[DutchKarma]

I love that and will check them out. I pooh poohed someone’s suggestion of a tempered glass protector because it comes with one (four actually) but they’re just plastic and now, after having slid the thing in the green leather case and watched the corner of the protector repeatedly lift up, I’m interested in both a different case and also a tempered glass protector that fits the DX260.

Any leads?

I don't have any leads on tempered glass protectors. I can recommend the case, the lid is magnetized so it protects the display quite well

 

[Matchi]

I love that and will check them out. I pooh poohed someone’s suggestion of a tempered glass protector because it comes with one (four actually) but they’re just plastic and now, after having slid the thing in the green leather case and watched the corner of the protector repeatedly lift up, I’m interested in both a different case and also a tempered glass protector that fits the DX260.

Any leads?

I've used this company for custom sized DX240 protectors https://www.protectionfilms24.com/custom-sizes.html

 

[seanwee]

on a personal note: I work in the wider field related to acoustics and hearing, but I am not a sound engineer, nor have I experience with designing and implementing filters. I work on the "hardware", especially on the implementation of medicinal drugs for restoring hearing pathologies from a pharmacological point of view... so take my impressions of FIR filters with a grain of salt. :

I don't apply any FIR filters. ...from a pure practical point of view, and not mathematical, here's why:
one of the most relevant things FIR filers do is making a frequency response curve smoother. E.g. smoothening the low, and high FQs. The higher the filter value, the more "smoothness" you get from a digital signal (where time and frequency are principally linked). Another by-product is to filter out a potentially present digital noise-floor.... all at the cost of quite significant processing power, resulting in higher temperatures and battery power consumption.

What does that mean for us audiophiles with good gear?

When you don't need FIR:
a) if you have a well developed DAC implementation in your source gear, there's likely no audible noise floor by the source itself > so no FIR needed
b) if you're happy with your FQ-response curve of your headphones (or source gear as well), why would you like to smooth things out? > no FIR needed

When you still would benefit from FIR:
a) if you have crappy recordings, or some not so good live recordings, a FIR filter could do some magic there
b) if any gear in your chain produces noise, applying FIR might give better results.
c) if you have a somewhat analytical headphone where you get psychoacoustically annoyed by fatiguing highs, you can try FIR.... but
...d) be aware that also the bass response might get more "muddy" (in terms of reduced frequency separation... which is now smoothened out by the FIR, but you wanted it^^).

But again, from a psychoacoustic point of view, you get the impression that there might be a tad bit more bass and more rolled off highs and your acoustic impression turned into something all so slightly warmer. In general, don't expect FIR filtering to have a massive impact, IMHO it is for sure audible, but still relatively subtle. It's just to average out some FQ response peaks in the time domain, that's all.

Not sure if anyone here knows about video game anti aliasing solutions but FIR sounds like the audio equivalent of TAA. Ie it smooths/blurs out everything by averaging samples in the temporal domain, be it peaks, dynamics or details.

It ruins the dap imo which is why I'm curious if anyone actually uses/likes it.

 

[droid23]

I see it quite the same as you do. In the DX260 the FIR filter banks are purely optional. You can use 2x or 4x, but you can also choose to use "normal", which I interpret either as a basic linear phase FIR with N=1 (with the smallest tap length which still makes sense) or does "normal" mean that there is no FIR filter at all? Who knows? Nevertheless I use "normal".

Whereas by nature of DA processing, the standard and mandatory FQ response filters, the "roll-off filters", one discreet filter you must select of course.

With good source material, and to get the highest possible dynamics out of a well developed and well integrated system, I go for D1, the fast/sharp roll-off (with no delay). Why?

D1 (clearly is a Linear Phase filter) is able to give the highest possible extended and natural frequency response in a DAC system. Yes, optically, if you look what D1 does, it looks like there's some pre- and post ringing*. Believe me, this type of "ringing" is, since many years of DAC/DAP development, a thing of the past and no longer audible... not with the best of human ears at least (we don't have really good ears among all vertebrates btw ).

*They are considered to be minor artefacts, because the sound is bandwidth limited when the sound signal was originally digitized in the recording studio... BUT in a DAC, it is not being bandwidth limited by nature, so, "fast or sharp roll-off" should be your go-to filter in the first place.

EDIT: oh god, it was D1 on iBasso, not F1