Introduction

China & Korea have been churning out DAPs that it's gotten to a point it's difficult to keep track of. A lot of these DAPs also have a rather idiosyncratic and non-intuitive user interface, and/or slow to react to user interaction, coupled with poor battery life. They may have good sound however their poor user interface and impractical battery longevity is almost a deterrent to take them out for use. Therefore when @audionewbi encouraged me to give the Lotoo Paw Gold a shot, I felt I was doing him more a favour than for the product as I had little interest a gaudy looking DAP from China.
 
I managed to borrow a Lotoo Paw Gold from the local Japan distributor, Top Wing Tokyo, for 3 weeks and as I'll divulge in greater detail later that I'm extremely thankful that @audionewbi had brought this product to my attention as it turns out to be quite a wonderful DAP. To me it's a demonstration that brands from China are capable of producing something that not only sounds good but also has a decent interface that rivals some of the premium and more popular DAPs. Finally some focus has been paid to the user interaction to the device with an acceptable speedy response, rather than just focused entirely one sound.
 
I won't get into the specs of the device as the information is easily found elsewhere, nor will I delve into Lotoo except to say that Lotoo OEMs for Nagra (which seems to be better known). 
 

 
 

Specifications Highlights & User Interaction

I know, I mentioned I won't get into the details of this DAP but feel compelled to write a few words. The DAP uses a Burr Brown/Texas Instruments PCM1792 DAC & LME49600 OpAmp. It also has a 6000mAh battery that charges via a 12V/1A DC charger - therefore not USB charging. The battery is claimed to last 11 hours however I've not tested it that far. It has lasted a whole day for me so it seems it does come close to the advertised duration. During burn-in, the DAP does run rather uncomfortably hot therefore it's not recommended to have it in the pocket for Aextended duration.
 
The DAP is 60x104x25.4mm in dimension and weighs 280g. It fits in quite nicely in my hand and feels very solid :-
 

 
What grabbed me the most about the DAP is the interface is fast especially when it comes to playing large files (DSD, 24/192 FLAC, etc.). This is unlike some (more like most) other DAPs where there's a delay in hitting "play" and the track actually starting. Scrolling is fast too and overall the interface is quite intuitive. The LCD screen is a little daunting with all the colourful feedback it provides (probably an overkill) however it's not unattractive. Overall user interaction to me though is a surprise blessing as I didn't expect it to operate so smoothly and quickly. This to me is probably one of the major features of this DAP.
 

Sonics

 
Before I started the review, I let the Paw Gold burn in for approx 100-150 hours listening to it every now and then. To me, the sonics did change during that time but very little. The treble smoothed out a little more but didn't change the overall signature of the DAP. During the time of listening, I compared it mostly against my Hifiman HM-901 with the yellow discrete Amp board, courtesy of @Mimouille who helped me buy one from China a few months back. Earlier this afternoon I also did compare it to my trusty Sony NW-ZX1. Unfortunately I didn't have my AK240 therefore was not able to provide a comparison against the iRIver DAP.
 
My primary earphone was the Noble Kaiser 10 (K10's) with a Dita Truth cable, FitEar MH335DW-SR with Tralucent Silver/Gold v2.0, and rather briefly Dita's Truth.
 
Most of the time I was listening to Alan Parson's Project Eye in the Sky, Earth Wind & Fire's Let's Groove, Shelby Lynne's You Don't Have To Say You Love Me & I Only Want To Be With You, Toto's I'll Be Over You, Sarah Morgann's Through The Eyes Of Love, & Alison Krauss' It Wouldn't Have Made A Difference - therefore mostly vocal jazz and some 80's pop/rock.
 
As an overall especially in comparison to the HM-901 & NW-ZX1, I found the Lotoo Paw Gold to sit right in between the two in terms of tonal signature. The Paw Gold felt neutral after going back 'n forth between the other DAPs. Compared to the HM-901, it feels somewhat more sterile but by no means no less musical. The HM-901 has a more warmer, mature and meatier sense of grasp of the music tracks but lacks the clarity and transparency in the trebles of the Paw Gold. As such the Paw Gold also feels somewhat fresh with a sense snap crispness giving it more air and spaciousness over the HM-901. The HM-901 felt more intimate with greater sense of depth due to it's warmer bass but the Paw Gold seems to have the edge of headroom. The combination that worked well for me was the Paw Gold with K10's and Dita Truth cables since the K10s are somewhat warm in the midbass to midrange and neutral trebles especially with vocals.
 
Switching to the FitEar MH335DW-SR however, which has copious amount of sub bass, the HM-901's warmer signature seems to take advantage of that by giving the overall signature a little more "thump" and authority. As such with the MH335DW-SR, I do have a tendency to pair it to the HM-901 instead however only marginally so. The Paw Gold still pairs well with the MH335DW-SR but just a tad dry compared to the HM-901.
 
With regards to the Dita Truth IEMs, I feel the Paw Gold emphasises a little too much on the trebles and on some tracks can sound somewhat brittle.
 

 
Meanwhile, I did get an opportunity to compare the Paw Gold to the NW-ZX1 too. This is where the Paw Gold demonstrates its neutrality. The NW-ZX1 has a more treble focus and across all the 3 IEMs could sound somewhat "rough" and a little harsh by comparison to the Paw Gold. Vocals are more emphasised on the NW-ZX1 too (but that doesn't mean the Paw Gold is mid recessed).
 
The Paw Gold performed rather well against these two other DAPs however when compared to dedicated components such as the Aurender Flow, the Flow does have the edge especially from the perspective of soundstage, depth and microdetail smoothness. However the Flow is a large component that requires an external player and is not so easily pouchable.
 

Conclusion

This DAP has actually great potential. Sonically it's up there with the rest of the premium DAPs and practically in terms of battery longevity and ease of use it's a blessing compared to some of the other DAPs around. I actually don't mind the aesthetics after a few days especially coupled with my flashy red with gold flakes Noble K10's (heck, this is Tokyo afterall...a land where walking out in your PJs is considered as fashion), and if one doesn't mind that, the only horrific pricing. In Japan the AK240 is ¥248,000 whilst the Lotoo Paw Gold is ¥285,000. It doesn't feature the balance headphone out the AK240 or the HM-901 has (with the balanced amp module), but at least with respect to the HM-901, I feel the Paw Gold doesn't really need to have balanced out.  It's also a pity it doesn't support ExFAT but that's possibly why there's a USB 3.0 interface instead of USB 2.0.
 

 
OK, I have an "almost complete" impressions of the MDR-1R. If you guys are ok with something that's almost, but not completely done, here you go. sNaturally I'll be padding this post and updating it as I complete it and will inform readers of the update :-
 
Notes: No unboxing pix. Go see Jude's Gallery for it's unboxing.
 

Comfort And Design

These are extremely comfortable headphones. Probably the most comfortable headphone I've ever worn. They are a true circumaural that encompasses my ear however, they're not excessively large (i.e. they're not like the Denons D2/5/7000, nor Fostex TH-900) and the pleather is really soft on the earcups as well as the headband.
 
 
 
 

 
Sony was extremely nice enough to give us a presentation about the design of the MDR-1R and they spent a lot of time thinking about comfort during the design.
 

 
As you can see from the pictures, despite a thick frame earpad, where it's coupled to the actual earcup itself is only a thinner frame. Sony explained that the logic behind this is to allow the inner portion of the earpad (the part closes to surround one's ears) to be the softest part of the earpad and they were bang on the money on that - at least to my sized ears.
 

 

 
Note also the angle of the driver. This was done on purpose for prominent ears and the driver angle actually is parallel to mine.
 

 
 
Another detail Sony highlighted to us was the way the cups swivel, it was designed to swivel at an angle. This was to ensure a decent seal.
 
 

 
Whilst walking around though I did some microphonics from the squeak of either the headband or one of the swivels creaking. It was a little distracting but I've not determined the source of the squeaks.
 
Overall comfort and design though, it's an extremely comfortable headphone to wear around the head and hang around the neck. I've not actually tried another headphone that's that comfortable (and I've tried quite a few). The 235g weight contributes to the comfort quite a bit.
 
Having said that, at least to my experience, I do feel that it's a delicate headphone. The materials used does make me wonder about the durability of the product. Let's just say that I probably wouldn't cramp it into my bag of hefty Nikon camera body and lenses, nor would I simply throw it around.
 

Accessories

The MDR-1R comes with a rather simple ballistic material softcase with two pockets (one for the headphone and the other for cables), and with 2xcables for straight audio and for smartphones (3xbutton). For both cables, the amp/source end is a right-angle plug. Sony mentioned one of the issues with cables in general is getting tangled up. So they have designed the cables to have mini parallel grooves all laterally back to front which prevents sticking. I'm not certain if this actually works or if the groves help, but I've not had tangles with these cables so far.
 
 

 
 
I have had a problem with the plug loosening out of my player quite a few times especially when I'm walking. This doesn't happen to my other headphone cables and I've not measure the diameter of the plugs to see if they're they same or smaller than other 3.5mm plugs. Another possibility is the right angle plug may not be a natural position especially when I have the DAP in my pocket or pouch.
 

Sound Quality

In my honest opinion, Sony is going to have extremely stiff competition releasing these headphones out now with their current pricing (approx $300?). There's a wave of headphones released all around now - V-Moda M-100, Sennheiser Momentums, Ultimate Ears UE6000/9000 - some priced less, some the same, and some more than the MDR-1Rs but all around the same category. Each of them have their unique SQ targeting to the similar audience. I myself have the M-100s and Momentums which I can compare directly against the 1Rs.
 
To my ears (after spending a few weeks with the M-100 and Momentums), the MDR-1Rs have a somewhat more flattish signature. Whilst in my opinion former two were more U-shaped (one more than the other), the MDR-1Rs seem to have more mids - typical of a Sony signature. Although from memory not as much as the Z1000. I'll need to head to the shops to do a direct comparison so please take that comparison with the Z1000 with a large grain of salt.
 
Sony mentioned that the MDR-1Rs were designed for the current style of music. They had a slide presentation which showed how over the past 3 decades, bass in popular music had shifted lower into the spectrum (primarily due to digitally produced music) and the MDR-1Rs were to designed to accomodate this trend. They consulted experts in the industry in UK during the defining of the MDR-1R signatures.
 
So with that said, the MDR-1Rs do seem to have more bass than the past Sony headphones I've heard (as such my remark about taking the comparison with the Z1000 with a large grain of salt 'cos I'm not certain if the Z1000 has more mids, or if the MDR-1R's bass/treble forwardness has given the apparent illusion that the MDR-1Rs has less mids than the Z1000 - if you follow my meaning).
 
Here's where I start comparing the MDR-1Rs with the other new headphones I have on my shelf. Despite the MDR-1Rs having more bass and still some forward extensions to the trebles, I find that they're conservative. As mentioned in the 2nd paragraph, to my ears and my interpretation it feels flattish because of this conservative signature. From Sony's presentation, I have a feeling this was meant to be their more bassy headphone.
 
 

 

 

 
Comparatively the Sennhesier Momentums have a more forward bass and treble. And the V-Moda M-100 have an extremely engaging lush bass. As such by comparison the MDR-1Rs to my ears don't feel as exciting as those other headphones. Having said that, I'd probably describe the MDR-1Rs to be more accurate in presenting acoustic instruments. Again this is probably contrary to Sony's expectation as from their presentation, I get the sense that electronic music was what they had in mind.
 
Aside from the frequency response, the soundstage and separation is quite decent. It's not as wide as the V-Moda M-100 (which to be honest, is unusually wide for a closed headphone in this price category) and leans more towards the Sennheiser Momentum's more intimate presentation, but somehow doesn't feel as congested as the Momentums. Instrument separation is still quite distinct.
 
Imaging: [Yet to be filled]
 
I find these headphones to benefit from amping. At least for my iDevices, I find the bass to feel somewhat thin but after having something like the V-Moda VAmp or VentureCraft Go-DAP 4.0 drive the MDR-1Rs the bass fills in more nicely.
 

Summary

 

 
As per above, in summary from a physical comfort perspective, I feel these are one of the most comfortable headphones I've ever worn. And it's isolation is also very decent, way above average and one of the better ones. In terms of balance of isolation and comfort, I'd have to say this is the best next to the Denon D7100/5100's. Sound quality-wise however, I'd categorise it to be more of a flattish accurate sound signature. It lacks the "fun" factor however to my ears, it represents the music accurately. Despite being designed for more modern music, I find myself liking older music with lots of vocal and natural acoustic instruments. Such examples include :-
 

1. Nicki Parrott's Sakura Sakura
2. Lana Del Rey's Born To Die (Video Games good rendering of the voice but harpsicord lacks detail)
3. Billy Joel (most of his albums actually)
4. And the only electronic music I like that goes well with the MDR-1R is Hideki Matsutake's Digital Moon Album (for those who don't know, Sony's very 1st Walkman came with a demo tape with Hideki Matsutake's version of "Diamonds Are Forever")

 
EDIT: Added macro pix of the grooved cable

Introduction



Personal audio enthusiasts of the past 12 years would be all too familiar with the iBasso brand. They started making amps, then to DAPs in the better part of the past 7 years, most notably the DX100. Whilst iBasso made some more mid-tier DAPs such as the DX50, DX80, & DX90, it wasn’t only until 2017 that iBasso finally had a new flagship, the DX200.

Paul from iBasso sent me a review DX200 in Feb 2017 however until now I’ve not written up a review for it; instead I’ve contributed where I can in tiny little snippets and little posts here and there in the iDX200 and other threads.

Roll forward over 2 years later, I’m finally writing a review. Why now? What has given me confidence in this DAP is that it has stood through the test of time, especially in this current dynamic climate where audio enthusiasts are changing their players faster than their warranties expiring.

