iFi micro iDSD Signature Portable DAC/Amplifier

[zlobby]

Fair points both of you!


I am still struggling to reconcile their official power outputs (quite low compared to even a basic Apple/Samsung dongle) to my own findings (more powerful and engaging than basically any portable DAC/amp I've tried). Either way unless you are in the market for a premium portable solution for IEMs and most dynamic driver headphones, it's still a good chunk of cash that I can't simply ask people to fork out in general. I'll share more in eventual quick look article.

That's the 'current amp' approach. There is a good reason others are not using it. But I will gladly see your read on it.

 

[VSG]

That's the 'current amp' approach. There is a good reason others are not using it. But I will gladly see your read on it.

But power is still power no matter if current is amplified to get to it or voltage. Anyway yeah we are certainly off topic here on this iFi product review.

 

[zlobby]

But power is still power no matter if current is amplified to get to it or voltage. Anyway yeah we are certainly off topic here on this iFi product review.

I think we all concluded that the iFi is nice (probably too expensive; heck you can get the Gryphon with BT for the same money) apart from that one guy who didn't provide evidence to the contrary.

But yeah, let's see what others have to say.

 

[SOAREVERSOR]

I think we all concluded that the iFi is nice (probably too expensive; heck you can get the Gryphon with BT for the same money) apart from that one guy who didn't provide evidence to the contrary.

But yeah, let's see what others have to say.

The main thing from the ifi angle on this is that they have the hipdac for less money which is also portable, though not in the mini/micro category. The mini/micro area also has a lot of competition. Keep looking at the Diablo but not sure what to make of it and I haven't heard it. The ask is rather steep as well.

 

[zlobby]

The main thing from the ifi angle on this is that they have the hipdac for less money which is also portable, though not in the mini/micro category. The mini/micro area also has a lot of competition.

Mini/micro segment is extremely saturated, indeed. Although almost everyone uses ESS there.

 

[SOAREVERSOR]

Mini/micro segment is extremely saturated, indeed. Although almost everyone uses ESS there.

I don't mind ESS, it's a good product. My gripe is just that there are a lot of products sporting the ESS in the market and broadcasting the same specs but we all know there is a huge difference in build quality and implementation between a random 200 buck one and a 1300 buck one. Then there are 200 buck ones that perform just as well. The situation is a total clusterfuck unless you have a brand you know and trust to go to.

 

[tpu7887]

Where are you seeing these numbers?

The THD+n figures given by the manufacuter (0.003 and 0.008% I believe they were)

0.008% would be the -81dB,
0.003% would be the -90dB

0.003 on the headphones would be borderline acceptable at this price point, but not something I'd personally buy (on purpose)

IMO, for quality sound reproduction, the absolute minimum THD+n spec of the DAC portion of a DAC + amp should be -98dB. (if they can't be separated, same for the DAC + amp combo driving a high impedance "line" circuit)

-98dB isn't perfect, but, if properly designed elsewhere, there will be nothing obviously wrong with the signal (even with a really good amplifier and speakers/headphones)
For genuinely high fidelity you should have -102dB,
For great hi-fi sound you should have -106 to -108dB. Beyond that isn't tangibly better in most cases because most amplifiers don't have the required resolution for it to be. Plus, even the best 24 bit recordings... basically the recordings become the previously mentioned amplifiers.

Any [quality] gear that legitimately measures better than -108dB to -110dB (where stuff starts skyrocketing in price usually) won't give any real improvements unless the device is being used as a digital preamp. But that's a stupid waste of money because just get -106 to -108dB + analog preamp.

The above is my (pretty well informed) opinion

 

[SOAREVERSOR]

The THD+n figures given by the manufacuter (0.003 and 0.008% I believe they were)

0.008% would be the -81dB,
0.003% would be the -90dB

0.003 on the headphones would be borderline acceptable at this price point, but not something I'd personally buy (on purpose)

IMO, for quality sound reproduction, the absolute minimum THD+n spec of the DAC portion of a DAC + amp should be -98dB. (if they can't be separated, same for the DAC + amp combo driving a high impedance "line" circuit)

-98dB isn't perfect, but, if properly designed elsewhere, there will be nothing obviously wrong with the signal (even with a really good amplifier and speakers/headphones)
For genuinely high fidelity you should have -102dB,
For great hi-fi sound you should have -106 to -108dB. Beyond that isn't tangibly better in most cases because most amplifiers don't have the required resolution for it to be. Plus, even the best 24 bit recordings... basically the recordings become the previously mentioned amplifiers.

Any [quality] gear that legitimately measures better than -108dB to -110dB (where stuff starts skyrocketing in price usually) won't give any real improvements unless the device is being used as a digital preamp. But that's a stupid waste of money because just get -106 to -108dB + analog preamp.

The above is my (pretty well informed) opinion

For the ifi that .003 makes sense, for the queststyle add another 0.

 

[xnor]

I have tried some of iFi's supposedly high-end offerings and they sound quite pleasant to me. All reviewers on the web tend to share the same feeling for the same bracket.

Do you have some links or numbers? I was thinking of purchasing some of their desktop stuff but any constructive criticism is welcome by me.

