Introduction

When iFi audio announced it was working on a "Pro" line of audiophile products, two thoughts immediately came to mind: 1) it seemed like a natural progression for them since their micro line had pretty much rewrote the book on what entry- to mid-level audio can sound like almost overnight and 2) they needed to get this "right". By "right" I meant that the Pro line had to sound better than the micro one in every possible way, be just as if not more feature rich, and target a price range that was within striking distance of your average micro line customer looking to upgrade.

Believe it or not, the Pro line has been in development since 2014, with the original release date for its iDSD variant slated for the summer of 2016 (soon after its sister product the iCAN was given the green light). But several delays pushed back the Pro's release as iFi continued to refine and adjust its feature set. The culmination of this effort finally saw the light of day this past summer - almost two years late and a dramatically different product than when it was first conceived. The only question now is: Was it worth the wait?

Pro-Features

One thing that is abundantly clear when you first approach the Pro is the sheer number of ways to integrate it into your own system. It's down-right mind boggling. Let's walk through it.




As you can see from the back, you have your standard balanced XLR outputs as well as their single-ended counterparts to feed an external amp. You also have your standard USB, digital coaxial SDPIF (derived from their extremely high-end AMR DP-777 unit), and AES/EBU digital inputs. I suspect for the overwhelming majority of you though, that's all she wrote.

However, in addition, the unit has its own dedicated Micro SDHC reader as well as a USB Type A Host connector to stick any FAT32 formatted drive in which is a very nice albeit fairly useless touch these days.

But what really sets the Pro apart from a lot of its contemporaries is its built-in network capabilities. Want to use the Pro as a network streamer? No problem. Plug an Ethernet cable in. Done. Think cables are quaint? Go wireless as the unit supports all the usual suspects including Spotify (via Connect), TIDAL, and QQ Music to name just a few. Note that both streaming and playing directly from a mass storage device requires you to download and install the MUZO player app which I found easy to do and it just worked.

Still not impressed? The Pro also supports a multi-function BNC input that allows you to connect an external reference clock or even a CD transport to the unit (just in case your audiophile Grandpa comes over!).

Because of all of these options, the Pro also has an output selector on the back which controls the line-level output voltage depending on whether or not the unit is connected to a home or studio environment. Again, for most of you (read: all of you) you won't ever move this switch.


Moving to the front is that lovely OLED display, which has a very intuitive menu system. The left knobs are used to select the input and the digital filter respectively while the single right one is used to control the analog volume when the unit is on amp detail. The rest of the headphone inputs are all the usual suspects, and if you can't find a way to connect your headphone of choice to the Pro then this hobby is probably not for you. Feature request: It would have been awesome if the OLED display could crank out a real-time graphic visualizer or custom image on playback.

In terms of amperage, the Pro iDSD basically incorporates a stripped down version of the Pro iCAN's "Tubestate" design. With the flip of a switch, you can choose between a fully-discrete Class A solid-state topology, a J-FET all-valve Class A output featuring two GE5670s, and a Tube+ which reduces negative feedback and as a result allows for greater even order harmonics (read: warm-fuzzies). For the record, all of my listening was done in solid-state mode and I didn't have to apply any extra gain to listen comfortably.

Pro-Design


The Pro is no less impressive on the inside as it is on the outside. iFi engineering takes a sort of first principles approach to DAC design by using discrete components for specific tasks instead of overloading a component for multiple ones. This unit features eight Burr Brown chips (four per channel) in a custom interleaved configuration which makes up the core of iFi's bit-perfect DSD & DXD system. All the digital-to-audio processing happens here. That's in addition to the Crysopeia FPGA engine which is used for all filtering duties. iFi strongly feels that the FPGA is more suited for filtering while the Burr Brown chips are better utilized for conversion. This is a much different philosophy than say Chord where a custom FPGA is the order of the day for everything.

In terms of filtering, the Pro has five different ones all at the touch of a button: BitPerfect, BitPerfect+, Gibbs Transient Optimized, Apodising, and Transient Aligned a la the micro line. All of these filters control how much digital filtering (if any) you want applied on the signal. Almost all of my listening was done using BitPerfect as I wanted to get a sense of what the DAC engine can do without any extra processing.

All input buffers are thrown into a large dynamic buffer that gets re-clocked to de-jitter data before being passed onto the data processing stages. The re-clocking is slaved to the Global Master Clock which also drives the X-Core 200 and FPGA engines. Speaking of which, the XMOS XU216 X-Core 200 Series 16-core processor is used to decode all inputs which is the 2nd generation XMOS chipset and extremely fast. On the USB side of things, the USB inputs have fully galvanic isolation and are self-powered without draining anything from the USB bus itself. Furthermore, the isolation barrier is actually placed between the inputs and the DAC/re-clocker so not only is the USB bus isolated but frankly all digital noise is isolated from the inputs. Put simply, there is zero need for any USB accessories to clean up the USB bus or to separate USB power from data. The Pro already does this for you.

Last but not least, the Pro features an extremely robust power supply that has all incoming DC converted to a high-frequency waveform and then rectified and filtered by a choke input capacitor. The digital section is powered by a bank of ELNA Dynacap DZ that have much lower internal impedance in comparison to similar products of regular grade and are used to avoid the typical drawback of the very high internal impedance of common 'super capacitors'. Even better, using the DC output loop on the back, a single power supply can power both the Pro iCan and iDSD which makes life extremely convenient.

Pro-Sound

At the end of the day though, despite the massive feature set and internal circuit wizardry, how does the Pro sound?

To find out, I actually did some A/B listening with my trusty micro iDSD to see if the Pro's $2499 price tag is really warranted. To give you a better idea of my setup, I used a pair of Focal Utopias and Audeze iLCD-4 headphones both connected to the Pro iCAN with the Pro iDSD driving it as well as just the Pro iDSD as a standalone DAC/amp combo. I would then swap out the Pro for the micro to see what's gained or lost in the process.


Fun fact: The HDTracks version of Omnium Gatherum's latest magnum opus, The Burning Cold, is DR14 and probably one of if not the best sounding metal record of the year (courtesy of Dan "the Man" Swanö). It's also a big step-up from their last one hearkening back to their Beyond and New World Shadows days. Epic win.

The biggest difference between the Pro and the micro is just how dynamic the sound is - particularly with the Utopias. Even though the micro does a fine job of keeping up with these feisty Finns, the Pro is in a different league altogether. Once again, I was shocked on just how good the attack and decay of the Utopias are when plugged into a suitable system. I also felt that the bass extension was particularly more meaty and had a weightier impact with the Pro over the micro.

On the other hand, I actually didn't think the Pro iCAN did much to improve the sound particularly with the iLCD-4's. The 4's are not that difficult to drive so it came as no shock to me at least that the Pro iDSD as a standalone system held its own just fine. I thought the Utopias benefited from the addition of the iCAN but only marginally so.


Batman: The Animated Series is one of the best TV shows to ever grace the screen (animated or otherwise). To this day, I consider it the defacto standard in which all other Batmans shall be judged. But what you probably didn't know was just how amazing the score is. Everyone knows the Danny Elfman theme above, but Shirley Walker's score is just as sublime and is available as a four volume set. Buy them. They are worth every penny.

Right off the bat (Dave: Groan!), the Pro imbues the Utopias with a magnificent soundstage. Again, the micro sounds great too but doesn't recreate the same sense of expansiveness the Pro can produce. Also, tonally, the Pro sounds more natural and less colored. Horns sounded fuller and richer. Strings are now plucked with a sense of urgency and their reverb sustains longer in the ear. In fact, this is the first time I've really felt my system was delivering a concert-like experience in the confines of my home; no small feat giving the number of components that have graced my desk.


Some black metal modus ponus: If Mgla has a side-project called Kriegsmaschine, it will be awesome. Mgla's has a side project called Kriegsmaschine. Kriegsmaschine is indeed awesome. It's really that simple. Only recently did I find out that Mgla has decided to grace us with a follow-up to 2014's Enemy of Man and luckily it is just as good and destined to make my year-end list (as well as many others I'm sure too).

Production wise, this is a very well done DR7 record. As a result, I thought the Pro as a stand alone system was all I really needed. I didn't think the iCAN added much to the story with either of my headphones. I also felt the micro was more in striking range of the Pro now since all the technical advantages the Pro has were mitigated by the record's production.

Conclusion


The Pro iDSD is as good as it gets at this price point. I know $2499 isn't exactly cheap, but honestly, the price is fair. Its vast array of inputs and outputs makes the Pro extremely versatile and easy to integrate into any serious playback chain. Moreover, despite suffering from a bit of feature creep, at its core is still an end-game DAC that took the basic architecture out of the micro line and put it on steroids. The net result is a dynamic and fluid sonic profile that can also be fine-tuned and tailored to your particular tastes through the use of advanced filtering technology and smart amperage design - an iFi staple.

But do I need the Pro iCAN or can I use the Pro iDSD exclusively as a standalone system? I would argue that if you don't already own the Pro iCAN, you don't really need it with the iDSD unless you have significantly hard to drive headphones. The output section of the Pro iDSD is definitely reference quality and more than adequate for most.

And finally: Is the Pro iDSD worth four times the price of the micro iDSD? Of course not. Audiophile components don't work that way, particularly when we are talking about DACs since the law of diminishing returns hits hard early and often when it comes bit management. But as I said above, the price is more than inline with other offerings of similar ilk, and the Pro is as good as it gets as a complete package.

But I will leave you with this final thought: I have no intention of giving this unit back. This is my end-game DAC. I've heard many DACs over the years at various price points and I believe you would have to spend a ludicrous amount of money to do better than the Pro iDSD (and probably loose a bit of versatility in the process too). And that's why I have no qualms giving it our highest honor.

This review was originally featured on Metal-Fi.

Introduction
When Audeze introduced their iSine series about a year ago, there were actually three different models announced: the i10, the i20, and the LCDi3. Most of you however, probably remember reading only about the i10 and i20 since those pairs were the only ones in actual production and ready for review. I myself reviewed both pairs and to make a really long story short, walked away considerably impressed. Not only do both models outperform most IEMs in their class, but rival many full sized headphones too.

Fast forward to today: Audeze just recently announced they are finally shipping their LCDi reference model, now renamed the LCDi4. And by "reference", I'm talking about $2499 worth of reference, a relatively unheard asking price for a pair of universal IEMs outside of a few esoteric, boutique brands. So given all of the above, you are probably asking yourself: Is the LCDi4 really worth its asking price? Does it sound anything like its big sibling? And are they really worth almost four times the i20's asking price? Good questions.

Reference Level Performance
In terms of performance, Audeze claims the i4 gives a flat bass response from 900Hz all the way down to an earth shattering 5Hz! On the flip side, they are also capable of reproducing frequencies up to 50kHz. But here's the real kicker, and this is key: It does all of this using a single driver. Why is this important?

Most high-end, ultra-expensive IEMs use a multi-driver design; vendors typically stuff a dozen or more tiny balanced armature drivers in a shell and then work diligently to get their crossovers in sync while still keeping everything in phase. It is very difficult to get right, and the truth is most really don't. One of the big advantages with Audeze's iSine design is that there are no crazy crossover schemes or half a dozen (or more) drivers to keep track of. The iSine acts and sounds like a full sized headphone all within the confines of an IEM-like form factor. Pretty amazing if you think about it.

Note that the LCDi3 was renamed to the "4" since the majority of technologies contained within were developed first for its full-sized counterpart, the LCD-4. In fact, it shares the same proprietary film used to make the transducers in the LCD-4 as well as its patented Fluxor and Uniform voice coil technologies. In addition, the i4 is hand assembled with both sides matched to within +/- 1dB of each other. Again, when the drivers are placed this close to your ear drums, keeping all that sonic brouhaha in phase becomes paramount if you want reference level performance, and the i4 is clearly up for the task (at least on paper).

Fit and Finish


As you can see, the overall design of the i4 is similar to the i20, featuring a handsome golden mesh grill enclosed in a black inner hexagonal shell. What's also particularly nice is the upgraded cable Audeze ships with every pair of i4, which features premium made, braided silver-lined OCC copper with Kevlar threads. Slow down killer, it's not that I think this cable will make the i4 sound any better; but it is rugged, and doesn't easily get tied into knots. That's something I can't say about the i20's cable, which though is somewhat tangle proof, can still get itself into trouble from time to time stuffed into that pouch.



Speaking of which, the leather pouch that comes with the i4 is a nice upgrade over its little sibling's packaging. However, it still doesn't address my original gripe with the pouch design which is durability. I would be hard pressed to zonk the i4's pouch in a backpack knowing full well they could get minimally damaged, and most likely crushed, during any kind of significant impact. As you can see, the same is not true for my Roxanne's case made out of carbon fiber.