How has the DX200 been able to maintain the fuelling the steam train? At least to my opinion, it is due superb design - and I don’t mean aesthetics nor user functionality on the surface. By this I mean it was a properly thought out product from conceptual design to production and support. Not only are the modular amps usable across their suite of DAPs (DX150, and upcoming DX220) but the DX200 design caters its lifecycle to remain current and adaptable - such as supporting DSD512 which is becoming more prevalent now than when the DAP was first released 2 years back. Furthermore the design is open enough to cater for the DIYers to tweak not only just the firmware but the hardware components too.

Contributive members such as @Lurker0 and @Whitgir keep the product alive with the support of iBasso. Even the member base has kept the DX200 alive and current for over 2 years.

The DX200, however, didn’t come up as an immediate winner though when it was released back in 2017. It’s firmware instability in the early days definitely did not help its reputation much especially when its larger commercial competitors had DAPs with smooth interfaces, and did not suffer from ghost touches. However true iBasso fans stuck to their guns and provided their continual support over the years that the other competitor models came and left whilst the DX200 stood strong. iBasso Support greatly deserves the recognition to have open interaction with their fan base and often bending their backs to help their customers - all this for a $1000 product, that was competing in a market where competitors were easily charging $3000 - $4000.

I believe this is where iBasso has shone as a company as who cares about their customers.

Specs



The DX200 uses a dual ES9028PRO DAC and boasts a 8 core 64 bit processor with 2GB LPDDR3 RAM. Whilst when it was originally released it was based off Android 6.x, the current supported firmware is Android 8.1.

The base amp module is the general purpose AMP1, however over the past few years iBasso has also released the AMP2, AMP3, AMP4, AMP4S, AMP6, and more recently the AMP7 and AMP8. Each with their own speciality in various single ended 3.5mm outputs, up to the recently adopted 4.4mm balanced. Also more recently, a prototype AMP9 with Korg’s NuTube was exhibited in the e-earphone PortaFes Winter Dec ’18 Show.

The DX200 also supports 5G WiFi & Bluetooth 4.0. With Android 8.1, the DX200 supports SBC, AptX, and LDAC.

The DX200 battery lasts for a respectable 7-8 hrs depending on the amp module used and usage.

Ergonomics



The DX200 holds nicely in the hand and does not have an obnoxious heft as some of the other TotL DAPs are these days. Granted the DX200 gold is pretty heavy but that’s a limited edition, rather than mainstream model. The volume dial has a bumper which prevents accidental volume change and the buttons are mostly recessed protruding only ever so slightly. I’ve not had any accidental button presses on them either.

Inputs and Outputs



The DX200 has Coax out at the top, and supports USB-C for charging and transport. I don’t recall any other mainstream DAPs that used USB-C when the DX200 was released in 2017.

The headphone/line out depends on the amp module of user’s choice. Some have headphone out only, whilst others have both headphone and variable line out.

Firmware, User Interface & Operation



As mentioned above, originally when the DX200 was released, there was much room for the firmware to improve, and improve it did. iBasso quickly fixed the ghost touches a few years back, and the current Oreo firmware has been very stable. Whilst the UI is still a little laggy compared to the likes of AK or Sony, however is a lot smoother than it used to be from its original firmware when it was released. @Lurker0 further helped to improve the operability and extend functionality which is own patching.

The DX200 firmware allows a dual mode of listening either in Android mode with the Mango player, or in an Android cut-down “Mango native” mode.

I tend to use the physical buttons for track control more than the touch screen as I find that to be a little more responsive.

The battery life of the DX200 depends on which Amp module use but on average for a healthy battery, it should last ~7 hrs.

Sonics



Over the years, the DX200 has had different firmwares, each seem to have tweaked the sound a little bit in one way or another. Further the device has had a wide range of amps, each having their own tuning. However as an overall (and after 2 years of listening to it), I feel the DX200 has a very neutral presentation. The player has proven its ability for detail retrieval comparable to the likes of the Sony NW-WM1Z and AK players. Naturally each of those players would vary in how it decides to present the details it has retrieved. The little nuances and subtleties picked up in track recordings are presented ever so smoothly even compared to its expensive competitors. Sonically, there is nothing that even hints mediocrity in its music presentation.

Customers who decide to pick other alternative DAPs would do so more for other reasons such as personal sonic preference, or for a smoother user experience, but it would not be for DX200’s sonic inferiority.

AMP1
This amp seems to be the base standard of the DX200. In terms of functionality it supports a 3.5mm single ended headphones, and 3.5mm single ended line out, and a 2.5mm TRRS balanced headphone. The amp to my ears have a somewhat flat signature but also a little rounded on both low and high ends. Sonically it wouldn’t be my personal preference as other iBasso amps seem to have a fuller signature, however I do keep the AMP1 handy for its line out functionally for testing external 3rd party amps.

AMP2
This amp is now discontinued and a more dedicated SE-only with 1x 3.5mm TRS for headphone and 1x 3.5mm TRS for line out. The AMP2 uses a 4 channel architecture with current feedback buffer based. Sonically the AMP2 seems to extend the either ends of the FR that the AMP1 rolls off. The AMP2 seems more give a somewhat fuller signature to single ended headphones.

AMP3
I spent a lot of time with this amp as it was a dedicated balanced amp for both headphone and line out in the 2.5mm TRRS size. For me this married the AMP2’s fuller signature with the AMP1’s balanced headphone out. Due to it being balanced, not only does one get the fuller signature of AMP2, but also a wider soundstage experience. The AMP3’s design is high voltage swing based.

AMP4
I only recently managed to get hold of this as it was available in limited quantities. The AMP4 took on the Pentaconn 4.4mm socket which has been gaining popularity in recent years being a more robust design than the 2.5mm size. Whilst this is also a high voltage swing design like the AMP3, to me sonically the AMP4 is my personal favourite as it seems to have an even fuller signature than the AMP3. The bass seems fuller and more impactful and the highs are refined and extended. To my ears, I feel the mids have an ever so slightly U-shape to give it a nice wide soundstage however not recessed by any means. IMHO it is a pity that iBasso didn’t further invest in the AMP4 (but as you’ll read next, they have the AMP8).

AMP4S - AMP5 - AMP6 - AMP7
Unfortunately I do not have these amps and therefore cannot comment on them. Whilst info about the AMP4S, AMP5, and new AMP7 are available on the internet. What’s intriguing to me is the elusive AMP6 which does not even appear in iBasso’s discontinued section, yet small quantities of AMP6 exists.

AMP8
Along with the release of the single-ended AMP7, the AMP8 is the latest production-ready balanced-only headphone out amp in the Pentaconn 4.4mm format. I feel this is the replacement of the AMP4. Prior to me receiving the AMP4, I shifted from the AMP3 to the AMP8 as most of my headphones were 4.4mm terminated. There were differences between the AMP8 and the AMP3 however where the AMP8 has a completely new discrete design that features both voltage and current feedback. I preferred it sonically over the AMP3 where I felt it made the soundstage even fuller and wider than the AMP3. However to my ears the AMP4 had the perks of the AMP8 but with a wider soundstage. As the AMP4 is no longer available (except in the used market), the AMP8 would be the go-to amp for 4.4mm based plugs.

AMP9 (prototype)



In the e-earphone December PortaFes Winter 2018 show, iBasso demoed the AMP9 which is Korg Nutube based. The Korg Nutube is vacuum tube in a dual in-line package (DIP). As it is a proper vacuum tube, the Nutube is also sensitive to vibrations. As the AMP9 is just a prototype, when one taps on the DX200/AMP9 you’ll hear the microphonic tube “ping”. As I heard the AMP9 at the show, it was hard to comment on how it sounded like. I do hope that if the AMP9 makes it to production, iBasso would (have room to) implement some kind of vibration dampening around the Nutube.

How does the DX200 compare to other DAPs?
The only other DAPs I have in my disposal are the Sony NW-WM1Z and loaner Cayin N8. Both of these DAPs are 3x the cost of the DX200 and therefore not entirely apples to apples comparisons.

To my ears, irrespective of amp modules chosen, the DX200 has more of a reference-like sound which I attribute to the DAC of choice & implementation within the DX200.

As previously mentioned, to my ears I feel the DX200 is able to retrieve as much detail as its higher ended competitors however the presentation may vary. I find that whilst the DX200 tended more towards a reference sound, the NW-WM1Z and N8 were more organic in presentation. There was greater depth imaging with the NW-WM1Z and N8 whilst the DX200 focused on soundstage breadth. In fact in NW-WM1Z’s firmwares, the DX200 had a wider soundstage than the Sony. Over the years as firmwares of both DAPs improved, the NW-WM1Z’s soundstage caught up, whilst the DX200 improved in UI response.

Conclusion



The iBasso DX200 has definitely stood the test of time. Despite a DX220 coming up, I feel the DX200 base will remain strong especially in the DIYer community. Although I’ve not seen nor touched the DX220, I feel it’s taken some strong directions from where the DX200 itself had evolved in the past 2 years with thanks to the DIY community.

 

 
A few weeks ago, I met a very nice gentleman who was a distributor of this product. I had never heard of PSB let alone the M4U 2 and I was given the opportunity to demo this product. A very big thanks to John of Lenbrook Asia for this opportunity.
 


 
On The Head
 
Isolation - average. Maybe similar to the LP2  for my sized head. The Ed8s & Signature Pros isolate more. Whilst the clamping force though somewhat akin to the Ed8s & Signature Pros. It's weight on the head though is heavier than the aforementioned headphones.
 
The size of the earcups are just a tad small for my ears despite being circumaural. As such overall comfort-wise I'd probably feel its comfort to be less suitable for my head-size. But it may be more suitable for others with (smaller?) heads & ears.
 
Here's a picture showing the depth of the earpads.
 

 
Accessories
 
Absolute top knotch! Comes with 1/8"->1/4" plugs, airline converter jacks (very useful!), hard case, different cables (with phone capability), extra earpads, cleaning cloth, etc.
 
Features
 
Aside from the noise cancellation, it has an active & passive mode too (where passive mode can be used when the 2xAA battery drains). It also has dual jacks, one on each side of the earcup giving you flexibility which side you prefer your cable to fall on. I continually switched sockets on the earcups on the planes depending on which arm rest had the socket.
 


 
The cables don't tangle which is great, but they do have somewhat of a memory effect on how they were coil-stored. They're not microphonic though which is great.
 
The hinge also appears to be quite strong.
 


 
So how does it sound?
 
In Passive Mode

1. personally, these didn't sparkle for me - but then again I've been coming from Fostex TH900's, FitEar To Go!334, Unique Melody Merlin's, etc. Having said that, passive mode appears to be a bonus feature anyway, not its main selling factor - its ability for continued use even after the batteries are drained. My understanding is other NC/Active headphones stop dead when the batteries are dead - not good for a long overhaul flight.
2. although the SQ didn't sparkle for me, I still found acceptable detail in this mode.  Bass extension is decent but not deep. By comparison. The TH900 & V-Moda range extends deeper. They're not warm (nor bright for that matter) by any means.

 
In Active Mode

1. this is where the M4U 2 shines. I have to admit, I've always had a prejudice against double-amping but in this design, it seems to work quite well.
2. just switching on active mode, the detail jumps up, bass extensions increase, & overall sounds quite dynamic.
3. the trebles on the other hand didn't seem to extend further however, feels more brought forward.
4. the soundstage perceives to be larger in active mode initially but flicking back & forth, at least to my ears, they're really the same. Its more the improvements in the aforementioned aspects seem to make one think the soundstage increases too.
5. I seem to detect a hiss though (noise floor) when in active mode is enabled.

 
Noise Cancellation Activated

1. This is another selling feature of these headphones. Especially with the amount of accessories that come with these headphones, (at least to me) it tends to target more for the traveller.
2. the NC does (as with other NC headphones) cut out a certain range of frequencies so SQ is affected. Having said that, when I'm on a plane though, I don't mind so much...better than the low hum reverberating throughout the cabin.
3. again as with most other NC headphones, it does create a "suction" feeling the ears, but by no means uncomfortable.
4. on the plane, I actually used the NC feature quite a bit for watching in-flight movies more than for listening to music. So actually it's quite well suited for travel if it's the intent of the manufacturer to target travellers.

 

Firstly thank you to Fostex for this opportunity borrow the HP-V8 for a week
 

Introduction

Fostex has made desktop integrated DAC/Amps before with their HP-A8, HP-A4BL and compact HP-A3. The HP-V8 is a different beast altogether. It's a tube amp using 300B, KT88 and E88CC tubes and is as large as some speaker based amplifiers. It's almost like an announcement that Fostex is stepping into the high end desktop amp market and is making a clear statement "We're in the game too".
 
The HP-V8 comes in very well packed and huge box that weighs 31kg shipped. Its inputs at the back are simple - just a 3 prong power, and L/R RCA unbalanced inputs. The power switch is also at the back. On the front however there is a standby button, and 2 headphone jacks (balanced XLR and unbalanced 1/4" with a toggle switch to go back 'n forth between the two). The selector switch supports Low/High Gain for Low Impedance, and Low/High Gain for High Impedance, and a large volume knob.
 
The touch and feel of the knobs and switches just oozes quality. In many ways it reminds me of the feel and knobs of the Accuphase integrated amp I used to own. During operation, the unit does get warm but the cage is well ventilated with the tubes set decently enough in the middle that if anyone touches the front perspex, they'll feel a slight warmth but not burn themselves. The top mesh on the other hand is much warmer naturally. On my table, my kids won't be able to reach the top panel anyway.
 

