[AnakChan]

   
Did you google search that reference?
 
Don't remember reading that term at HF until recently. I am trying to figure out whether that's the same meaning as more revealing and/or more resolving the terms used by some audiophiles. If you mean more transparent sounding, then we are on the same page.

 
I did but I've also been a member on AudioAsylum since 2000 (but under a different moniker ); and remembered the term from there but I did need to search which post had it. I haven't bothered to check whether "micro detail" was defined in HF's Glossary of Terms (checking, seems not).
 
Hmmm, personally in my definition of micro detail it's not about transparency. To me it's probably more related to the "resolving" term you mentioned above.

 

[bearFNF]

   
I did but I've also been a member on AudioAsylum since 2000 (but under a different moniker ); and remembered the term from there but I did need to search which post had it. I haven't bothered to check whether "micro detail" was defined in HF's Glossary of Terms (checking, seems not).
 
Hmmm, personally in my definition of micro detail it's not about transparency. To me it's probably more related to the "resolving" term you mentioned above.

Gotta look in the 'other' list of terms:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/a/describing-sound-a-glossary

 

[Mython]

 

   
.... I haven't bothered to check whether "micro detail" was defined in HF's Glossary of Terms (checking, seems not).

 
Gotta look in the 'other' list of terms:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/a/describing-sound-a-glossary

 
Yeah, I couldn't find the word 'cheap' in the HF glossary, either!

:
 
 
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/687944/999-calyx-m-with-dxd-dsd-64gb-sd-sd-storage/645#post_10230034

 

[jamato8]

   
I did but I've also been a member on AudioAsylum since 2000 (but under a different moniker ); and remembered the term from there but I did need to search which post had it. I haven't bothered to check whether "micro detail" was defined in HF's Glossary of Terms (checking, seems not).
 
Hmmm, personally in my definition of micro detail it's not about transparency. To me it's probably more related to the "resolving" term you mentioned above.

Yea, it has been around for a long time. That is the same year I joined. Been there 14 years now, my how time flies and with it,. . . the money. lol    I miss Rich's opinions on the hires but he is long gone. 

 

[DMinor]

   
Yeah, I couldn't find the word 'cheap' in the HF glossary, either!

:
 

 
Cheap sound:
 
the sound normally heard from a low-end dap (e.g. ipod) which is unresolving or unable to produce micro details. 

 

[Mython]

   
Cheap sound:
 
the sound normally heard from a low-end dap (e.g. ipod) which is unresolving or unable to produce micro details. 

 
 
"Touché!"   

 

[eke2k6]

http://www.head-fi.org/t/697166/the-astell-kern-ak240/1560#post_10237466
 
 
I believe some will find this relevant.

 

[AnakChan]

X5 DAC & NW-ZX1 DAC Round #2

 
Since i botched up the 1st one I'm attempting a 2nd round. This time with the following setup :-
 
X5 -> Tralucent Uber IC -> Apex Glacier -> Whiplash Audio TWAu -> 1Plus2
NW-ZX1 -> DIY WM-port LOD -> Apex Glacier -> Whiplash Audio TWAu -> 1Plus2
 
I'm finding that the two DAPs are more similar than different. Both are highly detailed but in a different way. Both also extend high but just within the treble region it each seems to have varying levels of forwardness depending on which part of the treble frequencies. Bass is tight on both but like the trebles, different focus on different frequencies of the bass frequency ranges.
 
Starting off with the soundstage, the ZX1 does seems to sound more spacious but along with that, the X5 seems to have more impact and grabs my attention more. I get more of a "club" feel with the X5 whilst the ZX1 to me has more of a "concert" feel.
 
In terms of FR, the X5 does sound a little more warm than the ZX1. There seems to be a little bit more bloom in the X5 bass. But still quite tight. The ZX1's bass decay seems to be shorter (not too certain how a DAC could affect this 'cos normally I'd think of this in the headphone drivers). Both have decent mids but I'd lean towards the X5 having a tad more than the ZX1. As for the trebles, the ZX1 seems to be forward early on in the lower parts of the treble region whilst the X5 seems to bring that forwardness later in the treble frequency range. I feel the ZX1 has more room to breath in the treble space whilst the X5 a little more closed.
 
So the detail retrieval of both DAP's DACs vary depending on the various differences in presentation across the FR.
 
If I were to summarise the key factors of what I hear in the differences between the two DAPs's DACs with a common Amp/headphone :-
 
X5 - impact energy. I feel more "involved"
ZX1 - spaciousness. I could get l lost in the atmosphere it creates

 

[cooperpwc]

 

X5 DAC & NW-ZX1 DAC Round #2

 
Since i botched up the 1st one I'm attempting a 2nd round. This time with the following setup :-
 
X5 -> Tralucent Uber IC -> Apex Glacier -> Whiplash Audio TWAu -> 1Plus2
NW-ZX1 -> DIY WM-port LOD -> Apex Glacier -> Whiplash Audio TWAu -> 1Plus2
 
I'm finding that the two DAPs are more similar than different. Both are highly detailed but in a different way. Both also extend high but just within the treble region it each seems to have varying levels of forwardness depending on which part of the treble frequencies. Bass is tight on both but like the trebles, different focus on different frequencies of the bass frequency ranges.
 