I also have another gripe with the iSine series and now particularly with the i4: the hooks. In it themselves, they work well for the most part and are certainly good enough for government work. However, with the i4 fetching a boutique price tag, I strongly feel Audeze needs to do better in this department. First off, they are plastic and will break. Period. The hooks that came with my i20 review unit broke after several months of light use and I see no reason why the i4's iteration of them will be any different. Secondly, they are plastic. Surely a more exotic material such as carbon fiber, both for its ruggedness and exclusivity, would better serve the i4 given its price point. Finally, you can lose them. I've had the hooks fall out of the pouch several times while taking them out. Just make sure you have a spare set of hooks stashed away somewhere in case you one because you will.

In terms of comfort, the i4 weighs in at a paltry 12g and almost feels non-existent once you match hook to ear. And this is where the use of plastic for the sound ports I believe was ultimately the right move. The form factor for these is unquestionable atypical, and weight does matter. Moreover, trying to shell a planar magnetic in exotic materials could lead to other unforeseen issues. Put simply, this shell design worked swimmingly well for the i20s, so I don't blame Audeze for re-using it for the i4s.

With all that said, I do empathize with some of the Head-Fi crowd grumbling that the i4's magnesium shell could be a bit more snazzy instead of being so utilitarian. Ultimately, you have to judge for yourself what's more important to you: the fact that are in a plastic housing or that they sound phenomenal despite it?

An All Juice Diet


Another aspect of i4's design is that unlike other portable headphones and IEMS, they need juice - the more the better. With a full-sized impedance rating of 35 ohms and the ability to handle up to three glorious watts of output power, don't expect much from your i4 out of most smart devices and mainstream DAPs. For example, plugging the i4 into my Pixel yielded a pleasant but clearly muted sound.

However, the i4 does sound glorious through the Chord Mojo as well as the Schiit Jotunheim and iFi Audio's micro iDSD. So again, don't be shy about plugging these into full-sized desktop amps. They will thrive when you do so. I actually did the bulk of my listening through the Mojo at work and the iCan Pro at home. Just to give you a sense of how power hungry the i4s really are, I had to flip the gain switch on the iCan Pro's single-ended 3.5mm output to get the volume to a comfortable listening level. Again, their headphones not IEMs, and need to be treated as such.

Lush!

Let me get this off my chest right now: The i4's are by far and wide the greatest sounding pair of headphones for their size I have ever heard. Think all of the fantastic transparency you get out of a traditional IEM or CIEM but layer on top of that gobs of deep and tight bass, a silky lush midrange, and finally, a planar with treble that is nothing to sneeze it. However, repeat after me, "Their headphones. Not IEMs. Headphones." Yes, they do fit in the ear so that technically makes them an IEM but Audeze is very clear that the iSine series are really a type of in-ear headphone because they don't offer the same kind of isolation performance as your typical IEM, and the i4 is no different. So trying to compare them to my Roxanne's or some other high-end IEM is frankly not a fair comparison.

In fact, it is this taxonomic distinction that has a lot to do with how the LCDi4 is priced: Audeze believes that the LCDi4 can replace many full sized headphones and in fact be the only pair of reference headphones you'll ever need. And after many weeks with them as my go to, I believe that is not too far from the mark. Most of my listening had me switching back and forth between a pair of Focal Utopias, the i20, and the i4, all through the iCan Pro and Mojo.



If Australia's Voyager were not based in the Land Down Under, I think they would be bonafide rock stars. Regardless, they are in my book one of the best progressive metal bands on the planet and their latest, entitled Ghost Mile, is nothing sort of superb. If you haven't heard of Voyager, I highly recommend perusing Steel Druhm's excellent review of their latest over on Angry Metal Guy as a primer.

Switching back and forth between the i20 and i4, one thing became abundantly apparent: The i4 does everything the i20 does but better, faster, and smoother. If you thought bass was deep on the i20, it pales in comparison to the i4. For example, when the kicks come in during the opening of the track "Misery Is Only Company," your whole body feels it through the i4. It's a very visceral and immediate response, and I am absolutely convinced now that Audeze's claim of the i4 being flat all the way down to 5Hz is spot on. Same is also true with the its transient response; if you thought the i20s were fast, you haven't heard fast. Take for instance the track "Lifeline," where the drummer is riding the hats quickly while a competing bass line is vying for your ears attention. The i4's transparency is not only in a different league than the i20 but is on par if not even faster than the Utopia (not shocking given it's form factor and thus the amount of air the i4 has to move). And then there is the song "What A Wonderful Day," where the band sounds down right electric on the i4 as opposed to the i20.



Meet this year's Surgical Steel. Akercocke's comeback record absolutely lives up to the hype, and will no doubt land on many a year end list. I've written about them before, but if you still haven't yet discovered literally the UK's best kept secret, then their latest release, entitled Renaissance in Extremis, is a fine place to start.

Most of my time was spent between the i4 and the Utopia. Both offer plenty of bass, with the i4 doing a better job overall of rocking your socks off. Where things get interesting is in the midrange, and this is where one's definition of "reference" can make or break the i4. I found the i4's midrange to be a lot warmer and downright lush at times compared to the Utopia, which tends to be more neutral and in-line of what my ears expect. I suspect a bit of EQ on the i4 side could tame some of that midrange fuzz if you so choose but the lushness is hard to argue with at times. In terms of soundstage though, the Utopia still sounds bigger than the i4, which again is not surprising given their respective form factors.



Perturbator is going down as one of, it not my favorite electronic artist of all-time. Everything this Frenchman touches is pure gold. And though his medium of choice is dark synthwave, he composes some of the most aggressive sounding music on the planet. His latest, a surprise EP entitled "New Model," also marks a stylistic departurea as well, eschewing the fast and furious style compositions for a more atmospheric and in many respects, darker approach. And like most metal, Perturbator likes his music heavily compressed, typically clocking in the sub-DR4 territory, i.e. perfect review material fodder.

In some ways, the i4 offers a richer experience albeit a less accurate one. Both the Utopia and the i4 are insanely fast, with again a nod to the i4. However, the Utopia's more balanced approach allows the music to breath more and thus keep a track like "Tainted Empire" from spiraling out of sonic control. Though I must admit the bass out of the i4 is really astonishing, and will get your head nodding instantly. If I listened to mostly hip-hop and electronica, the i4 would win every time on this aspect along.

Final Thoughts
The LCDi4 in many respects may very well be Audeze's greatest achievement to date. And though the i4 is not a true replacement for a top tier can like the Utopia, or for that matter its bigger brother, the LCD-4, it is within striking distance, which is why I feel its current value proposition is more than justified given its level of performance. What is most astonishing to me is that the i4 offers a robust, lush sound all delivered through a soundstage that I thought not possible in a headphone of this size. And if you are an existing iSine user, start saving pennies. The i4 is a huge leap above its siblings.

But bare in mind that you really need a meaty amp to drive these puppies in order to maximize their potential which does limit their portability. And although I feel the hook mechanism is their weakest link, they do work. In fact, if I had to live with only one pair of headphones that I could carry around with me wherever I go, the LCDi4 would be it. That's why it easily earns our top honors.

Introduction

Over the last few years, Audeze has gotten a lot traction in the prosumer marketplace. It first started with the EL-8 series ($699), an open-back and closed headphone design that featured many of Audeze's planar magnetic technologies all wrapped in a snazzy German designed package. Perhaps even more importantly though, the EL-8 also became the launching pad for the CIPHER, a 24-bit DAC with DSP Lightning cable that provides an end-to-end audiophile class solution for any iDevice. Then of course came the SINE ($449), the world's first on-ear planar magnetic headphone and really the company's first honest attempt at "planar for the masses."

So in many respects the announcement of their first planar magnetic IEM line, the iSINE 10 ($349) and 20 ($549), shouldn't come to you as a shock. However, unlike the other aforementioned products, what is surprising is its design: From its hexagonal mesh outer shell to the fact that you need an attachment to even wear them, the iSINE is an unconventional product to say the least. Audeze was kind enough to send me a pair of both iSINE models to find out exactly what "unconventional" actually sounds like.

Trickle Down Economics

Believe it or not, Audeze has been working on the iSINE since 2015! The seeds for a planar magnetic IEM were first planted when Audeze introduced their Fluxor and Uniforce diaphragm technologies in the EL-8.

If you remember from my LCD-4 review, Fluxor is an array of magnets that are laid out in a certain way that optimizes the magnetic force on the diaphragm. Then their Uniforce diaphragm technology employs variable trace widths in the voice-coil to ensure that force is uniform across its surface. Used in tandem results in better control over the driver which in turns means lower distortion and improved imaging. The 20 has a longer Uniforce voice-coil than the 10 which is why it costs $200 more. But both iSINE models have less than 0.1% of THD overall, even at large volumes (100db!), which is unheard of in the IEM world.

Although the iSINE did benefit a lot from the technologies developed for its older siblings, everything else had to be designed from scratch including the housing, the materials used, and its assembly. Both the 10 and 20 employ some tricks of their own too due to their challenging form factor - like a specially built waveguide that is not hollow and helps minimize internal reflections and cancellations across the frequency range. And of course Audeze once again hired BMW's DesignWorks in conjunction with Spiderman to come up with its design.

On-Ear Monitors

When I said that the iSINE is an unconventional IEM, I wasn't just talking about aesthetics. First and foremost, the iSINE attaches to your ears rather than fits in them like a traditional IEM. So both the 10 and 20 come with a myriad array of different attachments to accommodate the wide ranges of ears out there.

If you have just the right set of ears though, you can try out the included SureFire EarLocks attachments. These little strange retention rings fit in key points on the outside of your ears to securely attach the iSINE in place. Audeze includes both a medium and large set which should cover any normal pair of ears.

Personally, I found the EarLocks to be very comfortable but not very sustainable. The problem is the iSINE's are a bit heavy compared to your average set of Apple earbuds, so under heavy movement they would start to get loose and eventually fall off. I even watched several YouTube videos to ensure I was using the EarLocks properly too, and I was. My guess is if you do have just the right internal ear layout then the locks might be a viable solution.

Most of you however are going to use the plastic hooks. Unfortunately, you can't just slip them on like you would a normal set of IEMs. You literally have to stretch the hook out first and then place it in between your head and outer ear. I find that using two hands is the best approach. I use one hand to manipulate the hook while the other to hold the iSINE in place.

The good news is that though you do have to perform some initial gymnastics to put the iSINE on, once they are on the hooks feel extremely comfortable. I have literally listened to both the 10 and 20 for six plus hours straight with no issues to report.

In terms of tips, Audeze supplies a small, medium, and large silicone set. Audeze recommends starting with the small set and then moving up in size until you get a proper seal. The iSINE tips don't need to be buried deep in your ear canal so don't force anything. All you are looking to achieve is a proper seal. And if you prefer to use some Comply foam tips instead of the ones provided you can. However, I found the tips that Audeze supplies work just fine.

Some folks have complained that the iSINE line doesn't isolate as well as your typical IEM and that's certainly true. But I haven't had any problems to really speak of. For example, I had "Rosie", our family Roomba, vacuuming next to me and I couldn't hear her at all once headbanging begun. Again, finding the right sized tips is key to getting a proper seal. So definitely go through the motions of evaluating each tip provided until you find the one you are most comfortable with.

Finally, the cables Audeze decided on are also both good and bad. They are good because they have zero microphonics to really speak of and seem to be tangle proof. They are also bad because the two-pin connectors are fragile. The manual recommends to not take them on and off repeatedly and I can see why. I think Audeze should consider a screw on type design that my Roxanne's use for its multi-pin connectors. That would prevent the pins from bending if you tug on them too tightly. For now, just be gentle.

The Socialite

In many respects, the iSINE's greatest strength is also its greatest weakness: They are a semi-open backed design. Put simply, they leak. So if you work in an office environment or in an area where the faint sound of a really killer riff is not acceptable, these aren't the IEMs you are looking for.

With that said, I've been using my pair at work every day now for several weeks without issue. I work in a standard sized cube in an open office layout. Of course I have very nice colleagues who understand my metal is very important to me (read: they don't want me to go postal). I also listen at fairly low volumes too, so whatever leakage does occur is still very minimal. But the bottom line is that they leak, plain and simple, and there is no getting around that fact. Caveat emptor.

Honey, I Shrunk The Audezes!

My normal IEM setup is a pair of custom Jerry Harvey Audio Roxanne's ($1745) as well as my Etymotic Research HF-5's ($129). Both iSINE models fit squarely in the middle of that price range which should make for an interesting comparison. Most of my listening was done through a Chord Mojo ($529) which is any pair of IEMs best friend. Trust me on this.

I am not really an iDevice user so though I was shipped a CIPHER cable with the 10, I didn't really use it for any long periods of time. It's basically the same 24-bit DAC with DSP I reviewed with the SINE many moons ago except it replaces the bass boost with a custom EQ profile. If you do decide on adding the CIPHER, it's an extra $50 bucks. Well worth it if an iDevice is going to be your main source or constant travel companion with the iSINE.