Sonics

I don't have a lot of experience with proper desktop amps as in the past I had owned the more integrated DAC/Amps like Benchmark DAC, HP-A8, and currently my setup is the Invicta v1.0 feeding into a very customised Eddie Current Zana Deux (ZD). It should be noted that the mods done to the Zana Deux brings it into something in between a Zana Deux Special Edition & the newer Zana Deux Super but tailored quite specifically to the TH-900 to my liking. The headphones I have at my disposal too iare my single ended TH-900, and a loaner balanced TH-900 from Fostex too. I'm using Audirvana Plus v2.4 USB into the Invicta, and SE out to the ZD which acts as a preamp into the HP-V8 too. My customised ZD is my baseline and I use almost exclusively in its 3 ohm ZOut mode on the TH-900.
 
Probably one of the most immediate noticeable difference I find in the HP-V8 against my customised ZD is the HP-V8 simply produces a huge sound so effortlessly. It lives up to the image that it is a big amp producing big sound so easily. In comparison, say the DAC/Amps I had before, I feel those have to "pushed" and almost sound "strained" to produce that big sound. My ZD being a dedicated amp with a dedicated separate PSU, doesn't feel strained in producing that big sound however it doesn't feel as effortlessly as the HP-V8.
 
The presentation is airy, articulate and very smooth, with a nice full low end in the bass range. The tube signature just renders the bass with a nice vibrato-like texture and layering. Music just breathes and fills that large virtual space the amp creates for the headphones. By comparison the ZD feels somewhat more intimate and (possibly due to the 3 ohm output impedance?) the bass doesn't fill in as much as the HP-V8. The amp also seems to smooth out some of the treble peaks I hear in my ZD.
 
Comparing the single ended and the balanced XLR output, the later provides just that additional larger soundstage and instrument separation. I heard some sounds I hadn't heard before in tracks I'm very familiar with and for the moment was wondering if I was picking up connection faults in the socket connector and later realised it was repeatable and not so obvious in single ended mode until I knew what to look for. The benefits in balanced mode is just that much more obvious.
 

Summary

Sonically speaking, I don't think there's anything I can fault in the new Fostex HP-V8. I wish I could keep this amp and I even wonder if the TH-900 headphone is a bottleneck to what the amp can do. Sadly I don't have any other high end headphones (like the HD800S which I'm so tempted to procure just to try it out on this amp!). At least to my ears, the flaws to the amp aren't sonic. The physical size/weight and cost aspect would probably the main deterrents for one to buy and own such an amp. In terms of return on value (RoV), I think it would be hard to justify. Whilst it's clearly a step up from my customised ZD, I don't know if I personally would feel if its RoV is 4x the cost of my ZD. But if money is no object and desk space is not a premium, the HP-V8 would be a very satisfying headphone amp.

Introduction

V-Moda is one of the prominent brands on Head-Fi that got into Bluetooth early when audiophiles were still very insistent on on wired. Despite AptX and Kleer proprietary wireless protocols were available, not many brands adopted and stuck to SBC for their consumer-grade models.

V-Moda released the Crossfade Wireless (CFW1) back in 2015 focused primarily on getting the wired and wireless to sound as close as possible to each other. They did a highly commendable job however the CFW1 were not without some criticism such has no CliqFold (especially when the M100 had had it for a few years effort then), and intermittent disconnect issues from the source phone/device.

The Crossfade 2 Wireless (CF2W) came in 2017 with AptX support (only with the Rose Gold!) and with the CliqFold. This made quite a few fans happier however iPhone/iPad (iOS) users remained isolated with the lack of AAC support.

In 2018, V-Moda released the Crossfade 2 Wireless Codex Edition (Codex). This filled in the gap allowing iOS users to enjoy the superiority of AAC protocol over SBC.



Construction and Comfort


The Codex edition is no different from the CF2W Std from its looks and construction. In fact I needed a way to mark and distinguish between the two (yes I got the same colours, and no, I don't have any customised shields).

It is beautifully constructed and durable especially the yoke and CliqFold. However there are some weak points in the cups such as the volume and control buttons do feel a little flimsy.


Both the Codex and the CF2W differ from the original CFW1 that both newer models have the XL pads by default & CliqFold, whilst the original CFW1 had the standard pads and regular pre-M100 non-CliqFold headband.

Therefore in terms of how the Codex feels over the head, it's about the same as the CF2W Std. The clamping force is tight with little chance of the headphone falling off from my head. Further with the XL pads, they are a little more comfortable than the CFW1 standard pads.

This is a full sized superaural headphones however for my ears, they are more supraaural with the earpads sitting on my ears. As such isolation is average. I can definitely hear external ambient noise leaking in however I assume not as much leaks out. I can hear wind noise when I'm walking in the street. It doesn't bother me as much when I'm no the move as I do like to be aware of my surroundings.

Whist in summer the headphone can feel warm, they make great musical earmuffs during winter.

Bluetooth Connectivity


I've not been able to to find the Bluetooth version yet however I've not had any disconnect issues even with my iPhone X in my back pocket whereas previously with the CFW1 I could get disconnected occasionally depending on how far I place my iPhone from the headphone.

Codec Comparison with the other V-Moda Wireless


Note, the codec connection on iOS can be checked and confirmed via the XCode device logs.

1) iPhone X - CFW1 SBC vs Codex AAC on FLAC Onkyo Hi-Res Player

The CFW1 sounded to have a somewhat more mids recessed compared to the Codex. The CFW also has a somewhat more boomy bass. The Codex did sound more airy however. The difference in resolution from the codec differences is quite noticeable. However I feel the tonal difference is primarily due to the difference in earpads between the CFW1 and Codex. A reminder that the CFW1 has the standard pads from M-100 days whilst the Codex has the XL styled pads, and pads do make a difference to frequency response.

2) iPhone X - CF2W SBC vs Codex AAC on FLAC Onkyo Hi-Res Player

This is where I think we have a closer comparison since both should essentially be the same except for the difference in codec connection to the iOS device.

• The Codex had a bigger thump in the bass region.
• The Codex still seems to sound a little more mid-rich compared to the CF2W, which is a little surprising to me. I did not think a codec difference would have such an effect on tonal response.
  
• Percussions are a little more distinctive on the Std (SBC) version, but overall music sounds less smooth (most noticeable in vocals) and more brittle in the treble/percussions, presumably due to the codec differences.
• The Codex did have an added clarity over the CF2W which is where also where I believe is the difference in codecs.

3) iPhone X - CF2W SBC vs Codex AAC on 256k AAC lossy Music Player

Maybe it's me, but with lossy source, it's a little bit more difficult to distinguish between codecs. The difference in codec is still there however not as big compared to lossless.

4) iMac Pro - CF2W AptX vs Codex AptX on ALAC iTunes

Remember the Codex still keeps the AptX support therefore in theory there should be no difference between the CF2W AptX vs the Codex AptX however :-

• There's some kind of channel imbalance on the CF2W with AptX vs the Codex edition with same AptX. Hard to do a comparison with the Std having a slightly lower volume on the left channel vs the right.

5) Sony NW-WM1Z CF2W AptX vs Codex AptX

So I was able to use another AptX supported device to compare the CF2 W AptX vs the Codex AptX. I whipped out my Sony NW-WM1Z and paired with both headphones. To my ears, they sound identical.

6) Codex Wireless vs Wired

I hear tonal shift where the Codex FR leans more towards a neutral (but not completely neutral) stance compared to wireless AAC. There is a little more upper mids/lower treble presence, and a little added clarity in presentation. Overall though I -think- I hear a slightly more open sounDstage in wired mode.

Compared to other Bluetooth Headphones


Sony WH-1000XM3

The headphones here are cupped differently. For my ears, the WH-1000XM3 is circumaural whilst the Codex (and other V-Moda full-sized cans) are supraaural.

The WH-1000XM3 are lighter, have swivel cups, and lighter clamping force. Overall the 1000XM3 feels more comfortable on my head for long term use.

The WH-1000XM3 has a few other features over the Codex such as LDAC (in addition to AptX and AAC), and noise cancellation (3 mode settings: ambient sound control on, ambient sound control off, noise cancellation).

Totally they are different. Where the Codex maintain the V-Moda house signature sound, the WH-1000XM3 has a more typical HiFi-ish balanced sound. To me the WH-1000XM3 is a little U-shaped with mellow mids, whilst the Codex has as stronger & clearer mids and neutral treble.

The WH-1000XM3 midbass seems similar to the Codex, however the Codex has more sub-bass impact.

The WH-1000XM3 feels more spacious whilst Codex is more holographic headroom wise.

Master & Dynamic MW50

Like the Sony the MW50 is circumaural. The sliding cups were really stiff to adjust (maybe it was just with the demo unit I tried). Going back 'n forth between the MW50 and Codex, my first thought was "Where's the bass!?". The MW50 did have nice percussions however.

Beyerdynamic Aventho

In Japan the Aventho is like 50% more expensive than the Codex. It's supraaural like the Codex. Tonally, the Aventho sounded a little weird, like the lower mids a little suppressed. Vocals sounded a little nasally.

B&W PX

I don’t even want to talk about it...

Conclusion


The Crossfade 2 Wireless Codex Edition is the headphone V-Moda should have released last year as the (almost) all encompassing headphone. It still lacks LDAC however that protocol is not as widely used as AAC and AptX. Regardless, it is finally here and V-Moda has a pair of wireless headphones for both iOS and Android users to enjoy listening at enhanced protocols. It's definitely a welcoming model and for those who don't have a V-Moda wireless but want to enjoy the V-Moda house sound, the Codex is the way to go.

However if one already has the V-Moda Crossfade 2 Wireless of 2017 with their Android phone, IMHO there is little reason to upgrade unless one intends to support iOS devices too.

As with all other V-Moda Crossfade headphones, wired or not, the Codex is as sturdy and durable and beautifully finished. Whilst I've not taken advantage of the customised shields, it is comforting to know that aesthetically it can be personalised.

The Codex is an obvious choice for those who like the V-Moda signature sound.

Thanks You's

A great thank you to Fostex Japan for graciously passing me this T50RP Mk3 and giving me the opportunity to write this review. Further a great big thanks to @Wallabee for loaning me his T50RP Mk2 for a comparison.
 

[size=24.5699996948242px]Introduction[/size]

Fostex T50RP models actually require no introduction as it's been a running model since 2002 (with a revision around 2007). And in 2015, Fostex has done a 3rd revision of the T50RP. The RRP in Japan is 20,000 yen (equiv to USD$161).
 

 
Unlike it's predecessor, the Mk3 is more easily identifiable with changes to the text & colour of the labels, a padded headband. Strangely just such tiny little changes does make the headphone look more fashionable. Internally however, the Fostex has made some changes that does make the headphone sound like a different model altogether. The diaphragm is still the same but the ventilation portion and the baffle has been re-designed.

There are a few traits that keep that "Fostex T50RP" house sound however the tonality of the T50RP has changed significantly. But more about that later.
 

Package and Ergonomics

As with the Mk2, the T50RP Mk3 includes a 3m long black cable terminated with a 1/4" plug. In addition, it comes with a shorter 1.2m orange cable terminated with 3.5mm locking plug. The shorter cable is actually more practical for portable use.  Ergonomically the Mk3 is just as comfortable as the former. Despite the headband being padded, personally for me it hasn't really made much of a difference from the former in terms of comfort. The Mk3 weighs at 316g and is about 10g lighter than the Mk2.
 
T50RP Mk3 Headband

 
 
The headband differences between the T50RP Mk2 and Mk3

 
T50RP Mk3 earpads


The firmness seems to be very similar but design-wise has changed. The Mk2 pads were made from regular urethane whilst the newer is made of low repulsion urethane. Design-wise, notice how the flange of the older (right) goes over the rim of the up of the cup, whilst the newer (left) is more like the TH-900/TH500RP style.

 

Sonics

As always, this is what we're here for. Firstly my setup is having Audirvana Plus 2.1.1 running off my iMac USB3 into my Aurender Flow. There I have a splitter to run both versions of the T50RP concurrently. Although there's been criticisms about the T50RPs needing amping, I've actually managed to drive the Mk3s (and Mk2's) reasonably off the iPhone 6 whilst the iPhone 4s may seem to struggle just a little bit more. Further with the tonal differences between the Mk2 and Mk3, the latter "feels relatively easier" to drive at least to my ears. However, I've been accustomed to using my Aurender Flow included as my base reference recently and continue to do so with the impressions of this Fostex model.
 

So tonally, to my ears, the T50RP Mk3 feels more natural than the Mk2. It's reminiscent of the Alpha Dogs although there's sufficient differences that gives the T50RP Mk3 its own identity. Comparing directly to the Mk2, the newer Mk3 seems to have a tighter bass, a veil lifted in the midrange to lower trebles range, and the transition from the upper midrange to the lower treble range feels more uniform whilst the older Mk2 seems to me to have a little treble rolloff. There is one common feature in the treble range of both the Mk2 and Mk3 that reminds me they're both from the same Fostex family, and that is a bit of a 10kHz hump/spike. This is more noticeable in the Mk2 as the treble is more rolled off, then an unexpected "spike" around the 10kHz range. The Mk3 also seems to have that but as the trebles aren't rolled off, the spike isn't as obvious.
 
The midrange of  the T50RP Mk3 also isn't as prominent as the Mk2. In fact comparatively the Mk3 feels there's a slight dip to the midrange. However this makes the Mk3 signature to be an overall easier signature to like.
 
The bass is part that I do like in the T50RP Mk3, where I feel Fostex has taken the effort to clean up the bloom that the T50RP Mk2 had. The midbass bloom seems be tighter and the speed of the T50RP drivers is more noticeable. The sub bass is lacking however I don't personally don't really miss it.
 