Starting off with the soundstage, the ZX1 does seems to sound more spacious but along with that, the X5 seems to have more impact and grabs my attention more. I get more of a "club" feel with the X5 whilst the ZX1 to me has more of a "concert" feel.
 
In terms of FR, the X5 does sound a little more warm than the ZX1. There seems to be a little bit more bloom in the X5 bass. But still quite tight. The ZX1's bass decay seems to be shorter (not too certain how a DAC could affect this 'cos normally I'd think of this in the headphone drivers). Both have decent mids but I'd lean towards the X5 having a tad more than the ZX1. As for the trebles, the ZX1 seems to be forward early on in the lower parts of the treble region whilst the X5 seems to bring that forwardness later in the treble frequency range. I feel the ZX1 has more room to breath in the treble space whilst the X5 a little more closed.
 
So the detail retrieval of both DAP's DACs vary depending on the various differences in presentation across the FR.
 
If I were to summarise the key factors of what I hear in the differences between the two DAPs's DACs with a common Amp/headphone :-
 
X5 - impact energy. I feel more "involved"
ZX1 - spaciousness. I could get l lost in the atmosphere it creates

 
Excellent impressions. Thanks.
 
With the caveat that I have not heard the ZX1, this is what I was expecting.

 

[musicheaven]

X5 DAC & NW-ZX1 DAC Round #2

Since i botched up the 1st one I'm attempting a 2nd round.

Really?

If I were to summarise the key factors of what I hear in the differences between the two DAPs's DACs with a common Amp/headphone :-

X5 - impact energy. I feel more "involved"
ZX1 - spaciousness. I could get l lost in the atmosphere it creates

Always wondered about the ZX1, the brightness is the only thing that made me hesitate, might be overcome or getting used to with longer listening sessions.

 

[M-13]

 
Although the X5 I have has gone through about 120 hrs or burn-in, unfortunately I didn't listen to it throughout the burn-in period. So far it has been consistently been improving (although tapering off now) but hasn't been changing up and down in SQ.
 
I'll probably use this opportunity to write up a quick little report on some tests I did yesterday - I went back to basics and compared the X5 with the ZX1. In this 2nd round the X5 had an extra 85 hrs under it's belt from the original 35 hrs I did a few posts back. Personally I'm finding the X5's treble have extended a little further and smoother. So previously where I found the X5 to lean more towards the HM-901's warmth whilst ZX1 more on the brighter side, now I find the X5 seems to sit more equally & squarely in between the two DAPs. i.e. where I'd say the X5 was more on the warm side of neutral, now I'd call it as pretty neutral.

This exact thing happened to me with the X3. I kept noticing changes up to a little past 100 hours. I think 100~120 was when things were really settled and I really couldn't hear anything different. The X3 was also more neutral after going through burn-in, surprisingly so, because I initially thought it was quite dark of neutral, with a bit too much bass and not enough air. It went from fairly dark to pretty darn close to neutral (only slighly dark now), suddenly within my "reference" range for tonality.
 
When I get my X5 I will be running them 100 hours straight (of course I will be enjoying them in the middle too

).

 

[Gintaras]

wow, sounds like Fiio got a big winner on their hands with X5

i sit on my hands tight right now because i still want to hear Calyx M but X5 is under serious consideration for stand alone DAP.
 
so i am gonna ask X5 users, do you find X5 benefits much from external amping or the differences are not that big?
 
from my experience with DX50 i find that baby needs amping like man needs water, so my DX50 goes for sale since i want a stand alone capable DAP.

 

[hilosxdd]

Getting 'involved' in the 'spaciousness' makes the perfect dap for me 

 

[cooperpwc]

  wow, sounds like Fiio got a big winner on their hands with X5

i sit on my hands tight right now because i still want to hear Calyx M but X5 is under serious consideration for stand alone DAP.
 
so i am gonna ask X5 users, do you find X5 benefits much from external amping or the differences are not that big.

 
I plan to buy the Calyx M and I also intend to keep the X5. I can pretty much guaranty that they will have different sound signatures and complementary qualities. It will not be entirely unlike AnakChan's comparison with the ZX1 above, except that the Calyx M will raise the bar a fair bit I am guessing. The Fiio X5 will have a thicker, more authoritative sound - both because of the DAC choice and also twice as much power. The Calyx M will have a lighter, airier more spacious sound.The M will be a low distortion monster.
 
I travel constantly and the combo will give me my 20+ hours and a nice choice of sounds.
 
I just like the X5 too much to give it up. At $350 (versus $1000), it is going to be the quality+value champion.

 

[cooperpwc]

  so i am gonna ask X5 users, do you find X5 benefits much from external amping or the differences are not that big?
 
from my experience with DX50 i find that baby needs amping like man needs water, so my DX50 goes for sale since i want a stand alone capable DAP.

 
To answer this: the X5 is the first DAP for me that does not require external amping. It is a revelation.
 
No doubt, adding the Pico Power does improve things further, opening up the sound, expanding the soundstage and adding even more slam. I use the Pico Power at home with the X5 in USB DAC mode. But I don't use it portable; so far I don't even take it on the road. The X5 sounds that good on its own.
 
(And yes, I also amped the DX50. The headphone out is too thin to my tastes.)