Final Thoughts​

This review was originally featured on Metal-Fi.

Introduction

As I sure many of you are already acutely aware of, we're big fans of iFi Audio. You see unlike a lot of vendors who treat their circuit designs as if they were highly classified secrets, iFi is very open and honest about all of their products. In fact, iFi is one of the few companies I know of that even freely shares high-resolution pictures of every circuit board they fabricate. Couple that with the fact that these Brits are very community focused, vetting feature and collecting feedback constantly, makes iFi, at least to our ears, one of the defacto leaders in the low- to mid-tier marketplace.

So when iFi announced their "Pro" line, aimed squarely at the high-end market, I was stoked. I already use their now well respected micro iDSD ($499) on a daily basis, which I still maintain is one of, if not the best sounding headphone amp/DAC combos you can buy at its price point. But despite my affinity for the micro iDSD, I'm quite aware of its limitations too.

First off, the micro iDSD is without question a "jack of all trades" type of device than a truly dedicated component, and as such, comes with all the benefits and limitations that entails - no balanced outputs, only one input, solid-state only, etc. Secondly, I've always felt the micro iDSD is more DAC than amp, with the overwhelming majority of its feature set focused on accommodating headphones with a vast array of juicing requirements than outright performance. Finally, and most importantly, iFi can only squeeze so much performance out of a device that isn't exactly desktop sized and designed for portable use. Put simply, there is room for improvement (literally).

But going "Pro" also means having a pro price tag as well, with iFi's first offering in this line, the Pro iCAN headphone amplifier, clocking in at a hair under $1700. Not outrageous in the high-end headphone amplifier market by any means, but certainly a price tag that puts it squarely in the prosumer market nevertheless. So with all of that in mind, is the new Pro iCAN all go or just for show? Read on and find out.

Living A Truly Balanced Life

I think given all the features the Pro has, the most important one bar none is that it is a fully balanced design. What that means in a nutshell is that from end-to-end this amplifier has two discrete channels, one for the left and the other for the right that the signal propagates through. Why is this so important? Because many manufactures claim that they have a balanced design when in reality it is "balanced" in name only, with just the output stage splitting the single-ended signal into two outputs. And thus won't reap the full rewards of a truly balanced design, which includes higher dynamic range and lower overall THD and cross talk.



The Pro is what iFi likes to dub as "True Differential Balanced" which is a very fancy way of saying that both the left and right channels go through discrete circuit sections. That also means double the parts since each chain has to go through their own input and output stages during amplification while keeping both channels matched. To that end, iFi has designed their own special potentiometer that is built custom by ALPS Japan exclusively for the Pro. It features 6-tracks with two sets of two tracks each to control the left and right channels respectively, and the last two tracks used to monitor volume operation. In English, when you turn the volume knob on the Pro, you are changing the volume of both channels simultaneously while keeping each channel in sync so one side doesn't sound louder or softer than the other. Again, a mark of a truly balanced design. It's also motorized too so you can use it with the included IR based remote as well. Slick.

The Eye of Sauron

If you wanted to live the valve life and still stick with iFi, then your only option was the micro iTube. However, with the Pro, iFi gives you a choice, with the ability to in real-time switch back and forth between the valve and solid-state input stages. Historically, hybrid amplifier designs would usually tack on a tube output stage on top of a solid-state one as an added effect. With the Pro, both the solid-state and tube-side are completely separated from each other and once switched over, the signal path continues to maintain the shortest route to the output stage through each. Nice.

The tube of choice as you can see is the venerable and well regarded General Electric NOS 5670, and the Pro ships with two of them (again, balanced). This is a premium version of the 6922 with a slightly different pin-out. With the Pro, you actually get two different tube playback modes, Tube and Tube+. The difference between the two is that in Tube+ mode the signal has less overall loop-gain because the J-FET circuitry is switched out for all-valve operation and thus sounds more "tubey" compared its non-plus counterpart, which tries to balance preserving the 5670's natural harmonics with transient response.

On the solid-state side of things, the Pro offers a fully discrete MOSFET-buffered bipolar Class A output stage. The circuit is also purely DC coupled with no coupling capacitors insight. For very sensitive IEMs and low impedance headphones, the Pro operates in Class AB mode.

Yes iCAN!

Speaking of power, the Pro's output is insane. You have three gain stages, 0db, 9db, and 18db respectively. In 20V balanced-mode, it can output the equivalent of 100W into 4 ohm speakers! In fact, the Pro is so powerful that iFi had to put protection circuitry in it. Don't worry though, the added circuit is not in the audio path but rather implemented in the power supply. Basically, this circuitry allows short term, unrestricted peaks but will progressively limit the available current when the amp reaches a certain operating temperature or starts to clip. If the amp does find itself in this mode, it will continually step back the flow of electrons until it completely shuts off to avoid damage. With all that said, be very careful with this amplifier if you are using multiple headphones with vastly different amperage requirements, since very bad things can happen if you use the wrong gain stage or turn the dial too high, especially if you are in balanced mode.



Again, sticking with the theme of choice, the Pro offers an insane level of I/O flexibility. You have have several balanced and single-ended inputs and outputs to choose from. The large left knob can select from three singled inputs and one balanced one on the back. You even have one 3.5mm TRRS jack if you happen to own an IEM and want to run them in balanced mode. The two 6.3mm jacks can also run in balanced mode too, which is why you see an "L" and "R" above them. The manual states for single-ended headphones you should use the "R" jack which is what I used when I wasn't in balanced mode.

Finishing Touches

In addition to supporting highly sensitive IEMs, the Pro also inherits iFi's XBass Bass Correction System and 3D Holographic technologies too. Both are implemented as purely analogy circuitry, with XBass boosting bass 12db at 10Hz, 20Hz, and 40Hz respectively. This is a great feature if you have very bass light cans or are a self-proclaimed bass head. Otherwise I'm going to be the first one to say to you to should never ever have to touch that dial. Never.

On the other hand, the 3D Holographic system they've implemented in the Pro is fantastic and can single-handily make hypercompressed music sound a lot more alive. Take note, this isn't your typical Bauer crossfeed circuit which I find unbelievably annoying. Rather, iFi has developed their own proprietary matrix that can translate a spacious stereophonic recording with good imaging when replayed on speakers into its equivalent when listening to headphones. I'll have more to say about this knob below.

The general fit and finish of the Pro just screams "pro" too, from the golden ratio variable thickness chassis to its nylon based quad damped isolation base mount. I also appreciate its overall size too, which can easily fit on any desktop. When its co-conspirator is released in the next couple of months, the Pro iDSD, iFi plans to make a rack that will accommodate both. Sweetness.

The Miracle Knob

I thought the best comparison would be to actually compare the micro iDSD with the Pro. That way both chains are using the same DAC and I can simply plug headphones in and out under the same approximate volume level to get a sense of what another $1100 buys you. I used a pair of Focal Utopia ($3999) and Audeze LCD-4 ($3999) for the overwhelming majority of this review.



LORN's Arrayed Claws is just a phenomenal record and definitively an early contender for AOTY. What really sets this album apart from your prototypical black metal offering is this hypnotic, almost trance like quality to it. Couple all that with the fact that occasionally the album goes all Random Access Memories on you in a few spots, makes for a riveting yet unique listening experience to say the least.

Right out the gate, the main sonic difference between the iDSD and Pro is refinement - bass sounds deeper and more controlled, the midrange blossoms with all of Claws' distortion and reverb on full display, and the treble is crip and clean. In fact, I've read a few impressions where the reviewer found the Pro somewhat clinical and I do hear that given the Pro's level of cleanliness. But I'd argue that at least in solid-state mode, neutral would be a better description as I found the amp just let the Utopia do its thing. I can't say the same thing with the iDSD, which compresses the Utopias' already middle-of-the-road soundstage.

However, if the stock solid-state sound just isn't doing it for you, no problem. Flip the Pro into Tube+ mode, wait for the light to turn orange, and bathe in all that tube glory. I found Tube mode isn't really much to speak of, since the differences between it and solid-state is in the noise. But in Tube+, the Pro just sounds so luxurious, with a nice sheen of second harmonic goodness felt throughout that really livens things up considerably. In fact after deciding that the iDSD's amp stage was really no match for the Pro, I did most of my listening in Tube+ since I think it sounds a lot more musical with majority of my favorite metal recordings.

One thing that I also took me by surprise was just how much more spacious everything sounded. Which brings me to that 3D holographic knob on the right. As I stated above, iFi's 3D system is not just a simple crossfeed circuit, but their own proprietary design. And after playing with it for several weeks it is now what I like to call the "miracle knob." Turning the "miracle knob" to the 90 degree mark, which simulates a wide loudspeaker placement, felt like it added back a few points of dynamic range to Claws instantly (and this isn't even that compressed by DR standards). In fact, I was so impressed on how it transformed the sound, I thought to myself, "What could it do for Ulcerate?"



So if you're regular around these parts, then you already know how I feel about Ulcerate's latest, Shrines of Paralysis. This is an incredible record and easily could have made my year end list if it wasn't for its abysmal DR3 mastering job. I threw the 3D knob back to the zero mark and gave Paralysis another shot figuring the Pro could liven it up a bit. Yeah, still awful. But with that knob flipped to the 90 degree mark, not bad at all. The record suddenly felt like it had more sonic depth and sounded generally less crushed overall. In fact, for the first time ever, I was able to listen to Paralysis all the way through without suffering any ear fatigue. It's a miracle! If there is one aspect of the Pro you just have to try it is this one - flip that knob over to the 90 degree mark and prepared to be amazed!

Final Thoughts

Is the Pro a reference level component? No question. I think $1700 is actually quite a fair asking price given its sheer sonic performance and flexibility. And it certainly sounds better than all of its cheaper siblings by a wide margin. Moreover, iFi's proprietary 3D holographic system is just a godsend for the audiophile headbanger at large. I must have listened to hundreds of metal records over the course of this review, most of which were all hypercompressed, but with a simple turn of the knob, all of these recordings sounded significantly more open and dynamic. That in itself might be worth the price of admission alone.

If I had to nitpick though, I think some of its features could have been removed to save cost. For example, having a 3.5mm output is more or less superfluous on a system like this. If you bought the Pro for your expensive IEM or CIEM, you're audiophiling all wrong! And though I'm quite aware that bassheads will love cranking up that XBass knob, it is definitely not for me. Finally, even though I think serving the 5670 as the main course every night is fine and dandy, I still prefer a la cart. Especially since the 5670 won't last forever and eventually will need to be replaced.

Still, it's hard to argue with the Pro since it is such a joy to listen to and use. That's why I have no qualms giving it our highest honor even with its lofty price tag. The new Pro iCAN is definitely all go and no show (well, maybe a little show).

This review was originally featured on Metal-Fi.

Introduction

When I first reviewed Schiit Audio's original Modi/Vali stack many moons ago, I walked away very impressed to say the least. Not only was it a cost effective solution for the budding audiophile, but it sounded better than a lot of other systems for a fraction of the price. However, Schiit's entry level stack still had some major drawbacks. First, the number of inputs and outputs on the Modi were quite limited preventing it really from being a general purpose standalone DAC. Secondly, though the Vali offered up some very pleasant analog warmth through its novel use of miniature tubes, you couldn't really roll them and they'd ring occasionally. Finally, the original Modi was limited to 24-bits/96kHz, which I understand is a "no big deal" for most, but still a potential annoying limitation nevertheless [*cough* needle drops *cough* -Dave].

However, Jason Stoddard and Mike Moffat have since improved upon their original Modi and Vali designs and have now released updated versions of both to address a lot of the shortcomings I outlined above. And for the Modi, they've gone all out, releasing several different versions including the Uber ($149) and the even more exciting Multibit ($249). Over the last few weeks I have been listening to both to get a sense of just how much audio bliss one can achieve on a budget. And as it turns out, quite a lot.

In The Vali of The Shadow of the Death

As you can see, the biggest change from the original Vali design is that thingamijig sticking out from the top. Oh yea, that's right, a real, honest-to-goodness tube. As I said before, the original Vali used a very cool miniature tube design that was embedded onboard but generally inaccessible. However, the new Vali comes with a 6BZ7 matched to 2%. But hey, if you don't like it, change it! The Vali will take any tube with a 6DJ8 pin-out that has a 6V heater and 600mA or less of heat current. That means you can roll with the likes of the 6922, ECC88, and 2492 to name just a few. The only catch is that you want to make sure you use matched tubes. By "matched," I mean that both triodes in a given tube are matched to each other so you don't experience any weird channel imbalance issues. Usually tube vendors explicitly say whether their tubes are matched, so look out for that when you begin your tube rolling adventure.

