[DTgill]

How much better does the ZEN CAN sound vs just the Zen DAC V2?

Is it worth spending a couple more Benjamins?

For just a small return?

If indeed it's just a small return

 

[iFi audio]

Don't tempt me...

You know where to find us

 

[DTgill]

You know where to find us

That's the problem

 

[GlenAppleton]

How much better does the ZEN CAN sound vs just the Zen DAC V2?

Is it worth spending a couple more Benjamins?

For just a small return?

If indeed it's just a small return

It depends on your use case and preferred sound signature. The Zen DAC v2 can easily drive more efficient cans, and by itself it adds just a very small amount of warmth through the internal headphone amp. Adding the Zen CAN helps drive less efficient cans (like my DT-770s) to their full potential, and adds a bit more warmth to the sound, which is good for cans (again, like my DT-770s) that are typically considered "bright".

Value is subjective, so ultimately it's up to what you really want out of your setup.

 

[iFi audio]

It depends on your use case and preferred sound signature. The Zen DAC v2 can easily drive more efficient cans, and by itself it adds just a very small amount of warmth through the internal headphone amp. Adding the Zen CAN helps drive less efficient cans (like my DT-770s) to their full potential, and adds a bit more warmth to the sound, which is good for cans (again, like my DT-770s) that are typically considered "bright".

Value is subjective, so ultimately it's up to what you really want out of your setup.

You got there faster than me, but yes, ZEN CAN is a more powerful amp that drives tougher loads and makes things a bit warmer. 99% of people consider it an upgrade over ZEN DAC, and so do we. Well, unless one has really thick intimate cans that are supposed to remain profiled like so

 

[123peter]

I used IFI ZEN DAC v1 and now IFI ZEN DAC v2
In both models there is the same annoying problem of channel imbalance at low volume.
There are moments or songs when you want to listen music very quietly.
I have several models of headphones from 18-35 OHM - I was forced to buy a special iEMatch2.5 adapter just to increase the resistance artificially and headphone louder with more OHM - in my opinion it's a mistake and a joke.

It's so annoying when I turn the knob down and I hear that the left channel is no longer playing while the right channel is still audible

I checked it with other friends, it is the same.
I wonder if the new IFI CAN v2 model will also have the same poor quality unbalanced potentiometer?
Can't you really use a better potentiometer?
Such a small element spoils such a great DAC.

 

[Nikonkit]

I used IFI ZEN DAC v1 and now IFI ZEN DAC v2
In both models there is the same annoying problem of channel imbalance at low volume.
There are moments or songs when you want to listen music very quietly.
I have several models of headphones from 18-35 OHM - I was forced to buy a special iEMatch2.5 adapter just to increase the resistance artificially and headphone louder with more OHM - in my opinion it's a mistake and a joke.

It's so annoying when I turn the knob down and I hear that the left channel is no longer playing while the right channel is still audible

I checked it with other friends, it is the same.
I wonder if the new IFI CAN v2 model will also have the same poor quality unbalanced potentiometer?
Can't you really use a better potentiometer?
Such a small element spoils such a great DAC.

Is the V2 a worthwhile upgrade if you already have the V1, I use AKG K712, Sennheiser HD800S and Beyer T1.1 all to reasonably good effect with the V1. The other amp/dac i have is the Hugo2 which obviously is a cut above but the V1 is not shamed unless you are going an A/B chasing for the ultimate sound quality

 

[iFi audio]

I used IFI ZEN DAC v1 and now IFI ZEN DAC v2
In both models there is the same annoying problem of channel imbalance at low volume.
There are moments or songs when you want to listen music very quietly.
I have several models of headphones from 18-35 OHM - I was forced to buy a special iEMatch2.5 adapter just to increase the resistance artificially and headphone louder with more OHM - in my opinion it's a mistake and a joke.

It's so annoying when I turn the knob down and I hear that the left channel is no longer playing while the right channel is still audible

I checked it with other friends, it is the same.
I wonder if the new IFI CAN v2 model will also have the same poor quality unbalanced potentiometer?
Can't you really use a better potentiometer?
Such a small element spoils such a great DAC.

At normal listening levels this shouldn't be a problem and PowerMatch should help with most headphones/IEMs, but channel imbalance might be audible early on with really sensitive IEMs.

 

[Effigy]

All ZEN DAC V1 machines won't be able to fully decode MQA, which means that we won't be releasing a firmware for them that will provide this functionality.