Aside from it's tonal signature, it provides a decent soundstage. It's not as wide as it's TH-900 cousin however does give the perception of a wider soundstage than it's predecessor Mk2s. Similarly for it's depth imaging. I can't help to think (and having experienced the Alpha Dogs) the cup size and dampening used of the T50RP plays a part in how it presents the stage. However again, the Alpha Dog is a complete rework and a further 3x the cost of the T50RP Mk3s.
 
Detail retrieval to me is one of the most I've personally heard in a $200 (or even $300) headphone. Of course there are other headphones with miro detail-level retrieval performance however those headphones are priced rather differently. This is where I feel the T50RP drivers do really reveal their capability.
 

Summary

 
I think Fostex has done a fantastic job in improving the long running T50RP name. This is a marked upgrade (and probably a long overdue) over the T50RP Mk2. I can't help to speculate that Fostex has been sitting on the sidelines a little too long watching what other makers could do with its T50RP drivers and selling their versions of the headphone at 2-4x the price.Now the T50RP Mk3 can get a piece of that action too without increasing its price line too differently. Whilst I'd dare say the Mk3 still isn't an Alpha Dog, they are tonally closer than the Mk3 is to the Mk2; yet price wise it's much closer to the Mk2 sibling than the no longer produced Alpha Dog.
 
For the price and the sound quality it produces, T50RP Mk3 stands on its own. Should any maker decide to continue using the T50RP drivers, they'd need to consider how to keep their mods more competitive.

Introduction

Does Tralucent Audio really need any introduction? It's been around and well known since 2012 and Gavin (@spkrs01) has been active with the Head-Fi community even before the business started. In fact he's more a consumer than a maker! Tralucent Audio did not start of by making low end products then working their way up. The business wasn't shy in coming up with high end sound from day one with Gavin himself listening and instructing how the sound should be tuned.
 
In the past few years, Gavin has come up with the 1Plus2 back in late 2012, then Ref1 in 2014 still a hybrid but employing a isobaric design for the dual dynamic drivers, the Ref1 Too, and most recently offering an all BA earphone with the Plus5. However in 2016 he also revised the 1Plus2 into a the 1Plus2.2.
 

 

Design

As far as I know, I believe the design is still pretty much the same - a single dynamic driver with twin BA's. Whether it's the same drivers as the original 1Plus2, I'm uncertain. I've long since sold my 1Plus2 however shape-wise it does seem to look the same. I'm not certain but I think the filter grills may be different but I can't seem to find pix of the old 1Plus2 grills. It uses a Westone-styled connector however I'm not certain if the diameter of the pins are the same as they used to be.
 
The cable to me is a little tangly and cumbersome and somewhat microphonics. However in terms of sonics, it seems to couple with the 1Plus2.2 rather well.
 

Sonics

We'll get to the meat of it all but before doing so, my primary set up is as pictured - the AK380Cu with matching amp on firmware 1.25 listening to mostly DSD files. Why the AK380Cu? 'cos Gavin convinced me that the setup was to die for - and who am I to argue with a man who knows what he's talking about?
 
First and foremost, the 1Plus2.2 is ridiculously transparent and clear. Whatever you have in your DAP, it feels like the 1Plus2.2 just presents it exactly for what it is - if you have a bad recording, well you'll definitely hear it; if you have a live recording; well you're gonna feel like you're there hearing every chatter, clapping, toe tapping, champagne corks popping, etc. in the background of the track. Want to know what I mean? Have a listen to Bill Evans Trio's My Foolish Heart from the Waltz for Debbie album. The 1Plus2.2 makes you feel like  you were there back in 1961. In fact with so much transparency, with the wealth of information that the 1Plus2.2 can present, it can almost be overwhelming.
 
Which leads to the next point of instrument separation - the 1Plus2.2 is distinctively clear. The various instruments don't muddy up each other. This works well for "simple" presentations but if it's a musical track of multitude of instruments, vocals, etc. it can be a little overwhelming. However listening to Jazz triplets and quartets or simple vocal jazz the 1Plus2.2 absolutely excels.
 
Soundstage plays a part in the above too - one of the reason why the 1Plus2.2 works is that the soundstage it presents is wide and deep (for an earphone at least), and at least in my opinion, gives the instruments room to "breath" so to speak. I don't hear any excessive decay and overlap in this earphone. The 1Plus2.2 also seems to create one of the largest soundstage presentations within the category of IEMs.
 
As for it's tonal signature, if memory serves me correctly, to me it's the same as the original 1Plus2 but smoothed out somewhat less "harsh crisp". The bass is deep, punchy and tight. To my ears, it's an addictive part of the signature that I really like. The mids are a little toned back like the originally 1Plus2 but not offensively recessed - I may call this a slight shallow U but not V shaped signature. The trebles in the 1Plus2.2 is where I feel it has improved the most over the 1Plus2. The 1Plus2.2 trebles remain a extended however are much smoother and silkier than the original 1Plus2. There's more air and a "classy" presentation to it than it's predecessor.

As the 1Plus2.2 has an overall very tight presentation that it makes it a speedy IEM that works well with  fast tracks.
 

 

Conclusion

If one were to seek a very open and transparently clear earphone, the 1Plus2.2 would probably one of the top in this category. It's the kind that would keep one excited in hearing every detail and it keeps one on the edge of the seat throughout the whole listening time. To me, it's not a laid back, relaxing kind of presentation - in a movie analogy, it's like watching an action movie in 4K or even 8K with the full 4DX works. At least in my experience, there are few IEMs in this category and personally in my IEM list, the 1Plus2.2 reigns in the top 2 list (where the other is the Shure KSE1500).

 
I apologise for the late report on the initial impressions of the Fostex TH-600. I spent early part of last week burning the headphone in. But when that was complete I was hit with the flu and high fever. The above photo was actually my bedroom rig during recovery. Post recovery, I actually managed to make some time to have a listen to the TH-600 a bit, and compare it to the Signature Pros and the TH-900. Over the weekend my friend & I attempted to find a pair of Denon AH-D7000 but there was none! Tokyo may be great with the latest and the greatest but they're also quick to stash away succeeded models. So sadly, no comparisons to the D7000 - not even 2nd hands.
 
Please note that these are very preliminary listening over the past 3 days and I've got another 1.5 days with it before I should probably return them back to Fostex.
 

Introductory Highlights

 
The way I'd quickly summarise the TH-600 is that it introduces the Fostex TH-signature to those who are curious about how Fostex TH house sound sounds like. It shares many qualities physical and sonic to the TH-900, but at the end of the day, this is still the little baby brother of the TH-900. The price of the TH-600 will retail for approx Y84,000 in Tokyo whilst the bigger older brother retails for approx Y130,000 street price.
 
 

 

Construction and Design

 
The TH-600 shares the same design, headband, earcup size, and ear pads as the TH-900. The fundamental differences between the two are the drivers are now 1.0 Tesla whilst the bigger brother is 1.5 Tesla. The cables are also 6N OFC whilst the other is 7N OFC. Visually the biggest difference is the magnesium textured black ear cups. The 1/4" plug is also sliver textured and is heavier than the TH-900's fingerprint prone chrome.
 
Overall the TH-600 is more stealth and understated but yet very classy. The textured magnesium cup is actually very feels rather industrial to touch.
 

Sound Signature

 
 

 
 
I'll start off by saying that aside from a few snippet comments here and there, I won't be doing a thorough sound comparison between the TH-600 and the TH-900 as I've previously mentioned in this thread that I feel it won't do the TH-600 justice. However I will say it's SQ matches my expectation for its given price. I was lucky enough to have Bootsy1 loan me his Ultrasone Signature Pro which to me is more similarly priced. Thank you Bootsy1.
 
The TH-600 shares similar tonal signatures to the TH-900 that it's a somewhat mild U-shape. I won't really say that one has more bass or treble quantity than the other, nor ones mid more recessed, laid/pulled back from the other. By comparison the Signature Pro has a more prominent mids, slightly less sub bass, and slightly more forward treble.
 
Overall the TH-600 has a more laid-back sound especially compared to the Signature Pros. I find it excels in slower vocal jazz (take your pick out of the Best Audiophile Voices series), whereas in more modern vocals Jazz or strong vocals where there's potential for some speed (such as Michael Buble, Adele, etc.) I prefer the Signature Pros. With slower paced genre, the TH-600 feels it has room to move and ease into music. Instruments and vocals are well separated and have room to breath. Whereas strong vocals like Adele where there's a varying pace, the TH-600 doesn't have the intimacy of the Signature Pros. As such the Signature Pros feel more engaged.
 
The soundstage and imaging of the TH-600 is by far larger and deeper than the Signature Pro, which shouldn't be a surprise. However, and this was something I didn't notice before with the Signature Pro, is the S-Logic's 3D feels more simulated whereas the TH-600 feels much more natural. Along with that, the resolution of the TH-600 is also greater giving a smoother presentation whereas the Signature Pro can occasionally feel somewhat grainy.
 
However, the tables are turned when the TH-600 is compared to the TH-900. The older bigger brother gives a bigger sound. Despite having the basic similar tonal signature, the TH-900 is more expansive, even greater soundstage, imaging, and more immersive. That's where the almost-double price show it's true value (instead of the Urushi cups as most may think).
 
These are my raw notes I made during listening :-
 
 
 
 

Conclusion For Now

I think for those who are curious about the Fostex TH-series house sound, the TH-600 will please. It actually performs well for a headphone of it's price range. I actually can't think of another closed back (I personally do not believe in comparing open to closed) of that price that would sound nice and articulate.
 
Having said that at least for my ears I do have preferences of certain genre where the TH-600 will shine more than others. Ideally one would own different types of headphones for different types of genre (the TH-600 for laid back tracks, the SigPros for strong vocals, the SigDJ for pop/hiphop/electronic). However if I had to choose only 1x closed-back headphone for home use of around this price range, the TH-600 would make me very happy.
 
 

 
Big Thanks To Bootsy1 For Loaning Me His Signature Pros!

Introduction

 
Before getting into the AK240, I'll need to thank Amos/Currawong for bringing this back from the SoCal 2014 show, and also a very big thanks to iRiver USA for being so generous on letting Team Tokyo have a loaner of this product. Where we can test in the comfort of our environment rather than standing in a shop with limited time for testing.
 
Is one needed for this DAP really? It's gained more attention before it was released than when it's available!! This is iRiver/A&K's latest addition to their line but it's also their flagship. The AK240 specs can be found below so there's no necessity to regurgitate in this review :-

http://www.astellnkern.com/eng/htm/ak240/ak240_spec.asp
 

 

Design

Below was the AK240 launch in Japan. It shows how the design of the AK240 was conceived. Sadly I don't understand enough Japanese to understand what was said in the presentation, nor do I understand enough about design concepts.
 

 
When the AK240 was first released I thought the design looked awkward and many others thought so too. However having one in my hands right now, with it sitting side-by-side with some of the other competitor DAPs, there's something attractive and appealing about it's very space-age design looks. Even walking around in the streets and having a cup of coffee, passer bys do take a glance at it wondering what this James Bond-looking gadget is. It's not that I'm ashamed of looking geeky with my multi-stack DAC/Amp hanging off my iPad but it's also nice to have something that's modern looking that actually looks trendy to the non-audiophiles but yet produce audiophile level sound quality.
 
The positive side-effect of this is that then the general audio listeners will also start to take an interest in good SQ as the products not only appeal their sonic palates but to match their image lifestyles too. If there's any opportunity to raise awareness to the general public of how good music could sound to their ears, I'd be happy to support such an opportunity - even if it means designing something visually striking and easy to use around a audio component that delivers great sound quality.
 

 
Ergonomically though how well does it fit in one's hands? At least in mine, averaged size palm, it actually fits in quite well. When I first saw the AK240 on the forums, I wondered why have the smaller screen with the bigger base? One may as well make it a rectangular box design and put in a larger LCD. However when I have this in the palm of my hand (and I'm left handed), I can actually wrap my fingers and rest on the slanted bevel below the volume knob which provides me a more secure yet comfortable grip, which is a nice feeling to have when holding a $2500 item.
 
The AK240 also feels solidly built and robust - I feel that it's something classy in my hands. The volume dials are light with distinctive clicks signifying a 0.5 jump increments (of 0 -> 75). The power, back, pause/play, forward buttons are also distinctive and don't feel loose. The 3.5mm jack holds in quite firmly but not excessively. 
 
Aside from the external design and ergonomics, I thought I'd put in another picture from the Japanese slide presentation I attended. This has is a little more about the internal architecture of the DAP and how it uses the 2xCS4398 DACs for each channel :-


 

Features

The AK240 is loaded with features which has made it a rather versatile DAP. It supports optical out, balanced out, functions as a DAC/Amp from a PC (not from Android), has WiFi for wireless upgrades, and online streaming, Bluetooth 4.0 support, and if 256GB internal storage is not enough, a microSD card slot with up to (the current) 128GB microSD can be further added.
 
I won't dwell too much on the WiFi MQS Streaming (hires) nor native DSD support as that's been discussed in the forums (although I will comment on it's SQ later) but I'd like to drop in a word or two about another service which hasn't been talked about much, mainly because the service is currently quite limited. The AK240 also supports online purchasing and downloading of hires quality music via the same MQS Streaming but through the Internet with some online music stores iRiver/A&K have partnerships with. Currently this service is available in Korea and (as I've been told) Germany. It's my understanding iRiver Japan is trying to provide this service in Japan too and since they had eOnkyo talk in their AK240 press release, I can only hope that iRiver Japan has a successful negotiation with them to provide hires and DSD downloading to the AK240 too.
 