With respect to power, the Vali features a full 60V on the plate, not the rail. In laymen terms, it can power almost every headphone known to man from really hard to drive full size cans to sensitive IEMs. That's why as you can see there is a gain switch that changes the Vali's output impedance from 1.2 ohms to 5.8 ohms respectively. In terms of total output, the Vali 2 can achieve 1300mW into 16 ohms! That's a lot juice. But with great power comes greater responsibility, which is why the Vali also features the same mute relay as the Lyr to prevent any chance of over deviating your transducers on startup and shutdown. Nice. Supplying the Vali with electrons is a special wall-wart power adapter that supplies both low and high voltages via a 4-pin DIN connector. All this for $169! Proof positive that Jason and Mike have clearly lost their Schiit.

Multibit for the Masses

First off, both the Modi 2 and its Uber counterpart feature the same updated AKM chipset, substituting the deprecated 4396 for the newer 4490. So both should sound better than the original and include native 24-bit/192kHz support right out of the box (Windows users need a driver though).

The original Modi offered just one USB input - not exactly awe-inspiring but good enough for government work. The Uber on the other hand ups the ante substantially by adding Toslink and coaxial inputs, a dedicated linear power supply, as well as an elaborate analog output stage that features a DC-coupled circuit plus servo instead of just being capacitor coupled like in the base version. In English, that means an overall shorter electrical path and better low frequency performance.

The Multibit on the other hand is an entirely different beast altogether. Instead of relying on the AKM chipset to be on bit detail, the Multibit features Schiit's very own 4x close-form filter multi-bit DAC design based around the Analog Devices AD5547. In fact, the Modi Multibit shares the same platform as its more expensive big brother, the Bifrost Multibit ($599), making it now the cheapest multi-bit DAC on the planet!

So why are multi-bit DACs such a big deal? In short, many folks who favor multi-bit DACs, particularly ones that are based on R2R ladder designs, tout that they are more "true" to the original sample rate, not relying on upsampling and noise shaping to get the job done which alters the original input signal irrevocably. Detractors however will say that multi-bit designs, especially R2R ones, don't scale very well to higher sampling rates nor achieve the low distortion levels (at least on paper) of their upsampling counterparts. The truth, as usual, is probably somewhere in between. Regardless, I personally think it is fantastic that Jason and Mike are able to offer a custom multi-bit DAC at this price point. Remember, this game is all about choice, and with Schiit, you get lots of it!

To Multi or not to Multi - that is the question.

For headphones, I mostly used the Audeze SINE during my listening sessions since they offer a lot of performance yet are still within reach for most budgets. Most of my time was spent switching back between the Uber and Multibit to get a sense of what an extra hundred bucks buys you, if anything. I would also occasionally throw in the iFi micro iDSD ($499) in the mix as a reference, which is though slightly more expensive than the basic Schiit stack but still about the same price if you decide on the Multibit as your Vali's main dancing partner.

I was also lucky enough to use the Multibit with iFi Audio's fantastic iCAN Pro reference amplifier ($1699). I would then switch back and forth between it and the micro iDSD to get sense of how good the Multibit is as a general purpose stand alone DAC. For this setup, I used the Focal Utopia's ($3999) as my primary weapon of choice.

I feel bad for not putting Messa's Belfry on my 2016 year-end list. I think out of ever doom record I listened to last year, Belfry is by far and wide the one I played the most. I think it has to do with my penchant for 70s rock, which this record exudes in spades over its fairly prototypical doom based underpinnings. But more importantly, these Italians clearly love the fuzz, so I thought to myself: Why not add some more on playback?

To make a long story short, neither the Uber nor Vali are going to win any awards for accuracy, but together they sure make everything sound lush and alive. Particularly Sara's vocals, which sound simply gorgeous on this system, showcasing why so many audiophiles continue to refuse to give up their tubes so easily. I also thought bass extension was generally pretty good, with most of this chain's sonic sacrifices concentrated in the headspace and treble departments. Swapping in the Multibit, the biggest audible changes were a more robust bottom end, better treble extension, and a wider soundstage. In fact, the Uber based stack always felt closed in, which gave it a sorta Grado sense of intimacy. But I personally preferred the Multibit overall.

Final Thoughts

I'm sure you're asking yourself by now: Is the new Modi/Vali stack worth it and if so, which iteration of it should I get? I think if you have a really tight budget and don't need a lot of I/O options, then the basic Modi/Vali setup is still one of, if not the best entry level desktop system on the market. It really is astonishing how much performance Schiit has packed into this combo. I'd only opt for the Uber if you need the extra ports since I think soundwise the basic Modi will get the job done nicely. However, if you got the funds, I would absolutely step up to the Multibit. I firmly believe that this entry level multi-bit DAC is one of the sweetest deals in the audiophile world right now, and you would be hard pressed to find a better sounding platform until you hit the $500 dollar plus mark.

On the amp side, the Vali 2 is an obvious big improvement over the original, and the advantages of being able to quickly tube roll can not be overstated. And as I mentioned above, I would be hard pressed to buy a Magni over a Vali. I'm convinced that the Vali is going to garner more head nodding feedback and that's what it's all about at the end of the day. Buy the Vali.

To sum up, the Schiit Modi/Vali stack easily earns our highest honor. In fact, if I was in the market for a high performing entry level solution, this would be my personal desktop solution of choice. The level of options coupled with its overall performance at this price level is second to none. It is, as they say, the Schiit.

This review was originally featured on Metal-Fi.

Introduction

When I recently reviewed Audeze's new flagship, the LCD-4, I kinda, sorta knew that my review would mostly fall on deaf ears. I mean let's all be honest now. Not too many people are in the market for a four thousand dollar pair of headphones - audiophile or not. And the truth is Audeze is quite aware of that fact too, which is why that's not the only headphone they make.

In fact, over the last few years, Audeze has introduced a number of products outside of their critically acclaimed LCD line. In 2015, Audeze introduced the EL-8, a planar magnetic that combined BMW Designworks aesthetics with their patented-pending Fluxor and Uniforce technologies. The net result was a full-sized can that not only looked sharp but at an asking price well under their lowest priced LCD. Granted, $699 is by no means chump change, but I think most of you will agree it's at least in the realm of possibilities.

Yet while the industry was still unraveling the mysteries behind the EL-8, Audeze was silently working in the background on an entirely new headphone that would change the way we think about planar magnetics forever. That headphone is the SINE, the world's first on-ear planar magnetic headphone, and at $449 sans Cipher cable, Audeze's most aggressively priced headphone to date.

Audeze was very generous to send me two pairs of EL-8s, one open-backed and the other closed, as well as the SINE to do a sort of shoot out to get an idea of which one of these fine specimens of planar magnetic goodness is the right one for you. And the answer is, well, complicated.

I saw the SINE

Believe it or not, that's the SINE circa 2014 in prototype form. Funny story though, this pic actually briefly leaked on Head-Fi before it was quickly taken down at the behest of Audeze. It was initially mistaken for an early EL-8 prototype and caused quite a stir simply due to its size. Pretty cool, right? Note: you can stop singing Ace of Base now.

Whereas the EL-8 is the epitome of trickle down economics, with a lot of its core technology derived from the LCD series, the SINE is a different beast altogether. In fact, the SINE is the culmination of over three years of development, with the entire Audeze engineer team having to think outside the box to build a planar magnetic headphone of this size.

And one of the biggest hurdles they had to overcome was controlling its weight. You see the overwhelming majority of planar magnetics are big, bulbous headphones, with a lot of their weight emanating from the magnets themselves. And if you read my LCD-4 review, then you know that most planar magnetic headphones use a double sided array, i.e. magnets on both sides of the diaphragm. But during the development of both the SINE and LCD-4, Audeze figured out a way to use a single-sided design that could both reduce weight as well as improve sound. The net result of that effort was what they dubbed Fluxor, and it is one of the SINE's cornerstone technologies that allows it to keep its girlish figure.



But putting all this techno mumbo-jumbo aside for a moment, in terms of fit and finish, both the EL-8 and SINE are gorgeous looking headphones in their own right. As you can see from the pic above, the EL-8 open back design is a combination of wood, metal, and leather that just screams luxury. While its closed counterpart is similar in vein except that the Titanium Edition has brushed aluminum cups instead of wood (The horror! -Dave).

However, despite what you may have been told, neither of these cans are really portable, and are clearly happiest sitting on a Woo Audio headphone stand or something of that ilk. I mean that's why they are classified as full-sized.

The SINE on the other hand is also well endowed but its focus is clearly on durability instead. Its headband is all leather and extremely plush despite feeling rigid to the touch. The transducers themselves sit in a hard plastic shell that are suspended by an all metal, heavy duty adjustable frame. Audeze did a spectacular job of giving the SINE real sex appeal while still maintaining its rugged feel.

However, all three headphones are equally comfortable with a nod to the EL-8s just because they are bigger and thus come with more padding. But the SINE is no slouch either, and at least for me, their clamping pressure was just about right. Unless you have Dumbo-sized ears, they should cover your lobes with ease. Isolation was pretty good too as I was able to listen to Deathspell Omega next to my wife without her complaining once! Happy day.

If there is one immediate downside to either the EL-8 or SINE, it would be their cables. On one hand, both connectors are insanely slick and can be swapped in and out with ease, with the EL-8 tips looking like miniature sticks of RAM and the SINE adopting the more familiar 3.5mm jack that just snaps into place. On the other, they are both proprietary, which means if you already own a pair of aftermarket high-end cables, you can't re-use them without getting them re-terminated. Again, this is a relatively minor gripe since the overwhelming majority of consumers couldn't care less about third-party cable support. However, given the fact that Audeze now has several headphones at different price points in their stable, it would be nice if my blue LCD-4 cable could be re-used with either the EL-8 or SINE. C'est la vie.

Decipher the Cipher

Speaking of cables, Audeze knew a headphone is only as good as the playback chain behind it which is why they developed the Cipher, a Lightening cable that features an inline 24-bit amp/DAC combo. It also includes a DSP chip too that can be used in conjunction with the Audeze app (available free through the iTunes Store) to apply various EQ settings on the fly. Pretty slick if you ask me.



I tried both the EL-8 and SINE through the Cipher using my wife's iPad 2 and it was insanely easy to setup: plug one end of the Cipher into the headphone, the other into the iPad, start Spotify and presto, Revocation. Easy.

The Cipher itself also features a few buttons that allow you to adjust the volume up and down as well as the ability to pause the music, which is incredibly handy if you plan to use it at work. The buttons worked with both iTunes and Spotify will no issue to report. I wish though that they were programmable, but alas that is Apple's doing not Audeze's (Apple requires that all buttons perform certain functions to obtain certification). I also found the added weight of the Cipher negligible as it didn't change the veracity or speed in which I headbanged.



In terms of sound, the Cipher adds a bit of artificial bass oomph by applying a +3db boost to the lower octaves. But despite the Cipher's overall pleasantries, it was no match for the Schiit Modi/Vali 2 Uber combo (review pending) I used for the majority of this review. So if you do plan to use a dedicated desktop stack with the either the EL-8 or SINE, I would pass on the Cipher unless you want to use it for on the go or need real-time EQ.

With all that said, I found listening through the Cipher an order of magnitude better than just connecting the SINE to the iPad's headphone out (Don't try that at home kids. We are trained professionals here! - Dave). I should also point out that the Cipher isn't really just a cable either, but an actual platform that Audeze plans to exapnd significantly over the next few years. So though the Audeze app is a bit spartan right now, I assure you the company has big plans for the Cipher, including incorporating technologies that were developed for the DDA-1 I beta tested many moons ago. Finally, as a $50 dollar add-on they are practically giving it away. If I was already wedded to the Apple ecosystem, I would definitely be all over it.

But as a proud Android user that brings me to the Cipher's biggest downside: no Android support. It is certainly on Audeze's radar, and if the SINE continues to sell as well as it has been, I'm quite confident they'll cave. I'm also told that adding Android support would not be very hard either as there are no intrinsic technical hurdles to really overcome. Cross your fingers.

Epic Rap Battle: EL-8 vs. SINE

Now that I've established that both the EL-8 and SINE are, at least on paper, well spec'ed and appropriately dressed for an evening engagement of metal, the question still remains, "Which one?" And to come up with that answer I decided to go all in and listen to all three headphones over a two month stretch through both an iFi micro iDSD as well as a Schiit Modi/Vali 2 stack. I obviously removed the Cipher out of the equation since it would be more of a distraction than anything else. So without further ado, let's get to it!


2012's Of Breath and Bone still remains my favorite Be'lakor record to date. Don't get me wrong, 2009's Stone Reach is a brilliant record in its own right too, but Breath has this sense of urgency to it the minute you press play that is immediately engrossing. Very recently, these talented gentlemen from Down Unda' released a FDR vinyl remaster of it as a digital download on their official Bandcamp page. And it sounds nothing short of spectacular, making it perfect test fodder for this shoot out.

