[Mimouille]

Any continental amp really is meant for full size headphones and of course, portables. If your primary cans are sensitive earphones, the T1 is a better choice. The continental has that warm, distortion-full valve sound that rocks especially with certain full size headphones. You can't replace that with a T1, which is built mainly for performance. Amps that are built flat out for performance will always sound different to amps built for ambience. 

Have you tried the V3? Because they supposedly modified it to be also suited to IEM vs the V2.

 

[Saraugie]

Quote:

I also find if I just slow down my breathing, it has the same effect

  

   

   

 

[shigzeo]

Quote:

Have you tried the V3? Because they supposedly modified it to be also suited to IEM vs the V2.

I've not yet tried the V3, actually. I may do that very soon (an upcoming headphone meet). 

 

[Mimouille]

It would be great if you (or somebody else) could tell my what they think and how they compare with the DX100. The thing is, since the DX100 already has a very good wire amp, I was thinking that I would try a tube amp. Plus the V3 has a brighter signature vs the DX100 amp (as far as I can tell after just a little bit of auditioning). But I a still hesitating in also getting a T1.
 

 

[shigzeo]

Quote:

It would be great if you (or somebody else) could tell my what they think and how they compare with the DX100. The thing is, since the DX100 already has a very good wire amp, I was thinking that I would try a tube amp. Plus the V3 has a brighter signature vs the DX100 amp (as far as I can tell after just a little bit of auditioning). But I a still hesitating in also getting a T1.
 

If you want to add an amp to the DX100, go ahead. It has a very good line out with great control of output volume for amps with unruly gains (T1). The DX100 absolutely doesn't need an amp though. That said, if you aren't keen on the super high resolution of the player, and want something more HiFi and less studio in appeal, by all means add an amp. The V3 (heard it briefly now) is very nice. It is of course, not going to outdo the performance of the DX100, but that isn't its design. Its design is to add power for high Ω headphones coupled to that nice, soothing valve sound.

 

[Mimouille]

Quote:

If you want to add an amp to the DX100, go ahead. It has a very good line out with great control of output volume for amps with unruly gains (T1). The DX100 absolutely doesn't need an amp though. That said, if you aren't keen on the super high resolution of the player, and want something more HiFi and less studio in appeal, by all means add an amp. The V3 (heard it briefly now) is very nice. It is of course, not going to outdo the performance of the DX100, but that isn't its design. Its design is to add power for high Ω headphones coupled to that nice, soothing valve sound.

I actually decided to sell the V3, the combination with the DX100 and my Miracles not really meeting my goals.
 
I might try the T1. How would you say the T1 changes the signature of the DX100 ? Otherwise might go for the Portaphile 627. I tried the Triad L3, but it feels too powerful for IEMS.
 
Honestly, the DX100 indeed does not need an amp, especially not with IEMs. But I like to try !

 

[shigzeo]

Quote:

I actually decided to sell the V3, the combination with the DX100 and my Miracles not really meeting my goals.
 
I might try the T1. How would you say the T1 changes the signature of the DX100 ? Otherwise might go for the Portaphile 627. I tried the Triad L3, but it feels too powerful for IEMS.
 
Honestly, the DX100 indeed does not need an amp, especially not with IEMs. But I like to try !

By and large, the T1 is voiceless. It has a lot of power, a very low Ω output, very low noise threshold, and great battery life. Clarity is excellent. There is a slight sheen in the upper midrange, but it is minimal. In short, the T1 is a winner, but as with all performance hounds, it generally melts into the music. 

 

[Mimouille]

Quote:

By and large, the T1 is voiceless. It has a lot of power, a very low Ω output, very low noise threshold, and great battery life. Clarity is excellent. There is a slight sheen in the upper midrange, but it is minimal. In short, the T1 is a winner, but as with all performance hounds, it generally melts into the music. 

As the iBasso does not need more power, than why use a T1 if it does not change the sound ? Or maybe there is something I am not getting...

 

[lee730]

Quote:

As the iBasso does not need more power, than why use a T1 if it does not change the sound ? Or maybe there is something I am not getting...

IMO the T1 makes the DX100 sound even better. You get a wider sound stage with more depth. This brings more balance to the entire sound. I find the amp brings great control over the sound and is very engaging. To be honest if I could combine the DX100 with the T1s amp section in a single unit it would be my perfect player. I just can't find anything to fault it on. It's perfect to my ears. 99% of the time I'd use the T1 amp with the DX100 via the LO because it sounded that damn good.

 

[Mimouille]

Quote:

IMO the T1 makes the DX100 sound even better. You get a wider sound stage with more depth. This brings more balance to the entire sound. I find the amp brings great control over the sound and is very engaging. To be honest if I could combine the DX100 with the T1s amp section in a single unit it would be my perfect player. I just can't find anything to fault it on. It's perfect to my ears. 99% of the time I'd use the T1 amp with the DX100 via the LO because it sounded that damn good.