Another feature which seems to be in the works is using the AK240 as a DSD DAC from the PC. Currently on firmware 1.09, it hasn't been very stable for me (the Audirvana Plus on the Mac side resets if I change volume on the software player, but it seems to work if I just let it play through without trying to change anything) but hopefully future firmwares will fix this and all the format supported on the DAP will also be supported as a DAC/Amp.
 

 

Sound Quality

When iRiver/A&K released the AK100, AK120, and AK100Mk2, they were (to me at least) revolutionary that they could make an audiophile level sound in a neat package that's aesthetically trendy and easy to use. But the SQ was still a little hit 'n miss that made me feel the makers were still experimenting a little (admittedly less so with the AK120 which was quite a solid product on its own). But the fact that they could be modified and improved internally meant to me that that the makers still hadn't nailed it. As such with the AK240, I think the makers has finally come up with something where (if we forget about the price), is something that sonically is it.
 
Personally I was skeptical myself of how "good" could a self-contained unit that fits in the palm of my hand could be, and my experiences with competing DAPs in the past had been minor incremental sonic improvements over each other that the reign of a DAP usually isn't very long lasting. The AK240, however was a jaw dropping easily noticeable marked improvement over it's predecessors. Not only that, but also given stiff competition to its peers.
 
The main primary sonic features I've noticed with the AK240 is how smooth and fluid it's musical presentation is. As I listen to quite a bit of older 50's & 60's west coast jazz, some vocal jazz with mainly few supporting acoustic instruments, the AK240 renders each instrument with precision, clarity and detail. Vocals are also very clear, involving, and smooth. However despite the precise distinction of each of these components, the AK240 pulls them all together that they all work in harmony together that it feels like I am listening to one single musical piece. Should I choose to focus on a particular instrument, I can hear it with ease with copious amount of detail but should I sit down and relax I can take it all in without any odd component standing out over the others.
 
I think this is helped by the large spacious setting the AK240 is able to create. The soundstage is wide as the imaging is deep. Placement of instruments and vocals on the stage are easily identified. But again, each component uses that space well. There are no pockets of 'vacuum' where the presentation sounds odd.
 
I find the AK240 to really start trickling into the multi stack portable DAC/Amp component space. Except for maybe the HM-901, I find comparing the AK240 to other DAPs to be an easy challenge and it has been more intriguing to compare it with the separate portable DAC/Amp products instead. Although there are some high end portable DAC/Amps that still have an edge over the AK240, the AK240 still puts up a good fight.
 
[Added: 7th Apr '14] The AK240 is not forgiving to poor recordings. In some older recordings and mastering, I can hear more background noise and imperfections during the recordings. Any skepticism I had with the CS4398 as a DAC from my older Marantz DV9500 SACD player are changing and I understand more that it's the implementation around the DAC that is just as relevant as the components used.
 

AK240 & NW-ZX1

Sadly my favourite NW-ZX1 was easily toppled by the AK240. Again we should, for the moment, forget about the price of the products. The AK240 to my ears sound smoother, greater depth, and that fluid presentation makes my NW-ZX1 sound somewhat less refined by comparison. That's not to say the NW-ZX1 is a terrible product, as I opted it over the AK120 which I subsequently sold. However the AK240 is a noticeable step up over both the NW-ZX1 & AK120.
 
Why would I choose the AK240: Greater storage, better SQ, greater flexibility with balanced output
Why would I choose the NW-ZX1: Great value for money, UI more dummy proof, open Android platform. Won't cry so much if I lose this since it's cheaper than the AK240.
 

AK240 & HM-901

This is one where it does get a little more interesting. The AK240 sounds more coherent than the HM-901 where I find the HM-901's separation to be a little too distinctively separate left & right (especially vocals). The HM-901 does have a deeper and greater sub-bass impact, with a mid-bass bloom. As such the HM-901 does sound somewhat more warm and mature, whilst the AK240 seems to focus more on the upper mids to treble space. I do find the trebles in the AK240 a little more compressed compared to the HM-901, but not offensively so. Overall FR though, the AK240 comes back though by having a greater sense of space in width and depth whilst the HM-901 sounds more intimate by comparison. When I have these two DAPs side-by-side, the HM-901 feels like the more older mature CEO of a large business, whilst the AK240 more the slick & smooth yet precise banker.
 
Why would I choose the AK240: Faster and more logical UI, more standard charging interfaces with its microUSB, longer battery life (just), good for HipHop, R&B
Why would I choose the HM-901: Cheaper than the AK240, more mature sound for the slow easy going, Jazz, vocals, golden oldies, 80's pop 'n rock. Can drive those harder-to-drive cans, modular amp options. A more standard(??) 3.5mm TRRS socket for balanced headphones.
 

AK240 & the CLAS -dB/Duet

The AK240 comes close to the Cypherlabs component stack and puts up a good fight against it. The -dB/Duet is able to match the staging width and imaging depth but also has the bass depth similar to the HM-901 in comparison to the AK240. The Duet is also has a more powerful amp section than the AK240.
 
Why would I choose the AK240: Compact, greater storage than any iOS or Android device with the -dB/Duet stack
Why would I choose the -dB/Duet: I'll sitting in some cafe for an extended period of time with my obnoxious large cans. It'll charge my iPhone whilst I'm listening to it. A more common socket with the Kobiconn for balanced headphones.
 

AK240 & the VentureCraft DD OPA627SM 12V LE/Apex Glacier

The AK240 still provides easier instrument separation and a mid-row from stage presentation, whilst the VentureCraft DD/Apex Glacier has a more front row stage presentation. (Typical of OPA627's??) There's more bass warmth to the VentureCraft DD/Apex Glacier but this stack also seems to have smeared details when compared side-by-side to the AK240.
 
Why would I choose the AK240: Compact, greater storage than any iOS device with the DD/Apex Glacier stack (note the DD is an iOS-only device), sonically more detailed and precise. I have a balanced headphone option if I want.
Why would I choose the DD/Apex Glacier: cheaper than the AK240, more configurable that I could switch amps.
 

Summary

 
As I mentioned earlier, before this product was in my hands and all I saw were pictures, I was a skeptic. Whilst I thought that it'll be a good product, I didn't think it'll be a great product. The price will deter most from even trying the AK240, and maybe the design may too. However if one were to put those pre-conceptions aside, and just get to touch, feel and hear the AK240, hopefully they'll see its inner beauty. Whether that is worth the asking price, that is up to each individual.
 
For me at least. I believe in bridging the gap between the image of geeky audiophiles with their geeky looking products with the more mainstream audio enthusiasts and where in the past these audio enthusiasts get turned off by audio products that may sound good but look horribly designed, products like the AK-series show that one could get good sound yet still not look awkward. Whilst it's true that the price of the AK240 may still make it prohibitive to the general consumer, it's closer within the reach of some of the audio enthusiasts and enlighten them a little more on what audiophiles are raving about - without looking too awkward.
 
Where the AK240 excels, I feel, is that as a complete self-contained package - sonics, capacity, usage, functionality, visual and feel aesthetics - the AK240 is a winner. It sits in one's pocket unobtrusively, it's basic functions are easily accessible with external buttons, it can function as a DAC/Amp with a notebook, it supports balanced headphones out, it supports line out, it has copious amount of storage, it can stream high quality music wirelessly, it even supports online download in countries where the service is available, and it doesn't sacrifice quality in doing all these things.

 

 

Introduction

In the past 2 years VentureCraft has been successfully creating amps and DAC/Amp packaged components with their GD-03, Go-DAP 4.0 for iPhone 4(s), and Go-DAP X for their multi OS (iDevice, Android 4.1+, PC USB Audio).
 
This is VentureCraft's first DAC-only product but with a twist. Leveraging on the existing AKM AK4353 used on the Go-DAP 4.0 and Go-DAP X, they have continued with the trend of using the same DAC in their DD. The difference between this iDevice DAC with it's competitors is the multiple choices of pre-amp OpAmps offered - OP275 (base standard), OPA627AU, Muses01, and Muses02.
 

Features

 
 
As with the other Go-DAPs, the DD Socket 1 comes with a 2200mAh Lithium that can be used to charge the iDevice during play, or dedicated for the DAC use. It sports a Toslink optical  and coax out and therefore can be used as a digital transport. It also sports a 9Vrms output to drive the internal OpAmps.
 

The Setup

The different OpAmp pre-amp options are rather interesting. Each OpAmp ever so slightly influences the output from the DAC prior to feeding into the amp. In this case the loaner DD1 Socket 1 I have from VentureCraft is the OPA627AU. As such I've paired it with a matching Leckerton UHA-6 MkII with a pair of OPA627AP installed.
 

 
 
iPhone 4S
DD Socket 1 with OPA627AU OpAmp pre-amp
Leckerton UHA-6MkII with also a OPA627AP OpAmp.
Headphone Lounge (Chris_Himself) Silver/Gold OCC cables with Rhapsodio RDB+ v1 and FitEar tips
 

Sound Signature

With the aforementioned setup, the DD seems to present a mild and mellow signature that seems quite suitable with Jazz, Classical and generally slower genre. There's also a touch of lush warmth to the signature giving a slight sense of richness to the overall signature. Despite that lush richness, detail isn't lost but more subtle rather than a glaring "right in your face" approach.
 
Despite being warm though, it doesn't focus on deep sub-bass but "warms up" more from a mid-bass to upper bass area. MIdrange is also rich with detail which starts to show its' emphasis in upper mids -   tracks with strong female vocals benefit from this. The trebles extend high and maintain a sense of airiness without any harshness.
 
Aside: For no logical reason, I'm a believer of burning in amps but not DACs. This DAC with an OpAmp pre-amp is therefore somewhat unique. I've opted to burn it in to smooth out the highs. As such my comments the absence of harshness or brightness.
 

Conclusion

This DAC definitely presents an interesting alternative to the current Fostex HP-P1, CypherLabs Algorhythm Solo, and other iDevice-supported DAC offerings. In terms of it as a DDC, it supports both Toslink optical out like the HP-P1 but also with a Coax like the CLAS. An added feature which is shared with the current CLAS but not with the Fostex HP-P1 is that it can charge the iPhone. Some of the idiosyncratic charging operation is that it has to be "switched on" to charge and the operator must remember to switch off when disconnecting the microUSB charging cable (or the battery will drain). Its DAC function is also disabled whilst it's being charged - as such the use and charging operations are mutually exclusive.
 
Sound-wise, despite all 3 aforementioned iDevice DACs are from the same manufacturer of DAC by AKM, the models are different and in addition with the DD Socket 1's ability to swap OpAmp pre-amps provides some flexibility to the DAC that the others can't. The different DACs can influence the lineout before getting fed to the external amp. As such instead of swapping DACs altogether, one could just swap the OpAmps to have a slightly different flavour.
 
The DD Socket 1 is a refreshing addition to the portable iDevice DAC world.
 

 

 
The Ortofon e-Q5 is an easy-to-drive low impedance single balanced armature driver designed by Ortofon themselves. It uses OFC cables and the shells are aluminium CNC-ed.
 
As with most Japanese products, presentation is important and the e-Q5 doesn't disappoint. It comes in a nice cylindrical can with a multitude of accessories - tip cleaner, flanges/tips of various sizes, and filter replacements too.
 

 
The e-Q5s retail approx Y13,800 (USD$175) online, and probably a tad more in a bricks 'n mortar shop. For that price though, its provides a very nice, tube-like signature. The earphones tend to lean more towards a mid/treble forward and the trebles are nicely extended with detail but doesn't sound harsh or sibilant. Despite being somewhat tad mid/treble forward, they aren't as forward as the Shures SE535 for example.
 
The bass on the other hand seem to have slightly less dimension and less detail but more musical. However Ortofon has managed to keep the bass tight and neutral. These are not bass heavy earphones.
 
As for the other aspects of its signature, it's timbre and instrument separation are also very impressive particularly for acoustic instruments - a very airy presentation. The soundstage is also quite decent.
 
 

 
 
Talking to the makers, the target genre is more jazz/classical and it's met that goal. Listening to West Coast Jazz like Gerry Mulligan, & Paul Desmond, their (alto) sax sound very smooth and involving.
 
For some early 80's music with electronic (e.g. keyboard)  instruments, that are naturally treble focused, the earphones could sound a little more fatiguing but genres such as acoustic of vocal jazz, & classical, they reveal the strengths of these earphones.
 
As for the fit of the e-Q5, they do fit in snugly into ears and the cable can be looped around the ear if desired - however I don't know what kind of stress that will put on the cable since it'll be bent perpendicular to the aluminium housing. It's isolation is also decent (but I've not tried all their flanges).
 
Overall, for the price, one is definitely great workmanship with good quality sound. I'd definitely wouldn't hesitate recommending these earphones or it's bigger brother, the e-Q7 especially to a jazz enthusiast.
 

 

 
This review will have a lot of references to the e-Q5 which will be explained later.
 
As with the e-Q5, the e-Q7 is also an easy-to-drive low impedance single balanced armature designed by Ortofon. In fact it's the same balanced armature as the e-Q5. The main difference between the e-Q5 and the e-Q7 is the pure silver plated cables as opposed to e-Q5's OFC cables.
 
The e-Q5 review can be found here :-
 
http://www.head-fi.org/products/ortofon-e-q5/reviews/6953
 
Again, like the e-Q5, the presentation and the packaging of the e-Q7 is impressive. It comes in a box, and a carry case in addition to the extra flanges, filters and tip cleaner.


 
A close up of the case :-
 

 
The big difference in the cables aren't only with it's construction but also the way it's cloth-material wrapped. The cables are as such somewhat less tangle-free but somewhat introduce microphonic vibrations.
 