SINE: The first aspect of the SINE's sound is coherency; there isn't a whole lot missing across the frequency spectrum to really speak of, and what it does lack in a few areas it does so in a very understated manor. Guitars are especially pleasant, with the upper mids having a bit of warmth to them. Bass is also thumpy too but definitely lacks impact. Treble extension is respectable but still a tad on the dark side which is what I would expect at this price point. It's not that hats and cymbals don't shine but the SINE clearly has a sharper roll off in their upper octaves compared to its bigger siblings.

Listening to opener "Abeyance" through the SINE however is an absolute thrill, and if you are coming off say a pair of Sony MDR-V6s or some other big box full-sized can, your jaw is just going to drop. Again, coherency is the word of the day when it comes to the SINE, as they offer a very well conceived sound profile that masks a lot of its shortcomings.

EL-8 Open-backed (EL-8O): Truth be told, this isn't my first rodeo show with the EL-8O. I was given a pair to use back when I beta tested the DDA-1 so I knew what to expect out the gate. Listening to the EL-8O immediately after the SINE though showcases what the extra $250 buys you: better resolution across the board, stronger bass response, and a headstage that is an order of magnitude wider than the SINE. Again, the track "Abeyance" sounded great through the EL-8O with noticeable improvements particularly in the treble department. I also felt that the EL-8O was just overall smoother sounding across the entire frequency spectrum, exhibiting a sort of effortless in the way it presented all the Be'lakor madness that was being shot through it.

EL-8 Closed (EL-8C): Full confession: I'm not a big fan of closed headphones in general and the EL-8C didn't really change my opinion of them. It's not like "Abeyance" sounded awful through the EL-8C. It's just that it sounded a lot better through it's open backed counterpart. Closed headphones tend to sound congested since their main focus is providing isolation than absolute sound quality. So if fidelity is indeed what you crave and you are perfectly comfortable sharing your love with early Morbid Angel with everyone in the office, the EL-8O might be a better choice for you.

However, the EL-8C vs. the SINE was a much more interesting comparison, since both offer a modicum of isolation and have, like I said, a fairly congested headstage. I actually preferred the SINE simply for the fact that the EL-8C offered no more low-end grunt but certainly a lot more bulk. Yes, the EL-8C has a wider soundstage but it's not leaps and bounds better like with the EL-8O.


As you can tell, I have been on a melodeath kick of late because one of my all-time favorite bands, Insomnium, are about to release a new record in the coming weeks. And my favorite record of theirs has got to be 2006's Above the Weeping World, which from start to finish is a bona fide masterpiece. The track "Last Statement", which comes toward the back end of this record. is a wonderful example of why Insomnium are the best at what they do, blending gorgeous melody with catchy death riffs in a very tight seven plus minute package. The song's melodic interlude about midway through is grade-A horn raising material and never fails to get my head moving.

SINE: This record is crushed. Clocking in at DR5, there is just no denying that fact. But through the SINE, it doesn't really matter all that much though. I got the sense that these headphones aren't really going to make crushed records sound any worse than they already are, but rather make well recorded, open sounding ones less so. Basically, the SINE's greatest strength is also its greatest weakness which is its size, since their earcups just don't create enough of an air pocket to really emulate big concert hall sound - ain't gonna happen. So if you are a classical buff then I'm not sure you would find the SINE as gratifying as I did because of this shortcoming.

EL-8O: The EL-8O again sounded clearly the best of the bunch, but I thought only marginally so compared to the SINE this time, especially in the mids. That's more due to the limited fidelity of this recording than any inherit flaw in the EL-8O.

EL-8C: I felt the EL-8C sounded on par with the SINE, though I still preferred the SINE overall. The main issue I had with the EL-8C is that it again made this track sound even more claustrophobic than it already is. With that said, I thought transients sounded definitely better through the EL-8C as did treble response too, which admittingly is one of the EL-8C's clear strong suits.


I have a confession to a make: Perturbator's latest is probably my most listened to record of 2016 thus far, and it isn't even metal. It's highly crushed EDM (For shame! - Dave). But this record is so damn addictive I just can't put it down. If you haven't yet bathed in the 80s synth glory that is Perturbator, you really must as his latest, entitled Uncanny Valley, quite possibly might be his best effort to date.

SINE: Surprisingly quite fast. And though its stereo imaging is again somewhat lacking, it's overall delivery brings with it a certain immediacy that lends to its involving nature. After a while, you really just sit back and rock out with the SINE which is exactly what Audeze had in mind when they designed these little beauties. Out of all three, I easily had the most fun listening to this record through the SINE.

EL-8O: Even faster than the SINE, with a lot more of the finer details buried in Kent's mix brought to the fore. Bass is bigger, tighter, and fuller. Mids are still the star of the show though, and have that signature Audeze warmth to them which make them a tad addictive. Treble too improves, but not as much.

EL-8C: A solid performance all around but definitely bass weak. Bass is certainly accounted for but has very little impact compared to the EL-8O. Compared to the SINE however, the EL-8C was again a mixed bag. I thought the EL-8C certainly resolves more, but due to its somewhat quirky preso, I again had more fun with the SINE. Your mileage may vary but I thought the SINE was just an overall more engaging headphone even if it was ultimately less accurate.

Final Thoughts

So which one should you buy? As usual, that depends.

If price is not a concern, the EL-8O is by far the best sounding headphone of the bunch. However, at $699, it is still on the high side with plenty of alternatives from the likes of Mr. Speakers and Oppo that if are not on par with the EL-8O, certainly offer more bang for your buck. And if you can scrounge another $300 bucks, you now own a LCD-2 or even used LCD-3, both of which sound a lot better than the EL-8O. Decisions.

Now if isolation is what you crave, then the EL-8C is your can. However, you could easily buy a pair of higher-end IEMs instead, e.g. Sennheiser IE800, and have better portability and sound for about the same price. Granted, you won't get that wide soundstage out of an IEM compared to a full-sized can like the EL-8O but still.

By now you've probably guessed that the SINE actually turned out to be the clear overall winner despite being the lowest cost option of the bunch. It's deficiencies, which are mainly the lack of a wide stereo image and airy treble, are more than easily excusable, especially if your go to genre of choice is metal. Moreover, the SINE consistently offered a truly exhilarating listening experience no matter what I shot through it, eschewing all the planar magnetic goodness that Audeze has become so famous for and without breaking the bank in the process. And at under $1k, you could easily build a very respectable audiophile class desktop system around it that would give you plenty of room to grow but more than satiate your needs on day one. Add the Cipher cable and suddenly you have a complete audiophile grade playback system wherever you go. Epic win.

The SINE is an outstanding product and easily earns our coveted Metal-Fi award. So if you got $500 bucks or less to burn on a can, definitely audition the SINE. You won't be disappointed. And seriously, stop singing Ace of Base now. It's embarrassing.

This review was originally featured on Metal-Fi.

Introduction

It has been a little over ten years since I listened to Rust In Peace in its entirety through Sennheiser's much coveted Orpheus system. And since then, I have been spending the better part of the last decade trying to recapture that sound.

If you haven't heard of Sennheiser's much revered Orpheus system, I'm not surprised. Only 300 were made back in the 90s, and each system cost approximately $16,000 dollars a pop, consisting of a pair of electrostatic headphones and matching tube amplifier. I was fortunate enough to listen to one at a local Head-Fi meet where I was given unfettered access to it for the better part of an hour. The sound was nothing short of spectacular. But did it sound $16k good? The answer to that question doesn't really matter since even back then I knew that in the not so distant future there would be plenty of playback chains that would not only surpass the Orpheus, but do so at a fraction of the price. Ironically though, what I and everyone else thought was just a one-off has now actually turned into a real product line, as Sennheiser has recently announced a new iteration of the Orpheus system, clocking in at an even more absurd $55,000 dollars and of course supposedly sounding even better than the original. Peace Sells awaits.

I only mention all of the above because listening to Audeze's LCD-3 for the first time was another "Orpheus-like" magic moment for me. I remember the experience vividly. It happened right after I had just sold the Sennheiser HD-800 after losing an incredibly infuriating, long protracted battle with it. Don't get me wrong, the HD-800 is a fantastic headphone in its own right, but I just couldn't extract enough low-end grunt out of it nor could I really quell its peaky treble. Not to mention its performance varied wildly depending on how you juiced it. But the LCD-3 was quite another animal altogether, offering truly deep bass as well as having this highly engrossing lush midrange that breathed new life into my favorite recordings. It also sounded great no matter what system I plugged it into. No, it didn't quite reach Orpheus levels of fidelity, but the Audeze house sound was in many respects just as intoxicating, and rekindled my love for the hobby.

However, like the original Orpheus, the LCD-3 has gotten a bit long in the tooth these days as Audeze's flagship. It has been about four years since it was released, and in that period of time there have been a flurry of top shelf cans that have come out of the woodwork; some of which arguably outperform handily the now venerable LCD-3. Case in point, I myself have shelved my LCD-3 in favor of the latest HiFiMAN flagship, the HE-1K. So when Audeze announced the LCD-4 at last year's CanJam, I was not in the least bit surprised. What did surprise me however, was the price ($3995), which was a full two thousand dollars more than its predecessor and a thousand dollars more than some of its closest competitors including the aforementioned HE-1K ($2995). So that begs the question, is the LCD-4 worth it? Does it sound as good as it costs? Audeze was kind enough to send me a pair to find out.

Fazors and Fluxors, and Teslas, Oh My!

Not only have we've seen a myriad array of reference level headphones flood the market since the introduction of the LCD-3, but Audeze themselves have developed a slew of new headphones, and with them a number of innovations in that time frame as well. In fact, the LCD-3 itself got a revision bump back in 2014 when Audeze introduced their patent-pending Fazor technology, which eventually trickled down to their mid-tier EL-8 line. This technology introduced a set of Fazor elements that are placed just outside the double magnets that surround the diaphragm as a form of acoustic impedance matching. In English, planar magnetic headphones typically employ two magnets on both sides of the transducer which conductors spread across its surface. When current flows through these conductors, they energize the magnets which in turn creates an electromagnetic force that vibrates the diaphragm and thus produce sound. As you can see from Audeze's diagram above, the Fazor elements act almost like a wave guide, and streamline the sound waves to act more uniform as they exit the diaphragm and not interfere with each other. This results in better impulse response as well as improved phase response, especially at higher frequencies where the energy at these levels tend to interact.



With the introduction of the LCD-4 however, Audeze has upped the ante even further with what they call their Fluxor technology. Getting back to those pesky magnets, even though EMF emanates from both sides of the magnetic array, only one side is actually used - the one facing the diaphragm. So literally half of the magnetic array's EMF is wasted or redirected by steel poles. The good news is that Audeze's original LCD-3 design, which incorporated two magnets per element in the array, still keeps both sides of the magnetic flux uniform. Remember, the goal of these magnets is to not only vibrate the diaphragm but do so in a uniform manner. By keeping the LCD-3's magnetic flux uniform across the diaphragm, even if some of this flux is ultimately thrown away, Audeze is still able to extract better control out of it and thus achieve a smoother response while still maintaining efficiency.



But what if there was a planar magnetic design that could focus the overwhelming majority of its flux towards the diaphragm without wasting any of it? That's where the LCD-4's Fluxor technology comes in. The Fluxor array, as you can see above, uses magnets that are magnetized diagonally and then arranged in pairs touching each other. The idea is that the North and South poles of each magnetic pair near the diaphragm face away from each other which results in a larger magnetic field. But because the opposite sides are positioned so close and their poles oppositely charged, their flux gets nearly canceled out. The net result is a whopping three times the flux in the LCD-4 over the LCD-3 (1.5 Tesla vs. 0.5 Tesla to be exact) as well as an even more uniformly distributed force across the diaphragm. And with more control means ultimately better sound.

Nano-Grade Technology

The other key aspect of extracting the maximum performance out of a planar magnetic design is the diaphragm itself. The exact specifications of the transducer in the LCD-4 is unknown, which is to be expected since most vendors consider this information proprietary. However, it has been reported that the diaphragm is sub-0.5 micron thick which is insanely thin. Even more interesting is that it takes a little over two weeks just to manufacture a single diaphragm for every pair of LCD-4 made! That's why to some extent, Audeze has not been able to keep up with demand with current lead times somewhere between 3-4 weeks. Bottom line: even if Audeze wanted to manufacture them faster, they simply can't.

If you have been following the LCD-4 roll out, then you know that Audeze has made an update to its diaphragm after its initial launch. So why did they do this? To make a long story short, while working with their diaphragm vendor to setup a long term production run, Audeze discovered that they could improve both the reliability and performance of the diaphragm through a slightly improved manufacturing process. This updated diaphragm would have a lighter mass and thus a faster impulse response, yet still retain its relatively high efficiency. The only downside is that it causes the LCD-4's impedance to jump from 100 to 200 ohms. That means stiffer amp requirements to properly juice them.

