I'am not sure but finally which codec sounds best for the IO-12 (and generally speaking) between both AptX HD and Adaptive ?
I always thought HD wins because do not vary unlike Adaptive (distance, etc) but maybe I'am wrong
New Dali iO-12 ANC Headphones – Impressions Thread
- Thread starter Fabik
- Start date
I always thought HD wins because do not vary unlike Adaptive (distance, etc) but maybe I'am wrong
Hi,
I just ordered the IO-12 (currently using Sennheiser Momentum 3). I mainly use my headphone wireless, but what would the best connection in terms of audio quality? Wired directly into my Denon X3800H? Wired into headphone jack or via USB on my PC?
Thanks.
I just ordered the IO-12 (currently using Sennheiser Momentum 3). I mainly use my headphone wireless, but what would the best connection in terms of audio quality? Wired directly into my Denon X3800H? Wired into headphone jack or via USB on my PC?
Thanks.
Tim van der Leeuw
100+ Head-Fier
I don't yet have the Dali's, I'm still considering if I can spend the money on them or not, but what I can say is that the PC headphone jack will be worst.
The USB of your PC will sound most like the designers wanted the headphones to sound and so you might find that to sound best.
But depending on your taste and ability to apply EQ to the sound from the Denon X3800H (I don't know this equipment), you might like that sound better.
That will be hard to tell for me, and probably for anyone. Finally it will also depend on the source from which you're streaming and if you don't use the USB connection from PC to headphones, then it will also depend on the quality of your DAC!
Play around and find out!
You can find many answers to this in this thread, but also in the IO-12 manual.
IMHO:
- Passive wired mode has the least artifacts, but you might find it boring and flat compared to the active modes (and other headphones).
I think it's safe to say this is only a backup mode for the Dali, when you run out of battery. At least it still makes sound, and the SQ difference is less than with other headphones.
- Among the active modes, there seems to be subjective consensus, backed up by measurements, that the Hifi + ANC Off mode sounds the best. YMMV.
- Among the sources for the active modes, Dali has good guidance: the USB wired mode is the simplest (no ADC from 3.5 analog, no complex processing from Bluetooth). Now depending on the quality of the USB interface you are feeding it from, the SQ can vary.
- Between the usual USB source (phone, laptop) and Bluetooth, I find the difference is marginal, so the BT processing is good.
In airplanes, or long commutes, or while sitting in one place, it makes sense to use it e.g. via phone or DAP USB.
Personally, I intend to use the IO-12 mostly as wireless.
Last edited:
About run-in (I dislike the term burn-in), this is how I have done it:
- During the nights, run them in passive (powered off) wired mode from a good/powerful headamp, first days at medium volume, later days loud, but not at max level before distorting. I won't go into details like what music is best for run-in....
- During the days, when not listening, left them playing in Bass mode with ANC On. Probably wise to alternate USB and analog inputs.
- When listening, I used Hifi mode via Bluetooth, both with ANC On, and Off. At least for run-in, it's good to run the electronics all the time.
The other day I thought they already stabilized (was it after 5-6 days), and was keen to measure them, but today I feel they are still improving, especially in the areas I criticized (boom in ANC mode, and for all modes, midrange prominence pushing the sound towards a slight honky tendency with recordings that are susceptible for this).
So the generic min. 200 hours run-in advice seems to apply. Maybe more.
With my wooden-cup closed headphones ~2 years was the time needed to settle completely. This was a consistent pattern with all of them. It is likely also climate-dependent. My e-stats settled in about 6 months.
Cryogenic treatment accelerates material settling and might achieve the same and better effect.
IMHO it's worth doing it if you have it available as a professional service in your area. The temperatures and cycles are specific to equipment, so don't put the devices in the deep freezer, it's by far not enough.
- During the nights, run them in passive (powered off) wired mode from a good/powerful headamp, first days at medium volume, later days loud, but not at max level before distorting. I won't go into details like what music is best for run-in...
.- During the days, when not listening, left them playing in Bass mode with ANC On. Probably wise to alternate USB and analog inputs.
- When listening, I used Hifi mode via Bluetooth, both with ANC On, and Off. At least for run-in, it's good to run the electronics all the time.
The other day I thought they already stabilized (was it after 5-6 days), and was keen to measure them, but today I feel they are still improving, especially in the areas I criticized (boom in ANC mode, and for all modes, midrange prominence pushing the sound towards a slight honky tendency with recordings that are susceptible for this).
So the generic min. 200 hours run-in advice seems to apply. Maybe more.
