Now that I've owned the X9000 for a month and a half, it's fun to look back on this thread and compare my current impressions with those of others over the years and my own previous impressions. And I've played around with EQ, though I'm not sure if I've found a perfect setting yet.
A recurring theme of impressions is that the X9000 is very sensitive, both to the mastering of the track and to the equipment it's on. On the music, it's so detailed that it changes character substantially based on what's playing, particularly in terms of the forwardness of vocals and lead instruments vs background sounds. I think one can look at this in two ways: either it's
revealing or it's just inconsistent.
On chain differences, I can only speak to the chains that I've heard. I find that the X9000 doesn't pair well with my Ferrum Erco. The Erco has a punchy and dynamic sound, but it also brings elements closer in. With the Shangri-la Jr, that was a desirable trait as it compensated for the Jr's recessed midrange, but on the X9000 it combined with the forward vocals to flatten out the spatial image. I've read descriptions of the X9000 having "2D" imaging like sounds are in a line from ear to ear, and I get more of that on the Erco + 006t chain than my K9 Pro + 353x chain. It's like vocals are imaged too wide on the Erco and that vocal width collapses the soundstage forward and the depth is lost. On the K9 Pro, which is by most accounts a "weaker" DAC, I get more sense of a 3D image with proper depth.
I'm curious on the Erco Gen 2 upgrade, as the switch to an advanced apodizing reconstruction filter is supposed to improve the spatial separation and imaging. I hope to get the upgrade moving as soon as Ferrum's US distributor gets back to me. That brings me to my first impressions on the holographic spatial presentation of the X9000; I had done my long demo on a Chord DAC, and I hear that Chord is known for their holographic rendering of sounds. Perhaps my first impression was partially formed by the Hugo TT2's spatial rendering coming through on the X9000.
I'm curious on getting the LTA Z10e for the X9000. I heard it and the upcoming LTA Aero tube DAC at the recent DC meet and I liked what I heard, though of course meet demoes in an unexpectedly small room aren't the best. There was more bass presence on the Z10e compared to my CCS-modded 006t. I've read some people not liking the Z10e, but I didn't find any problem with it. And LTA is based half an hour away from me, so demoing is easy and I might as well support a local business.
-------------------
On EQ, I tried all of the settings that I could find in this thread. I found one preset for a tilted diffuse field tuning done on a 5128, and that preset is bright as heck! I don't find the X9000 to be bright, but this EQ setting will make it bright and sparkly. I don't know if it's actually better though; it feels like turning up the saturation slider on an image; every color pops, but I don't actually get any more detail from it. And it's tonally a tad too bright even for me.
I tried out Royal Navy's EQ preset and I found it to introduce the "hash" that's common with Harman-tuned headphones. It's a rumbly, crinkly sound that permeates the music, kind of like crumpling a plastic wrapper, and I find that it comes from having too much ear gain vs upper treble. The stock X9000 tuning is just as detailed, but without the hash.
I tried out the EQ preset from Dynamo5561 and I thought it was a bit dull. I don't have a problem with the 3K peak; a sine sweep barely registers a peak there to my ears, so while reducing that area did soften the sound a bit, it also dulled it and it didn't actually solve my main issue with the sound which is the overly forward vocals. Also, the massive 10 dB boost in the lowest octave does very little to the sound IMO. Bass did not get meaningfully better. And spectral analysis of my music shows little below 35 Hz anyways, even EDM where electronic percussion generally bottoms out around 40 Hz. So I didn't benefit from all of that sub-bass, nor could I hear it. He mentioned that his EQ was meant to preserve the original character of the X9K while smoothing out the edges, and I agree that's what it does, but I don't need the extra smoothness.
I thought bnb110's EQ preset with the cut at 1100 Hz was the best of the bunch. It didn't actually move vocals that much further out, but it shrank their width and made them "rounded" vs "flat". Like imagine holding a piece of paper flat in front of your face, then bending the edges outwards. That's the difference that cutting the 1.1K region did to vocals. It gave them a bit more spatial depth. I added another small boost at 2100 Hz to prevent the wide 1100 Hz cut from affecting the presence region and that avoided the collateral damage from the midrange cut.
The thing with EQ is that it's easy to make the sound different, but it's hard to make the sound better, at least when starting at such a high level already. All of the EQ presets were clearly different from one another, but compared to no EQ, I found it hard to say that they were improvements to the sound, especially after general level matching. Tonally, I find the X9000 so agreeable stock that it's difficult to find the right spot to EQ. I don't lack for bass, the midrange is tonally fine (just a bit too wide and forward spatially), and the treble is neither too dark nor too bright for me. So I'm trying to EQ technicalities, and that's hard to do. All the better, it means I don't need to be chained to a computer to enjoy the X9000!
