[johnston21]

I’m using BeyerDynamic Xelentos/Comply with a balanced PlusSound Poetic cable, about 6 hours so far. Also briefly tried my Shure 846s/Comply with TRRS PlusSound Poetic and Westone v1 BT cables. Disclaimer: my hearing is poor.
Hopefully only because I have few hours played, I’m finding fatigue where the (4 Yr old) ZX2 did not. Never spent more than 10 hours on my ZX300 so can’t comment.
It sounds fantastic (to me), just tiring (at the moment).

 

[Sonywalkmanuser]

Found a video that explains DC Phase Linearizer. Please enable English subtitles for the video:

 

[Sonywalkmanuser]

Hmm this is something strange with DSEEHX AI

I was playing a typical jazzy unplugged female vocalist song on my walkman app...(it sounded non-bassy with dsee hx)

Which half way I switched over to YouTube app and tried out a headphone bass test video for a while...(was trying to experiment with Type A or Type B for DC Phase Linearizer) the video is Ultra Deep Bass Test

After which I return back to my walkman app and play the same jazz song... Somehow the whole song got more bassy tonality! Then when I go over to sound adjustment and turn off DSEE, the song went back to it's non-bassy original tone. Then I turn DSEE back on and the song remains non bassy.

Those with Zx507 should try and see if this happens to your device.

 

[Earbones]

Got the NW-ZX507 today... Here's my quick comparison with the PHA-2A.

I used the IER-M9, balanced, with the NW-ZX507 set per Sonywalkmanuser's excellent suggestion: DSEE HX ON, DC Linearizer Type B Low. I had planned to also test with the Focal Elegia and Clear, but based on the power requirements, I don't think it would be a fair fight. The PHA-2A has a LOT more power on tap, but this was no surprise, ha ha. Thought I'd mention it anyway.

Anyway...

Highs- while neither device is what I would call bright, the PHA-2A definitely is brighter in this register. Higher notes on the piano hit with more attack, while the NW-ZX507 eases into them a bit more. Both devices have sweet, rounded, extended highs, but the NW-ZX507 is slightly more rounded off compared to the PHA-2A, which gets a little more air into them.

Upper Mids- The NW-ZX507 is not quite the detail monster here that the PHA-2A is. Separation is better on the PHA-2A. Attack is also somewhat brighter. By comparison, the NW-ZX507 has an overall smoother delivery here.

Mids- Again, the PHA-2A throws details around here that the NW-ZX507, while not exactly missing, doesn't put as forward in the mix. Again, the NW-ZX507 is smoother. I don't want to give the impression that the NW-ZX507 isn't a detailed device; it certainly is, very much so. It's just that detail is not the trick it is on the PHA-2A.

Lower Mids- This is the first of two larger differences between the two players. Lower mids are much more forward on the NW-ZX507 than the PHA-2A. This, in my estimation, is the reason why the two players sound as different as they do. The extra oomph in the lower mids costs the NW-ZX507 some of the details that the PHA-2A underlines, but it makes for an overall meatier and thicker sound signature.

Bass- both devices have excellent bass. Slam and speed is roughly the same. If I had to give the nod to one, I'd say the PHA-2A. It offers a hair more timbre and detail. It's very close though.

Sub Bass- the NW-ZX507 has slightly elevated sub bass, and it costs it a little detail compared to the PHA-2A, which is again perfectly poised and detail-driven here. So jazz might be a better option on the PHA-2A, but EDM and pop are funner on the NW-ZX507.

Soundstage- This is the second of the larger differences between the devices, and perhaps the clearest victory in a category, even if it's not exactly a fair comparison. The PHA-2A wins here hands down. This is not a surprise. In my experience, the most immediately noticeable advantage of having more overhead power on hand is the increase in soundstage.

Wrap Up- I can't pick a winner here. Despite their differences, the two devices are more alike than different. Like slightly different takes on a theme. The PHA-2A is fabulously clear and detailed and huge, the NW-ZX507 is wonderfully thick and sweet (and detailed in it's own right)... and both have wonderful bass. For full-size headphones, it's not going to be a contest... The PHA-2A obviously has a lot more power on tap. But with IEMs, it's whatever you like best. Personally, I'll take both.

Caveat- these are my day 1 impressions. I know many people, with fantastic ears and a great wealth of knowledge, put a lot of stock in burn-in... but I'm not one of them. Different strokes, and all that. Personally I've always found that it's my ears being trained, not the device or headphone/IEM physically changing... Mostly because I've noticed that if I experience what I think is burn-in on a device, and then listen to something else for a month or so, when I circle back to the previous device, it will have returned to it's "pre-burn in state", lol. That all said, many people whose opinions I value highly take burn-in very seriously. So. Take that as you will. If you are a burn-in believer, then be aware that these are my impressions with around an hour on the NW-ZX507, and countless on the PHA-2A.