With my wooden-cup closed headphones ~2 years was the time needed to settle completely. This was a consistent pattern with all of them. It is likely also climate-dependent. My e-stats settled in about 6 months.
Cryogenic treatment accelerates material settling and might achieve the same and better effect.
IMHO it's worth doing it if you have it available as a professional service in your area. The temperatures and cycles are specific to equipment, so don't put the devices in the deep freezer, it's by far not enough
.
hutzelmeier
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- May 30, 2015
- Posts
- 47
- Likes
- 50
Did you make measurements before vs after run-in, on this or another headphone? Or are effects of run-in barely measurable? Well I guess if I’d search I’d find a lot of discussion about run-in on head-fi.
Of course you would find. I just shared my way of doing it. Whether it's worth it, is to be seen. Now that I have the measurements of a 5-6 day old headphone, I will repeat them after a year or so, to see if there is any consistent improvements, or is it within the measurement jitter. It'd say it's inconclusive whether they show up on usual measurements (which are a sum of many factors). With my other headphones I don't think there is a difference for run-in, but there are a lot of measurable differences between ear pads, dampening etc.
I can hear (or so it seems) some small improvements day by day, usually judged in the mornings, when my senses are reset from the previous accumulated auditive biases after the night's calm. It might also be brain burn-in, which it (partially) probably is.
angelom
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2015
- Posts
- 2,023
- Likes
- 2,302
The power of suggestion is very strong and more real than majority of people thinking. Expectation bias is equally strong.
Like I saying about 3 weeks ago, I personally don't believe in burn-in/break-in. And this is coming from more than 20 years of using headphones and earphones.
You have many variables, in my view, that making people believing burn-in is real --- what is always extremely interesting, for me, is that burn-in is always making a headphone better, never more bad (more big soundstage, bass isn't so boomy, treble isn't so harsh, etc., etc., etc.)
The truth is that our brain is very quickly adapting even to very bad sounding headphones, and is compensating for things that aren't so good sounding. And, for example, even if the time of day is making a (big) difference in how we perceiving sound, we don't always have the same mood/hunger for listening to (some types of ) music. And even here, we sometimes are more hungry for music and we listening at different volume levels. And even the quality of our attention isn't always the same for discerning real sonic differences, just like our attention isn't the same when watching or reading something, even if this something is apparently very interesting for us.
In my experience, even some of my favourite headphones or earphones (HD800, HD600, Solitaire T, iO-12, UERM) sounding fantastic sometimes and really not so good sometimes (you don't always enjoy eating caviar, lobster, don't matter how expensive and excellent this foods are).
Then you have, too, with some headphones, unit variation, new vs more old pads, different position of the headphones in your head (or insertion of earphones), amount of ear wax in your ears... Many variables, some I don't mention here yet, happening in our perception of sound. And, probably the more important variable is, like I saying already, that our auditory memory isn't very good at all, even in short periods of time (!).
Like I saying about 3 weeks ago, I personally don't believe in burn-in/break-in. And this is coming from more than 20 years of using headphones and earphones.
You have many variables, in my view, that making people believing burn-in is real --- what is always extremely interesting, for me, is that burn-in is always making a headphone better, never more bad (more big soundstage, bass isn't so boomy, treble isn't so harsh, etc., etc., etc.)
The truth is that our brain is very quickly adapting even to very bad sounding headphones, and is compensating for things that aren't so good sounding. And, for example, even if the time of day is making a (big) difference in how we perceiving sound, we don't always have the same mood/hunger for listening to (some types of ) music. And even here, we sometimes are more hungry for music and we listening at different volume levels. And even the quality of our attention isn't always the same for discerning real sonic differences, just like our attention isn't the same when watching or reading something, even if this something is apparently very interesting for us.
In my experience, even some of my favourite headphones or earphones (HD800, HD600, Solitaire T, iO-12, UERM) sounding fantastic sometimes and really not so good sometimes (you don't always enjoy eating caviar, lobster, don't matter how expensive and excellent this foods are).
Then you have, too, with some headphones, unit variation, new vs more old pads, different position of the headphones in your head (or insertion of earphones), amount of ear wax in your ears... Many variables, some I don't mention here yet, happening in our perception of sound. And, probably the more important variable is, like I saying already, that our auditory memory isn't very good at all, even in short periods of time (!).
Last edited:
hutzelmeier
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- May 30, 2015
- Posts
- 47
- Likes
- 50
Interesting, thanks for your thoughts (both zolkis and angelom). I've often wondered why manufacturers engineer headphones so that they deliver the optimum sound after 40 hours, 200 hours, or two years (or whatever) of running-in. Wouldn't it be better for sales figures if the optimum sound could already be heard in the shop? The easiest explanation is of course that running-in is for our brains, not for the headphones. Nonetheless, I’m almost convinced that my IO-12 now sound much better than when I bought them!
