Introduction

The world of portable music changed forever with the arrival of the first iPod in 2001. But it took earphone manufacturers beyond the 2008 release of the first iPhone to offer some premium alternatives to the stock buds at a grand scale. And where are we today in terms of iems? Yes, more or less saturated.

With the advent of the AudioQuest DragonFly Black v1.5 portable headphone amp/dac in 2016, any smartphone could be upgraded to a premium music player (albeit some dap fans may disagree). v1.5 was the first “dongle” to draw so little current that it could be sourced by a phone’s battery (and it still leads the pack in this respect, jointly with the Dragonfly Red).

Again, it took a while for manufacturers catch on, but the market is currently flooded with tens of models so that it is difficult to keep the overview.

Purpose of this Guide

This writeup is foremost a small encyclopedia for my own comparison purposes and will always be work in progress. Feel free to bookmark this page and come back from time to time. I do not claim that it offers complete information – and it is highly subjective as it caters to my personal preferences.

In the future, I will not only add more models but also update and refine the individual entries. I hope it will grow into a representative database with time.

In Q1 2020, mostly by coincidence, I started having a closer look at dongles – and analyzed some. I focused on listening while ignoring tech specs and chip models as manufacturers report amplification power inconsistently…and not always correctly. All of the models tested work even with my power hungry 300 Ω Sennheiser HD 600 headphones, so the details are irrelevant for my daily usage.

In this guide, I also do not worry about special features offered in the individual models, build, drivers, digital filters, Hi Res decoding, or operation…which is your homework. All I focus on in my descriptions is perceived sound quality. But I care about battery consumption – we don’t want to run out of “juice” on the road – which is listed independently below.

Note: when looking at a dongle, don’t forget one of its main purposes: preserving portability. Fixed cables (typically with USB-c connector) can be awkward for use with iPhones and may result in cable snakes. And good adapters are pricey and cumbersome. I am hesitant with dongles featuring fixed cables – and for good reasons.

If you have tested these models and arrive at a different opinion, please drop a line in the comments section.

Spoiler alert: I identified clear trends in my results that are not surprising:

• The pricier models sound better, sorry for the lack of fantasy. No, they may not have stronger amplification or better features but they sound better.
• It is the other way round with value: the cheaper models offer better bang for the buck.

But to keep you happy: all of the models currently tested are very good in their own way and and each one of them is worthy to be used even with premium iems. Yep, I am mainly evaluating these dongles with iems (and not headphones): both are most portable.

When it comes to value, I intuitively compare to what you get in terms of iem for your money…and feel the dongles fare generally better. Nevertheless do many believe, a good dongle should not cost more than $100.

Equipment used: MacBook Air; BQEYZ Summer (32 Ω), Sennnheiser IE300/400 (16Ω)…this list will also grow to consolidate my findings.

The Lineup

I have no humour and arrange my list according to price from high to low.

AudioQuest DragonFly Cobalt ($300)

US design. The smoothie of the dongle world and the dongle with the best sound quality by a long shot. Has simply the biggest note weight, most natural/organic sonic reproduction, and best musicality. It is not its power or resolution or staging that puts it ahead (by $100), it just sounds better. Voices are richer and fuller compared to the other models below.

For people who do not want to make compromises. Received criticism for being overpriced by people looking at the specs/measurements only. You pay for the sound quality, not sound quantity. Output is the same as in the DragonFly Red. Review.

AudioQuest DragonFly Red ($200)

Is somewhat more dynamic and edgier than the Cobalt. In fact, it is the most dynamic dongle I have tested. The most visceral of this lineup. Both DragonFlys have a slight bass boost compared to the other models. Vocals are still richer and fuller than in the Sparrow and HUD 100, but not as smooth as in the Cobalt, which is simply richer sounding. Has by far the smallest battery draw of the lineup. Review.

EarMen Sparrow ($200)

European design. Features two circuits (3.5 mm single ended and 2.5 mm balanced) of which the balanced excels and offers the widest staging and biggest headroom of the competition, beating both DragonFlys in this respect (you need a balanced cable to use this circuit). But the midrange reproduction is not quite a rich as in the DragonFly Red…though pretty impressive. Natural sound.

The Sparrow is more linear, less bassy, and less punchy than the Red and cleaner through the whole frequency range. Review.

EarMen Eagle ($130)

Features essentially the same sound as the Sparrow’s single-ended circuit. Less bassy and with slightly leaner vocals department than the DragonFly Red. Comes close to the “Red” in terms of sound quality, but has a substantially higher battery drain. Natural sound. The lowest-price premium sounding dongle imo. Review.

Earstudio HUD100 ($120)

Korean design. Offers two single-ended circuits with different output powers and three digital filters (I used the “bypass” filter for testing). A bit less dynamic than the Sparrow but very linear with no elevations and a nice wide, stage.

The HUD100 is the most polite of the lot, which is a good thing for taming punchy iems. Received a lot of flack on drop.com for being overpriced, which is simply not warranted. It is the best deal of this selection and worth every penny imo.

Gains richness and depth with the AudioQuest Jitterbug FMJ. HUD100 Review.

This is only a start. There are some upscale favourites that were highly recommended to me such as the Luxury & Precision W2 and the Lotoo Paw S1…but I have yet to get my hands on these. Co-blogger KopiOkaya auditioned these and let me know that they sound technically good but not musically good , and that the DragonFly Cobalt (he bought one in Q1 2021) sounds more natural.

Power Consumption

This is an important aspect when using the dongle on the go. The DragonFly Red wins the “power saving” contest comfortably.

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]

Sneak Peak into the <$100 Realm

That’s where the biggest crowding is, currently, although it appears to shift toward the $150 – $200 category with the recent releases by interesting companies (Astell & Kern, Razer…). Of the sub-$100 dongles I can really only offer the Shanling UA2 right now, which is not any less powerful than the >$100 models listed above, sounds natural, features a second balanced circuit and the same dac chip as the DragonFly Cobalt (and even more power).

But where it falls short in comparison even to the (admittedly much pricier) Earstudio HUD 100 is its less linear response, particularly its leaner, sharper midrange and elevated bass.

This is in line with my observations that the more expensive models offer a richer, thicker, fuller, smoother sound. That said the Shanling UA2 offers tremendous value alone for its natural sound. Review.

Concluding Remarks

My preliminary observations (based on the few available data points) appear to correlate somewhat with desktop equipment: more money buys you a better sounding dac. But where it does not compare well is the amp part, at least in terms of power. You can get a lot for less in this respect. Your choice will depend on your budget and personal preference.

Oh, and the EarMen Eagle is about to arrive for analysis. And the Helm Bolt is also somewhere in limbo.

Until next time…keep on listening!

Contact us!

The post A Simplified Personal Guide To Small Portable Headphone DAC/Amps ($100-300) v0.9 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.