Cons — Cayin C9 is rather heavy
– Very faint amp hiss with sensitive IEMs
– Gets warm in class-A mode after more than an hour of operation
– NuTubes don’t sound like classic tubes, tube purists may feel disappointed
– Won’t replace desktop setups if you’re running inefficient planar headphones
– Eye-watering price that gives you a pause before purchase

INTRODUCTION

Cayin is no stranger to amps. In fact, they make some of the best desktop amps out there, including the venerable iHA-6 and the top-dog, the HA-6 (one of the best amps I’ve ever had the pleasure to listen to, by the by).

The Cayin C9 is their flagship portable amp, meant to be more transportable than portable given the ~0.5kg of weight.

Note: the ratings given will be subjective to the price tier. Cayin C9 was sent to me as part of the EU Review Tour (thanks Andy!)

IEMs/Headphones used: Dunu Zen/SA6, Final FI-BA-SS/E5000, UM MEST mk. 2, Campfire Audio Holocene, Sennheiser HD650, Hifiman Ananda

Price, while reviewed: $2000. Can be bought from Musicteck.

PHYSICAL THINGS AND USABILITY

PACKAGING AND ACCESSORIES

In terms of accessories, you get two high quality interconnect cables (a 4.4mm to 4.4mm balanced cable, and a 3.5mm to 3.5mm single-ended cable). You also get a type-C cable for charging (supporting QuickCharge), a screw-driver (for removing the battery bay), and some spare screws. That’s about it, no carrying case or anything. The accessories aren’t plentiful given the price-tag but you do get all the basic necessities.
3.5/5

BUILD QUALITY

Cayin C9 has a two part design: the front part has the amp circuit along with the controls/switches, and the back side has the battery bay which can be slid out. The top of the device is aluminium with CNC-cut windows (covered by glass) that houses the NuTubes, and the bottom of the device has a sheet of glass on it (I do wish this portion was also aluminium for consistencies’ sake). The tubes glow green when turned on and takes about 3/4 seconds to warm up.

The front of the device has… everything. Well, everything bar the pre-amp/line-in toggle button (on the left side of the device, you need to press it along with selecting pre-amp input mode on the front panel to activate the mode) and the USB-C port/battery indicators (on the back of the device, with the battery bay). Both the 3.5mm and 4.4mm inputs/outputs are on the front, along with the power switch/operation indicator LED button. There are toggles for (from left to right) line-in/pre-amp input mode, gain (High/Low), Timbre (Solid state/Tube), operation mode (Class-A/AB).

Lastly , there is the volume knob which is an ALPS rotary encoder and has quite high precision from my experience with no channel imbalance even at extremely low volumes (it’s electronic and resistance-ladder based with 130 discrete steps). The knob takes some force to rotate though, and it’s somewhat recessed into the housing to prevent accidental volume changes (which can be damaging due to the extremely high output power on the C9).

I don’t really have any complaint about build quality here.
5/5

USABILITY

The Cayin C9 is more of a transportable than a portable device. In other words, they need to be stationed somewhere (a desk/bedside) and not really portable in a shirt/pant/coat pocket (unless you love unsightly bulges). Other than that, it’s quite easy to operate the device once stationed on a desk. Changing between modes is easy to do without looking once you get the layout memorized. However, due to all the controls being on the front, it can a pain to hook it up as a sole headphone amp with a desktop DAC (then you need to reach on the back to connect/disconnect headphones and IEMs). As of now it is more suited to connecting with DAPs than desk setups.

Another interesting aspect is that there is a slight delay every time you change modes. This is something you have to take into account for on-the-fly A/B comparison as the changes introduced by the tube mode, for example, won’t be instantaneous.
3.5/5

BATTERY

The Cayin C9 uses four 18650 Li-ion batteries and apparently switching batteries may bring subtle changes to the sound signature (I did not verify this). It supports quick charge so recharging is quite quick, and I managed ~8 hours on a single-charge in class-A/High gain mode from the balanced out. This is not a stellar showing but given the power and performance here it is within expectations. Do note that Cayin have built several protection mechanisms in the battery powered circuitry (and you cannot bypass battery power here, not sure why would you want to anyway since the battery power is better than direct AC input for this particular use-case). You can read more about the power delivery method here.

AMP ARCHITECTURE

The internal architecture of the Cayin C9 is fully discrete and fully balanced. Cayin also didn’t use a traditional IC/Op-amp based circuitry, rather opted for fully discrete design. The volume control is resistance-ladder based with 130 discrete steps.

Instead of trying to explain all the nitty-gritties in detail (which isn’t really my forte) I’d instead link to the Cayin head-fi thread (click here). There you will find amp schematics alongside a closer look at the internal components.

TONALITY AND TECHNICALITIES

The Cayin C9 is an absolute chameleon of an amp when it comes to tonality and technicalities. Between the class-A/AB mode and solid-state/tube timbre, you can have 4 different signatures, and this is quite helpful when it comes to pairing IEMs with a specific sound signature. Please note that due to the way the mode-switching works in this amp (has a 2-5 seconds delay depending on mode) some of the A/B comparisons below are based on auditory memory and listening notes. In other words: take them with some salt (though I am fairly convinced about the different bass reproduction in class-AB mode and the general characteristics of the tube mode).

CLASS-A (SOLID STATE)

This is my most favorite mode, and apart from very bass-heavy stuff I preferred almost everything in my collection in this mode.

The best part about the class-A mode is the bass rendition. This is, by far, the best bass reproduction I’ve heard on a portable amp. The sheer grunt of the sub-bass (provided you have a suitably extended IEM) is unmatched. No DAP I’ve tried till date including the likes of Lotoo PAW Gold Touch, Sony WM1Z, Questyle QP1R, or the A&K SE200 could come close. I went through a huge portion of my library to simply enjoy the basslines in a completely different manner.

The sheer control Cayin C9 has over the sub and mid-bass is also uncanny. Snare hits are authoritative, sub-bass rumble is very much present, but it doesn’t overwhelm and actually corrects the bass-bleed issue in certain IEMs (Final E5000, for one). The best part about the bass: its density, given you got a good bass reproduction on the transducer side of things. The Cayin C9 isn’t a miracle-worker of course even in class-A mode. If you are pairing it with a BA-only IEM, the bass can only be so good. You’ll miss the texture and slam of good dynamic-drivers and that’s expected. Thus, the class-A mode is especially suited for dynamic driver IEMs/Headphones and the efficient planar magnetic ones.

All this talk about bass made me almost ignore the delightful midrange in the class-A mode. There is an analogue tone to the entire sound and vocals sound especially rich. However, transients aren’t softened at all and there’s a sense of transparency to the entire presentation. The stage depth is another aspect that seemed best on class-A mode, though I’d attribute it to the sub-bass response that is often perceived as depth while listening to tracks with an elevated sub-bass line. Separation was stellar with balanced out and I don’t think it can get any better in terms of perceived channel separation.

