[mejoshua]

To my ears the dx90 is quite a big step up from the clip+. Primarily the sense of space, articulation and air and separation. The clip+ sounds more intimate with a smaller soundstage. There is an overall sense of refinement as well but like what they say, trust your own ears and not what everyone else says.

 

[scribable]

Well, I updated to 2.3.0 and found that the gapless worked better than ever across all file formats. But I found the default sound to be just awful, for my taste — matinsoroudi kinda nailed it when he described it: "more Highs and less bass! brighter sound quality."
 
His capitalization of "highs" was telling. To my ears this is megawatt bright, losing the warm atmosphere and accurate representation of bass that I found on 2.2.0. I use very neutral cans and really couldn't believe my ears, the vocals were remarkably strident and headache-inducing, the lows and mids oddly thinned out. I've loaded my DX90 with high quality vinyl rips because I want to faithfully reproduce the experience of listening to them. The new sound signature, or different code parameters, really changed that experience for the worse in a dramatic fashion.
 
I tried fiddling with the EQ but after a while it didn't seem worth the painstaking bother, particularly since I essentially want a universal setting that works with most recordings. I restored to 2.2.0 and heaved a sigh of relief after checking the playback.
 
I know that this sort of thing is to taste and affected by a user's individual equipment and purposes, but I'm nevertheless a bit surprised to see a lack of similar complaints on the board. Makes me wonder if everyone is doing bespoke EQ as a matter of course.
 
I'd enthusiastically welcome improved and expanded features (great gapless, DAC compatibility with Mac? yes, please!), but not at the expense of balanced sound.

 

[borrego]

I don't find the 2.3 firmware changing the bass/treble frequency response. It just sounds more "diffused" and with more air between instruments/voices and give a sense of less bass slam/focus. One can slightly turn up the volume to compensate somehow.
 
I find the new sound signature great for live recording music, and better than the old firmware when listening to the DX90 in environment where noise floor is high (e.g. bus/subway), as it is less fatiguing when playing at higher volume (or no need to turn up the volume as much since there is more obvious "presence").
 
It all depends on whether you prefer "slam" or "presence".

 

[scribable]

  I don't find the 2.3 firmware changing the bass/treble frequency response. It just sounds more "diffused" and with more air between instruments/voices and give a sense of less bass slam/focus. One can slightly turn up the volume to compensate somehow.
 
I find the new sound signature great for live recording music, and better than the old firmware when listening to the DX90 in environment where noise floor is high (e.g. bus/subway), as it is less fatiguing when playing at higher volume (or no need to turn up the volume as much since there is more obvious "presence").
 
It all depends on whether you prefer "slam" or "presence".

 
That's interesting, though I probably shouldn't be surprised that this coding is received and probably even played differently depending on various factors. Through the looking glass, I found myself having to turn the volume way down in default 2.3.0. The highs were loud and dominant. I can see how that would connect in a noisy place, but the effect at home was unpleasantly like loudness boost. I find the sound on the 2.2.0 even, smooth, and clear, and much easier (and rewarding) on the ears to turn up if need be.

 

[ReizeiMako]

   
That's interesting, though I probably shouldn't be surprised that this coding is received and probably even played differently depending on various factors. Through the looking glass, I found myself having to turn the volume way down in default 2.3.0. The highs were loud and dominant. I can see how that would connect in a noisy place, but the effect at home was unpleasantly like loudness boost. I find the sound on the 2.2.0 even, smooth, and clear, and much easier (and rewarding) on the ears to turn up if need be.

You're not the only one around here prefer FW 2.2. I have DX90 for 6 months and enjoy the sound of every new FW released by Ibasso, except FW 2.2 -> 2.3. Sacrifice bass and full-body sound for better high and brighter sound is not my favorite choice.
 

 

[Replicant187]

FW2.2 + Dita Truth already sounds bright enough so i guess i should avoid FW2.3.

 

[LoryWiv]

I have spent several hours with 2.30 (Lurker font mod.) this evening, and somewhat to my surprise, am enjoying it. I previously found 2.20 a bit thin and bass-shy, favoring 2.18 for bass presence. However, in recent weeks I have felt that warmth bled into lower mids a bit and obscured detail. Also found the 2.18 FW soundstage constrained. With 2.30 there is more air and instrument separation, perhaps more detail retrieval and a wider soundstage. Highs are brighter bit not sibilant through my Fidue A83's, and I find the extension reaches a bit higher producing an engaging but so far, non-fatiguing sound. I DO wish bass quantity was a bit more but feel bass quality is a bit better on 2.30 and I recognize there are trade-offs, not too mention possible "placebo effect" when listening intently to new equipment or FW update. However, FLAC gapless is now spot on and Windows DAC works flawelessly as well, so I think I'll stick with 2.30 for a while and see if it wears well. Irrespective of individual preference for sound signature, I am impressed with iBasso's commitment to frequent FW improvements and the opportunity to test out the sound signature differences that result.
 