This is an indication that there are multiple people monitoring the forums without any sense of history

Reminder: the last generation of DACv1 has the same XMOS chip as the v2. It is fully capable of FULL MQA decode. (for those who explicitly want this)

Those that have been keeping up are fully aware that a firmware update has been promised from ifi. No sign of this firmware coming at all. For some, this likely seems like a slap in the face to say “tough. Upgrade to v2.”

Look, it’s an example. I realize this isn’t an ifi support forum. Stating that, a number of commitments have been made here. ifi would probably do well to look from pages 50 up and look to see how many commits have been made that have never received an answer.

 

[iFi audio]

Reminder: the last generation of DACv1 has the same XMOS chip as the v2. It is fully capable of FULL MQA decode. (for those who explicitly want this)

It turned out that it takes more than an XMOS chip for ZEN DAC V1 to be a MQA decoder. That's why only ZEN DAC V2 devices can do that.

Those that have been keeping up are fully aware that a firmware update has been promised from ifi. No sign of this firmware coming at all. For some, this likely seems like a slap in the face to say “tough. Upgrade to v2.”

I'm aware but, as above, this turned out more complex that we originally suspected. If you'd like, you can provide me with your ZEN DAC's serial number via PM and let's see what can be done. Sounds good ?

Look, it’s an example. I realize this isn’t an ifi support forum. Stating that, a number of commitments have been made here. ifi would probably do well to look from pages 50 up and look to see how many commits have been made that have never received an answer.

It's not a support forum indeed, but we're here to help if we can. So if there's anything specific that we've missed, please let us know and we'll (me and @Sebastien Chiu) do our best to help.

 

[123peter]

At normal listening levels this shouldn't be a problem and PowerMatch should help with most headphones/IEMs, but channel imbalance might be audible early on with really sensitive IEMs.

This is not an argument, the primary function of the potentiometer is the ability to turn up and down - in this case, stereo = two channels simultaneously.
In a functional potentiometer there should be no such difference in balance between the channels.
Why I bought IEMatch - this is a frivolous solution, but mainly to use a higher resistance and turn the potentiometer to other "louder" areas where there is no difference in the volume of the channels

I do not write this that I am picking on, this DAC's at this price is great but the pleasure is spoiled by a little funny defective element for a few dollars.
This was the case in v1 and so it is in v2 - only I can hear it and it only bothers me?

 

[Effigy]

It turned out that it takes more than an XMOS chip for ZEN DAC V1 to be a MQA decoder. That's why only ZEN DAC V2 devices can do that.



I'm aware but, as above, this turned out more complex that we originally suspected. If you'd like, you can provide me with your ZEN DAC's serial number via PM and let's see what can be done. Sounds good ?



It's not a support forum indeed, but we're here to help if we can. So if there's anything specific that we've missed, please let us know and we'll (me and @Sebastien Chiu) do our best to help.

1) This is what I mean. The promise wasn't made to ME. It was made to @Milan79. (https://www.head-fi.org/threads/ifi-zen-dac-discussion-impression.917041/post-16547819) and to the rest of the community. ifi isn't tracking.

2) Why is a DAC v1 serial number required for a general commit made to the community? Its not about a single individual - its about a commitment made GENERALLY that has not been fulfilled. Notably, I upgraded to DACv2 because ifi was not forthcoming with an answer, which goes back months. This is a bureaucratic response designed to offline the issue from the larger forum view.

3) Its plain commitments aren't being tracked, and it simply radiates as "we will say what we need to so people stop asking questions" and "we don't care." AGAIN, I suggest all the forum posts be reviewed for all commitments on all updates, and responses be given. That is usually what is expected when a commitment is made to provide additional information. (NO REALLY, go through them.)

4) Its FINE that ifi is experiencing "issues" - that said, a commitment was made for answers. (Yes, it was.) Understand that as consumers, we want answers that are unambiguous and not conflicted. I personally spent ~250 CDN on the new DAC because ifis answers in this forum were ambiguous, and provided no solution. In fact there was no answer at all. Again I believe this is ifis intent - SPEND MORE MONEY, because all the evidence points to that.