 

[Sonywalkmanuser]

You have to burn in. My 200hour+ ZX507 sounds completely(in audiophile terms) different. It has pitch black soundstage(this only happens after burn in) with on the tap dynamics... vocals are holographic with IER M9 balanced. There’s so much instrument layering and vocal isolation. Silky smooth treble without harshness.

Fresh unbox sound:
harshness with loud music, can be quite sibilant
Lack of punch in mid bass
Sub bass feels “uncontrolled”(too boomy or all over the place)
Soundstage slightly greyish
Vocals feels recessed/lack of engagement
Micro details are not as present

 

[purk]

Around 70 hours here. Slow and go. It has been nice sounding so far. My 1A and ZX300 await the the ZX507 at 250 hours mark or so.

 

[Damz87]

Got the NW-ZX507 today... Here's my quick comparison with the PHA-2A.

Thank you for this excellent comparison! Sounds similar to when I first bought my 1Z and compared it with PHA-2A. Except I found the soundstage and mids to be better on 1Z than on the PHA-2A. Sub bass I also found to be elevated and less detailed on 1Z compared to PHA-2A but that seems to have changed over time, and now sounds more detailed.

Based on your comparison, I think I'll be very happy with the ZX507. All I want is a small portable device that streams Tidal, a balanced port, LDAC, and (most of) the sound qualities of my current gear.

 

[Sonywalkmanuser]

On top of burn in,

In my experience with solid state audio, they require warm up time(15mins to a few hours) to sound good especially if you have turn off the device completely. This is very evident with R2R dacs, desktop amps and car audio.

I read that it's because solid state audio (capacitors and quartz Crystal clocks) needs to reach a level of thermal equilibrium to sound good.

Sony walkman(from standby mode) don't seem to require much warm up time at all to sound good as long as you never shutdown the device completely.

My ZX2 has always been left in standby mode for 4years since day 1.

 

[Whitigir]

On top of burn in,

In my experience with solid state audio, they require warm up time(15mins to a few hours) to sound good especially if you have turn off the device completely. This is very evident with R2R dacs, desktop amps and car audio.

I read that it's because solid state audio (capacitors and quartz Crystal clocks) needs to reach a level of thermal equilibrium to sound good.

Sony walkman(from standby mode) don't seem to require much warm up time at all to sound good as long as you never shutdown the device completely.

My ZX2 has always been left in standby mode for 4years since day 1.

Ambient temperatures would affect the surrounding components. The Solid states and other devices as you mentioned are usually warmed up when operating. Every components have a temperature coefficients rating. They usually perform worse upon warming up and a lot worse Upon being heated up.

the reason why usually these other devices sound better is due to the thermal coefficient of each individual components that are coming together as the whole internal being warmed up. Mainly is the clock oscillators, and that is the reason why people rather go with expensive Oven Controlled clocks.

For all that said, Most Modern electrical components perform it best at room temperatures.....aka no warming up at all. Sony devices are engineered under this impressions. Each devices are engineered to generate very minimal heat signatures and if there is any, the spacing from each components layered out would be larger and the copper tracing on the Board would also be larger to act as cooling mechanism. All of that is to assure that each of these components are operating in it prime ranges, and also retain the longest longevity including the battery packs.

the latest engineering marvel that come from Sony is the DMP Z1. This player gets next to 0 thermal signage. It doesn’t warmup at all when playing DSD256 natively for 8+ hours. Other devices on the market that utilizes Off the shelves IC chips like AK4497EQ and IC amps would be very warmed to the touch.

My Dx200 needed a battery upgrade over 18 months old (it wasn’t hard), while my ZX2 is still playing FLAC on a 12 hours juice despite the fact that it is around 5 years old.

The DMP Z1 is a challenge, a Dare toward other companies. It is like Sony is saying, are you this dedicated ? Do you know how to properly engineer a device with money being a No objective matter ? We present to you the DMP Z1. If you know your stuff, whatever you look at, the DMP Z1 leaves 0 stones unturned, just for the music itself

 

[Partlys4int]

Got the NW-ZX507 today... Here's my quick comparison with the PHA-2A.