Wow, that's quite convincing. Are you using it with IEMs ?

 

[shigzeo]

Quote:

Wow, that's quite convincing. Are you using it with IEMs ?

Lee and I both admire the T1 very much. He, however, is a bit more ecstatic about the sound than I am. An amp with perfect performance will only make up for the problems in the original source equipment. Sound can never exceed the sound quality that of the source. Ever. In the case of the DX100, the T1 cannot exceed the performance of the line out put or the headphone output. The T1 isn't a DAC. It is fed signal in an analogue signal. That signal goes into its circuits and is spit out to your earphones. To exceed the performance of a source like the DX100, or an iPhone, for instance, you have to use an outboard DAC, then feed that signal into an amp. (Of course, the DAC has to perform better than the source in putting 1's and 0's together, and has to then spit that signal out better than the source does. The DX100 has SPDIF output in optical and coax, which is a godsend if you really want to pull the last bit of performance from it.)
 
However, if the source has deficiencies, an amp, can overcome those deficiencies. There are many deficient sources out there. Notable examples are early iPods, current Sony Walkman players, Pre-2011 Cowon players, and many many more. The current iPhone 5 has a poor output compared to the iPhone 4. The DX100 has no apparent deficiencies however. The output is perfectly controlled with every earphone and headphone. Very little distortion, almost no background noise, perfectly linear frequency response. The T1's battery system may be better than the DX100's but if you are listening to earphones of any type, the DX100 has no issues. The T1's flavour comes in in a number of areas: distortion, stereo separation, background noise. 
 
As much as I like the T1, the DX100 has better performance in a number of areas. But (please read this carefully), defects in audio are NOT always deleterious. A 100% perfect signal may sound flatter, duller, and less dynamic to your ears than one with defects. Consider valves (tubes): people swear by them. But they represent the audio niche with overall the worst measurable (close to the original recording) performance of any high end amp system. 
 
The truth is that people want colour. While the T1 does NOT outperform the DX100 output, it does sound good. Mainly, it disappears, which is its job: the T1 isn't an amp made to really 'sound' good; it is very much an all-out performer meant to sustain the original signal as much as possible. Again, there is no way an amplified signal can be closer to the original at the source. It isn't possible with any amplifier. You amplify a certain signal. 
 
If you photocopy a text, the best you can do with the best equipment is make it look as close to the original as possible. Same with amps. If the DX100 had major deficiencies running low Ω earphones, or lacked the current to supply even a semi-loud signal to headphone x without distortion, it would NEED an amp. As it is, there are very few headphones it can't technically 'handle'. Those headphones would likely stymie the T1. 
 
That's not to say you won't enjoy the T1. It's just to say that the DX100 doesn't NEED an amp at all. 

 

[Mimouille]

Quote:

Lee and I both admire the T1 very much. He, however, is a bit more ecstatic about the sound than I am. An amp with perfect performance will only make up for the problems in the original source equipment. Sound can never exceed the sound quality that of the source. Ever. In the case of the DX100, the T1 cannot exceed the performance of the line out put or the headphone output. The T1 isn't a DAC. It is fed signal in an analogue signal. That signal goes into its circuits and is spit out to your earphones. To exceed the performance of a source like the DX100, or an iPhone, for instance, you have to use an outboard DAC, then feed that signal into an amp. (Of course, the DAC has to perform better than the source in putting 1's and 0's together, and has to then spit that signal out better than the source does. The DX100 has SPDIF output in optical and coax, which is a godsend if you really want to pull the last bit of performance from it.)
 
However, if the source has deficiencies, an amp, can overcome those deficiencies. There are many deficient sources out there. Notable examples are early iPods, current Sony Walkman players, Pre-2011 Cowon players, and many many more. The current iPhone 5 has a poor output compared to the iPhone 4. The DX100 has no apparent deficiencies however. The output is perfectly controlled with every earphone and headphone. Very little distortion, almost no background noise, perfectly linear frequency response. The T1's battery system may be better than the DX100's but if you are listening to earphones of any type, the DX100 has no issues. The T1's flavour comes in in a number of areas: distortion, stereo separation, background noise. 
 
As much as I like the T1, the DX100 has better performance in a number of areas. But (please read this carefully), defects in audio are NOT always deleterious. A 100% perfect signal may sound flatter, duller, and less dynamic to your ears than one with defects. Consider valves (tubes): people swear by them. But they represent the audio niche with overall the worst measurable (close to the original recording) performance of any high end amp system. 
 
The truth is that people want colour. While the T1 does NOT outperform the DX100 output, it does sound good. Mainly, it disappears, which is its job: the T1 isn't an amp made to really 'sound' good; it is very much an all-out performer meant to sustain the original signal as much as possible. Again, there is no way an amplified signal can be closer to the original at the source. It isn't possible with any amplifier. You amplify a certain signal. 
 