With all that said, at this price point, I think the overwhelming majority of Audeze customers, current and future, will already have some kind of dedicated headphone amp that should have more than enough headroom to power the LCD-4. In my testing, I had no issues whatsoever using the micro iDSD's normal power mode to reach acceptable volume levels; though I did wound up using turbo mode for most of my listening sessions since it falls more in line with Audeze's recommended power guidelines of 1-4 watts. If you are a proud owner of an early version 1 of the LCD-4, then Audeze will upgrade you to version 2 at no cost. My advice is to do it because the updated diaphragm clearly out performs the old one.

Down in Cocobolo

Although the LCD-4 retains the basic shape of the rest of the LCD line, everything else has been taken up a notch. The outer wood housing is made out of Cocobolo or aged Macassar Ebony, both of which are extremely limited and quite exotic in their own right. The headband is made out of leather with an additional carbon fiber strap on top of it that provides the actual clamping pressure. The grill has been updated too, and now has a chrome finish to it that is simultaneously both striking and classy looking. I highly encourage you to just hold the LCD-4 in your hands and really give it a once over. It just exudes luxury and high-end craftsmanship across the board.

Interestingly enough, in terms of weight, the LCD-3 (543g) and LCD-4 (600g) are about the same. Yet I still found the LCD-4 to be more comfortable nevertheless. No, not as comfortable as my HE-1K, but certainly comfortable enough to listen to them for several hours straight without any sort of noticeable fatigue; though I still developed a slight hot spot on the top of my head after a few hours. But overall, I would still rate the LCD-4's comfort factor as relatively high. I also thought the leather/carbon fiber band had enough flexibility to it that it could easily fit a wide range of noggins. So if you are on the fence due to past experiences with the LCD line, at least give the LCD-4 a try. I think you will be comfortably surprised.



Speaking of fit and finish, planar magnetic transducers need a very good seal around the ears for the best low frequency reproduction. And a testament to the LCD-4's technical prowess in this regard, is that it has an incredible low frequency extension down to 5hz! To achieve this kind of low-end grunt, Audeze added an acoustically resistive gasket between the earpad and transducer surface. This not only helps with the seal, but alleviates some of the suction effect when you put the LCD-4 on your head, which can push the diaphragm to an extreme excursion and can cause all sorts of mechanical issues. These gaskets help alleviate these sort of problems when you decide get a little too frisky with your earpads. Hey, it happens.

Sound of the Beast

Since the HE-1K is currently my current go to headphone, I spent an awful long time comparing it with the LCD-4. For the record, I did initially throw in my original non-Fazor LCD-3 into the mix, but that proved to be a non-starter. The LCD-4 (and HE-1K for that matter) is such leaps and bounds above the original LCD-3 that it's just not even fair to compare the two.

In any event, I spent a lot time listening to the same track over and over again but switching headphones in between. I know, I know, you feel sorry for me, and you can hear the smallest violin in the world playing in the background right about now. Anyway, let's get to it.


The very first aspect of the 4's sound that immediately jumps out is its incredible midrange; probably the best I've ever heard out of a headphone including the Orpheus. The acoustic guitar intro of the first track off Agalloch's now seminal 2002 classic, The Mantle, is a shining testament to that fact, with every subtle sonic nuance on full display. Reverb and decay are just phenomenal, which verifies the level of control Audeze has over the 4's diaphragm. However, the 4's overall tonality still remains indelibly Audeze, as the midrange is pushed a tinge forward though still sounds twice as open compared to its older siblings like the LCD-3 and X.

When flipping back and forth between the 4 and 1K, a few things become immediately apparent. First, the 1K still has a wider soundstage overall, and I got to believe that has to do with the strategic upper midrange hump in its response. This recession has the by product of sounding more open despite being ultimately less accurate. Second, the 4's detail retrieval is truly second to none, and that again has a lot to do with Audeze's class leading control over their diaphragm. Three, the 1K has more energy in the treble department. By energy, I mean cymbal crashes have a more visceral impact to them through the 1K over the 4. But make no mistake about it, the 4 is no slouch either. I'll have more to say about its treble in due time. And finally, the 4's bass goes deeper, has more impact, and sounds even tighter over the 1K, which certainly has plenty of first rate bass to begin with. As I said above, Audeze claims that the bass extends all the way down to 5Hz, and after listening to the 4 for a little over a month straight now, I tend to believe them.


Here's a funny story: I'm a Type-O Negative fanatic. I've seen them over a dozen times, and even was fortunate enough to see the band play live right before Pete died. Well one day I made this revelation abundantly clear to a colleague at work, and it turned out that he too was a big fan. He then proceeded to ask me to name my favorite Type-O record. Simple, right? Well, I just couldn't do it. I love them all. Lame, I know. But he could. He instantly rattled off Type-O's 1999 doom epic, World Coming Down, and ever since, I've had a new found respect for this album. I also think its title track is a great tune to test headphones with, since it moves at a funeral doom pace allowing you to absorb everything as it's happening.

I spent a lot of time again switching back and forth between the 4 and the 1K, and after a while, I felt that each time I went to the 1K it was a step down. There is no question that the 1K is very engrossing with its pleasant, laid back sound, which makes it an absolute joy to listen to over long periods of time. But it doesn't nearly resolve as well as the 4, nor does it have the tonal prowess of it either. Moreover, the 4 just has a level of instrument separation and impact that really earns the end-game headphone moniker. Pete's bass simply sounds monstrous throughout. Kenny's guitar driven fuzz is crystal clear, and lingers in the ear as each note decays. Every hit of Johnny's snare is viscerally felt, not just heard. The last time I heard this kind of clarity was when I owned a pair of Sony Qualia's ($2700 back in 2004) driven through a very expensive DIY balanced chain setup. Ah, sweet memories.


So let's talk treble, since that seems to be the elephant in the room when it comes to many online discussions around the 4. The Dave Brubeck Quartet's 1959 classic, Time Out, is one of the greatest jazz records of all time. And ironically, their most famous tune off of it, "Take Five," was actually designed to be a glorified drum solo, which means it makes perfect source fodder to test treble (and transients for that matter). If you aren't familiar with the track, take a listen and you'll hear what I mean. Morello rides that hat for a good bulk of the song, and his midflight solo is filled with transients galore. What's also nice is that Time Out's mix has the cymbal and hats all panned to the left, with the piano to the right and the bass and sax front and center, which means it's very clear where all the frequency content is emanating from.

The main difference in treble between the 1K and 4 is again, energy. Neither are dark by any stretch of the imagination, but the 1K feels hotter upstairs and in a good way. The 4 certainly sounds more articulate. with the 1k sounding a tinge muddy compared to the 4. But there is no doubt in my mind (or ears) that the 4 could benefit greatly with a little EQ and smooth out the upper midrange to treble transition to give it more high-end oophm.

Note that treble is very difficult to do right because the human ear is very sensitive to it. Moreover, everyone has their preference on the amount of treble they prefer. So even if a headphones measure "right" with respect to frequency response, it may still not sound natural to you. For example, I find the HD-800 to be piercing, same goes with the AB-1266 (though in the Abyss' defense I did not get formally fitted which I'm told can make a big difference). Some vehemently believe just the opposite. Bottom line: I find the LCD-4's treble to be absolutely spot on with the caveat that it doesn't have the same impact relative to its full bodied bass and midrange response. Your mileage may vary.

Conclusion

The LCD-4 not only embodies the state-of-the-art in planar magnetic headphone design, but it is by far and wide one of the most thrilling headphones I've have ever had the pleasure to listen to. In fact, its only real downside is its price. At $4k, the LCD-4 is way outside most audiophile's budgets, but is admittedly on the high-side even within its own target segment. Its closest competitor is the HE-1K, which though overall is clearly less accurate, has a wider soundstage, more energy upstairs, and costs a thousand dollars less. And those who of you who are looking for LCD-4 like performance without the LCD-4 like price should consider MrSpeakers' Ether, which offers a superlative musical experience and costs over half as less, as well as Audeze's own LCD-X, which is more neutral sounding than the 3 yet still retains that wonderful Audeze house sound. The bottom line is you have to have deep pockets to justify the cost of the LCD-4, otherwise there are better options out there that offer more bang for the buck. Truth be told, if I did not know the LCD-4 existed, I would be more than happy with my HE-1K.

Yet with all that said, the LCD-4 is still a stunning achievement nonetheless, and may very well be the best mass produced headphone on the planet right now. So its high barrier to entry is somewhat justified given its marvelous performance both inside and out. And if you have the cash, I can think of no better option. Highly recommended.

This review was originally featured on Metal-Fi.

Introduction

 

Alright, I don't expect you to actually slog through the whole video. However, if you did get through the first five minutes or so, then I'm fairly confident that you have a pretty good idea of what a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) is. But to recap, an FPGA is a collection of controllable logic blocks (CLBs) that are all interconnected via a high-speed bus. In it themselves, these logic blocks don't do much. But when strung together, they can be used to perform all kinds of interesting computational work. So let's say you want to program your FPGA to emulate a general purpose microprocessor like the Intel-based one you are using right now to read this review. You're in luck, you can! Or perhaps you want it to perform the same functionality as an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC), say like Bitcoin mining so you can make millions of dollars by the time you actually finish reading this review? No problem. Or maybe you just want to write your own Digital Signal Processor (DSP), like an ESS SABRE, and use it in your own custom DAC? You guessed it, you can do that too. And that's the beauty behind using an FPGA - it's like being given your own computational Lego set that you can piece together to create whatever kind of application your heart desires.



But the intrinsic flexibility of FPGAs over DSPs also has its downsides. First, DSPs have historically been a more power conscious choice over FPGAs since their silicon can be better optimized for their specific computational workload. Second, FPGAs are simply more complex devices than DSPs. For example, let's say you are looking to create your own custom DAC. Then the simplest route would be to pick some off-the-shelf DSP, slap it into your circuit, and feed Pig Destroyer through it. Done. With an FPGA however, you would have to go about writing all the custom code to program all of those CLBs yourself. That is no easy feat since an FPGA is typically programmed in some kind of hardware description language instead of a high-level language like C or Java. And once your code complete, you then have to suffer through this elaborate testing cycle which includes timing analysis, model simulation, and various other verification methodologies just to verify that your code actually works. So if time-to-market is critical, an FPGA based product is probably a non-starter from the get go. Finally, FPGAs almost always have higher per-unit costs because they have more transistors, and thus a bigger footprint than your comparable DSP. Remember, an FPGA vendor doesn't know how a potential customer will use their chip, which means they typically stuff in it a lot more functionality (read: more CLBs and I/O pins) than one might need for a certain application. DSPs on the other hand, again, know exactly how they are going to be used, and can leverage that fact accordingly.

So why the heck am I telling you any of this in the first place? Because I feel that in order for you to better appreciate a product by UK based Chord Electronics, you need to first understand a little about FPGAs. As you can see, designing products around an FPGA requires a lot more expertise outside of traditional analog circuit design, which is why most of the products we are all familiar with contain off-the-shelve third-party DSPs to handle D-to-A duties. But can an FPGA based product sound just as good, or even better than a traditional dedicated DSP based design? Read on and find out.

Striking The Right Chord

My first experience with Chord was with their now discontinued DAC64 product. Now don't hold me to the fire since it was a long time ago, but I do vaguely remember that the DAC64 had two major issues. First, it had a problem with buffering whereby there was a noticeable delay between the moment you pressed play and the metal hitting your ears. And two, and most importantly, the DAC64 was expensive (~3k), or at least seem so at the time. But despite all that, I still walked away extremely impressed since the unit looked and sounded gorgeous.



Since then, Chord has come out with a number of equally sumptuous offerings. Probably their most well known product is the Hugo, an integrated headphone amp/DAC now based around Xilinx's top of the line 45nm Spartan-6 chipset that has built a reputation for delivering reference level sound in a somewhat portable package. But again, like all FPGA based designs, it comes at a price. The standard Hugo is $2,195 list while its bigger desktop variant, the TT, tips the scale at around the $4k mark. Not outlandish for this kind of performance by any means, but certainly not priced for your budget conscious audiophile either. Chord of course understood this, and decided to set out and design a product that would target a more younger demographic that wants great sound but on the go. It had to be truly portable as well as play nice with all manner of smart phone. And most importantly, had to have an attractive price point. So what did Chord come up with? Meet the Mojo ($599).

Meet The Mojo

First off, the Mojo is indeed a true portable device. No, it's not dongle tiny, but at about the size of a pack of Altoids, it easily fits in the palm of your hand. But despite its relatively small stature, it features a myriad array of I/O ports, including optical TOSlink (24-bit/192kHz) and 3.5mm coaxial inputs as well as not one, but two 3.5mm single-ended headphone outputs. And those outputs offer plenty of power too, featuring 35mW at 600 ohms and 720mW at 8 ohms with an overall output impedance of 75 mOhms. In English, I was able to comfortably juice my HiFiMAN HE-1Ks as well as my Audeze LCD-3s with ease. Chord's lead designer, Rob Watts, explained to me that he went to great lengths to preserve the small signal accuracy by using dither and noise shaping so sound quality does not vary with volume setting. Analog purists will balk, but with a product like this where IEMs and other portable headphones are going to be its chief customer, perfect volume tracking is key, and the Mojo delivers in spades.