CLASS-A/B (SOLID STATE)

If you found the class-A mode to be a bit bass heavy and the mids to be somewhat up-front, then the class-AB mode evens things out. The bass is less authoritative and the midrange esp vocals get slightly pushed back. So you end up with a more relaxed, wider presentation overall. I would recommend this mode with bassy IEMs or headphones. Channel separation was excellent in this mode as well.

NUTUBE + CLASS A, A/B

Last but not the least: NuTubes. The Korg NuTubes are miniaturized triode vacuum tube that uses vacuum fluorescent display technology to emulate the class tube distortion. Basically: you get the tube sound without having large, heat-generating, extremely microphonic vacuum tubes. More info can be found here.

That’s the sales pitch at least. In practice, I didn’t find Korg NuTubes to be as tonally rich and colored as traditional tubes. Cayin’s own N3Pro, for example, has a more drastic and noticeable coloration via JAN6418 tubes. The coloration here is subtler. When coupled with class-A mode, the bass becomes somewhat loose and lacks the texture, definition, and authority vs the solid-state mode. Resolved detail is also masked somewhat. Female vocals sound richer, however, and some harshness/shrillness is smoothed over. Treble detail is also masked to a degree esp the attack-decay of cymbal hits aren’t as pristine as they are on the solid-state mode.

In the end, I found the NuTube to work best with the class-AB mode for my tastes and gears. With some bright or neutral IEMs the tube mode works quite well in reigning down the harshness. However, don’t expect the stellar separation and resolution of the regular class-A mode with the tubes engaged.

PAIRING NOTES

The Cayin C9 made nearly every IEM/headphone in my collection sound, well, better. Given the numerous modes I think one can mix and match and make it work with any IEM. However, the Campfire Andromeda 2020 had audible hiss even at low gain, so if you own very sensitive IEMs you may want to use an iFi IEMatch in-between. Final FI-BA-SS, meanwhile, didn’t hiss much even though it can detect hiss on many sources.

There was a slight amount of hiss on the Dunu Zen but the end result was simply stunning when pairing the Cayin C9 with Lotoo PAW 6000. I used the balanced line out mode and the presentation was very dynamic. The resolved detail was desktop class and frankly – I can see myself ditching even high-end DAC/Amp setups for this combo (LP6K + Cayin C9). Cayin C9 + Questyle CMA-400i was less drastic a difference though the sound was softer and more rounded than the regular headphone out of the CMA-400i.

Lastly, I paired the Cayin C9 with the A&K SE200 and it was another excellent pairing. The A&K’s AKM output gained even better microdynamics and I could listen to the Sennheiser HD650 in its full glory. Many prefer this particular headphone from OTL tube amps so I decided to try the tube mode on the C9, but the end result wasn’t aligned to my tastes. Your mileage may vary.

Overall, I found the Cayin C9 to take on the characteristics of the DAC/DAP it’s connected to while enhancing some parts of it (mostly bass response, channel separation, and dynamics). As such, I’d recommend the Cayin C9 even for TOTL DAPs like Lotoo LPGT, provided you are willing to splurge for the diminishing returns.

SELECT COMPARISONS

vs iFi Diablo

The iFi Diablo ($1000) is a powerhouse of a portable DAC/Amp that’s mostly intended to drive power-hungry headphones. It is excellent with inefficient planars (apart from the most demanding ones like Hifiman HE-6/Susvara) and as such works better in terms of powering planars than the Cayin C9.

That’s about it, though. The amp section on the Cayin C9 is superior to the Diablo in terms of tonal richness, bass reproduction, and powering IEMs and efficient headphones. The stellar separation of the C9 cannot be found on the iFi Diablo as well, and staging is more cramped as a result on the iFi Diablo. Moreover, it doesn’t have as many different modes as the Cayin C9 incl. the NuTubes.

As an amp, the Cayin C9 is indeed superior to the iFi Diablo. However, at half the price the Diablo also has a built-in DAC section and doesn’t rely on stacking as the Cayin C9 does, which is something buyers shall take into account.

vs Cayin iHA-6

In the end, I decided to compare the Cayin C9 with other desktop amps because that’s what most of the target audience would be looking into (desktop-class performance in a more portable format). The Cayin iHA-6 ($700) is one of the best amps under $1000 IMO, and I love pairing it with the iFi Neo iDSD (review coming soon for the iHA-6 soon). The iHA-6 is huge and heavy so if the Cayin C9 can somewhat replicate the feeling of transparency you get with the iHA-6 – that’s a major win.

Turns out that the Cayin C9 is actually… better than the iHA-6. Wait, hear me out. It’s not better in terms of power, iHA-6 can push 7Watts (!) into a 32ohm load from the balanced out whereas the C9 manages a mere (!) 4Watts. However, when not driving super-demanding planars, the Cayin C9 simply has better imaging and dynamics (esp microdynamics). The iHA-6, despite being similarly transparent in the midrange, sounds edgier in treble and not as effortlessly resolving. Another issue with the iHA-6 is that it’s beyond overkill for IEMs and might even blow the drivers out if you’re not careful. Moreover, iHA-6 has very high noise-floor for sensitive drivers.

The realization that an amp 1/8th size of the venerable iHA-6 can outperform it in most scenarios is rather shocking for me, but that’s how it is. The C9 is almost 4x the price of the iHA-6, but it seems you do get your money’s worth of performance at a much smaller footprint.

vs Headamp GSX Mini

The Headamp GSX-Mini ($1800) is one of my all-time favorite solid-state desktop amps and something I recommend everyone to try out. Given its desktop nature, it completely outshines the Cayin C9 in terms of output power and headphone driveability, though with moderately sensitive planars like Final D8000 Pro/Meze Empyrean you’re not really gonna need extra juice out of either of them.

I’ll skip over build etc. since it doesn’t really make sense when you’re comparing apples to oranges (desk amp vs transportable amp), but in this case there aren’t many competition to the C9 so desktop amps it is. However, one thing I must note: the volume knob on the GSX-Mini. It’s fabulous, class-leading. I want to fiddle with it for absolutely no reason, it’s that good.

With that out of the way, let’s talk about sound. There is a distinct difference in presentation between these two amps. The Cayin C9 goes for a transparent signature with slightly warm/analogue midrange and a sizeable increment in bass texture. The Headamp GSX-Mini takes a more laid-back approach with the bass but focuses on midrange and treble more. Outstanding detail retrieval is its calling card and there it does beat out the Cayin C9 marginally (when paired with full-size headphones).

However, the Cayin C9 strikes back with superior staging/imaging. The GSX-Mini can feel a bit closed-in in comparison. As a result the GSX-Mini works great with planars like Arya which have a naturally wide staging and the sound gains more focus with the GSX-Mini (if that’s what you want). The Cayin C9 meanwhile works better with IEMs and headphones that have relatively more intimate staging (e.g. Dunu Zen, Focal Utopia).

