[tex thai]

Well Headwhacker,
As has been said before, I kinda guessed you would say that.
But I do value the opinions of those on the forum here, a lot seem to have much better ears than I do, and some have good reasons for this or that digital filter setting.  Some might even be called scientific reasons.  Though I will listen to subjective, experiential reasons as well.
Thanks 
God Bless

 

[sbank]

Sorry if this is answered elsewhere but my understanding is that DX90 currently downsamples DSD to 24/88. Are there plans/timing to update firmware to allow for full native DSD playback without downsampling, etc. and supporting both .dff & .dsf? 
 
If DSD is a dealkiller for me, does this issue decide the DX90 vs. X5 debate? Thanks.

 

[maricius]

I recently tried pairing my newly bought (secondhand) HeadAmp Pico Slim with my DX90 and these are my impressions:
 
The DX90's onboard amp has surely more power when driving full sized headphones. So the sound comparisons are while using my FAD Heaven VI. The soundstage has equal depth maybe the DX90 winning by a little due to a more laidback midrange. The DX90 wins in soundstage width noticeably but most apparent was in soundstage height even with IEMs (really wasn't expecting that). The DX90 has slightly more midbass and more subbass than the Pico. The Pico Slim wins in clarity and articulation. Although less spread out, instruments are better defined and the DX90 seems muffled in comparison (the DX90 is not muffled at all). Bass had more detail on the Pico and was tighter but was quite lean. This would probably pair well with IEMs with strong bass as I hear better control from the Pico. Again, the Pico Slim won in clarity of the mids but pushed it towards the sweet but slightly cold side as opposed to the less cold mids of the DX90's onboard amp. 
 
Overall, if you already have a DX90, there is no need for a Pico Slim unless bass is too much with mids that are muffled. If that's so even with the DX90, you should probably just change your headphones…
 
It gets more interesting when it becomes the iPod Video 5.5g with Pico Slim versus the DX90. The DX90 wins in overall technicalities but I just love the tonality of my Heaven VI with the iPod and Pico. Less bass and soundstage but better clarity while still keeping warm and smooth mids. I probably wouldn't have bought the DX90 if I got the Pico Slim first. That being said, I enjoy both setups equally and will continue to use both depending on my mood.

 

[RugbyPlayer]

Has there been any updates regarding the m3u playlist support that is supposed to be inc?

 

[goodvibes]

  I recently tried pairing my newly bought (secondhand) HeadAmp Pico Slim with my DX90 and these are my impressions:
 
The DX90's onboard amp has surely more power when driving full sized headphones. So the sound comparisons are while using my FAD Heaven VI. The soundstage has equal depth maybe the DX90 winning by a little due to a more laidback midrange. The DX90 wins in soundstage width noticeably but most apparent was in soundstage height even with IEMs (really wasn't expecting that). The DX90 has slightly more midbass and more subbass than the Pico. The Pico Slim wins in clarity and articulation. Although less spread out, instruments are better defined and the DX90 seems muffled in comparison (the DX90 is not muffled at all). Bass had more detail on the Pico and was tighter but was quite lean. This would probably pair well with IEMs with strong bass as I hear better control from the Pico. Again, the Pico Slim won in clarity of the mids but pushed it towards the sweet but slightly cold side as opposed to the less cold mids of the DX90's onboard amp. 
 
Overall, if you already have a DX90, there is no need for a Pico Slim unless bass is too much with mids that are muffled. If that's so even with the DX90, you should probably just change your headphones…
 
It gets more interesting when it becomes the iPod Video 5.5g with Pico Slim versus the DX90. The DX90 wins in overall technicalities but I just love the tonality of my Heaven VI with the iPod and Pico. Less bass and soundstage but better clarity while still keeping warm and smooth mids. I probably wouldn't have bought the DX90 if I got the Pico Slim first. That being said, I enjoy both setups equally and will continue to use both depending on my mood.

Why I get all ???? when someone says the DX90 is bright in any way. It's technically superb, very even, not recessed, diffused, or bright. Just a bit smooth or a hair soft in overall presentation. I don't think it's the amp stage either. The Pico is probably just snapping up both the line stages with the even softer Ipod (which may have been used in the mix during pico development) interfacing very well.