I second that. I usually make the same experience when playing violin with a mute that makes the sound softer and quieter. After removing the mute and going back to normal unmuted sound, the violin will sound shrill and aggressive. But this changes quickly, and virtually within minutes, the violin will sound normal again. Of course everything is only in my brain.
Both sides are real, IMHO: material changes and brain burn-in. The extent of each, and their possible effects depends on a few hidden parameters, including the material types in question and their combinations, climate/humidity, electronic environment, etc, and for the brain, background noise levels, musical genre, music listening culture, preferences, stress, etc.
I will only comment on the materials run-in. It's mostly in the context of annealing and cryogenics. The observation is on macro level, but it's composed of a lot of small changes (visible on microscope) that would be hard to quantify in correlation with the overall (audible) effect. Yes, it's interesting that it usually changes things in good direction. Materials/molecules change/rearrange in a very small way, without really affecting much the macro parameters such as resistance or capacitance etc. But they might affect the uniformity of the electromagnetic field, for instance.
If one cannot hear it, they are actually right to say the effect doesn't exist as far as they are concerned (and others likely fool themselves).
But the ones who hear it (or have the focus and auditive "training" to listen to it) say it actually matters in a small, but sometimes possibly significant way.
There have been claims from some companies for methods to measure small nonlinear distortions that would also be able to prove the extent of material run-in, but until such a measurement device is attested, this remains mumbo-jumbo.
As to why manufacturers don't run in stuff - well, some of them do. Then, some manufacturers even include cryogenic treatments.
The cost is high, though, and the pressure for time to market and for low prices diminish the returns, so it doesn't really pay off in a financial way. But some do it for the love of creating and releasing the best possible products from their hands. For instance, speaker and headphone drivers, electronics, cables, passive components, all wooden parts etc. will likely benefit from cryogenic treatments, and it's best if these are applied during prototyping and production as well, so that the overall system design takes into account these effects, too. But it's more expensive.
How much is it needed also depends on the details of the manufacturing processes and production/deployment environments. For instance, soft/slow pulled copper might not benefit as much from cryogenic treatment than fast processed materials. Some companies pay attention to the manufacturing processes of all parts they are using, including cables, passive parts, active parts, chips, and even the recording side. Material science has been playing increasingly big role in high end audio. It has been the craft of small boutique companies, e.g. of the Japanese tradition, but also EU and US companies. I think Dali could also be considered pretty deep on considering viewpoints from that side.
But I don't think much of that can be applied in low cost (in terms of competing with low cost) audio products, the IO-12 included.
TheOneInYellow
1000+ Head-Fier
I believe some companies either do burn in on their end, so owners get exactly what the manufacturer designed as intended, or outright state that their products require no burn-in.
Schiit Audio is the former; see here.
PS Audio is strongly latter; see here, here, and here (there's more by Paul McGowan on this subject
).I am not 100% sure if burn-in on every equipment is necessary, but I do understand on mechanical moving parts that there may be some logic.
However, if that is the case I rather a company incorporate that into their manufacturing and QC before the product is ready be sold.
angelom
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2015
- Posts
- 2,023
- Likes
- 2,302
Maybe of interest for some people: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/t-a-solitaire-t-wireless-headphone.964925/page-115#post-17951840
musingclouds
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- May 27, 2011
- Posts
- 228
- Likes
- 173
I didn’t really enjoy the Solitaire Ts from a pure vibe perspective; the vegan leather also was meh for my ear comfort. Felt really small in general
I managed to compare the IO-12 with the IO-6 at my kind Dali dealer.
Disclaimer: I didn't have much time, so these are superficial first impressions. And they are good.
IMHO the IO-6 sounds extraordinary for the price, especially with ANC off. The bass is full and deep, a bit elevated as well, but it was pleasant.
I like the tonality better than that of the IO-12. There is no hint of honkiness or shoutiness like with the IO-12.
The sound stage is smaller than with the IO-12, but holds its own. I was surprised.
They are more portable as well. Build quality is somewhat less than with the IO-12, but very good for the price.
IMHO the IO-6 is one of the best wireless headphones out there, and the one with least amount of issues so far.
I prefer it much more than the competition up to 1K eur and beyond (I'd not hesitate to choose the IO-6 over the T+A ST).
Is it better than the IO-12? No. Driver to driver, the IO-12 is much better. Also the IO-12 sound stage is much bigger. So there is something in the SMC driver claims, but relative to other Dali drivers, not to wired headphones with comparable biocellulose drivers.