Overall, with the correct matching/pairing of headphones, the GSX-Mini does outperform the Cayin C9 in terms of resolved detail. That the Cayin C9 competes with a full-on desktop amp priced similarly is testament to what Cayin has achieved with the C9, and I am left even more impressed at this point.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

If you’re someone who owns a premium DAP (>$1000) with a high quality line-out and intend to make the absolute most out of your IEMs and less demanding headphones (as in, less than the Susvara/1266 Phi/HE-6) – the Cayin C9 will pretty much be an endgame addition at this point. The weight of ~500gm makes it hard to carry around but I am mostly using it while on the desk/lying down and it works absolutely fine that way.

The biggest issue of the Cayin C9 is its price-tag of $2000. Only the most effusive of enthusiasts would pay that much for a headphone amp that improves upon the intangible aspects of the sound you get from a high quality DAP. However, once you hear it there’s no going back and the dynamism it brings is truly one-of-a-kind.

Cayin chased perfection with the C9, and I daresay that they came dangerously close to it. I’ll miss listening to it, but hopefully not for long as I plan on getting one for myself.

TEST TRACKS

https://tidal.com/browse/playlist/04350ebe-1582-4785-9984-ff050d80d2b7

MY VERDICT

4.75/5

Endgame performance, but you gotta pay a pretty penny. #HighlyRecommended

Contact us!

DISCLAIMER

CAYIN C9 Was sent as part of the EU review tour. You can buy it from here.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

PHOTOGRAPHY

You find an INDEX of our most relevant technical articles HERE.

The post Cayin C9 Portable Amplifier Review – Chasing Perfection appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Executive Summary

Not all (premium) dongles are equal – and not all are equally useful for the consumer. A real dilemma. This note discusses the applicability of the different kinds for everybody’s unique needs.

Introduction

There have been hot discussions of dongles (battery-less, source-driven DAC/amps) lately. Two principal endmembers exist, the AudioQuest DragonFly type that minimizes current draw, and the Luxury & Precision W2 type, that draws multiple times the DragonFly’s current, but maximizes power output.

All dongles have their small form factor in common, which is aiming for portable use. Computer applications are not considered in this article (there are additional choices), neither are sound qualities of the individual models, and we focus on the more upscale models.

Technical Aspects

I had already discussed the limitations of low-current-draw dongles in detail in this article.

Co-blogger Alberto Pittaluga writes: price aside, it technically boils down to…little power/current draw = limited output power & quality. 

So pick your poison:

a) If low power/battery preservation is your top priority (i.e.: don’t want to buy a different phone, want minuscule size, etc. —> you have to accept sound and/or pairing compromises)

b) If output power/quality is your top priority (“need” to drive cans, low sensitivity IEMs, planars, etc.) you need phones with bigger batteries.

Both together is *not* (technically) possible, whatever marketing says. And – let’s face it, any device that is limited by its small form factor and without a battery can only be a compromise.

Little current draw/power = limited output power/quality but longer battery life

Which User Type are You?

The participants in the discussion come from three principal groups and therefore from different angles: Android users, iPhone users, and DAP users. All phone users use dongles to improve their device’s sound quality and/or to run iems/headphones not driven by the integrated audio circuits or the basic stock dongles.

iPhone Users

These have the least choice as iPhones throttle current consumption to 100 mA. They are limited to low-current dongles of the DragonFly type. They are also restricted in their pairings but get lots of use between charges.

Android Users

These phones have typically no current-draw limitations and host large batteries as big as 5000 mAh. They can therefore operate the W2-type dongles, too. And whereas these W2-types are the most powerful dongles, they still do not drive power-hungry headphones perfectly well, according to Headphonesty. The price to pay is much higher battery consumption.

DAP Users (downgrading to phone)

Whereas dongles are upgrades for all phone users, they are damage limitation for the sonically indulged DAP crowd. Some people sold their DAPs to go with the powerful W2-type dongle which comes sonically closest to their DAP.

Concluding Remarks

Since no dongle does everything we want, it comes down to need of what it should do for us, depending on our perspective. And all the points of the different user groups are valid. But what works for the goose may not work for the gander in this case, for technical reasons.

The consumer has choices: some want small and powerful, some small and low current, others don’t mind strapping an internally powered monster to their phone, and the rest wants DAPs. Before buying, we may want to define our requirements in order to get full enjoyment out of our new device.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

Disclaimer

This article is a summary of discussions with co-bloggers Kazi Muhbab Mutakabbir, Alberto Pittaluga, and members of our marvellous Facebook Group https://www.facebook.com/groups/audioreviews.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

You find an INDEX of our most relevant technical articles HERE.

The post The #1Dongle Dilemma – Power Vs. Compatiblity appeared first on Audio Reviews.

What Is…

“Dongle” is the casual term for a tiny portable USB DAC/amp that is sourced by its host device (phone/tablet, dap, computer). It is derived from software keys of this kind of shape.

Early Steps

The idea of a small, portable DAC/amp in the shape of a USB “thumb drive” goes back to a conversation between some industry reps and consulting audio engineer Gordon Rankin at the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest 2010. Gordon had been designing DACs since the early 2000s and had lots of experience with asynchronous code, needed to minimize timing errors (“jitter”) that compromise an USB-audio signal. You find details of the dongle inception in my AudioQuest Dragonfly Red review.

The device was designed for larger headphones and with iPhone portability in mind – but iPhone limits the current draw to 100 mA to protect battery life. One of the challenges was therefore to minimize current draw, which, unfortunately, limits performance as we will see below.

In 2015, Apogee released their famous “Groove“, a very powerful and large device that draws 340 mA, and it has an output impedance of 20 Ω. This is not a dongle sensu stricto as it only works with computers and mainly with high-impedance headphones (with some exceptions).

It took until 2016 until the first USB devices had a current draw small enough to work with iPhone: AudioQuest’s DragonFly Black v.1.5 and DragonFly Red. Timing was right as Apple removed the headphone jack in the same year, as of iPhone 7. And most Android phones followed suit.

Apple offers a decent low-priced dongle of their own that is good value but is limited in power. My review of the “Apple Audio Adapter” is one of the evergreens of our blog.

The DragonFlys have an output impedance of <1 Ω, which makes them work well with headphones and iems alike. They do not have any physical controls and are operated through their host devices.

DragonFlys Black and Red still lead the pack in terms of low-current drain (if exempting the Apple Audio Adapter). You find drain comparisons between some models here.

Most dongles need a Windows driver, but all of them are plug’n’play with phones , tablets, and Apple computers.

From Thumb Drive to Dongle

The very first external iPhone DAC/amp, the Apple Audio Adapter, was physically a true dongle, and a seamless headphone/earphone cable extension.

The first non-Apple devices (the AudioQuest DragonFlys) had/have a USB-A plug and resemble a thumb drive. The USB-A pug works seamlessly with the Apple camera adapter and any computer. Android phones had no preference with developers as they had no standardized socket at the time and still do not produce music bit perfect (they resample a 44.1 kHz signal to 48 kHz).

Most of the Android devices had micro-USB ports until the USB-C port (finalized in 2014) was slowly spreading starting in 2015. Today, there are more than 100 dongles on the market, most of them featuring a USB-C port. And so do the latest Macs.