Like its bigger sibling, Mojo's user interface is based on a spectral polychromatic approach, i.e. status and modes are indicated through color (You mean colour. -Dave). And as you can see, each color of the rainbow indicates a different sampling rate. Same goes for volume too, which cycles through various color schemes to indicate level. If you press both volume buttons together while the unit is on, then you will cycle through a couple of different brightness settings. Hold down both buttons while simultaneously pushing the power button and that will tell the Mojo to produce a 3V line-level output. Cute.

In terms of how effective the ROY G. BIV approach to user interface is, well let's just say I didn't think it was even half as bad as John Grandberg of Part-Time Audiophile made it out to be. No offense to John, but yes, it's very quirky, and yes, I could definitely live without all the blinky lights since it makes the unit come off a bit childish. However, after using the Mojo everyday at work, I just got used to it. I mean at the end of the day, one button turned the volume up while the other turned it down. Really, that's about it. In terms of its sampling rate indicator, who cares? Audirvana proudly displays the rate every time I hit play. Seriously, after about one, maybe two minutes, you'll get the hang of it easily. More of an issue for me was the fact that though the Mojo features digital volume control, you can't control it from the keyboard. That does suck. Granted, it is by no means the end of the world, but I do think hands free operation is ideal for a device like the Mojo.



The Mojo has two mini-USB inputs, one labeled for charge and the other for digital input. Yes, you can use the Mojo while it's charging (obviously, you need two USB cables then), but the manual points out that you are going to wait for eternity to see the charge light turn off while shooting metal through it. In general though, you get 10 hours of headbanging for 4 hours of charge. That proved more than sufficient for my daily usage. And as the color scheme shows above, the Mojo supports ever sampling rate known to man, including 768kHz DXD as well as DSD64, DSD128, and DSD512 over DoP. Basically, this little black box covers all your bases and then some. There is even some talk about a future add-on module that will plug into these ports and offer Bluetooth, WiFi, and even a SD card reader to boot. Now that would be killer.

Tap Out

A lot of Chord's secret sauce revolves around something they call the "Watts Transient Aligned" (WTA) filter. The main thrust behind the development of this custom filter is that our brains, not ears, are really responsible for our hearing, i.e. we hear with our minds. And it turns out that according to Watts, our ears are capable of detecting a 4us timing difference between incoming sounds while the CD format, due to its limited sampling rate (44.1kHz), can only retain down to 22us of timing difference between samples. And this effects how our brain processes the sound our ears collect. Worse still, the typical interpolation filter that is at the heart of every modern DAC can not reconstruct these timing differences accurately due to their limiting processing power and thus, limited number of filter coefficients they can implement. But because Watts harnesses the processing power of a full blown FPGA, he can implement an order of magnitude more taps than a convention FIR filter, which in turn results in a more accurate D-to-A conversion with respect to transients. And so the story goes.



To accomplish all of this magic, the Mojo uses the 28nm Artix-7 chip, Xilinx's most power efficient and lowest cost FPGA to date. Speaking of power efficiency, though the Mojo gets warm during playback, I was always able to pick up my unit after several hours of usage with ease. Even more impressive is the fact that though the Artix-7 has significantly less processing power than the Spartan-6 found in the Hugo, Watts was still able to implement his WTA filter code with very little change. In fact, the code base between the Hugo and Mojo is relatively the same, with some minor changes to the Mojo to accommodate 768kHz sampling rates. The bottom line is that for almost half the price of the Hugo, the Mojo offers the same state-of-the-art design. Nice.

Time To Get My Mojo On!

Most of my listening sessions were conducted with my Jerry Harvey Audio Roxanne CIEM through my Macbook Pro since that is my daily, on the go setup. Let me get this off my chest right now: the minute I swapped out my Geek Out v1 for the Mojo, my jaw dropped. I could not believe how much better the Mojo sounded over the Geek Out. And I do mean everything sounded better: bass extension, soundstage, imaging, you name it. It completely took me by surprise. It was one of those moments in this great hobby of ours that you rarely have, but always live for. In fact, it sounded so great out of the box, I found myself instantly going back to records that I knew by heart just to confirm what I was hearing was indeed real. So without further ado, here are my listening notes.




I'm a huge Rammstein fan. YUGE! On November 12, 2010, after 10 years of not setting foot on US soil, Rammstein played to a sold out audience of over 18k people at Madison Square Garden in New York City. I was there. It was incredible. I'm still trying to find myself on the Blu-ray they just released of the show! In addition to this live concert set, these crazy Germans also released the mother of all vinyl boxsets that contains their complete discography remastered for black 180g vinyl. My wife bought me this boxset for my Christmas present (she's clearly a keeper) and I have been enjoying it ever since.

Like so may other US fans, I became a fan of the band when I first heard "Du Hast" on the radio off of 1997's Sehnsucht. Their magnum opus however is probably that record's follow up, 2001's Mutter, which of course I could hum in my sleep at this point. Listening to a needle drop of it on the Mojo was really something magical. Not only are the dedicated vinyl masters an order of magnitude better than their crushed CD counterparts, but sound absolutely glorious on the Mojo. John Darko over on DAR calls the Mojo's sound piquant. I could not agree more, though on this side of the globe I would of said alive. Everything sounds and feels sonically more alive through the Mojo. Listening to "Ich Will," it was impossible not to ride the cymbals with my head, as their reverb sounded airy and real. No muddiness, no sense of awkward treble decay - they just sounded natural. Same is true for the low-end as well, as bass extension is equally ungodly. I really believe that this might be the first time that all of my Roxanne's 12 drivers were actually being put through the ringer! Call me impressed.

As another test, I threw my Roxanne's into iFi Audio's iDSD for a little ABX comparo (I tried my darnest to level match as best I could). With the Roxanne's at least, I preferred the Mojo almost every time. They both seem to be able to eek out all the little sonic nuances these vinyl masters have to offer, but the Mojo's airy, spacious presentation just put it over the top.




Staying with our wax motif, I decided to bring out an oldie but goodie, and one that I've used in the past as review source material, a needle drop of Bolt Thrower's 2005 epic Those Once Loyal. It is still my favorite BT record to date and one that continues to get heavy rotation. But for this listening session I decided to switch ears and plug in my HE-1K instead for some more Mojo/iDSD ABX fun. Detail retrieval was still top notch through both, with tracks like "The Killchain" and "Anti-Tank (Dead Armor)" roaring out the gate in piquant fashion. What I found most fascinating however, is that though the iDSD seemed to eek out more mid-bass thump, it was clearly at the sacrifice of clarity. For example, on the track "Entrenched," the immediate groove filled buzz of Ward and Thompson's guitars sounded ostensibly clearer through the Mojo. Same was true with bass, as Jo's presence seemed more integrated into the whole on every track. Don't get me wrong, the iDSD was no slouch either, and with its robust power supply, easily kept up. But through the Mojo, the music sounded bigger, bolder, and again, just more alive.




As my in-depth review of Dystopia revealed, I think this is the best record Sgt. Mustaine's Lonely Hearts Club Band have released since Youth. Regardless, one of the unfortunate aspects of Megadeth's latest offering is that its production is quite poor, with the whole album pushed to near inches of its sonic life. I am still hoping for a FDR version to be released like the last two, but so far, no dice. Ergo, the album is excellent fodder for the Mojo to gauge how it handles overly compressed material.

Truth be told, I was a bit fearful that Mojo's infatuation with accuracy and wide soundstage might actually prove to be to its detriment when confronted with low DR material. Let's just say my worries were put to rest rather quickly, as the Mojo sounded remarkably civil despite the fact that the recording I was pumping through it was not. Sure, while listening to "Post-American World" or "Conquer or Die," I cringed at the muddiness of the guitars and the complete lifelessness of the drums. But that was clearly not the Mojo's fault, and in fact, I thought it worked its magic as as much as it could, pulling out Ellefson's bass out of production oblivion as well as giving Adler a little bit more oophm where say the Geek Out would simply sound competent. The Mojo time and time again offered big sound regardless of the source material's production value.

Conclusion

If you arrived here via Googling and want to dispense with all the above rhetoric, then let me briefly summarize: The Mojo costs $599 and I think its worth every single penny. Sure, its user interface is a bit quirky and even at $599, it's not exactly cheap. But I am confident that with the right pair of cans, you are literally knocking on reference level sound's door with this little black box. Chord folks describe the Mojo as "a real giant slayer," (Slaayyyerr! -Dave) and I can not find any fault in that statement. I honestly think you would have to spend triple to even four times the price to really outshine the Mojo in the sound department, and it is by far the best portable solution I have ever had the pleasure to listen to.

Downsides? Well, there is no balanced output, but for IEMs and other highly efficient cans that is literally a no big deal. The USB cable they give you is ridiculously small. I know, rough. Oh, and if you are in fact legally color blind, then you might have some trouble with its spectral polychromatic based interface. Actually, come to think of it, after using the Mojo every single day for weeks, probably its biggest downside is this: if you are an audiophile who was lent a Mojo from Chord direct to review, then you eventually have to send it back. Now that is a real bummer. Trust me. I have no qualms whatsoever of awarding Chord's Mojo with our highest accolade, the Medal Ov Honor award. This little black box earned it and then some.

This review was originally featured on Metal-Fi.

My iFi micro iDSD review was originally posted on Metal-Fi but I am cross posting on Head-Fi at iFi's behest.

Introduction



Does anyone remember what portable, audiophile-grade playback used to look like? I certainly do. I remember going to Head-Fi meets and being in just awe of all the insane amount of paraphernalia attendees would carry around just to play their favorite set of digital bits. Take for instance the Headroom Micro line. Consisting of both a standalone DAC and headphone amp, the Micro line was originally conceived to conquer the low to mid-tier desktop market. But because it packed a lot of performance per square inch, many audiophiles opted to go with it instead of Headroom’s own dedicated portable line, the Airhead, as their go to portable stack. That's why Headroom at the time even offered you a Micro sized fanny pack to help you transport your iPod's BFFs everywhere you went.

Looking back though, it seems outlandish to me that any sane audiophile would even consider lugging around an entire Micro line just to achieve a modicum of fidelity through their favorite digital source. But the fact is both the Micro headphone amp and DAC were considered state-of-the-art back in the day, and offered many bleeding edge features that we all now take for granted, including an asynchronous hardware reclocker with noise shaping and even crossfeed.

But technology improves at an extremely rapid pace, and what was state-of-the-art back then is now today's garage sale bait. Yet if the Micro line was indeed the standard in which all portable stacks were judged back when dinosaurs ruled the Earth (circa 2005), then today's equivalent would have to go to iFi Audio's micro iDSD, which is nothing short of a technological marvel. Read on to find out why this $499 (street) little beasty is nothing short of spectacular.

iWho?



iFi Audio is a division of Abbingdon Music Research (AMR), a fairly well known and well respected high-end audiophile shop based in the UK. Their reference level CD player, the CDP-77 ($8,500), has been hailed by many as a real giant killer, conquering Redbook induced digititus for half the cost of some of its better known competitors. More recently however, AMR has been getting a lot of press for their single-ended triode amplifer, the AM-77 ($8,500), which brings valve-like sensibilities to your favorite reference chain of choice through the use of their proprietary OptiGain circuit.

Obviously given the price tag of your standard issue AMR component, the market for these devices is somewhat limited (though frankly $8,500 isn't that outlandish in the high-end audiophile world believe it or not). So in order to expand their product line and appeal to a wider audience (read: younger), AMR spun off iFi Audio in 2012 as a separate business unit to develop audiophile grade products at a more affordable price.

iFi Audio came running out the gate releasing a number of products that spanned all four corners of the digital and analog world, ranging from the iPhono (with no less than six different EQ curves to choose from) to the iUSB (the Arm & Hammer of USB power). In fact, very recently they just updated their well respected iDAC, which as many of its owners will attest to, laughs in the face of other DACs (portable or otherwise) that claim "high-res" support. But out of all the micro products they offer, I feel the micro iDSD, a combination DAC/headphone amp, is by far the most representative of AMR's trickle down economics approach.