Now to the main thing I wanted to know. Good news:
- The IO-6 pads fit the IO-12.
- The IO-12 IMHO sounds more pleasant with the IO-6 pads, fixing its (as perceived by me) slight tonality problems, while retaining a huge sound stage.
It was a smiling listening experience. Unfortunately there were no spare pads, I had to order.
So even though I could not spend properly enough time with testing the IO-6, but I got my answers relative to the IO-12, and more.
Since a Denon D5200 was also there (and a Hifiman closed back), I compared them (wired) with with the IO-6 (Bluetooth, ANC off).
I'd say they are on similar levels, and it's mainly the listeners' preference that will decide. The IO-6 is wireless and has ANC for the same money.
The IO-6 sounded better to my ears than the similarly priced Hifiman closed back, but that was a very quick evaluation. Not conclusive.
I checked longer the D5200, which IMHO sounded more organic than the IO-6: more analog, round, more pleasant, less technical in comparison. It's a similar tonality as that of the IO-6 without ANC. For the same money I'd choose the IO-6, though. YMMV.
I will make a separate post (and comparative measurements) on how the IO-12 sounds with the IO-6 pads. A few days will be needed.
Already at this point I am sure the IO-12 is the very best wireless headphone for me, now that I heard all the competition, and the IO-12 with the IO-6 pads, but I will need more time with both to say anything more grounded and conclusive. I am entertaining the idea of getting extra pads for the IO-12 and experiment with optimizing them - but they are not available yet, and cost a lot (99 eur the pair).
Disclaimer: I didn't have much time, so these are superficial first impressions. And they are good.
IMHO the IO-6 sounds extraordinary for the price, especially with ANC off. The bass is full and deep, a bit elevated as well, but it was pleasant.
I like the tonality better than that of the IO-12. There is no hint of honkiness or shoutiness like with the IO-12.
The sound stage is smaller than with the IO-12, but holds its own. I was surprised.
They are more portable as well. Build quality is somewhat less than with the IO-12, but very good for the price.
IMHO the IO-6 is one of the best wireless headphones out there, and the one with least amount of issues so far.
I prefer it much more than the competition up to 1K eur and beyond (I'd not hesitate to choose the IO-6 over the T+A ST).
Is it better than the IO-12? No. Driver to driver, the IO-12 is much better. Also the IO-12 sound stage is much bigger. So there is something in the SMC driver claims, but relative to other Dali drivers, not to wired headphones with comparable biocellulose drivers.
Now to the main thing I wanted to know. Good news:
- The IO-6 pads fit the IO-12.
- The IO-12 IMHO sounds more pleasant with the IO-6 pads, fixing its (as perceived by me) slight tonality problems, while retaining a huge sound stage.
It was a smiling listening experience. Unfortunately there were no spare pads, I had to order.
So even though I could not spend properly enough time with testing the IO-6, but I got my answers relative to the IO-12, and more.
Since a Denon D5200 was also there (and a Hifiman closed back), I compared them (wired) with with the IO-6 (Bluetooth, ANC off).
I'd say they are on similar levels, and it's mainly the listeners' preference that will decide. The IO-6 is wireless and has ANC for the same money.
The IO-6 sounded better to my ears than the similarly priced Hifiman closed back, but that was a very quick evaluation. Not conclusive.
I checked longer the D5200, which IMHO sounded more organic than the IO-6: more analog, round, more pleasant, less technical in comparison. It's a similar tonality as that of the IO-6 without ANC. For the same money I'd choose the IO-6, though. YMMV.
I will make a separate post (and comparative measurements) on how the IO-12 sounds with the IO-6 pads. A few days will be needed.
Already at this point I am sure the IO-12 is the very best wireless headphone for me, now that I heard all the competition, and the IO-12 with the IO-6 pads, but I will need more time with both to say anything more grounded and conclusive. I am entertaining the idea of getting extra pads for the IO-12 and experiment with optimizing them - but they are not available yet, and cost a lot (99 eur the pair).
Just got the Dali IO-12. It pretty much destroys my Sennheiser Momentum 3 as expected. Tested in BT mode, Hifi-Mode, ANC off and I compared them with Dolby Atmos for Headphones App on Windows with Demo-Videos (The Hunter Call of the Wild, Leaf and Amaze). M3 sound more muddy with a narrower soundstage. Much better detail retrieval with the Dali and I find the bass is spot on in Hifi-Mode. Well 999€, but I can't send them back. Worth every penny and matches my home theater so much closer now.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