DAC/amp and music/power source are connected by a short USB-C to USB-C cable, most of them coming with an additional USB-A adapter. None of these has a USB-C plug, probably for the purpose of stability (the USB-C plug could break off easily). But the need for this additional cable turned the original thumb-drive into a true “dongle”.

Some devices have a fixed USB-C cable, and iPhone users are horrified by the snakes they produce when connected to the Apple camera adapter. Third-party USB-C to lightning cables may come in handy, but their MFI chip draws “healthy” additional current.

Technology – What makes a Dongle’s Sound?

There are many variables that contribute to the sound, such as the dac implementation which includes software coding and filtering, the analog output stage, and the amp design and implementation.

Therefore, same dac chip does not mean same sound in different devices. In my case, The Khadas Tone2 Pro, EarMen TR-amp, Hizids S9 Pro, Shanling UA2, and DragonFly Cobalt feature the ESS ES9038Q2M dac chip – and they do not sound even remotely close.

So it does not surprise that some high-end dacs and some budget dongles have the same dac chip, which are a relatively cheap ingredient. Some high-end manufacturers therefore do not disclose the dac-chip used in their specifications.

Characteristic Chip Sound?

Since buyers cannot audition dongles in most cases, many buying decisions are based on chip brand and model. Descriptions of characteristic sonic signatures based on chips by certain manufacturers echo through the blogosphere. Co-audioreviewer KopiOkaya summarizes them for us:

1. ESS Sabre (US/China) – neutral to neutral-cool, analytical, detailed, fast punchy bass, great dynamics, impressive soundstage and separation. Modern sound. “ESS glare”.

2. AKM (Japan) – neutral to neutral-warm, vocal-centric, laid-back/mellow, bodied. Can sound forward on some models. Some dislike the “AKM Velvet Sound” claiming that it sounds flat and lifeless. Modern sound with a classic twist.

3. Burr Brown/Texas Instruments (US): Natural tone with very good music texture. Generally sound neutral to neutral-warm. Their earlier multibit models (for example: PCM1704UK, PCM63P, etc.) sound extremely musical and dynamic at the same time. Can sound forward with average soundstage on some models. Traditional analog “solid-state” sound.

4. Cirrus-Logic/Wolfson (US/India/UK) – A staple of Apple products since their first generation iPod. Natural tone with warmth and body. Vocal-centric with good dynamics and music texture. Earlier Wolfson DACs can sound wooly and lacks resolution. Traditional analog “tube” sound.

As KopiOkaya points out to me, this does not consider the jitter-reduction and error-correction clock, LPF/IV stages, and power supply.

DragonFly creator (and therefore “dongle inventor”) Gordon Rankin told me that these four points are “totally off“, and “you could not classify these brands that way. There is too many factors to pigeon hole a sound for any DAC: power, filters, analog design, digital design, software etc.”. And that’s what I experienced with my devices featuring the ESS ES9038Q2M dac chip.

According to Gordon, “the difference [for example] between DragonFly Red and Cobalt is more than the dac chip. Power, filtering and new controller make up a big part of the difference in sound. More so than the dac chip itself“.

So, maybe the four points above apply to poorly implement dac chips?

Technical Limitations and Realistic Expectations

The dongle DAC/amps are limited by their (portable) source – and by Ohm’s law. Transducers are moved by current. Such devices that are optimized for low current drain/little battery consumption do not work well with low impedance/low sensitivity iems/headphones, as such require a lot of current.

Dongles optimized for low-current draw lack certain features: for example high-speed USB and balanced circuits that would add to the current draw.

If the required current cannot be provided, the iems/headphones start distorting, which first becomes evident at the low end as it needs the most current. The right pairing is therefore important and I am surprised that some experienced testers ignore this.

It’s the current, stupid (and not the power)!

Such dongles that draw lots of current from the host device may provide more amplification power and less distortion (and balanced outputs etc.), but they will drain your phone’s battery in no time – or don’t work with some phones at all.

Examples of popular powerful dongles are the Shanling UA2 and Hidizs S9 Pro, that consume twice as much battery as the DragonFly Red – which defies the idea of portability. You find a power drain comparison between selected models here.

The real current hogs are limited to operation with a computer, but what is the point of a small form factor for stationary use?

Not every small device is portable!

Decoding Acrobatics

Most dongles decode MQA, which is apparently a useless format. And even the cheaper models manage sample rates up to PCM 32-bit 384 kHz and DSD128 (DoP), as offered by some streaming services.

This may be interesting for $$$$ desktop DAC/amps, but why does anybody need such sample rates in a $50-100 device with limited sound quality to begin with – while forking out that monthly subscription fee? Sounds like a “gimmick” to me.

Most renowned reviewers such as Steve Guttenberg are perfectly happy with CD quality, even on their $$$$ devices. Works for me, too.

Rigour in Dongle Evaluations

Dongles underlie the same standard evaluation criteria as self-powered DAC/amps when it comes to sound quality, but there are some special considerations adherent to their lack of battery. As they were designed to drive headphones from smartphones on the go, portability is the main criterium. And portability is defined by size/weight and synergy with the host device. Not every small device is portable.

There are compromises between:

• small size and performance
• source’s battery consumption and dongle performance

The small form factor limits the size of the logic board and therefore the space for electrical components – which requires shortcuts that take away from performance (but add to the price).

The other compromise comes from the aforementioned current limitation that restricts technical features, amplification power, and headphone pairing.

Such devices that are not designed with energy conservation (and hence portability) in mind do not work well or not at all with phones. They are not (very) portable and essentially restricted to computers.

In this case, their small form factor is pointless and even disadvantageous, as these dongles have to stand comparison with self-powered, larger DAC/amps that offer better performance at similar prices – and therefore better value.

Since dongles have limited power, much of their value lies in the sound quality.

In summary, when evaluating dongles, the analyst must have a good understanding of what these devices are supposed to do and how they achieve it.

Consumer Choices

As elaborated on above, the user has choices: either low-battery drain or high power and additional features – but not both. Many popular powerful dongles with lots of features are rather useless with a phone, and many low-current dongles are problematic with current-hungry transducers.

The choice is yours, but my dongles have to be as portable as possible.

Concluding Remarks

OK, “1001 Facts” may be an exaggeration, but now you probably have a better idea what dongles are about. I personally use a phone with dongle as I do not want to carry a dap, and because the small DAC/amp can be swapped between my current and future devices.

Over time, my dongles may have a higher life expectancy than my phone and also battery-operated DAC-amps such as the hip-dac or ifi Nano BL.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

Disclaimer

My knowledge of these devices benefitted greatly from discussions with the USB-audio pioneer Gordon Rankin of Wavelength Audio Ltd., co-bloggers Alberto Pittaluga & KopiOkaya & Kazi Mahbub Mutakabbir & Biodegraded, and Chiqui Vásquez from hiendportable.com. AudioQuest’s Stephen Mejias provided the historical details. I thank them all.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

You find an INDEX of our most relevant technical articles HERE.

The post 1001 Critical Facts About Dongles (Source-Powered Portable DAC/Amps) appeared first on Audio Reviews.

Cons — Midrange attenuation; high battery drain from phone.