The cables also come down perpendicular making it easy to wrap around the ear if desired with less stress on the joints. Strangely though, the isolation on the e-Q7 seems to be tad less than the e-Q5 and possibly the extended length appears to be add weight to the ends pulling the earphone down a tad. I've not tried different flanges to see if it improves isolation.
 

 
Since the balanced armature is the same as the e-Q5, a lot of my impressions are in comparison to the e-Q5 - to see the difference in SQ between the OFC cables vs pure silver plated cables.
 
Acoustic instruments sound more refined, controlled, & clearer than the e-Q5. Somewhat with more finesse, detailed & less mid-forward. There is still the mid hump, but its a tad pulled back in comparison to the e-Q5. The mids also sound a little more detailed, and overall, I'd say the eQ-7 is a tad more balanced & a little more neutral than the e-Q5. 
 
The trebles seem a little bit more airy, detailed & can be somewhat revealing to tiny details in recording, more so than the e-Q5.
 
The soundstage is also slightly larger than the e-Q5 but depth-wise is the same. It maintains the airy tube-like presentation of the e-Q5. The e-Q7 also adds a little more depth to the dimension. I'd also rate the a better timbre than the e-Q5.
 
As with the e-Q5, these earphones deliver a lot for it's online street price of Y21,400 (USD$270). Whether the e-Q7 is worth the extra USD$95 over the e-Q5, that's a more difficult question. Purely in terms of SQ, it's harder to justify. However the e-Q7 does provide a nice box for storage and carrying case for transporting around; in addition to the SQ improvement over the e-Q5.
 

Introduction

Audiophiles would probably be familiar with the name “Dali” as they have been making speakers for the past 36 years. During that time they offer a range of entry to premium level speakers. However, recently they have taken a stab in making headphones which has resulted in the Dali iO-4 and iO-6, and Dali were courteous enough to offer me a pair of iO-6 for review a few weeks’ back.



Specifications and Design

Whilst both headphones are wireless, the iO-6 offers noise cancellation with a 30-hour battery life, whilst the iO-4 forgoes the noise cancellation but with a 60 hour battery life. Both headphones offer support to Bluetooth 5.0, AptX, AptX HD and AAC protocols, however Sony’s proprietary LDAC is not in the list. Both headphones can also be used wired should the battery resources run depleted. The iO-4 and iO-6 use 50mm paper cone drivers in almost identical enclosure cups aside from the odd noise cancellation button in the iO-6. The rest of the design is identical.

Dali offers each model in 2 colours, Caramel White (which is the one I have for review), or in more stealthy iron black. The materials utilised are primarily polycarbonate and synthetic leather however are incorporated together in such an aesthetically pleasing way that exudes sophistication and finesse. Even the assembly and construction demonstrate precision and class; the buttons are firm and definitive, the ear cups swivels smoothly, the headband adjustment is firm, and even the switching of the ear pads are symmetrical.

Dali has also opted to use the more current USB-C standard for charging which (at least in the iO-6, and presumably with the iO-4), comes with cables inside in a rather trendy looking carry pouch.



Comfort and Ergonomics

Whilst initially the iO-6 clamping felt firm and uncomfortable for extended use, after about 10 hours of break-in, I found I could, and did, wear them for a few hours at a time. They are proper circumaural headphones and my ears sit comfortably in the earpads. Whilst I’ve read other reviewers may have felt the ear pads were shallow for them, this is not the case with me. I don’t feel my ears touching the inner dust mesh.

The memory foam in the synthetic leather earpads do a good job in moulding providing a good seal even without my glasses. The cups swivel sufficiently across both axes to provide the right angles to provide the good seal.

The top of the headband is also padded and rests comfortably on my head. The overall headphone feels light and effortless without feeling flimsy.



Operation and Use

Electronically, I feel Dali has gone with simplicity with their wireless headphones. Whilst both models support the latest AptX, AptX HD, and AAC protocols (aside from LDAC), connectivity-wise Dali has adopted the traditional single point connectivity, and it does this well with Bluetooth 5.0. I live in a double story home and in one occasion I was upstairs in my bedroom when I switched on my iO-6 and it connected to something. Being a typical technologist, I have many Bluetooth devices - may it be my iPhone X, iPad Pro, iBasso DX200, Sony NW-WM1Z, etc. It took a while to realise it managed to pair to my iMac Pro downstairs in the TV room - separated by bricked walls. The connectivity was strong enough that I was streaming music through walls without any dropouts.

However, for those who do wish to pair their Dali headphones with multiple devices, one would need to disconnect from the current paired device before the new device can take over.

Dali has continued with the trend of traditional physical buttons instead of touch controls. Personally, for me, I’m very comfortable with physical buttons as I have had rather unnatural experiences with my former Sony MDR-1000X touch controls. It’s still not second nature to me and I prefer an actual physical click to provide me with assurance that I have performed an action. Dali’s implementation of the physical buttons is what one would and should expect out of a premium-designed product - buttons that don’t wobble, and have firm definitive clicks.



I found that I have experienced some 0.5 sec delays in response to the controls however.

Edit [8th July 2020]: Long term use :-
The power switch seems to have developed an issue where it doesn’t power on. It requires the button to be toggled a few times before it powers on, combined with it being a soft power, one can’t toggle too quickly. This issue isn’t specific to my unit but to other iO-6 owners too.

The battery of the iO-6 lasts for 30 hours, whilst I’ve not timed it but for the times I have drained and charged it, the duration sounds about right. Whenever one switches on the headphone, a report on how much battery life (in percentage) is provided.



The Dali iO-6 headphones come with 2 cables and an adapter. One cable is for analogue use, whilst the other is for USB-C charging. An airplane adapter is also provided. Here, is one area where I feel there’s room for improvement for Dali. The analogue audio cable does not feel as robust as what I am used to seeing in other headphones. I do feel that was provided more as a contingency when the headphones run out of battery and the owner still wants to continue listening to them, rather than for the owner who wants to have a wired experience as the primary form of listening.

The USB-C cable feels a little more robust, however both cables are wrapped in a rubber material that I suspect may melt and stick together in extreme heat, and now that I am in the middle of an Australian summer where we have had a string of 36-40C days, I’d be cautious not to leave the cables by the window sill or my car parked in the open. Mind you this is speculation as it has not happened yet however I have seen other cables with the same material react that way.

Thankfully though there is nothing unique about the analogue and USB-C cable. 3rd party cables work fine with the Dali iO-6. This opportunity opens options to those who like to “fine tune” their Dali headphones with premium cables.

Isolation

As the iO-6 is more circumaural it isolates decently even without ANC. Comparing to the V-Moda Crossfade series, the iO-6 isolates more passively than the V-Moda’s.



Naturally some ambient sound still leaks in, especially of the lower frequencies, however this is where the ANC comes in. When ANC is enabled, it’s that lower range that the ANC isolates. Some of the higher frequencies still do leak in but to a lower volume and is not cancelled by the ANC. Thereafter any music played through the headphones drowns out any remaining ambient noise. As such I feel the ANC works well enough. Without ANC, the ambient sound in a busy area can still be distracting even with music playing.

There’s also a transparency mode which reamplifies what the external mic pics up to the headphones. This is presumably to be able to listen to external conversations without removing headphones. With iOS devices at least, transparency mode pauses music. Presumably it does the same with Android devices.

Volume

In Bluetooth mode, I’ve found the iO-6 is able to drive with sufficient volume for most songs. There are some odd songs where I could do with more volume but for the most part I’m satisfied. In wired mode, naturally it’s up to the external amp and the headphones can go louder if needed.

Bluetooth Use for Conversations

These headphones are designed primarily for audio and whilst it can be used for SIP calls, the microphone does pick up ambient noise in conversations. This is typical of other Bluetooth headphones too.

Sonics

Bluetooth AAC

Overall, the iO-6 has taken a more evenly balanced frequency response. As a comparison, the V-Moda house sound tends toward a bossier signature. Whilst initially out of the box, I felt the iO-6 had a light bass response, over time I found that it was tight and had a satisfying impact. Dali, having made quality speakers for such over 3 decades, have recreated a sound quality of sophistication and finesse into their headphones. Once the iO-6 drivers are well exercised after couple of hours of use, it settles to a sound reproduction that is exudes refined quality.

Whilst on the topic of frequency response, as mentioned the bass is tight and decently impactful, but it tapers off in the sub-bass region. Texturing is ever so light and this kind of bass characteristic lends well to songs where there is a fast transition from beat to the next.

As for the midrange, the iO-6 is second to none in the current wireless headphone range. Vocals are simply crystal clear and very refined in reproduction. Especially in vocal jazz, the texture reverberation of vocals can be discerned clearly.

Similarly, with the treble region, the iO-6 is precise, airy, and crystal. However, for listeners who are treble sensitive, may find them a little uncomfortable. For my ears though I do like them.

Across the frequency response however, there is no bleed nor smearing as one (bass, midrange, treble) range crosses from one to the other. I feel Dali has taken care to ensure they do their best for each range however, ensuring the different frequency ranges remain coherent.

In terms of soundstage, the iO-6 sets a wide and tall virtual stage space. In fact, when I first unboxed and listened to the iO-6, it reminded me of the HD800 (but naturally not as wide as the HD800). For a pair of closed back headphones, it is impressive. Over time when the mid-bass and midrange presence have blossomed, it fills in the empty virtual space it has created.

Overall, to my opinion and preferences I feel the iO-6 excels well in the genre of Classical, 50/60’s jazz, 70-80’s pop, vocal jazz. However, if it’s more current EDM and R&B, I feel a pair of headphones with more expressive sub-bass to be more suitable.

ANC

As touched upon earlier, the ANC works sufficiently well although it may not necessarily cancel out some of the higher frequencies that my leak in. it seems to cancel out as well as majority of the noise cancellations headphones - with the exception being the Sony series which seem to create total isolation (which to me, at the cost of sounding somewhat “digital”).

It has also been commented on the forums, there have been quite a few comments that bass is more impact with ANC on. For as far as I’ve been able to discern, I don’t think this means there’s more bass quantity, however with the ANC on, clarity of the bass is more clearly heard and therefore sounds more impactful.

Wired

Rather interestingly there seems to be a slight tonal shift whilst listening wired with the iO-6 on, and off. With it off, the iO-6 the upper mids seem to have a little bit more bloom. This isn’t something I expect as I would have thought all internal DSP would be bypassed.

Having said that, with it wired and volume adjusted accordingly, there is an added smoothness and a tad more “rawness” (less perceived processed?) to the signature, especially when paired with a decent external DAC/amp or DAP. Although I’ve not tried different cables extensively, I did try with an Ortofon 6N POCC cable and one can definitely fine tune the iO-6 signature with a cable of their preference. The iO-6 clearly demonstrates its potential in scalability.

Conclusion



As a first take on headphones by Dali, the iO-6 clearly has made an impact to the wireless headphone market. In wired mode, it’s making its first steps to the audiophile category. It is definitely one of the most finest sounding wireless headphones I have heard. There is room for Dali to improve on a few aspects of the headphones such as supporting multipoint, improve on the delayed response times of the music controls, better quality cables to match the sophisticated design and feel of the headphones itself, and if possible, add LDAC support to the list of protocols. Whilst other users may demand a more aggressive noise cancellation, personally for me this isn’t necessary - especially if there is potential for unexpected side effects such as making the signature sounding overly digital.

The Dali iO-6 demonstrates that one can get refined quality with wireless headphones.

Introduction

Tralucent Audio is a name that's appeared on Head-Fi only since August 2012 but has quickly made a name for themselves with their ability to challenge other IEM makers when it released it's 1Plus2. I reviewed that IEM last year as a love/hate relationship as I felt it excelled every aspect of audio technicalities an enthusiast or an audiophile seeks sonically but overall, didn't sound musical to my ears. My expectations of the 1Plus2 was eventually managed when I bought the earphone again but with the Tralucent Uber cable on the 2nd round. In short it took a little while for the 1Plus2 to get a little loving from me.
 
Now onto 2014, Tralucent Audio has done it again with a new model, the Ref 1 and this has taken a much shorter period of time for me to fall in love with - and with its stock cable, even more so with the Uber coupled with it, and in my impressions I'll tell you why.
 
The Ref 1 (I believe is the first to Edit: As per @shotgunshane, it seems Audio Technica has done isobaric before the Ref 1) employ an interesting isobaric design for it's pair of 9.2mm dynamic drivers, coupled with a pair of balanced armatures - so this is a 3-way, 4 driver, hybrid & isobaric IEM. But it seems Tralucent Audio didn't just want to go for unique in design, it further challenged it's own older brother, the 1Plus2, in technical excellence and improved on it's musicality.
 

 

Design

The Ref 1 in many ways are very much alike the (latter version of the) 1Plus2 but just smaller. The socket design, the stem design, faceplate, position of the port, etc. are so similar it's the two models are easily mistaken for each other. As such comfort for me on both the 1Plus2 and the Ref 1 are very similar maybe leaning towards the Ref 1 for a slightly more comfortable due to it's size.
 
When popped into my ears, they do angle outwards at the bottom whilst the top inwards towards my skull, and this is due to the angle & length of the stems & tips into my canal, whilst the cable at the top of the IEM pulls the upper part of the IEM closer to my ears. As such the seal it creates is a light seal, of which if I move a lot, the earphone can pop out easily. However if I'm sitting, everything sits in place naturally. I can create a better fit by tightening the neck sleeve on the cord.
 
Whilst on the topic of seals, the isolation is similar to the 1Plus2. Due to the light seal and the vented port, isolation is average for my fit.
 
Thanks to @burtomr, he did remind me that with the demo Ref 1 unit I had, there was a driver flex on the right IEM only. This sounds like a crackling sound when putting on IEM and if I were to push it. It didn't bother me much as once I had it on I was listening to it for it's SQ, however I can see how others could find it annoying for an expensive IEM to have such an issue.
 

