[Ivabign]

  I'm using a Samsung 64GB class 10 card, maybe it's just some bad luck. I'll try again tomorrow.

I'm using a Samsung card and my scanning is really quick - it is a class 10 uhs-1(?) 64gb....  I have had no issues - and I am a novice at this whole "out of body" (iTunes) experience.

 

[som4ew]

I have Samsung Plus micro sd xc 64GB uhs-1 it copies file faster than Snadisk Ultra micro sd xc  64 GB uhs-1.

 

[zeppu08]

Im also using samsung Pro micro sd class 10. No problems encountered..

 

[highfell]

So it arrived yesterday. Only had time to listen to side one of The Final Cut (flac) by PF.

I played the DX90 through the PB2 balanced out to HD600s, which is my 'definitive' set-up at home.

Wow - unbelievable. The clarity & separation of the instruments is stupendous. The DX90 is an obvious uplift from the DX50. Like others have mentioned, you begin to hear details that were hidden before. It is like a veil of mist has been burnt away by the sun on a clear sunny morning.

I realise it is early days, but I am very impressed so far and pleased to have made the decision to upgrade.

 

[headwhacker]

So it arrived yesterday. Only had time to listen to side one of The Final Cut (flac) by PF.



I played the DX90 through the PB2 balanced out to HD600s, which is my 'definitive' set-up at home.



Wow - unbelievable. The clarity & separation of the instruments is stupendous. The DX90 is an obvious uplift from the DX50. Like others have mentioned, you begin to hear details that were hidden before. It is like a veil of mist has been burnt away by the sun on a clear sunny morning.



I realise it is early days, but I am very impressed so far and pleased to have made the decision to upgrade.

 


You are only using the DAC in DX90. For me, the biggest star is the amp section. I imagine if DX50 has the same amp configuration as DX90 the gap may be narrower.

 

[goodvibes]

  Comparing DX90 with my Sound Blaster ZXR i'm so far unimpressed (with the DX90). I tried it with Fostex TH-900 and Shure SE535. Perhaps it's not a fair comparison but SB ZXR is a $200 card so maybe it is.
 
* I can't quite quantify it but the sound is lacking in emotional engagement and clarity. 
* The touchscreen is also pretty small and i wish the touch areas were larger.
* There's also significant lag (2 seconds) when switching tracks or performing any operation with the UI for that matter (quite frustrating i have to say)
* It helped a bit with SQ to turn off the default flat EQ (comes enabled by default) and also switch the gain to "medium"
 
The track i use for listening is Air's "Le Soleil At Pres De Moi", it has a lot of super-fine detail and the degree of emotional engagement is very affected by SQ, at least in my perception.
 
Other highly technical tracks i tried are Cocteau Twins Cherry-Coloured Funk and the soundtrack from Ghost In The Shell Innocence (Etorofu, The Doll House)

Give it time. If you prefer med gain, it's probably not yet run in. It dries out and opens up to where you'll prefer hi gain and after still acquires more harmonic structure and additional crispness.

 

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

   
You don't understand, do you?
Using the DAC volume control at any volume setting but max will decrease the S/N ratio from the point of the OPA1602, making it more susceptible to the "dirty" external PS. Using DAC built-in volume control is never a "Hi-Fi" circuit design. You can ask people at the Dedicated Source Components forum.
DAC built-in volume control is NOT equal to the implementation of using a dedicated digital volume control chip at later (pre-amp) section of the circuit.
Using external AMP, I can max out the DAC volume to maximize S/N, making it much less susceptible to "dirty" PS.
I suppose you do use shielded coaxle or twisted pair interconnect cables, don't you? Why don't you use straight bare wire interconnects, and say it is the dirty electromagnetic environment which causes the noise?

 
Do you realise that most modern desktop DACs under 3 grand use digital volume??? Digital volume was only an issue in the days of old where dacs where 16 or 24bit. If NAD, Audiolab and Cambrige etc etc are all using digital dac level volume in their high end dacs then it obviously can't be impacting the sound as much as you think. ESS and NAD claim that at 32bits, digital volume is no longer audibly degrading sound. So relax, iBasso did fine... You are correct in saying that on a technical level digital volume is degrading sound, but the highly debatable part would be if it would even be audible on a dual 32bit dac like dx90.