Update #1: An additional day of listening has changed my view. I am now experiencing the highs on 2.30 as brittle, fatiguing and the bass quality too low for a balanced sound. What was novel and engaging at first is now sounding a bit unnatural. Will try 2.20 for now and see if it does the trick for my sound sig. preference.
 
Update #2: I MISS MY BASS....back to 2.18L0 FW. I'm sure it's dependant on the entire audio equipment chain but with my setup I am finding 2.20 and 2.30 too bass-light (and I am not a basshead) and a bit brittle in the highs.

 

[AndrewH13]

Firmware after firmware, I struggled to hear any difference. The last two are pronounced! I really didn't like 2.2, seemed lacking energy to me on rock although lovely on some well recorded music. Very happy with brighter 2.3. For those, the majority, that liked 2.2, I'd be surprised if they liked 2.3 as so different!

 

[proedros]

  Well, I updated to 2.3.0 and found that the gapless worked better than ever across all file formats. But I found the default sound to be just awful, for my taste — matinsoroudi kinda nailed it when he described it: "more Highs and less bass! brighter sound quality."
 
His capitalization of "highs" was telling. To my ears this is megawatt bright, losing the warm atmosphere and accurate representation of bass that I found on 2.2.0. I use very neutral cans and really couldn't believe my ears, the vocals were remarkably strident and headache-inducing, the lows and mids oddly thinned out. I've loaded my DX90 with high quality vinyl rips because I want to faithfully reproduce the experience of listening to them. The new sound signature, or different code parameters, really changed that experience for the worse in a dramatic fashion.
 
I tried fiddling with the EQ but after a while it didn't seem worth the painstaking bother, particularly since I essentially want a universal setting that works with most recordings. I restored to 2.2.0 and heaved a sigh of relief after checking the playback.
 
I know that this sort of thing is to taste and affected by a user's individual equipment and purposes, but I'm nevertheless a bit surprised to see a lack of similar complaints on the board. Makes me wonder if everyone is doing bespoke EQ as a matter of course.
 
I'd enthusiastically welcome improved and expanded features (great gapless, DAC compatibility with Mac? yes, please!), but not at the expense of balanced sound.

 
 
i also use neutral iems and listen t quality vinyl rips and i also didn't like the 2.3.0 FW and agree with your assessment.
 
but i guess it always comes down to what kind of setup you are using.
 
but yeah , 2.3.0 seemed like a let-down sound-wise when compared tot the 2.2.0

 

[matinsoroudi]

been struggling with EQ to bring back the 2.2 fw bass quality and keep gapless and better touch experience of 2.3 :/ 
exhausted. i will stick with 2.2 too. i cant even focus on bass with dt770/80 which is a bass monster itself.

 

[matinsoroudi]

i need Paul's explanation about this. why they keep changing the sound? did anyone complained about the sound of 2.2?
i'm buying headphones and i refer to my dap's sound to decide.

 

[chawya22]

  i need Paul's explanation about this. why they keep changing the sound? did anyone complained about the sound of 2.2?
i'm buying headphones and i refer to my dap's sound to decide.

A quote from Paul:
 
 

 
We do not try to change the sound. Software implementation does change the sound because of the affect on the CPU and other chips. What we do is try and understand why and correct what is changing the sound.
 

 

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

Basically the efficiency of the software plays a part in the transparency of the sound because the cpu can create jitter as it is also involved in clocking and sending digital stream to the dac. Each firmware update is more efficient, which increases transparency. It is very commendable that ibasso continue to improve the firmware.

 

[groovyd]

It would be nice if someone posted a qualified properly calibrated FR graph of each version to compare between.  Most clocking of data in and out of DAC chips is hardware controlled and so there should be no sonic differences unless there are major issues in the firmware or they change the codecs entirely and are decoding the files differently now or have changed hardware parameters on the DAC itself.  These changes should be well documented somewhere and as a concerned user I should expect them to publish a fuller list of changes from version to version to include all of these deltas.  This is not an average consumer product, it is tailored to a particular type of person who really cares about these factors and they should take a little extra time in each release after spending months on writing the code to actually communicate all of the changes.

 

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

^ The FR graph of each firmware would be identical. It would be pointless for ibasso to document software code changes that we don't even understand. You don't seem to think that software has an effect on jitter, well it does. The cpu can not send a completely uninterrupted I2S signal to the dac, it can only aim to send the most efficient I2S stream, firmware plays a part in this and influences jitter, every dap is the same in this regard. Some dap's use various methods to try and reduce this cpu generated jitter by using a separate cpld for I2S generation or an SRC, this can reduce the jitter, but doesn't eliminate it, again it is reliant on how well the cpld firmware has been programmed to work in conjunction with the cpu. Bottom line is that firmware has an effect on jitter.