Executive Summary

The Shanling UA2 is a slightly off-neutral, rather natural sounding, and very powerful portable DAC/amp with good dynamics that features single-ended and balanced outputs at a budget pice. Compared to some of its much more expensive rivals, the UA2 has a leaner midrange while being competitive in terms of power.

Introduction

Shanling is a Chinese HiFi company established in 1988. They hit the western markets in the early 2000s with premium amplifiers at very competitive prices. At the time, while working in China, I talked to them about getting a 110 V version of one of their famous tube CD-players manufactured. This, unfortunately, failed because of export regulations.

More than half a generation later – Shanling has long established itself as a quality player and brand name around the world – I finally try my first Shanling product, the UA2 Portable USB DAC/Amp. And TL;DR, it is a good one.

Shanling is currently joining an army of companies populating the market with portable dac/amps that turn you phone into a dap. In this ever more crowded field, where the potential buyer cannot try before buying, reviewers like me have to provide the overview. But since it is impossible to test all interesting products, you have to check out a few qualified opinions before pulling the trigger.

Specifications

Physical Things and Usability

In the box are the UA2, a USB-C to USB-C cable, and a USB-C to USB-A adapter. The UA2 body is made of metal and its coating feels smooth and appealing between my fingers.

In contrast to most other dongles does the UA2 offers two different circuits: a single-ended output through a standard 3.5 mm socket and a balanced output through a 2.5 mm socket. Both outputs/sockets work simultaneously. And it is the balanced output that makes the UA2 particularly attractive.

The two headphone sockets are on end, a USB-C port on one the other: the 3.5 mm single-ended socket is reinforced with a thick metal ring in expectation of the higher usage of the two.

There is a little LED light between them indicating sampling rate and connection to a gaming console.

Functionality and Operation

A summary of what it does

• Can be connected to Windows/Mac computers or Android/iOS sources
• Works as a pre-amplifier or dac when connected to a dedicated headphone amplifier
• Features two circuits: 3.5 mm single ended and 2.5 mm balanced
• Drives two earphones/headphones simultaneously through its two outputs
• Drives small loudspeakers through its 3.5 mm output
• Handles even power-hungry headphones well, imo up to 300 Ω

…and of what it does not

• …needs no battery; draws power from source…and lots of it
• …is not driverless: needs a USB driver for Window computer (download)
• …needs an Apple camera adapter or other third-party lightning cable for connecting to an iOS device

The Shanling UA2 has only a single button that serves the purpose of enabling a connected gaming console. It is powered and operated from the source device and decodes Hi Res up to 32 bit/768 kHz and DSD 512.

Shanling are offering their free Eddict player companion app that allows fine tuning the UA2 (and other Shanling products) with Android and iOS devices.

Amplification and Power Management

The Shanling UA2 is powerful. It delivers 125mW @ 32 ohm (single ended) and 195mW @ 32 ohm (balanced) according to the manufacturer. Even the single-ended circuit drives my 300 ohm Sennheiser HD 600 reasonably well.

But the UA2 consumes a lot of battery – twice as much as the AudioQuest DragonFly Black/Red. This makes it less beneficial for mobile use. You certainly need a big battery.

Power Consumption Test: Parameters and Results

I tested the power consumption of several portable headphone amps connected to my iPhone 5S. The conditions were as identical as possible: 3 h test, volume calibrated to 85 dB  ± 0.5 dB white noise with Dayton microphone, no sim card, BT off, no other apps open; network on, 32 ohm Blon BL-03 iem, Genesis’s Supper’s Ready (from the Seconds Out album) played in an endless loop.

The iPhone’s battery was fully charged at the start of the test and the remaining charge was measured thereafter. The result is shown in the table below. Since the tests were performed at different times and considering the ongoing battery deterioration, the results have to be seen with a grain of salt.

[collapse]

But hold the horses. This is not as bad as you think. Co-blogger Alberto Pittaluga actually likes this drain. But why? For him it is a matter of choices. The Shanling UA2 pushes more current than its competition, which drives low-impedance and low-sensitivity headphones and iems better. After all, transducers are moved by current.

Sound

Equipment used: Macbook Air/iPhone SE first generation; Sennheiser HD 600 / HD 25, Shozy Form 1.4, Meze RAI Solo, BQEYZ Summer.

The Shanling UA2 offers a relatively natural, well rounded, dynamic, appealing sound, but could deserve a richer midrange.

Its sound is slightly off linear and off neutral by a slight bass boost that improves the sound of anemic earphones/headphones, keeps the sound away from sterile, and it adds depth. But, in some earphones, it can also narrow the soundstage and smear into the lower midrange/vocals, which adversely affects separation. The bass rumble becomes weaker under higher impedance loads.

What distinguishes the UA2 from its more expensive competition is not its amplification power…it is its attenuated, recessed, thin and occasionally sharp midrange (in comparison) that is evident in both single-ended and balanced circuits.

Vocals are set back in the UA2 but they are also a bit lean and pointy, they could be smoother, richer, and more intimate. This attenuation may exacerbate shoutiness in some earphones and moves the bass into focus.

But this is very-high level criticism with perfection as reference. The overall sound is dynamic with a good punch, it is not edgy at the upper end and comes off as pleasant during normal recreational listening (I was listening “analytically” for this review).

I assign good musicality and liveliness to the Shanling UA2, it is not technical, sterile, or boring sounding. Overall, the UA2 is more homogenous and natural sounding than the $40 Tempotec Sonata HD PRO or the $70 Tempotec BHD.

The UA2’s balanced circuit does not only deliver more power than the single-ended one, but also a marginally wider and deeper soundstage, improved dynamics and separation, and more intimacy. But it is still affected by the lean midrange.

When comparing the UA2 – I only had more expensive models available – they all rank sonically according to their price. The $120 Earstudio HUD 100 was more linear and cleaner at the bottom end with a wider stage and a headroom similar to the UA2’s balanced circuit’s. This also applied to the $199 EarMen Sparrow (balanced circuit) and $199 Audioquest DragonFly Red but with improved resolution added. The DragonFly Red reproduced voices richer, cleaner, and more intimate.

None of the higher-priced models with single-ended outputs has less headroom than the UA2’s balanced circuit – but also not necessarily more power. This also applies to the AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt, the smoothest and most natural of them all. More in this video:

Concluding Remarks

To pack my testing results in a single sentence: the $85 Shanling UA2 is a $200 dongle with a thinner midrange. No it does not quite rival, let’s say, the more homogenous DragonFly Red or the EarMen Sparrow sonically, but it offers better value while still sounding very good.

I heard it. Can’t get anything better for $85. Larry Fulton, co-blogger.

Considering the current uber offer of portable DAC/amps in the $100 category, I surely will be asked how the UA2 compares to X, Y, and Z at a similar price. While I cannot answer this question, I speculate its sound quality is hard to beat in its class, and claim that the UA2 is a great choice.