You can find many measurements online.
Here's one of the iFi nano iDSD Black Label: l7audiolab.com/f/ifi-nano-idsd-bl/
iFi say "It will enhance your audio."

iFi are confusing the words enhance and distort.

For the ifi that .003 makes sense, for the queststyle add another 0.

The Questyle M15 not only seems to have a digital clipping problem, it got about half to third of the power of a MacBook Pro 2021 at typical headphone loads, at 1% THD+N, which is OK for a dongle I guess.
It's also got the infamous IMD hump.
Other than that it's an ok device. I'd pay max. ~50 USD, would expect more like 25 USD.

 

[SOAREVERSOR]

IMD hump

Which is an ESS issue.

 

[tpu7887]

For the ifi that .003 makes sense, for the queststyle add another 0.

The ifi 0.003 is the DAC & headphone amp driving line level, 0.008 is DAC + headphone amp driving headphones.

You can find many measurements online.
Here's one of the iFi nano iDSD Black Label: l7audiolab.com/f/ifi-nano-idsd-bl/
iFi say "It will enhance your audio."

iFi are confusing the words enhance and distort.


The Questyle M15 not only seems to have a digital clipping problem, it got about half to third of the power of a MacBook Pro 2021 at typical headphone loads, at 1% THD+N, which is OK for a dongle I guess.
It's also got the infamous IMD hump.
Other than that it's an ok device. I'd pay max. ~50 USD, would expect more like 25 USD.

It's better than that, no?

0.008%, or -81dB is what I'd expect from something like my $50 Creative Sound Blaster G3, and it's "OK"


edit: if that's the ifi, then it's measuring up to its spec: -90dB in one channel, -95dB in the other. You always take the lower value. With one channel being so different than the other, it really makes you wonder about the engineering...

No reason now to not expect driving headphones it'd be -81dB

"CALLED IT" lmao


edit: OHMYGOD it costs like a grand. I feel sorry for all who bought this and can no longer return it.

 

[SOAREVERSOR]

The ifi 0.003 is the DAC & headphone amp driving line level, 0.008 is DAC + headphone amp driving headphones.



It's better than that, no?

0.008%, or -81dB is what I'd expect from something like my $50 Creative Sound Blaster G3, and it's "OK"


edit: if that's the ifi, then it's measuring up to its spec: -90dB in one channel, -95dB in the other. You always take the lower value. With one channel being so different than the other, it really makes you wonder about the engineering...

No reason now to not expect driving headphones it'd be -81dB

"CALLED IT" lmao


edit: OHMYGOD it costs like a grand. I feel sorry for all who bought this and can no longer return it.

What? The nano iDSD black label is 200, the Phone3 and Diablo are a grand and are not the same product at all.

 

[tpu7887]

What? The nano iDSD black label is 200, the Phone3 and Diablo are a grand and are not the same product at all.

First image is $1000CDN, second image is $750USD. Are they not the product that was reviewed?


Even if it was $200, with a THD+n spec of 0.003% / -90dB (line), and 0.008% / -81dB (headphones), it'd be hard to recommend.


I had an Audigy 2 ZS notebook (a PCMCIA laptop sound card from 2003/2004) which had a THD+n spec essentially the same (0.0034% / -89dB).

It was:
- smaller
- lighter
- capable of 5.1.
- capable of record


TWENTY YEARS AGO. No excuse ifi... no excuse. The Audigy 2 ZS cost just $150CDN and pulled off the same THD+n while:
- maintaining a 0.35cm height, 5.4cm width, and 8.6cm depth
- INSIDE A NOISY COMPUTER

TWENTY YEARS AGO

So this seller is selling for wayyyy too much?

 

[zlobby]

First image is $1000CDN, second image is $750USD. Are they not the product that was reviewed?


Even if it was $200, with a THD+n spec of 0.003% / -90dB (line), and 0.008% / -81dB (headphones), it'd be hard to recommend.


I had an Audigy 2 ZS notebook (a PCMCIA laptop sound card from 2003/2004) which had a THD+n spec essentially the same (0.0034% / -89dB).

It was:
- smaller
- lighter
- capable of 5.1.
- capable of record


TWENTY YEARS AGO. No excuse ifi... no excuse. The Audigy 2 ZS cost just $150CDN and pulled off the same THD+n while:
- maintaining a 0.35cm height, 5.4cm width, and 8.6cm depth
- INSIDE A NOISY COMPUTER

TWENTY YEARS AGO



View attachment 262355

View attachment 262356


So this seller is selling for wayyyy too much?

Now, I'm not on a crusade to zealously defend iFi and it's certainly not perfect, but I have to point out a few things in your comment, namely:
- these THD numbers aren't the best on the market but please try and convince me how you can hear them in any way.
- capable of 5.1? I wonder what are the audio measurements in 5.1 setups?
- is there any portable DAC capable of 5.1?
- capable of recording? I'm pretty sure anyone (let alone iFi) can put a cheap recording chip and call it a day. Any clue why nodody puts recording chips in portable DAC?
- as for the size - does that Audigy have a battery power?