If you photocopy a text, the best you can do with the best equipment is make it look as close to the original as possible. Same with amps. If the DX100 had major deficiencies running low Ω earphones, or lacked the current to supply even a semi-loud signal to headphone x without distortion, it would NEED an amp. As it is, there are very few headphones it can't technically 'handle'. Those headphones would likely stymie the T1. 
 
That's not to say you won't enjoy the T1. It's just to say that the DX100 doesn't NEED an amp at all. 

Thank you so much for all these explanations. I am quite familiar with some of what you said. I was just thinking that the T1 could give a different flavor to the DX100 because it amplifies sound in a different way than the DX100 internal amp. Does that not make sense ? Anyways, I am on the fence between trying Portaphile 627 and T1 now.

 

[shigzeo]

Quote:

Thank you so much for all these explanations. I am quite familiar with some of what you said. I was just thinking that the T1 could give a different flavor to the DX100 because it amplifies sound in a different way than the DX100 internal amp. Does that not make sense ? Anyways, I am on the fence between trying Portaphile 627 and T1 now.

There is a bit of flavour in the T1 that is lovely. If you can, try it out first. But the T1 won't fix any errors in the DX100. It will fix errors in a source that cannot spit out the correct amount of current into a low Ω earphone, or high Ω headphone. A generation 1 iPod touch will not drive an Earsonics SM2 well at all. Plug its line output into a T1 and voila! linear performance closer to the original recording as possible. In that case, the T1 acts as no load (when plugged into the iPod touch's headphone output) or merely carries the unamped signal from the iPod (when plugged in via line output) to an earphone/headphone in one of the best methods possible. 

 

[Mimouille]

Thanks for all this. I will let you guys know how my journey is going...

 

[lee730]

Quote:

Lee and I both admire the T1 very much. He, however, is a bit more ecstatic about the sound than I am. An amp with perfect performance will only make up for the problems in the original source equipment. Sound can never exceed the sound quality that of the source. Ever. In the case of the DX100, the T1 cannot exceed the performance of the line out put or the headphone output. The T1 isn't a DAC. It is fed signal in an analogue signal. That signal goes into its circuits and is spit out to your earphones. To exceed the performance of a source like the DX100, or an iPhone, for instance, you have to use an outboard DAC, then feed that signal into an amp. (Of course, the DAC has to perform better than the source in putting 1's and 0's together, and has to then spit that signal out better than the source does. The DX100 has SPDIF output in optical and coax, which is a godsend if you really want to pull the last bit of performance from it.)
 
However, if the source has deficiencies, an amp, can overcome those deficiencies. There are many deficient sources out there. Notable examples are early iPods, current Sony Walkman players, Pre-2011 Cowon players, and many many more. The current iPhone 5 has a poor output compared to the iPhone 4. The DX100 has no apparent deficiencies however. The output is perfectly controlled with every earphone and headphone. Very little distortion, almost no background noise, perfectly linear frequency response. The T1's battery system may be better than the DX100's but if you are listening to earphones of any type, the DX100 has no issues. The T1's flavor comes in in a number of areas: distortion, stereo separation, background noise. 
 
As much as I like the T1, the DX100 has better performance in a number of areas. But (please read this carefully), defects in audio are NOT always deleterious. A 100% perfect signal may sound flatter, duller, and less dynamic to your ears than one with defects. Consider valves (tubes): people swear by them. But they represent the audio niche with overall the worst measurable (close to the original recording) performance of any high end amp system. 
 
The truth is that people want colour. While the T1 does NOT outperform the DX100 output, it does sound good. Mainly, it disappears, which is its job: the T1 isn't an amp made to really 'sound' good; it is very much an all-out performer meant to sustain the original signal as much as possible. Again, there is no way an amplified signal can be closer to the original at the source. It isn't possible with any amplifier. You amplify a certain signal. 
 
If you photocopy a text, the best you can do with the best equipment is make it look as close to the original as possible. Same with amps. If the DX100 had major deficiencies running low Ω earphones, or lacked the current to supply even a semi-loud signal to headphone x without distortion, it would NEED an amp. As it is, there are very few headphones it can't technically 'handle'. Those headphones would likely stymie the T1. 
 
That's not to say you won't enjoy the T1. It's just to say that the DX100 doesn't NEED an amp at all. 

 
I understand where you are coming from. I agree the DX100 really doesn't need help. But I still personally feel the T1 amp sounds better than it's internal amp (even if the numbers say otherwise). Very much so with all my IEMs from bass-heavy to very neutral. Just what it adds to the sound via it's amp section (its flavor) I find that much more appealing even over the DX100s internal amp. This is very noticeable to me doing direct comparisons between them. I understand an amp can't fix issues with the signal but it surely can improve the sound if the signal is good to begin with by properly amplifying (or portraying) that signal . I just find the T1 amp to do this better with sensitive IEMs on the DX100. Can't really say that with all devices in general since the DX100 has a variable LO which compensates for the T1s rather loud volume at lower volumes (without running into channel imbalance).