Sound

 
Tralucent has basically done it again by making an earphone that’s technical perfection but tailored for a different taste. This earphone is all the detail demon that the 1Plus2 was yet further incorporates musicality into it - which was what I was seeking in the 1Plus2. It has more “body” than the sound of the 1Plus2 but still remains technical.
 
One of the first things I noticed about the Ref 1 is how fast it was. Music just sounded more positive, lively, and slick overall. Articulate sounds transition so quickly yet naturally - slick and speedy. This provided an overall very refreshing sound across the board for all genre I was listening to. I'd very much like to see the waterfall plot of this IEM but I suspect it to have rather short decays across its frequency response.
 
Tonally to my ears the Ref 1 further carries on from the 1Plus2s but with slight differences. As with the 1Plus2, the Ref 1's bass extends deep with a nicely controlled rumble, into a tight mid-bass region which to me contributes to the speedy response mentioned previously. The way the bass is rendered, is one of the most addictive - it sounds realistic, clear, & taut.
 
As for the midrange, this is where to me the Ref 1 differs a little from  the 1Plus2. Overall, it has a fuller midrange which renders vocals in full bloom. However slicing into a little more detail, my ears seem to notice little dip in the lower region of the midrange which I think gives the overall vast soundstage for the whole signature. It's therefore able to achieve 2 goals simultaneously - provide a huge soundstage presentation yet with the rest of the midrange having a full sound give vocals a rich and blossoming body.
 
The trebles are personally to me the most welcoming especially when I found the 1Plus2 to sound sibilant with certain recordings on the stock cable. The Ref 1 manages the sibilance without sacrificing the treble extension. Trebles maintain it's airiness, crispness, detail, and smoothness.
 
 
As mentioned before, the slight dip in the lower portion of the midrange seems to contribute to the Ref 1's overall soundstage. The soundstage can't be emphasised further - it'a huge and vast, just like it's older brother. It's even more so with the Uber cable plugged into the Ref 1. I'd dare say that the soundstage would sit between my (former) Signature DJ's and TH-900's and that's where I feel the Ref 1 starts to challenge some closed back headphones.
 

Ref 1 with different DAPs

These days there's quite a bit of questions on synergy of the earphone with various amps, DACs, and DAPs. I've tried the Ref 1 with the Cypherlabs Algorhythm Solo -dB/Duet combo, AK240, HM-901 and NW-ZX1 and I feel that it works well with most of those combos with maybe the only exception being the NW-ZX1 where it starts to be more track and genre fussy. The NW-ZX1 tends to have a somewhat more treble-focused sound and combined with the Ref 1, on certain tracks can start to sound sibilant for my tastes. On the other hand tracks that aren't treble focused, on the NW-ZX1 the trebles can sound crisp and airy.
 
However for multi-genre and multi-purpose, I personally prefer the Ref 1 out of the AK240 or CLAS -dB/Duet in my collection.
 

Closing Notes

 

 
Personally for me, I feel Tralucent Audio has excelled in this new IEM. It's not only got a very innovative design by incorporating drivers in an isobaric configuration coupled with BAs for an overall hybrid design but more importantly producing a sound that has maintained Tralucent's house signature - technical excellence. It gives a fast and slick signature with a highly addictive bass and yet maintains the technical excellence of its older brother, the 1Plus2. It's provided a sound that I've not heard in other makers which make the overall experience very refreshing.

Thank You: 

Firstly a big thank you to Stephen Guo for shipping these cables to me for review. I apologise that it's taken me so long to do it. 
 

Introduction

 
Beat Audio is a brand that has been in the cable business for quite a few years now and is not new to the portable audio industry. It's name is also well known to the mature members of Head-Fi who are focused on the portable audio. For a few years, Beat Audio's Oslo was their TotL and later revised to the Oslo II. However late in 2014 Beat Audio introduced their new TotL named Prima Donna. This is a 4 core of primarily silver alloy however I believe there may be a little mix of other materials of which I've not been privy to.
 
I normally don't get into the nitty gritty details/specs of the products therefore details of the Prima Donna can be found here :-
 
http://www.beataudiocables.com/cables/prima-donna.html
 

Ergonomics

 
With the few premium cables I've played or owned, they're usually thick and somewhat inflexible - solid cores require even more TLC. The Prima Donna's however are very supple. They could be rolled up and put in the pocket yet with little concern of damage. This is actually one the strong features of this cable as rarely would I do that to a cable over $500.
 
The cable can get a little tangly though but at least has little memory effect, nor suffer from mircophonics.
 

Sonics

 
The version I had was terminated for the FitEar and in this case my use was rather exclusively with the MH335DW-SR. As can be seen the connector used is a much smaller lower profile than the normal L-shaped 3rd party cables normally use.
 
When I first received it, I felt they were a little 2D and mailed Stephen Guo who then recommended running in for a few hundred hours - that was back in early Feb. Well, now a few months and hundreds of hours later, I must say that whatever sentiments I had back in late Jan/early Feb are gone. Coming from the Wagnus Proton and Tralucent Uber, the silver in the Prima Donna is more obvious in terms of treble extension and air. It has overall a nice headroom and a decently wide soundstage. Although imaging-wise, the other two cables may have an edge in terms of depth imaging, the Prima Donna isn't as 2D as initially pre-burn-in and provides a decent depth in imaging.
 
One obvious difference between the Prima Donna and the Proton/Uber is the treble extension and the air it presents. For a pair of bass-focused earphones like the MH335DW-SR, this provides a nice "finish" to end of notes and vocals. It's almost like a polish to the notes. This seems to give the impression a slightly cleaner finish the decay. The midrange is presented with clarity too whilst the bass remains as tight as the drivers of the earphones can present - in short, it feels like the Prima Donna doesn't add or subtract anything to the signature the earphone itself (ok and the DAC/Amp too).
 

Conclusion

Sonically, there is only praise for these cables and there is nothing to fault. Construction-wise, it's a blessing that it's such a supple cable that's easy to manage. I actually feel more comfortable having these cables as my "everyday" cable that doesn't sacrifice sonics whilst on the road. The cost on the other hand would be the price - at $800 it's not exactly cheap, but it's one of the few "over $500" cables I feel I don't have to baby over.

Thank You's and Sorries

A big thank David Maudlin for sending me the Cypher Labs AlgoRhythm Trio to me back in late May and I apologise that it's taken me 3 months to put something up about it.

 

Introduction

Cypher Labs as a company needs no introduction. It's been in the portable audio business being one of the first few companies to release an iOS approved DAC back in 2011 which carries the AlgoRhythm name used in most of Cypher Labs portable devices till this day. This AlgoRhythm Trio however is (if I'm not mistaken), Cypher Labs first portable tube amp. All of Cypher Labs past amps had been fully solid state or discrete.
 
I'm not going into the specs of the Trio which you can read yourself here: http://www.cypherlabs.com/products/algorhythm-trio-portable-vacuum-tube-headphone-tube-amplifier/
 
 

Design

As with all other Cypher Labs portable components, the design of the Trio is simple yet elegant. The top and side plate has small ventilation for the tube amp and also allows the owner to take a peek at the glow (which is natural by the way, not cheating with LED lights). Some slight differences from Cypher Labs other portable devices/amps are that now the Trio has a glossy surface. It gives it the very shiny new look however it's also slippery in the hands and attracts fingerprints. If you're fussy like me, then you'd be continually wiping/cleaning but carefully otherwise over cleaning could result in wiping off the logo. Another difference is the volume knob is now in the middle with line in to the right and headphone out ot the left. Cypher Labs has also opted a separate power switch instead of built-in to the volume knob instead.
 
The charging is via a miniUSB although personally have a preference for a microUSB like what the Picollo & Duet uses.
 

 

Sonics

Overall, Cypher Labs has got it right with the tonal balance of the amp but the slight difference is that to my ears they do sound smoother and more analogue-ish compared to the Duet. The sound staging too is larger than the Trio but still falls slightly shy of the Duet. Like the Trio though, this is also a powerful amp. Unfortunately in the case of the Trio, that power comes with a rather noticeable noisefloor especially with sensitive earphones/headphones. I opted to use the Fostex T50RP Mk3 with this review.
 
Going back and forth between the Picollo and the Trio, the sound stage is the main difference I've noticed. The Trio is able to create a bigger spacious sound. Separation of instruments is also more noticeable to my ears. Imaging is also deeper. In many ways I feel the Trio is closer to the Duet in terms of sonic reproduction. The difference would be where the tube comes in and the Trio provides that smooth analogue texture especially when listening to easy listening vocal jazz with acoustic instruments.

In terms of it's frequency response, the Trio pretty much gives the full range just like the Trio and Duet. If there's any differences, I'd personally feel that the Trio has  treble forwardness closer to the Trio whilst the Duet is a hairline behind. Because of this, I think the Trio would work better with headphones that has a slightly toned down treble just to get that added balance.
 

Summary

The Trio to me is just another exquisite product from Cypher Labs. If used with the less sensitive slightly warmer or neutral treble headphones it'll pair beautifully. It doesn't do so well with IEMs as say the Picollo or the Duet but it does give the smooth tube touches the other Cypher Labs portable amps don't. it adds to suite of Cypher Labs current portable amps with that slight twist of tube goodness to it.
 

Thank you's

This pair of Campfire Audio Vega is courtesy of @KB for review and to be passed around to others for their review. I blame @Currawong for putting me onto this 'cos I initially had no plans to review the Vega's at all this until Amos asked me for help to pick them up from Ken Ball at the e-earphone Winter 2016 Porta Fes show and to ship to him as he couldn't make it himself. I used the Vega's as the main earphone to demo the other DAP/Amp products and comparisons to other earphones at the e-earphone Winter 2016 Porta Fes show.
 
And how I'm hooked on the the Vega's, it'll be sad to see them go to Amos but will be excited to see his thoughts and review of it.
 

 

Introduction

The Campfire Audio Vega is the world’s first 8.5mm non-crystalline Diamond Dynamic Driver in a liquid alloy metal housing. In this current day and age where different makers are putting in more drivers, mixing balanced armature and hybrids, or putting in different configurations of dynamic driver pairs, the Vega has gone for a very simplistic single driver approach.
 
However the quality of sound it produces simply has to be heard to be believed. It challenges a lot of other makers (and in my opinion, even other Campfire Audio offerings) that more isn’t always better. It shows that with the right design and construction what a single dynamic driver can do.
 

Design

Unlike the Andromeda model which has more F117-like angular lines, the Vega has gone for what I feel to be a more eclectic design. It’s beautifully finished with with a simpler semi circular curve mixed with an odd angular bend and bevelled design to remind one it has a very modern touch to it.  It’s small and fits in the ear easily, with very little fiddling. Despite having a port at the top it has decent isolation.
 

 
 
Once in my ears,  it just disappears and I forget it’s there. In short it's s simple classy design and very practical to use.
 

Sonics

The first thing that hit me when I popped the Vegas into my ears is “Wow the impact of that sub bass!!”. It definitely grabs one’s attention, yet it’s a classy presentation. There’s sufficient decay to enjoy the sub-bass but not excessively so. The mid bass is also quite tight and doesn’t bleed into the mids which to my ears is just a hair touch laid back and comes back in the trebles which is sparkly and airy. Overall compared to the other IEMs i have, the Vega is a shallow U-shaped signature with a strong bass impact and an overall thicker presentation without wooly bass. I wouldn’t call it a warm signature but just a heavier signature.
 
Compared to the MH335DW-SR, I would categorise the FitEar MH335DW-SR to be warmer with a woolier bass, and on the opposite end of the line would be the Tralucent 1Plus2.2 where feels more neutral than the Vega’s from a tonal response perspective.
 
The Vega seems to have a more closer to the front row stage presentation with a decently sized theatre. The Tralucent 1Plus2.2 would still have the edge in terms of size of presentation (which to me is more like a few rows back of a large concert hall) but the Vega’s aren’t far behind.
 
Despite having a musical toe tapping signature, the Vega’s are quite detail especially with the shimmer of percussions in the treble region, and with the  textured layering of the bass. It’s also quite a speedy and fast IEM. To me, it’s a dynamic driver at it’s finest.
 
The overall signature to my mind is reminiscent to the Fostex TH-900 but in an isolated earphone form.
 

Conclusion

To me, it’s surprising that the Vega is able to present such classy and fun signature with just a single 8.5mm dynamic driver. It is somewhat a little on the pricey side however for the quality of sound it produces it's very rewarding. For the past 2+ weeks of having them, they're easily my daily earphones community to/fro to work and listening at cafes and at home. They'll be sorely missed for sure after I pass them on to the next reviewer.
 

 
Please bear with me, I'd consider myself still a noob when it comes to desktop DAC/Amps. Although I've heard a few DAC Amps in quite a few public headphone festivals, most aren't heard with my headphones nor my source tracks of music. And I'm still mostly learning from the gurus here in this forum and from Japan Head-Fiers.
 
So this initial impressions will be somewhat unstructured and a lot of it will be based on a DAC/Amp I'm familiar with, the Benchmark DAC1 Pre. I won't get into the specs of the HP-A8 as you can find the info easily yourself. Or please go here for its specs :-

http://www.fostexinternational.com/docs/products/HP-A8C.shtml
 
 

 
A little bit of background...
of my pursuit of this DAC Amp. I've owned the Benchmark DAC1 Pre for about 7 months and although it's a great DAC Amp, I was getting somewhat bored of it's 2D sound - both as as DAC to my Stax setup, and as a DAC Amp for my Fostex TH-900 headphones. Furthermore, since I took my Benchmark DAC1 Pre & Stax setup to the Fujiya Spring Headphone Festival 2012, other chaps from Head-Fi brought in other DACs (Yamamoto, Eximus, etc.).
 