It feels good, is well accessorized, sounds organic, it has two powerful circuits – and also works with portable gaming consoles. And it is a brand-name product with R&D behind it. Is it the new $100 one to beat? Time will tell.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

Disclaimer

The UA2 was provided by Shanling and I think them for that. Shanling also kindly included a third-party USB-C to lightning adapter.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

You find an INDEX of our most relevant technical articles HERE.

The post Shanling UA2 Portable USB DAC/Amp Review – Crazy For You appeared first on Audio Reviews.

iFi ZEN CAN is one of those popular products for which quite a few “full reviews” have already been published – including of course one on our blog, and a good one at that! Surely, multiple points of view and opinions are very often welcome especially on an eminently YMMV hobby like ours, as no matter how objective / horizontal an assessor / reviewer tries to be, he/she will never be able to cover all aspects, and in a really neutral way either.

However repetitions and duplications may be seriously boring. Furthermore, throughly assessing an amplifier preformances requires a much deeper experience and especially a much wider and diversified equipment pool than I indeed have available.

So I felt this could be a good time to come back to the original style of my articles for once (and who knows, maybe more will follow soon). I won’t try to be horizontal, generic, nor complete. I’ll just tell you how “I” put it on trial use, for the sake of my own very partial purposes, and what opinions I developed based on that.

So let’s not call this a “review” in the first place. Chances are indeed that you might plan on needing a desktop amp for a different applicative case which I didn’t cover, and this article will have zero practical use for you. I apologise in advance. This foreword is an attempt to warn you and reduce your disappointment.

Introduction (aka: so what am I up to?)

At home I have 2 desktop listening stations, two “stacks” as we call them, and both are centred on an Apogee Groove DAC-AMP unit.

Groove is just fantastic to me: it drives all my preferred IEMs in ways I would not have imagined 12 months ago. By comparison my QP1R DAP wins on micro dynamics and has better low extension, but Groove’s DAC job on 3D space reconstruction and its “natural” spacial instrument casting are just from another world, and its Constant Current Drive technology amp stage shows a no less than incredible competence in bass and highmids control, and wins big vs QP1R (and some highend Lotoos too) on musicality. I love how Groove sounds. I’ll release an article about that ReallySoonNow^tm. [EDIT: here it is]

Alas nothing is perfect, and Groove is neither of course.

For one, it’s selective. It can’t drive most crossovers filters for example. That’s a technological issue with Constant Current Drive. So no, or limited, multidriver IEM support, barred few fortunate exceptions.

Also: while overears were not part of my life till 3 months ago, I suddenly spotted an unrefusable deal on a pair of Shure SRH1540, and I blind-bought them. Yeah I know…

Well guess what: SRH1540 nominally spec at 46 Ohm 99 dB so should still be within an “easy drive” region – yet those numbers prove quite deceptive, and not uncommonly too in the world of cans. Fact is: they hit on Groove’s current delivery capacity limits, which is logical: Groove can deliver a whopping 5 V on 600 Ohm loads, but still drains 340mA only from its host, so can’t do miracles when its load requires significant amounts of current.

First time you plug SRH1540 onto a Groove you are astonished by how they sound “wonderfully well”, spaced, enormously layered, textured, smooth as butter, but then you plug them onto – say, to name quite inexpensive desktop amp option – a Liquid Spark and 1540’s (in)famous mid-bass hump gets easily out of bloated territory, and treble – which you just loved a minute before – is way more detailed and everything is just more “brilliant”. So in short: Groove alone is not enough for SRH1540 (and btw: Spark is neither, but this is another story).

Lastly, and on a wider perspective level: my recent experience (QP1R, Groove itself, Liquid Spark, and to a lower extent Sony NW-A55 DAP) confirms to me that it doesn’t necessarily take a balanced path to deliver high quality sound output. A well designed and implemented single ended path is equally good ground to build a system delivering top quality output.

So while I maintain no conceptual closure vs balanced output per se as all my other current sources are very satisfactory to me and single ended only, I currently have a sharp preference towards selecting a good single ended amp to avoid the hassle of swapping all cables, manage adapters etc etc. Things may change tomorrow of course, but that’s part of my apriori scenario for the time being.

Summarising: my existing desktop DAC-AMPs meet my satisfaction for most of my IEMs, but fall short vs just a few IEM cases (multidrivers mainly), and vs my SRH1540. Hence I need to supplement them with a different output stage. Ideally, a single-ended one. The “candidate” needs to sound at least as well as Groove – wherever that is applicable as a standalone amp, of course.

A general look at it

To begin with a very secondary if at all significant aspect, I find ZEN CAN’s aesthetics quite pleasing. I like the shape and the finish. The full metal structure is more than convincing.

Getting closer, front panel’s pushbuttons offer a nice feedback when pressed, but I just can’t approve their “wobbly” and “rattly” mount. All 4 buttons share the same “situation”, hence I must conclude these are positive design choices not defects, and I’m ready to concede they won’t affect operations. Fine. Still, may I not like that ?

The volume knob seems good: its movement offers a fluid yet reasonably solid feeling. It’s a bit too close to the 6.3 connector on its right, so when I have a single-ended load plugged in turning the volume knob is not as perfectly comfortable as I would like.

Input and output options are good. ZEN CAN accepts both single-ended (3.5 and 2xRCA) and balanced (4.4) analog inputs, and offers both single ended (6.35) and balanced (4.4) headphone output, plus a balanced (4.4) pre-amp output.

For all technical plate data please refer to ZEN CAN’s full specs here. I’ll just make some comments on the aspects I find most worth noting here.

The internal architecture is “dual mono”, fully discrete, class A. This makes ZEN CAN’s analog balanced input and outputs particularly significant as the entire setup means ZEN CAN can be plugged into an upstream full-balanced DAC to realise an end-to-end full-balanced path up to and including balanced-cabled drivers on the opposite side. I trust this is particularly appealing to die-hard balanced architecture lovers. What this also means, in iFi own words is: “Tip: As ZEN CAN is balanced, we recommend the 4.4mm output” (source: ZEN CAN product manual).

Declared output power level is “interesting”, at least on paper: 1600mW@32Ohm which become almost 1900mW@64Ohm on balanced output. And: “With 15.1v @300 Ohms on tap, it has serious power that will make even difficult-to-drive headphones thump to the beat” (source: product web page). Quite impressive data, especially at ZEN CAN’s price point. Yet, if I can read between the marketing lines I would guess that iFi is trying to tell us that ZEN CAN’s main target is amping high impedance loads. The opposite of my ones. Ah, well…

On the input side, it’s worth noting that single ended 3.5mm input only accepts up to 1.9V RMS, which means some care must be applied when the upstream DAC is connected via a 3.5 plug to avoid clipping depending on the DAC’s Line Out actual power. Indeed, considering that Groove slaps 5V endscale off its analog out, to optimise pairing and avoid having to preamp the Groove down I’ll best use 3.5-2xRCA interconnects into the ZEN CAN. Ok, check.

On ZEN CAN’s back panel a preamp-out port is available, for example to connect powered speakers downstream. Please note that such preamp line is exclusively balanced though: logical choice on one end, insofar as consequential to the internal full balanced path – yet, this might pose some compatibility restrictions. Nothing I am practically involved with though.