I used the IER-M9, balanced, with the NW-ZX507 set per Sonywalkmanuser's excellent suggestion: DSEE HX ON, DC Linearizer Type B Low. I had planned to also test with the Focal Elegia and Clear, but based on the power requirements, I don't think it would be a fair fight. The PHA-2A has a LOT more power on tap, but this was no surprise, ha ha. Thought I'd mention it anyway.

Anyway...

Highs- while neither device is what I would call bright, the PHA-2A definitely is brighter in this register. Higher notes on the piano hit with more attack, while the NW-ZX507 eases into them a bit more. Both devices have sweet, rounded, extended highs, but the NW-ZX507 is slightly more rounded off compared to the PHA-2A, which gets a little more air into them.

Upper Mids- The NW-ZX507 is not quite the detail monster here that the PHA-2A is. Separation is better on the PHA-2A. Attack is also somewhat brighter. By comparison, the NW-ZX507 has an overall smoother delivery here.

Mids- Again, the PHA-2A throws details around here that the NW-ZX507, while not exactly missing, doesn't put as forward in the mix. Again, the NW-ZX507 is smoother. I don't want to give the impression that the NW-ZX507 isn't a detailed device; it certainly is, very much so. It's just that detail is not the trick it is on the PHA-2A.

Lower Mids- This is the first of two larger differences between the two players. Lower mids are much more forward on the NW-ZX507 than the PHA-2A. This, in my estimation, is the reason why the two players sound as different as they do. The extra oomph in the lower mids costs the NW-ZX507 some of the details that the PHA-2A underlines, but it makes for an overall meatier and thicker sound signature.

Bass- both devices have excellent bass. Slam and speed is roughly the same. If I had to give the nod to one, I'd say the PHA-2A. It offers a hair more timbre and detail. It's very close though.

Sub Bass- the NW-ZX507 has slightly elevated sub bass, and it costs it a little detail compared to the PHA-2A, which is again perfectly poised and detail-driven here. So jazz might be a better option on the PHA-2A, but EDM and pop are funner on the NW-ZX507.

Soundstage- This is the second of the larger differences between the devices, and perhaps the clearest victory in a category, even if it's not exactly a fair comparison. The PHA-2A wins here hands down. This is not a surprise. In my experience, the most immediately noticeable advantage of having more overhead power on hand is the increase in soundstage.

Wrap Up- I can't pick a winner here. Despite their differences, the two devices are more alike than different. Like slightly different takes on a theme. The PHA-2A is fabulously clear and detailed and huge, the NW-ZX507 is wonderfully thick and sweet (and detailed in it's own right)... and both have wonderful bass. For full-size headphones, it's not going to be a contest... The PHA-2A obviously has a lot more power on tap. But with IEMs, it's whatever you like best. Personally, I'll take both.

Caveat- these are my day 1 impressions. I know many people, with fantastic ears and a great wealth of knowledge, put a lot of stock in burn-in... but I'm not one of them. Different strokes, and all that. Personally I've always found that it's my ears being trained, not the device or headphone/IEM physically changing... Mostly because I've noticed that if I experience what I think is burn-in on a device, and then listen to something else for a month or so, when I circle back to the previous device, it will have returned to it's "pre-burn in state", lol. That all said, many people whose opinions I value highly take burn-in very seriously. So. Take that as you will. If you are a burn-in believer, then be aware that these are my impressions with around an hour on the NW-ZX507, and countless on the PHA-2A.

It's not a case of believing or not. Sony explicitly tells you in the 'guide to high quality sound' that each port needs about 200hrs of turn-in.

Assuming it will be very similar to the ZX300- which I have- every port will sound at its best after about 300hrs even...

To do a review of this device with only 1 hr is very skewed, as the sound will change dramatically.

Edit: it's the same mistake Whathifi made, when they reviewed the ZX300 with 4 star-rating, but in the review they say "having afforded a day of run-in". Makes me wonder that would've been 5 stars if they burned-out at least 200hrs...

 

[Earbones]

It's not a case of believing or not. Sony explicitly tells you in the 'guide to high quality sound' that each port needs about 200hrs of turn-in.

Assuming it will be very similar to the ZX300- which I have- every port will sound at its best after about 300hrs even...

To do a review of this device with only 1 hr is very skewed, as the sound will change dramatically.

Edit: it's the same mistake Whathifi made, when they reviewed the ZX300 with 4 star-rating, but in the review they say "having afforded a day of run-in". Makes me wonder that would've been 5 stars if they burned-out at least 200hrs...

Look, this is perhaps the most polarizing debate in the audiophile community besides expensive cables. I’m not trying to have it with you.