Crowdsourced Design



After iFi reached critical mass with its 2012 introductory product line, the folks over there did something very smart: They sought direct community feedback during the design phase of their next iFi product. The net result of this social experiment can be found in the massive micro iDSD thread over on Head-Fi, where iFi not only collected feedback from the entire audiophile community at large but used this forum space to document the overall design process as well. If you have some free time to spare, I highly recommend you read all of the cherry picked posts referenced in the first post's table of contents section. iFi literally walked you through almost every major design decision they made, ranging from how they wrote some custom scheduling code to load-balance the numerous XMOS cores to how they implemented a reference level clock inspired by a missile guidance system. Trust me when I say that this thread is not only extremely informative, but very well written and at a level that even a non-technical audiophile will find fascinating to comb over.

Digital Done Right



The iDSD has been one of the most difficult pieces of gear I've ever had to review simply for the fact that it is so feature rich. I could probably spend an article or two just talking about its DAC - seriously. In any event, in an effort to keep things organized let's dive into its digital side and then slowly make our way to its analog half.

As you can see above, at the heart of the iDSD is a pair of Burr-Brown Multibit DACs that offer true native DSD and PCM support, the exact same chipset found in the nano version of the iDSD. But by adding a second double B, iFi was able to lower the noise floor by 3 dB as well as improve channel separation to boot! But like the nano version, the micro's firmware employs the same novel approach to PCM conversion as well.

Unlike most delta-sigma architectures that convert everything to a 1-bit stream first before filtering, the iDSD preserves the high order 6-bits of a PCM data stream and only converts the rest of the low order bits via its internal 256fs (DSD256) modulator. iFi claims that this allows the iDSD to keep some of that Burr-Brown signature warmth while still retaining all the smoothness delta-sigma modulators are so famous for. Obviously for pure DSD input, those Burr-Brown's handle it natively using that same DSD256 modulator to convert to analog. And since iFi used the latest and greatest chipsets, the iDSD is able to handle an insane number of sampling rates, maxing out at Octa-Speed DSD512 and PCM768 (2x DXD)!

Keep in mind that the iDSD is truly native with respect to DSD playback, so all volume control is done in the analog domain in an effort to stay true to the original bitstream. In other words, unlike a lot of DSD capable DACs that transcode to PCM first in order to apply digital volume control, the iDSD always preserves the original signal as is when converting 1's and 0's to electrons.



Feeding these two DACs is an eight-way XMOS U-series based chipset, which is one of the premier USB receiver solutions on the market. Now if you are vaguely familiar with XMOS that's probably because you've heard about it in the context of some ESS SABRE based solution, since the combination of SABRE and XMOS seems to be the defacto reference platform most audiophile products are based on today. I suspect though that iFi choose the XMOS (as opposed to something like a high-end C-Media chipset a la Schiit) not for its industry wide popularity, but mainly because of its high-processing power (MIPS) and ease of development. In fact as I mentioned above, iFi's software team went to town on the XMOS, not settling for the reference implementation provided by the vendor but actually writing their own custom firmware to better utilize all eight cores. Couple that with built-in iPurifier support, the iDSD has one of the most advanced USB solutions on the market today at any price point.

There was also expressed interest by many Head-Fi'ers to have selectable digital filters just like you would find on the Herus+ dongle I reviewed recently. iFi listened and implemented two sets of three selectable filters depending on whether you are playing PCM versus DSD. For PCM based input, you have standard, minimum phase, and bit perfect, while for DSD you have extreme, extended, and standard. Sticking with PCM since that is by far most of what your brutal bits are encoded in, the standard filter offers the most accurate digital filtering at the cost of some added ringing. While the minimum phase and bit-perfect filters seem to be the most popular for actual listening among audiophiles, exhibiting the least amount of pre and post-ringing with respect to transients. DXD sampling rates have no filtering applied whatsoever and are converted to analog as is (as they should be).

With Great Power Comes Greater Responsibility



As for amperage, the iDSD puts out an astounding amount of power with enough lightening to sizzle most full sized headphones. The key to taming this beast is through the Power and IEMatch mode switches located on the side and its underbelly respectively. The Power mode switch is by far the most important setting on the iDSD and the one you have to get right or you can blow up your favorite pair of transducers easily. It can be broken down into the following modes: Eco (500 mW at 8 ohms), Normal (1900 mW at 16 ohms), and Turbo (4000 mW at 16 ohms). Trust me when I say that the overwhelming majority of you will be headbanging in Eco mode. However, if you have some really hard to drive headphones (think HE-6) you can use the Normal and Turbo modes as appropriate (yes, Turbo mode will drive the AKG K-1000 handily).

After the Power mode switch is finalized, then comes the IEMatch mode switch. Again, for full sized cans you are probably going to leave this switch in the off button for the life of the unit. But if you do plan to use really any kind of IEM (especially CIEMs) then the two other modes, High Sensitivity and Ultra High Sensitivity, are your friends. In order to figure out which setting will work best for your particular headphone, iFi offers the following chart:



Common sense applies, so using Ultra High Sensitivity in Turbo mode is for those looking to earn a Darwin Award. For the rest of us however, iFi recommends that in general you want to be able to listen to your favorite pair of headphones at normal volume levels at the 3 o'clock position of the volume knob. That's the sweet spot, so start in Eco/Off mode and then gradually increase the Power and/or IEMatch buttons as needed. Trust me, it's not hard.

Speaking of power, the iDSD allows you to work directly off of its internal 4800 mAH battery or USB via its SmartPower circuitry. The order of when you connect the iDSD via USB and turn the unit on is very important: Turn on the unit before connecting it via USB tells the firmware to operate on battery power exclusively. Conversely if you connect the unit via USB first and then turn the unit on, the iDSD will operate off of USB power instead. For iPhone and Android potential customers, iFi recommends that you use battery power mode since you may experience some device errors otherwise. Caveat emptor. And yes, the unit will charge while playing music too. In fact, the iDSD can even charge your favorite smart device up to two times while in use! In case you're wondering how do you tell when you are running out of juice, there is an LED status light on top of the unit that based on its color will tell you all sorts of useful information. Again, with great power comes greater responsibility. Use it wisely.

Odds & Ends



In terms of inputs outside of USB, the iDAC accepts optical and coaxial SPDIF via one port in the back and another 3.5 mm one in the front. The SPDIF input on the back also serves as output if you don't have any headphone connected. For outputs, you have your standard red and whites on the back (RCA) and the single 1/4" headphone jack in the front. And yes, the iDSD can essentially mimic a DAC/preamplifier via those RCA outputs by switching it out of Direct mode into Preamplifier mode by toggling a switch toward the rear of the unit.

The volume knob controls a specially designed potentiometer (POT) made specifically for the iDSD, and apparently gives you slightly better control (<2 dB tracking error) than your standard issue ALPS. The two other switches next to it are the XBass and 3D Holographic Sound switches. When XBass is turned on it gives you a nice noticeable bass boost. The 3D Holographic Sound is iFi's cross feed circuit, which you may or may not dig. Disclaimer: I'm not a big fan of crossfeed in general.

There is also a polarity inversion switch which for some of you out there on strong meds might find useful. I've never experienced any particular need to invert the polarity of the output so I'm highly confident that 99.9% of you aren't going to use it either.



Finally, in case you haven't noticed from the pic above, the iDSD comes with a myriad array of adapters, and even includes a high quality USB 3.0 cable to boot. Once you open that box, you're set. For life. Seriously.

Setup



As usual. my primary source was my trusty late-2011 Macbook Pro running OSX Yosemite 10.10.4 and Audirvana 2.2. For full sized cans I switched back and forth between my Audeze LCD-3 (non-fazor) and HiFiMan HE-1000, both powered by Eco mode with IEMatch off. That allowed me to listen to both headphones at normal volume levels around the 3 o'clock position. Check. I also tried my JHA Roxanne CIEM in Eco mode with Ultra High Sensitivity turned on which also worked like a champ - zero hiss, total black background. In addition to USB, I decided to plug in my Audiophilleo AP1 with PurePower USB to SPDIF converter to give that a go as well. Everything worked as expected but surprisingly I felt the USB input sounded better overall and as a result, became the primary way I escorted bits off of my MBP for this review.

I also played a lot with the digital filter switch too, ultimately settling on the BitPerfect setting. Again, your mileage may vary, but I would start with BitPerfect, or maybe even Minimum Phase first, before randomly moving that switch around during playback.

One final setup note: I had one technical problem I was not able to overcome switching back and forth between DSD and PCM with Audirvana. If I play DSD and then switch to PCM (no matter the resolution), I get a lot of noise and distortion as if the unit and/or my headphones are completely toast. I had to manually reset the unit by disconnecting it from the USB port and then plugging it back in again to reach a steady-state. This issue seems to be relegated to Audirvana only though, since I tried foobar2k under Win 7/VMware Fusion without any problem. Interestingly enough, Audirvana auto-recognizes that the iMicro supports up to DSD256 even though it really supports up to DSD512. This is due to the fact that the DoP spec (DSD over PCM) only supports up to DSD256 currently on OSX (I believe on Linux you can tweak the kernel to get DSD512 to go, but obviously I have no such luxury on my Mac).

Sound



You made it!

Alright, despite the fact that the iDSD supports a plethora of sampling rates and formats, I'm quite aware 99% of your time will be spent with 16-bit/44.1kHz PCM source material. With that said, just the ability to play these insane-rate files seemed like a lot of fun. So what I did was go to Native DSD's website and download a few free samples of various high-res formats, including DXD (32-bit/384kHz) and DSD128/256. I then plugged in my HE-1000 and off I went. Suffice it to say everything just worked! Was I amazed by the sound though? Not really, but frankly I didn't spend a lot of time critically listening to each download sample nor did I have any equivalent source material in standard definition format to really compare it to. Couple all that with the technical glitches of switching back and forth between DSD and PCM, I decided to move on.



As a first test, I wanted to listen to some high-quality reference material to see what this puppy can really do. That means high dynamic, well mastered source material a la Horrendous' Ecdysis. This record is one of the best death metal albums to come out in a long time and Horrendous guitarist/engineer Damian Herring did a bang up job producing it, clocking in at DR10. And after blasting tracks "Weeping Relic" and "Monarch" I quickly realized just how good the iDSD is given its price tag. First off, detail retrieval is outstanding, with every track on this record just beaming with life. Transients are of particular note, having a very fast attack and then natural sounding decay as the dual Burr Brown's have no problem keeping up with band's various tempo changes. Bass is absolutely ear boggling too, with or without the XBass switch on. But what I found most gratifying is that unlike a lot of its competitors, the iDSD's overall presentation is open and wide. Any compressed sense of soundstage I was hearing was more an artifact of the headphone I was using than it was from the iDSD itself. Put simply, the iDSD has a way of politely removing itself from the playback chain, letting the music just speak for itself. A hallmark of every great piece of audiophile gear.



Unfortunately, given how revealing the iDSD can be, I was immediately worried that Loudness War governed music would not fair as well, and to some extent I was right. As soon as I threw heavily compressed records like Strapping Young Lad's 1997 classic, City, or the recently released Trials record, This Ruined World, the iDSD's wonderful sense of airyness vanished due to both record's heavily reliance on dynamic range compression. Obviously, this isn't the fault of the iDSD per se, but just be aware that this unit is quite resolving for better or worse. The good news is that the added warmth of the Burr Browns does actually help alleviate ear fatigue over long listening sessions. However, I would absolutely avoid even looking at the 3D Holo switch, since iFi's crossfeed implementation pushes the midrange to the fore which for most highly compressed material utterly destroys the music (imagine the Grado house sound on steroids). Use of the XBass switch is certainly encouraged, especially if you have a can that is known to be somewhat anemic down low or you just want to have a little fun.



Finally, a Metal-Fi review would not be a Metal-Fi review without some kind of needle drop. So I dusted off Nokturnal Mortum's Voice of Steel from my collection and just sat back and listened. Bass control again is just phenomenal, and that rang true no matter what headphone or IEM I used. I also felt that the midrange was exactly where it needed to be - prominent, but not to in your face, and having just enough analog warmth to help round out some of that digital edge we've all come so accustomed to. Some of you may find that unacceptable if strict transparency is what you seek, but for the rest of us who are out to simply enjoy the music the iDSD hits the nail right on the head. And while the treble doesn't shimmer like I've heard on systems many times its price, the iDSD's command of the upper frequency range is quite respectable. Not once did I feel somewhat grossed out by the crash of a cymbal or tap of a hi-hat. Something I can't say the same for a lot of SABRE based products I've listened to.

Conclusion



The iFi micro iDSD is a phenomenal piece of gear, incorporating state-of-the-art digital design in an extremely well thought out package. In fact, my single biggest complaint is that it isn't really portable, but rather transportable. I mean of course you can lug it around if you really had to, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense these days given the rise of the dongle form factor. But portability issues aside, when it comes to both fidelity and feature set the iDSD is clearly the current standard in which all other devices in this segment should be judged. No question. My guess is you would have to spend at least four times the price to best this little box, and even then I suspect the differences will be paper thin. If you are looking for a multi-faceted desktop solution at a very reasonable price point, then your quest is over. Highly recommended.