers at least 1000mA under a recognised USB power limit signaling, e.g USB BC1.2 (the official USB standard). This means most modern high current chargers except some older Samsung, most Chinese domestic model chargers and anything Apple, as these all operate non USB-Standard methods of indicating a dedicated charger with high power attached, as opposed to a standard 500mA USB Port, which are not recognized under BC1.2.