But if I was, I could point to a wealth of data that dismissed burn-in, and if that wasn’t enough, encourage you to have a conversation with an electrical engineer... while you’d have a sentence printed in a booklet. Well, no, you’d probably hit back with Doug Schroeder or Paul McGowan, and then I’d counter with the fact that my friend who is an engineer at Space X (formerly of JPL and NASA) states that the only scientific reason for burn-in is as an early detection test for potential micro-circuit failures, and then you’d point to PS Audio pre-burning higher end components, and why would they waste the time and money if burn-in is not a thing, whereupon I’d bring up the fact that it’s basically impossible to find discussion of burn-in in the 50’s-60’s-70’s, ostensibly when it should have been even more important, and only seemed to have become a thing in the 80’s when home audiophilia really took off, and round and round we go, and guess what- we’d both have great points and become even more convinced of our respective opinions.

OR... we could not.

Look, you can believe in burn-in, and I can still respect and value your opinion; but I’ll ask for the same courtesy in return. Dismissing someone’s entire write up based on something as infamously contentious as burn-in isn’t cool. Let’s be cool. Cool?

 

[Partlys4int]

Look, this is perhaps the most polarizing debate in the audiophile community besides expensive cables. I’m not trying to have it with you.

But if I was, I could point to a wealth of data that dismissed burn-in, and if that wasn’t enough, encourage you to have a conversation with an electrical engineer... while you’d have a sentence printed in a booklet. Well, no, you’d probably hit back with Doug Schroeder or Paul McGowan, and then I’d counter with the fact that my friend who is an engineer at Space X (formerly of JPL and NASA) states that the only scientific reason for burn-in is as an early detection test for potential micro-circuit failures, and then you’d point to PS Audio pre-burning higher end components, and why would they waste the time and money if burn-in is not a thing, whereupon I’d bring up the fact that it’s basically impossible to find discussion of burn-in in the 50’s-60’s-70’s, ostensibly when it should have been even more important, and only seemed to have become a thing in the 80’s when home audiophilia really took off, and round and round we go, and guess what- we’d both have great points and become even more convinced of our respective opinions.

OR... we could not.

Look, you can believe in burn-in, and I can still respect and value your opinion; but I’ll ask for the same courtesy in return. Dismissing someone’s entire write up based on something as infamously contentious as burn-in isn’t cool. Let’s be cool. Cool?

No, it's simply not up for debate with these Sony players. Even if you will not attest to the difference in sound, you will find that battery life (especially on balanced) is a lot longer after the device is completely burned-in. That is due to the materials having changed in properties, e.i. burned-in.
Argue all you want, I'm not looking to convince you. After a while with this player you'll convince yourself .

Edit: if somewhere I sounded rude, it wasn't my intention.

 

[Sonywalkmanuser]

Please re-evaluate the player after 200hour burn in.

With DSEE HX + DC Linear Type B on balanced IER M9

I am able to hear every tiny micro nuance in the music. I'm talking about the micro vibration of the Larynx inside the vocal chords of the singer when he is straining to hit high notes at the chorus of the live perfornance.

This is Sony exclusive sound. You won't be able to hear this kind of detail on Fiio, A&K or Ibasso

 

[Earbones]

No, it's simply not up for debate with these Sony players. Even if you will not attest to the difference in sound, you will find that battery life (especially on balanced) is a lot longer after the device is completely burned-in. That is due to the materials having changed in properties, e.i. burned-in.
Argue all you want, I'm not looking to convince you. After a while with this player you'll convince yourself .

Edit: if somewhere I sounded rude, it wasn't my intention.

It is certainly up for debate. But again, I’ll respectfully suggest that we don’t.

Not taking your points as rude, merely passionate about your opinion... I just think that out of respect for the thread, we shouldn’t engage in what is sure to be a lengthy off-topic debate... I mean, I’ve never seen a brief burn-in or upgrade cable debate, have you, lol?

Perhaps it’s my fault for mentioning my thoughts on burn-in in the first place, but I merely sought to be transparent in my comparison write-up. That way readers who don’t believe in burn-in can take it at face value, while burn-in believers can take it with a grain of salt. If you re-read it, I think you’ll also see I took pains to point out that while I am firmly on one side of the debate, I respect those on the other side, and value their opinions.

 

[purk]

I think Sony engineers do know better than anyone. They are the folks who came up with this type of capacitor. In fact, they only recommend 100 hours of burn in time on the ZX1 or ZX2 then increase it to 200 hour on the successor models. Before the ZX1/2, there was no mention of the burn in requirement on their DAP. I hate burn in period!