From the front panel it’s possible to select 4 different gain levels: 0 / 6 / 12 and 18dB. Very promising fine-tuning option, I’ll play with that.

ZEN CAN requires 5V 2.5A power. In EU, it ships bundled with iFi’s entry level iPower SMPS (5V version).

Lastly, always from the front panel it’s possible to activate/dectivate two options which are in various versions (and naming) available on other iFi devices too: XBass and 3D Matrix. 

“XBass” is a shelf-style eq correction applied on the low-midbass and sub-bass. I reckon this is primarily intended if not even dedicated to openbacks, which are known to have more difficulties on delivering significant sub-bass levels.  And to die-hard apriori bass lovers of course.

“3D Matrix” is a crossfeed filter (nice!).

Both features are – according to iFi’s documentation – entirely implemented in the analog domain, no DSPs are involved. Very interesting too.

Enough static descriptions, let’s proceed.

Power quality

People holding a much higher technical competence then myself affirm that “70% of an amp quality is made by its power supply quality”.

Don’t ask me if the percentage is accurate – or do, and I’ll tell you it seems a bit overkill to me – but my experience definitely confirms the statement at least in its general terms: amps are extremely sensible to power quality.

ZEN CAN makes no exception: iFi’s iPower SMPS unit (specs here) which ZEN CAN comes bundled with while not “bad” is amendable for the purpose.

I have two alternatives available at home, both offering a marked improvement. One is Allo Nirvana SMPS (specs here), another is the Power Out port on my iFi Nano iUSB3.0 power supply and USB conditioner, which is a regular element of one of my two home desktop stacks. Nano iUSB3.0 (here my article on that) is in its turn, indeed, powered by an iFi iPower (a 9V version) – so the same technology I find a bit meh when used to supply ZEN CAN directly – but its internal cleansing / conditioning features significantly improve on the upstream SMPS quality and the end result is of a totally different class.

The benefit on using either alternatives in lieu of the default iPower is quite evident: better (“neater”) imaging and separation, and an improved sense of space. The step up from iPower to Nirvana is quite obvious. iUSB3.0 represents a further, more modest yet very audible, step up from Nirvana.

It’s at this point hardly worth adding that Nano iUSB3.0 is totally overkill “just for this purpose”. Considering its not cheap price, better put it at work on its entire capacities as a USB filter, regenerator etc etc.

Bottomline: ZEN CAN’s base SMPS, while not bad per se, turns out not something to write home about when applied to this specific task. Getting a ZEN CAN means being ready to fork out another 100$ at the very least to sensibly improve on its power line.

All my experience related here below has been conducted using Nano iUSB3.0 as a PS by the way.

Driving my cans

Testing on my desktop stack #1 (PC > Nano iUSB3 > Uptone USPCB > Groove > SKW black 3.5-2xRCA ic > ZEN CAN) let’s start with Shure SRH1540.

Those are not an an easy client for any budget headphone amps.

Firstly, as mentioned above they require a lot of current, while most budget (and even not budget) headphone amps are designed to easily deliver high voltage…

Secondly, they’re very unforgiving in terms of source transparency and technicalities, unpitifully revealing goods and bads of their source for what they are.

ZEN CAN behaves in facts well with SRH1540. With gain set at 12dB biasing is OK, mid-bass comes out well controlled, unbloated, punchy, and treble is nicely sparkly. Furthermore output, with particular regards to the mids, is very nicely layered. Not only instruments are well separated, but each instrument’s sonic range enjoys a high number of sonic nuances. So far the good notes.

On the flip side, I perceive a partial lack of clarity. If instead of listening to sound I were staring at a printed picture I would be ready to bet the underlying paper stock is not pure white, rather a faint grey. It’s not a matter of noise floor, which is apparently inaudible. Indeed, I reckon this might possibly be liaised to non perfect power delivery (in spite of the external PS upgrade), or maybe too relaxed transients?

Difficult to say for me really. But the effect is there and it’s very audible, especially if I directly compare the sound swapping a Liquid Spark in. Here range is evidently more compressed (each instrument reproduces fewer sound nuances) on one end, but sound is definitely “cleaner” on the other, notes are “more crystalline”. Attacks are snappier, decays are faster, the “paper underneath” is white.

Long story short: ZEN CAN has all the juice SRH1540 requires to open up and go nicely airy and relaxed, Spark does not and makes SRH1540 sound more closed. On the other hand, ZEN CAN falls shorter on “clarity”, whatever the origin of the issue is – or maybe it’s me preferring a “neatier” presentation vs a more “liaised” one.

So do I prefer ZEN CAN or Liquid Spark? Honest: neither satisfies me 100%. If I were to decide between these 2 only I would vote for ZEN CAN though. What I ideally would like – needles to say at this point – is ZEN CAN’s subtlety and Spark’s clarity, together.

Experimenting with gain on SRH1540: if I lower it to 0dB or 6dB sound becomes dull and a bit “foggy” too. If I raise it to 18dB it all becomes even more compressed than on the Spark, while still “grey-ish”, uncrystalline. 12dB seems the best bet, the sole well sounding option in this case.

Let’s swap onto Koss KPH30i now : ZEN CAN makes them sound uncompressed, elegant, nuanced and detailed. Mids are pushed quite forward, a tad too much for my taste but that’s a minor issue.

Cycling through the 4 gain settings gets me the same final results but with wider differences compared to the SRH1540 case: 0 dB sounds dull; 6 dB exaggerates on mids push-ahead, vocals sound almost boxy; 12 dB nails it; 18 dB bloats the bass out, and compresses the range significantly.

So is ZEN CAN “very good” for KPH30i ? Yes.

How about driving planars, or high impedance cans? As I mentioned above, I got no chance to check. Refer to my co-blogger’s article here below for more experience on ZEN CAN driving different headphones.

Driving my IEMs

This is were things get odd. I ran a quite extensive panel of tests including multiple sources, and multiple IEMs.

Sources involved:

• Fiio X3 mk-3 dap
• iFi nano iDSD BL dac-amp
• Hiby R6Pro dap
• Lotoo Paw 6000 dap
• Apogee Groove dac-amp
• Questyle QP1R dap
• iBasso T3 portable amp
• Auglamour GR1 portable amp

IEMs involved:

• Final E1000, E3000 – single ended connection only
• Tin T2+, T4, final A3000, E4000, E5000, B3, Tanchjim Oxygen, Ikko OH10, Hisenior T2U, Shuoer Tape – both single and balanced-ended connection tested

Taken each source at a time, I tested how each IEM behaves once directly connected to the source, for reference, and a second time after plugging ZEN CAN in the middle. Groove was obviously left out of the a/b game on unsupported drivers. The two portable amps have been compared using Groove as a DAC.