I can't help it but to wonder what do you recommend for the price?

Edit: typos

 

[SOAREVERSOR]

First image is $1000CDN, second image is $750USD. Are they not the product that was reviewed?


Even if it was $200, with a THD+n spec of 0.003% / -90dB (line), and 0.008% / -81dB (headphones), it'd be hard to recommend.


I had an Audigy 2 ZS notebook (a PCMCIA laptop sound card from 2003/2004) which had a THD+n spec essentially the same (0.0034% / -89dB).

It was:
- smaller
- lighter
- capable of 5.1.
- capable of record


TWENTY YEARS AGO. No excuse ifi... no excuse. The Audigy 2 ZS cost just $150CDN and pulled off the same THD+n while:
- maintaining a 0.35cm height, 5.4cm width, and 8.6cm depth
- INSIDE A NOISY COMPUTER

TWENTY YEARS AGO



View attachment 262355

View attachment 262356


So this seller is selling for wayyyy too much?

OK so you have one image that is clearly below 1k on a review that quoted at 600 and yet you claim this is 1k? Your math does not add up. This silly box can be found for 200-600 depending on vendor (I would not buy it but that's another can of worms) and iFi sells clear units at the 1k price of which the Diablo is the champ. And at 1k the Diablo, for all it's faults, is solid. I don't get what your go is here. iFi has multiple products in the 100-2k range that fluctuate in price. The damn thing can be had for sub 500 if you shop. Again I would not buy it but some 1k unit this is not.

 

[xnor]

Now, I'm not on a crusade to zealously defend iFi and it's certainly not perfect, but I have to point out a few things in your comment, namely:
- these THD numbers aren't the best on the market but please try and convince me how you can hear them in any way.

Eh, what kind of question is that? If that's your attitude toward audio and engineering, then what the hell are you doing looking at an portable dac/headphone amp with a 4.4mm balanced headphone output?
You should use your device's headphone jack instead, or get a cheap dongle!

The irony is that there's even sub $10 dongles that outperform a lot of iFi devices that cost 10x to 100x when it comes to noise, distortion, linearity, ...

- capable of recording? I'm pretty sure anyone (let alone iFi) can put a cheap recording chip and call it a day. Any clue why nodody puts recording chips in portable DAC?

You mean like iFi does with playback?
The irony, again, is that iFi either puts the cheapest single-digit cent chips in their devices that have poor performance while charging a premium for their devices,
or they use "expensive" (single-digit dollars) chips that would have much better performance but iFi is just too incompetent to implement them properly (i.e. use ready-to-use reference designs and follow manufacturer recommendations).

And even more irony: even sub $10 dongles support 4-pin headsets with mic, so that you can not just listen to music but also do phone calls.
And if you wanted to do more proper recording: there are very cheap audio interfaces, including portables ones, that again beat a lot of iFi devices when it comes to playback and offer good recording quality.

One more thing: everyone sensible should boycot MQA products (like the reviewed iFi product), unless they want to support a proprietary lossy codec baked into hardware.
Don't pay the MQA fee and prevent future products from including this fee. Thank you.
@VSG How you can list this as a positive is beyond me.

 

[zlobby]

Thank TPU staff for the mute button!

 

[VSG]

One more thing: everyone sensible should boycot MQA products (like the reviewed iFi product), unless they want to support a proprietary lossy codec baked into hardware.
Don't pay the MQA fee and prevent future products from including this fee. Thank you.
@VSG How you can list this as a positive is beyond me.

I couldn't care less about MQA but there are many who do. So I simply point it out to them who can treat it as a positive and the rest of us would be unaffected by its presence since there is no non-MQA version anyway. If there was one, as with Topping in a couple of situations, then it's be listed in the cons list also given the price increase over the non-MQA model.

 

[xnor]

I couldn't care less about MQA but there are many who do. So I simply point it out to them who can treat it as a positive and the rest of us would be unaffected by its presence since there is no non-MQA version anyway. If there was one, as with Topping in a couple of situations, then it's be listed in the cons list also given the price increase over the non-MQA model.

But it's a negative point for the reasons already mentioned.
The people that care for it only do so because they've bought the misleading marketing and invested in what is a proprietary lossy codec baked into their hardware. How is feeding them more false information positive?

To say that others are unaffected is not right. You're paying the MQA fee, indirectly financing more misleading marketing (which others will fall for), and this also tells the device's manufacturer that there is demand for MQA, which will result in even more MQA products in the future. This means more customers will pay this fee in the future.
You're kinda proving this by pointing out that there already is no non-MQA version available.

The only way to prevent this is to vote with your wallet by not buying the product. It's that simple.
No other non-MQA version of this model available? Then get another model. If the manufacturer doesn't provide such an alternative model, then look at other manufacturers.

Saying that something bad is not bad because the manufacturer doesn't offer any alternatives is a seriously questionable attitude for any product reviewer.
At the very least, this should be a "neutral" point with a big warning note.

Thank TPU staff for the mute button!

Ah yeah, those pesky uncomfortable facts... right? But it's ok, everyone has a different tolerance for cognitive dissonance.