 

[headwhacker]

^ The ESS presentation linked from Youtube by SilverEars explains it in detail.

 

[borrego]

   
Do you realise that most modern desktop DACs under 3 grand use digital volume??? Digital volume was only an issue in the days of old where dacs where 16 or 24bit. If NAD, Audiolab and Cambrige etc etc are all using digital dac level volume in their high end dacs then it obviously can't be impacting the sound as much as you think. ESS and NAD claim that at 32bits, digital volume is no longer audibly degrading sound. So relax, iBasso did fine... You are correct in saying that on a technical level digital volume is degrading sound, but the highly debatable part would be if it would even be audible on a dual 32bit dac like dx90.

 
My view was on "DAC chip level" digital volumne control. Which is different from the "Digital Volume Control" at later stage of the circuit.
 
The problem I was talking was on S/N, not the 16/32 bit accuracy issue you are saying.
 
As long as you are using the DAC at max volume (as most people do), it doesn't matter as you are at the max S/N setting.

 

[robin1990]

I need to redefine the soundstage of dx90. It is indeed huge! When i was listening to some live japan enka recording, i got shock when the audience is clapping and shouting. I thought someone around me actually did it. (Shouting in japanese in Malaysia wasnt usual) an then i listen again, the shout is still there.

Although the performer sounded very near, but from the position of the japanese audience it was actually very far away from the performer. Big concert hall.

And then i listen to perfect from simple plan, again live recording in japan, the soundstage is indeed huge. Very close to how i missed the dx100. And then i go back to one republic - native album the soundstage went narrow again, at least narrower than what ive listen on ak120 and dx100. Strange...

 

[tin427]

I need to redefine the soundstage of dx90. It is indeed huge! When i was listening to some live japan enka recording, i got shock when the audience is clapping and shouting. I thought someone around me actually did it. (Shouting in japanese in Malaysia wasnt usual) an then i listen again, the shout is still there.

Although the performer sounded very near, but from the position of the japanese audience it was actually very far away from the performer. Big concert hall.

And then i listen to perfect from simple plan, again live recording in japan, the soundstage is indeed huge. Very close to how i missed the dx100. And then i go back to one republic - native album the soundstage went narrow again, at least narrower than what ive listen on ak120 and dx100. Strange...

Its because the dx90 is rendering the correct size of soundstage instead of enlarging it?

 

[headwhacker]

   
Do you realise that most modern desktop DACs under 3 grand use digital volume??? Digital volume was only an issue in the days of old where dacs where 16 or 24bit. If NAD, Audiolab and Cambrige etc etc are all using digital dac level volume in their high end dacs then it obviously can't be impacting the sound as much as you think. ESS and NAD claim that at 32bits, digital volume is no longer audibly degrading sound. So relax, iBasso did fine... You are correct in saying that on a technical level digital volume is degrading sound, but the highly debatable part would be if it would even be audible on a dual 32bit dac like dx90.

 
 

   
My view was on "DAC chip level" digital volumne control. Which is different from the "Digital Volume Control" at later stage of the circuit.
 
The problem I was talking was on S/N, not the 16/32 bit accuracy issue you are saying.
 
As long as you are using the DAC at max volume (as most people do), it doesn't matter as you are at the max S/N setting.

 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYjHKv2_OqQ

 

[jamato8]

  Its because the dx90 is rendering the correct size of soundstage instead of enlarging it?

That is what I am finding out. The DX90 represents more of what is recorded rather than expanding everything. If everything is large then what has been recorded large, will be too much all over the place. One of my daps does that and I am looking all over, but it is too much on large recordings, confusing. 

 

[robin1990]

that im confused... can a dap even enlarging soundstage? or should they do that? if dx90 is representing a precise soundstage then there is no point to fake a large soundstage. dx90 sound just right for me.

 

[tin427]

  that im confused... can a dap even enlarging soundstage? or should they do that? if dx90 is representing a precise soundstage then there is no point to fake a large soundstage. dx90 sound just right for me.

Maybe its not enlarging.. 
The echo from the wall of studio or live hall which gives a difference of size of "soundstage". If the echo is correctly presented, the soundstage is said to be precise.
Sometimes the echo was over emphasized such that you will hear a "fake" soundstage. (this effect is very obvious on the zx1 with the clear audio set to be open.)