Last month my wife & I went to Fujiya Avic to demo the HP-A8 but in somewhat more "controlled" environment. I brought my Benchmark DAC1 Pre, my DX-100 with optical cable, and my Fostex TH-900. My wife (who's not technically inclined but has as sharp ear) was my "other pair of ears". Spending about 30-40 mins there with Fujiya's HP-A8 demo, we listened to a few tracks rather carefully and concluded then the HP-A8 was more detailed, more 3D and basically a leap improvement over the Benchmark DAc1 Pre.
 
As such I went back the next day and bought the last HP-A8 they had on the shelf.
 
To my disappointment, at first listening, the new HP-A8 didn't sound the same as the demo unit. It sounded almost the same as the Benchmark DAC1 Pre. And so the burn-in began. Although SQ did change somewhat after 8 hrs, it didn't change much. A few days later and 100 hrs burn-in later, the SQ did improve incrementally but still not the vast difference both of us heard at the store. At that point, I felt the purchase wasn't worthy of an upgrade that I was looking for. However after talking to Currawong, whom advised burning in to 350 hrs at least, and we talked about power conditioners, strips and cord, I further ended up picking up the VH Audio Flavor 4 power cord, and Oyaide MTB-4 power strip.
 
The result after 250 hrs of burn-in and power source upgrade for the HP-A8?
 
 

 
The setup is as follows :-
 
DX-100 with 16/44.1 -> 24/192 tracks of 80's pop, classical, jazz, and country
Headphones/earphones used include the Fostex TH-900 and FitEar TO GO! 334
Switching between the Benchmark DAC1 Pre and HP-A8 involves the headphone jack naturally, and optical cable from the DX-100.
Again, as mentioned before, this has a lot to do with comparing it against the Benchmark DAC1 Pre that this DAC Amp is supposed to replace.
 
Despite the long in and power source upgrade, for most of the 80's pop music (Michael Jackson's Thriller, Footloose, and Top Gun all in 24/192)  it was very difficult to differentiate between the two DAC Amps. Even Michael Buble's It's Time (16/44.1) with a fair decent amount of vocals and acoustic instruments, the HP-A8 and Benchmark were very similar. At times it was difficult to tell the difference between the two. This was tested with both headphones/earphones and confirmed by my wife.
 
The difference between the two was much clearer with Isaac Stern's Four Seasons (24/192), Lana Del Rey's Born to Die (24/44.1), Buena Vista Social Club (24/96), and Anne Murray's The Best...So Far (16/44.1). The presentation of the HP-A8 sounded more 3D, smooth yet detailed, and more immersive. The difference isn't night and day, but at the same time isn't so subtle  - it's obvious enough to pick up after critical listening. Where in pop music or modern vocal jazz (Michael Buble) frequency response sounded pretty much similar across both DAC Amps, for tracks with strong vocals, or natural acoustic instruments the bass seem to extend a little more deeply and trebles sound more clear and transparent. But it's more the immersive 3D presentation that captured my attention initially.
 
Going by memory of the Eximus DP1, although wasn't as detailed HP-A8, I would place in between the Benchmark DAC1 Pre and the DP1 in my DAC Amp scale for specific genre and type of music. But for the 80's pop tracks I had, as you can guess I'd treat the Benchmark and HP-A8 equally.
 
Another note I'd like to add though, although the HP-A8 and Benchmark sounded rather similar, the HP-A8 was just a tad more mellow than the Benchmark. The way I felt was the Benchmark had more of a slam-in-the-face impact but somewhat 2D, whereas the HP-A8 was more 3D, it was also somewhat more subtle and mellow in impact. For example, with some pieces of Vivaldi's Four Seasons, I was anticipating the next (chord?)<whatever!> to come in with a wham (at least with the Benchmark) but with the HP-A8, it just creeped subtly.
 
However, on the other side of the coin, with the HP-A8's 3Dness,  found I could hear some instruments in some classical pieces more clearly. Whereas with the Benchmark's 2D slam, that instrument drowned in the slam and everything sounded more congested. This is more apparent in lower volumes.
 
Finally, I also did test the DSD capability of the HP-A8. After some fiddling with filename lengths and DSD formats (only DSF accepted, not DFF!!), the HP-A8 does play DSD files very nicely. Across the board on clarity and transparency, the same DSF file sounded better via the SD card than via Audirvana Plus (which does convert to PCM in real time before output via USB). I'm quite satisfied with the SQ of DSD playability.
 
Non-SQ Aspects of the HP-A8
Although DSD sounded nice, getting it to play it is a real pain. Firstly, only DSF is accepted, not DFF. Luckily my SACDs are in ISO as such I just have to re-extract into DSF. Then the next problem is a 30 character limit in the file name. For some strange reason even for some files with less than 30 characters, the HP-A8 wouldn't recognise it. Also all the DSF files have to sit in one folder. So really the DSD capability is really more a proof of concept than for practical use. Fostex is supposedly working on a DSD over USB driver but they're having some issues. Once they've released it, I'd be much more satisfied with my HP-A8.
 
Also having only unbalanced RCA output is a little tedious. I do wish Fostex included balanced XLR which I'd feed into my Stax setup. But for now, I have to use unbalanced.
 
 

 
Conclusion
 
Overall, I think the HP-A8 is a decent desktop DAC Amp in the similar grade to the Benchmark DAC1 Pre. As to whether the HP-A8 is worth it's price, I think it really depends on where you live. In US, the HP-A8 is USD$2000, whereas the Benchmark DAC1 Pre is $1400. In  that scenario, I personally don't feel the HP-A8 is worth the $600 difference of my money.
 
However, as I'm in Japan, where the HP-A8 is approx USD$1300, and the Benchmark DAC1 Pre is sold here for USD$1730, the HP-A8 worth it's value. If Fostex gets the DSD over USB driver working, the HP-A8 will show it's true capability.
 
P.S. Apologies for the very scattered and unstructured review. I may come back later on to clean it up.

The Signature DJ is the new addition to Ultrasone's Signature series. It's basic exterior design is based on the  Signature Pro design sharing many components together (except colour) however the driver is a new 50mm mylar driver.
 
A very big thank you to TimeLord Japan for loaning me a pair of Signature DJs and Signature Pros to do this impression and review.
 

 
 
 

What's Included?

 
The Signature DJ comes in a hard case just like the Signature Pro. It also comes with 2 cables (3.5mm and coiled 1/4" jacks), both with locking mechanisms into the left cup. The jack that goes into the left headphone cup is a 2.5mm mini-jack. 
 

Fitting and Comfort

 
Like the Signature Pros, the Signature DJ are true circumaurals. Since there's so many similarities to the Signature Pros, I found the isolation to be extremely comparable (that is - good isolation). Similarly the clamping pressure seems to be the same (which is strong clamping pressure). I feel I can't really wear these headphones for more than 2-3 hrs at a time.
 
 

 

 
The headband and earpads seem to be the same thickness too.
 

The weight of both the headphones are the same. I guess the weight of the larger driver is negligible.
 

Differences To The Signature Pro

Here's where the Signature DJ's start to differ from the Signature Pro. Ultrasone has managed to fit in a 50mm driver into a cup housing the same size as the Signature Pro (which is a 40mm driver). For that the S-Logic has shape and size has to change.
 

 
Below is a comparison of the S-Logic between the two. The left being the Signature Pro, whilst the right is the Signature DJ.
 

 

How Does It Sound?

Having enjoyed the Ultrasone Edition 8 Limited Edition for 9 months, I sold it to buy the Signature Pros which I felt were sonically more to my liking. However I never did get around to buying them. As such when the Signature DJ's came out, I was very keen on giving it a listen, and to my ears, they don't disappoint.
 
Sadly the Signature Pros loaned to me seemed to sound different from some of the other Signature Pros, as such I wasn't able to do a direct comparison between the two. But from memory at a very very high level, the Signature Pros seem to have a more forward mids than the Signature DJ's.
 
I was on the other hand able to compare the Signature DJs to the V-Moda M-100 which I recently gained possession of and with the Fostex TH-900 which I bought a few months back. And yes I am fully aware that the Signature DJs are 3.38x the cost of the M-100s, and the TH-900s are almost 2x of the Signature DJ's.
 

Signature Summary

 
To my ears, the Signature DJ has the U-shaped signature reminiscent to quite a few of the headphones released in the 3rd quarter of 2012 - but each to varying degrees. The first and foremost impression I get of the Signature DJ is its ability to deliver a crystal clear and clean presentation. As with other Ultrasones, with the S-Logic plays its part well in these headphones too.
 
As the name implies being a DJ headphone, bass is one of the primary features of this headphone. It reaches deeper than the Signature Pro but manages to control it tightly. There is no boominess, not bleeding into the mids. In addition, like the Signature Pro, there's a nice reverberating texture to the rendering of the bass. Interestingly though, despite the bass reaching in deep, it's not as deep as the M-100. It almost seems like a conservative deep bass.
 
I'd describe the mids to be recessed, however the clean and clarity of the overall signature, I personally don't find the recessed mids to be an issue for my tastes. Only some songs I find the Signature DJs mids don't work well with (e.g. Kenny Loggins' Top Gun - but I'm very sure Ultrasone didn't have that soundtrack in mind when they developed the Signature DJ ). On the other hand, the M-100s which I personally felt also had its mids pulled back somewhat (but not recessed like the Signature DJs) weren't as clear. Vocals on that headphone sound like the vocalist has his/her mouth right over the microphone. Whereas the Signature DJ's mids just deliver the voice more cleanly. The TH-900 on the other hand does have more forward mids than either of those but deliver cleanly.
 
The trebles on the Signature DJ are forward, and again, crystal clear. But there's no sibilant (however I may add possibly borderline...anymore and it would be sibilant). The trebles are smooth too unlike the Edition 8s which had a reputation of being harsh. There's also a sense of airiness to the treble that, to my ears, is well received.
 

S-Logic, Soundstage, and Imaging

 
To me there's something special about S-Logic. At least for my ears they work and they work well with the Ultrasone headphones. The Signature DJs are no exception. When I listen to jazz on this (yes I know, they're DJ headphones), I feel like I'm in the band with the music and instruments around me. Along with the soundstage and imaging, I feel how wide and deep the stage is. This is naturally more apparent for certain genre that employs acoustic instruments, rather than modern music with electronically produced sounds (I'm not limiting this to electronica). As such the reference of listening to jazz earlier. With modern music, I don't feel there's any congestion in the presentation too.
 
At least for my music preferences and these pair of headphones, this is another big feature of the Ultrasone Signature series. In all honesty though, I haven't really worked out in my mind how this feature plays a part in a DJ scene - where these headphones are intended to be used.
 
The M-100s on the other hand, despite having a wide soundstage and decent imaging, isn't as wide, and presents the music in front of you. With the TH-900s too, I feel the music is presented in front of me, however has a vast soundstage and great depth image.
 
 

[Added: 19th Nov '12] In Comparison To Its Signature Pro Older Brother

 
Earlier I mentioned of the 1st demo Signature Pro didn't sound correct especially compared to the Signature Pros in the shops. I went back to the distributor and told them of my findings and they pulled out 2 other Signature Pros for me. One with an older serial number (in the early 100's, and another in the high 400's - whereas the first demo I had was in the low 500's. All 3 sounded different and they didn't appear to be batch ro serial grouping related. The 500's sounded closer to the low 100s whilst the best of the 3 was the high 400's. As such I swapped the initial 500's demo for the low 400's.
 
Doing a comparison between the two Signature DJ and Signature Pro, as DigitalFreak replied in the Signature DJ thread that the the DJs hit the bass with a bigger slam than the Signature Pro. That is to be expected as these days, the trend of DJ headphones seem to be hard hitting bass.
 
I feel the mids to be somewhat more recessed than the(se) Signature Pros - more specifically the lower end of of the mids. Whilst the higher end of the mids seem to be somewhat comparable.
 
As for the trebles I feel they both are about on par on how forward they are. Now on initial listening the Signature DJs seem to have more forward mids however I feel that this is more merely relative to the recessed low mids and in other soundstage and instrument separation factors.
 
During my A/B-ing (and I'm still doing it now) with the two Pros and DJ, it wasn't the bass difference that I noticed first but I feel soundstage. Again, I don't know if it's my particular unit of Signature Pro or if it's consistent across all Signature Pros, but they feel congested in comparison to the Signature DJ. On the DJ, the instruments and vocals feel they have more room to breath and as such instrument separation also is better to my ears. Furthermore, since they are clearer separated, I feel that I can hear more details. As such back to the treble difference, I think that initial impressions that the DJ's feel more forward is actually isn't the case. I feel the congestion tends to "hide" the trebles of the Pro.
 
Having my wife as a 2nd pair of ears, for the kinds of music we listen to we prefer the Signature DJ over these pair of Signature Pros. So far the only exception to this is with classical. The Signature Pro does sound more natural and airy whereas the DJ has a more "Hi-Fi" kind of sound.
              

Conclusion

As a pair of headphones for the audiophile consumer, along with it's Signature Pro brother, I feel both of these are a great introduction to high end quality sound. It's not just a matter of its frequency response signature but the little details such as texture rendering, good quality imaging, airiness, etc. that start to show - of which the other higher ended headphones carry on and emphasise.
 
To me the Signature DJs present such a classy sound that I actually wonder where it plays in the DJ scene. It's almost too classy for the average nightclub scene and am more inclined to think thats sound would suit more in a high end classy nightclub or lounge rather than just standard one down the street. For consumers seeking quality sound, on the other hand, these should impress.