Of course there have been variations on a case by case basis, but a few recurring effects are clearly there – sometimes stronger, sometimes less pronounced – accross all different tests, and here they are:

Whatever the input, ZEN CAN’s balanced output makes mid-bass transients significantly slower. The effect is quite macroscopic, and turns into “bloaty” midbass on all IEMs where bass transients are not apriori tuned to be particularly fast (namely E4000, E5000, B3, T2U, T2+). On punchy-style bass IEMs (Oxygen, Tape), ZEN CAN’s balanced output adds quite some decay, not enough to induce a true bloat on midbass, yet sensibly changing the driver’s tuning in that region – which is bad news anyway (why would I want my amp to make a punchy-bass IEM like OH10 into something mellow like an E4000?).

Whatever the input, ZEN CAN’s single ended output comes accross with significantly de-flated, unbodied, sometimes downright lean bass. This time it’s not a transient change, bass is not cleansed of its fat to make it punchier, it’s by and large shyer. At the same time, mids are brought evidently forward – which on most if not all drivers turns out excessive, especially in terms of highmids loss of control.

Whatever the input, ZEN CAN tames out some of the microdynamics coming from the upstream DAC. The effect is totally evident when connecting higher quality DAC sources (e.g. QP1R, LP6000, Groove, and even on Nano iDSD BL) and much less obvious if at all perceivable with lower end sources (e.g. X3 mk-3), those scarce on microdynamics in the first place. The effect is lighter (so the taming is less punishing) on ZEN CAN’s balanced output, while it’s quite dramatic when tapping onto its single ended output, which comes out dulled-off.

In the above scenario gain needs to be set at 0dB to avoid very early highmids glaring on most considered IEM models.

iEMatch to the rescue

I shared all of the above with iFi’s tech support and while they did not provide an articulated causal explanation to my case, they did send me a (single-ended) iEMatch+ sample unit to test, and check if that would improve on my experience.

This is the second time I’m auditioning an iEMatch, and this time I’ll cover it separately and in much wider detail on another article of mine coming out (yeah, you guessed it) Soon^tm.

iEMatch comes with a user selectable performance setting: “High” will attenuate the output by 12dB while presenting a 2.5 Ohm impedance to the load, “Ultra” will attenuate twice as much (-24 dB) while offering a 1 Ohm output impedance.

Once plugged in, iEMatch-High allowed me to raise ZEN CAN’s gain to 6dB and sometimes even dare slap it to 12dB without incurring into (or significantly delaying) the dreaded loss of high mids control on virtually all IEMs. This allowed ZEN CAN to recupe a good chunck of macrodynamics and “vividness” in the output presentation, and also microdynamics – where the source creates them in the first place of course!

Where the IEM’s own impedance prompted me to, switching iEMatch to “Ultra” position didn’t deplete the scenario, it actually improved it a further bit indeed.

So let’s make a new point of the situation (I’ll cut short on the analythical case-by-case details – yeah, you’re welcome).

ZEN CAN + iEMatch (single-ended) amps the IEMs in my batch:

• A bit to a lot better than: Fiio X3-III (single and balanced ended), iFi Nano iDSD BL, Hiby R6Pro (single-ended), iBasso T3, Auglamour GR1
• Still less well than : QST QP1R, Apogee Groove, Lotoo Paw 6000
• Roughy on par with: Hiby R6Pro (balanced)

Technically, I’ve seen much worse desktop amps!

On the other hand this result is obtained by ZEN CAN + an upgraded power supply + an iEMatch attenuator: cost starts adding up…

Balanced input

Together with ZEN CAN, iFi also sent me a sample of their 4.4-to-4.4 balanced cable to test.

The item itself presents a very convincing, high quality build.

On the applicative front, however, I can’t say I noticed its impact. I tested it with the one source (Lotoo Paw 6000) which I have available offering a balanced Line Out option, together with a single ended Line Out one. Frankly, I’ve been unable to spot any significant output sound quality difference when playing the same track from LP6000 into ZEN CAN once through a SE connection and another time through a BE one (with that cable).

Please note that this is technically totally unconclusive – a wider range of test devices would be required to form a decently grounded opinion. Sadly, I don’t have any others available.

Output “options”

As mentioned up above, ZAN CAN offers two interesting, user-selectable output “options”.

“XBass” improves bass and sub-bass at the push of a button. It’s evidently what an eq expert would call a low shelf positive filter. By ear I would say it pushes lows up by 2-3dB starting from 100Hz down (how far am I?). I reckon this is a welcome tool for openback planar lovers as it should help on their general weakness down there. On a very personal note I tend to avoid similar approaches: I rather prefer to own a careful selection of different drivers (cans, iems) each with its own original presentation and tonality, instead of modding / eqing a single one’s tonality on a case by case basis.

“3D Matrix” is a crossfeed filter, i.e. a function that allows our right ear to also hear “some” of what outputs from the earphones’ left channel, and the other way around – much like it happens when listening to louspeakers. This helps in two respects: facilitates our brain on decoding spatial cues inside the music, and makes those hard-panned tracks with (e.g.) John Coltrane doing his magic “only dead-left” of the stage sound a bit, or sometimes a lot, more natural. Within its limits (it’s not parametric, configurable etc – just a mere on/off) and situationality (effects are totally evident on some tracks, minimal on others) the trick is really nice, I like it a lot!

Both features are – according to iFi’s documentation – entirely implemented in the analog domain, no DSPs are involved. Which of course is good in terms of output accuracy.

In the end…

Mine was not going to be a comprehensive review of all possible applicative scenarios, rather oppositely a quite selfish assessment of how ZEN CAN would fare when plugged into my own scenario. Is it an upgrade to my existing gear yes or no, and how?

As I mentioned along the article, I’m certainly no amp design guru, so I can only develop impressions based on the results, without a big capacity of liaising them with possible causes. What emerges from my specific case is that iFi people were probably meaning it when they decided to call this a ZEN “CAN”: while OK on my Cans, in fact, the device struggles with any load under a bear minimum of 40-ish Ohm.

To make ZEN CAN viable for sub 32 Ohm loads – like IEMs – an “external help” is required, e.g. an iEMatch (or equivalent of course, but iEMatch works wonderfully well). Both single and balanced outputs do suffer below that threshold, in two different ways.

Performance on 45-50 Ohm loads is instead good or very good. The gear I tried ZEN CAN with is quite tricky and the device behaved in line with the top of its price class. Yes I would like “more”, but I am also aware it would cost a much prettier penny too.

Summarising:

What was indeed good for me:

• Performance on SRH1540. Probably my relative best option right now; (better?) options will likely be sensibly more expensive.
• Performance on KPH30i is very good.
• Very interesting and fun 3D Matrix option.

What was not an upgrade for me:

• Performance on IEMs when helped by iEMatch: Groove, QP1R stay better – YMMV if your current reference is from a lower tier.
• XBass option. Not a fun of that apriori.

Attention points:

• Power supply upgrade highly recommended
• iEMatch required to drive IEMs
• Not tested on planars nor high impedance magnetics

ZEN CAN and iEMatch have been provided as free of charge temporary loaner units by iFi Audio.

This article is also published on my personal audio website, here.

Our generic standard disclaimer.

Contact us!

The post Experimenting With iFi Audio ZEN CAN – Nomen Omen ? appeared first on Audio Reviews.