If that isn't to your liking, or makes you all "look bad" - that's on you, not us. You need to meet your commitments and get transparent. (In some circles, not meeting commitments and not being transparent is known as "being deceptive." - note in EVERY circle.)

a) A commitment was made for answers. On multiple issues. In any other interaction from any other company, when that happens, you are to expected to provide timelines and be able to state to people: "We aren't trying to rip you off. We will provide a firmware update at X date to meet our commitment" OR "We have chosen not to support the development of new firmware." (Using the firmware update as an example.)

b) Whatever ifi writes next CANNOT be "I don't have access to those details." If you don't have answers, admit that you should not have made a commitment, and make compensation available to those impacted. @Milan79 in this case - more than anyone else based on forum interaction. This applies to all issues, drivers, firmware, etc.

5) If this forum isn't the right answer, please direct us to the correct person who will address the commitments. TL;DR - someone who will live up to the commitments.

6) Lastly, don't make us look like the bad guys while under the guise of professionalism. It's passive aggressive, and very evident. I happen to the voice holding ifi accountable for meaningful information against commitments that have been made. Regardless of how inconvenient this is for ifi, I, and anyone like me, are advocating on our behalf as consumers - on behalf of myself mostly because I spent more money due to a complete disregard ifi's commitment to provide a meaningful update. Playing it any other way is another form of "not wanting to answer."

JUST ANSWER. CLEARLY.

 

[123peter]

Is the V2 a worthwhile upgrade if you already have the V1, I use AKG K712, Sennheiser HD800S and Beyer T1.1 all to reasonably good effect with the V1. The other amp/dac i have is the Hugo2 which obviously is a cut above but the V1 is not shamed unless you are going an A/B chasing for the ultimate sound quality

I used 6 months v1 and 6 months v2 - in my opinion these DACs sound the same.
Probably people who have v1 will degrade v2, and conversely that they have sold v1 for a low amount and bought v2 will praise v2.

The main difference between the two models is:
MQA rendering v1 or full decoding in v2.
Do a blind test without looking at the changing colors on the DACs.
Well produced by excellent studios and their producers, the music simply sounds good and MQA has nothing to do with it.

I do not question the hearing and audiophiles who have a very expensive DAC - maybe there is a difference - here we are talking only about IFI ZEN DAC v1 and v2

 

[Sebastien Chiu]

1) This is what I mean. The promise wasn't made to ME. It was made to @Milan79. (https://www.head-fi.org/threads/ifi-zen-dac-discussion-impression.917041/post-16547819) and to the rest of the community. ifi isn't tracking.

2) Why is a DAC v1 serial number required for a general commit made to the community? Its not about a single individual - its about a commitment made GENERALLY that has not been fulfilled. Notably, I upgraded to DACv2 because ifi was not forthcoming with an answer, which goes back months. This is a bureaucratic response designed to offline the issue from the larger forum view.

3) Its plain commitments aren't being tracked, and it simply radiates as "we will say what we need to so people stop asking questions" and "we don't care." AGAIN, I suggest all the forum posts be reviewed for all commitments on all updates, and responses be given. That is usually what is expected when a commitment is made to provide additional information. (NO REALLY, go through them.)

4) Its FINE that ifi is experiencing "issues" - that said, a commitment was made for answers. (Yes, it was.) Understand that as consumers, we want answers that are unambiguous and not conflicted. I personally spent ~250 CDN on the new DAC because ifis answers in this forum were ambiguous, and provided no solution. In fact there was no answer at all. Again I believe this is ifis intent - SPEND MORE MONEY, because all the evidence points to that.

If that isn't to your liking, or makes you all "look bad" - that's on you, not us. You need to meet your commitments and get transparent. (In some circles, not meeting commitments and not being transparent is known as "being deceptive." - note in EVERY circle.)

a) A commitment was made for answers. On multiple issues. In any other interaction from any other company, when that happens, you are to expected to provide timelines and be able to state to people: "We aren't trying to rip you off. We will provide a firmware update at X date to meet our commitment" OR "We have chosen not to support the development of new firmware." (Using the firmware update as an example.)

b) Whatever ifi writes next CANNOT be "I don't have access to those details." If you don't have answers, admit that you should not have made a commitment, and make compensation available to those impacted. @Milan79 in this case - more than anyone else based on forum interaction. This applies to all issues, drivers, firmware, etc.

5) If this forum isn't the right answer, please direct us to the correct person who will address the commitments. TL;DR - someone who will live up to the commitments.