 

[maricius]

  Why I get all ???? when someone says the DX90 is bright in any way. It's technically superb, very even, not recessed, diffused, or bright. Just a bit smooth or a hair soft in overall presentation. I don't think it's the amp stage either. The Pico is probably just snapping up both the line stages with the even softer Ipod (which may have been used in the mix during pico development) interfacing very well.

I'm sorry but I'm unsure if you're referring to me with the statement about the DX90 being bright. I did not mention the DX90 to be bright at any point.

 

[mejoshua]

Sorry if this is answered elsewhere but my understanding is that DX90 currently downsamples DSD to 24/88. Are there plans/timing to update firmware to allow for full native DSD playback without downsampling, etc. and supporting both .dff & .dsf? 

If DSD is a dealkiller for me, does this issue decide the DX90 vs. X5 debate? Thanks.

I could play .dsf files on my DX90. I don't think it downsamples but not sure. I remember reading that it supports DSD but might not be natively

 

[goodvibes]

 
I'm sorry but I'm unsure if you're referring to me with the statement about the DX90 being bright. I did not mention the DX90 to be bright at any point.

No. Not you with that comment. I was basically agreeing with you and giving reasons why you may have come to your conclusion regarding the Ipod combo. I think the line out of the DX90 is clearly better but that the Ipod sig may be complementary to the Pico.

 

[all999]

There's new firmware 2.1.5 released.
 
Improvements with this firmware:
1. Playlist import and export functions added.  
2. support M3U playlist.
3, L/R balance control function added.

 

[LoryWiv]

I could play .dsf files on my DX90. I don't think it downsamples but not sure. I remember reading that it supports DSD but might not be natively

Per the display and what I've read, it down samples to 24 / 88.2. Still the DSF files sound terrific and it's nice to be able to play them without first converting to flac..

 

[kneel]

  There's new firmware 2.1.5 released.
 
Improvements with this firmware:
1. Playlist import and export functions added.  
2. support M3U playlist.
3, L/R balance control function added.

Any changes in sq?

 

[Sorensiim]

  There's new firmware 2.1.5 released.
 
Improvements with this firmware:
1. Playlist import and export functions added.  
2. support M3U playlist.
3, L/R balance control function added.

Nice!
 
Here's a mirror for those who are too impatient to download it from Ibasso: Http://www.sorensiim.dk/stuff/DX90Firmware215.zip
 
Now I just wonder how soon we'll see a Lurker edition of this one...

 

[T.R.A.N.C.E.]

  Nice!
 
Here's a mirror for those who are too impatient to download it from Ibasso: Http://www.sorensiim.dk/stuff/DX90Firmware215.zip
 
Now I just wonder how soon we'll see a Lurker edition of this one...

 
Well Lurker confirmed in the other thread that ibasso only implemented one of the two major changes he made in his firmwares. And I have confirmed with my own ears that as a result the Lurker 2.1 firmware is still more transparent than 2.1.5. Lurker will surely mod 2.1.5 and we will return to ultimate transparency plus the extra feature set of 2.1.5, I think modded 2.1.5 will sound the same as current Lurkers 2.1, as it is essentially perfect already (to the best of current knowledge anyway).

 

[goodvibes]

  Any changes in sq?

Yup. More presence and tighter bass.

 Lurker's removing processes tweak should be a winner with this as well. I don't think this will sound like 2.1 with the same tweak.

 

[T.R.A.N.C.E.]

  Yup. More presence and tighter bass.

 Lurker's removing processes tweak should be a winner with this as well. I don't think this will sound like 2.1 with the same tweak.

 
ibasso may have tweaked the audio policy files in 2.1.5, the thing with Lurker 2.1 is that audio policy files were disabled, resulting in a purer hardware sound without the extra software influence, so the next lurker 2.1.5 will sound like the previous 2.1 if the audio policies remain disabled as far as I know, which isn't a whole lot btw lol!