6) Lastly, don't make us look like the bad guys while under the guise of professionalism. It's passive aggressive, and very evident. I happen to the voice holding ifi accountable for meaningful information against commitments that have been made. Regardless of how inconvenient this is for ifi, I, and anyone like me, are advocating on our behalf as consumers - on behalf of myself mostly because I spent more money due to a complete disregard ifi's commitment to provide a meaningful update. Playing it any other way is another form of "not wanting to answer."

JUST ANSWER. CLEARLY.

1) "If we can, we will" still leaves room for the not-so-ideal option that turned out to be true. We did not promise that it would happen no matter what. This statement was made when *everyone* was unsure about the V1s and we would rather communicate that than leave you all hanging with no communication.

2/3) Fixes are not a snap of a finger. There is a lot that goes on behind the scenes that we can not talk about, with ever-changing timelines, and we are simply distributors of the information.

4) Things are ever-changing here, and as result, it is impossible for us to provide a direct date for things. We do not set dates for these kinds of things as a result as testing and R&D are the folks who are responsible for these kinds of questions. When they are finished, we provide updates to them.

5) What @iFi audio was referencing was in terms of tech support. We provide as much tech support as we can, but any tech support should be also directed to our official platform.

a) Clarified in 2/3

b) Again, we did not make a commitment. We tried, and there was no solution to it via firmware because of the hardware limitations on the V1. There is a difference between "if we can, we will" and "we will" - this means exactly as such.

@Milan79 is more than welcome to PM @iFi audio as the offer stands for him.

6) We did nothing to make you look the bad guys here, so I'm not sure where you get that. We are communicating the info we had, the info we have, and what we are happy to do to for @Milan79 if they would like to take us upon it.

I am sorry you feel this way about things and would be happy to answer any more questions you may have.

 

[Effigy]

1) "If we can, we will" still leaves room for the not-so-ideal option that turned out to be true. We did not promise that it would happen no matter what. This statement was made when *everyone* was unsure about the V1s and we would rather communicate that than leave you all hanging with no communication.

2/3) Fixes are not a snap of a finger. There is a lot that goes on behind the scenes that we can not talk about, with ever-changing timelines, and we are simply distributors of the information.

4) Things are ever-changing here, and as result, it is impossible for us to provide a direct date for things. We do not set dates for these kinds of things as a result as testing and R&D are the folks who are responsible for these kinds of questions. When they are finished, we provide updates to them.

5) What @iFi audio was referencing was in terms of tech support. We provide as much tech support as we can, but any tech support should be also directed to our official platform.

a) Clarified in 2/3

b) Again, we did not make a commitment. We tried, and there was no solution to it via firmware because of the hardware limitations on the V1. There is a difference between "if we can, we will" and "we will" - this means exactly as such.

@Milan79 is more than welcome to PM @iFi audio as the offer stands for him.

6) We did nothing to make you look the bad guys here, so I'm not sure where you get that. We are communicating the info we had, the info we have, and what we are happy to do to for @Milan79 if they would like to take us upon it.

I am sorry you feel this way about things and would be happy to answer any more questions you may have.

Had a feeling you would respond that way

1) https://www.head-fi.org/threads/ifi-zen-dac-discussion-impression.917041/post-16322075

- Read it. Go ahead.
- When is SOON? When you make it up?
- A commit was made with no timelines. Hence the point.

2) You act as if we don't understand agility in development. I am a software developer. I get the nature of fluctuating factors contributing to mixed time lines. EVERY organization in the known technology space makes commitments. Microsoft released Windows 11 - its not perfect, but they are typically good about making their commitments and delivering to them. When they don't, they will tell people in advance. If there are issues, they put them on a backlog and commit to fix them.

BTW, this applies to small organizations as well. So, size is not a way of getting off the hook

3) Yes, you did commit. Clarified in point 1.

4) Its not about how I feel, its about the evidence. ifi is neglecting its commitments. FULL STOP. We really don't care how many variables there are in the mix, and MONTHS of waiting patiently is evidence that we are considerate. It is clear that you all are not.

Questions still stand. Try answering and stop deflecting with "its hard." YUP. It is. So what? We have to be considerate to ifi, but you don't have to be considerate to us? We are the ones paying you, and you are the ones making commitments. If you can't control your own development, just say you can't and expect to compensate all impacted.

Before you respond, again, GO BACK AND READ WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN. Don't edit anything, because I did capture it all based on this conversation.