Comparison (D16).

In the following comparison I had D16 with the following settings of DAC: HG, vol 95, AMP: LG, and used DX260 as a source along with Jewel and AP for monitoring.

These are all comparisons between standalone DAPs vs using DX260/D16 combo, focusing mostly on tonality.  But you have to keep in mind that a digital source will be required for playback/streaming to drive D16.  Also, even with turbo/ultimate/hyper and high gain settings of these DAPs, D16 still has higher power output.

D16 vs Hiby R8ii (Turbo, Class A) – Here the soundstage expansion and the imaging are nearly on the same level, spreading wide and deep and having a rather accurate and precise positioning of sounds in space.  Other aspects of technical performance are not too far off while having a similar level of vertical dynamics, keeping up well with transient changes between the peaks of the sounds.  Tonality is not too far off, but the sound signature does vary.  R8ii gives you more lift in the sub-bass rumble and some lift in mid-treble, making its sound a bit more V-shaped.  D16 is more linear and neutral in tuning, still having a natural transparent sound without too much coloration and no extra exaggeration across its frequency response.

D16 vs Cayin N7 (DSD512, Class A) – In this comparison, both have a very similar imaging and the overall soundstage spread, but the vocals spread a bit wider in D16 and a touch more center-focused in N7.  The layering and separation of sounds is very similar too, being able to clearly distinguish instruments and vocals without any congestion.  Vertical dynamics is not too far off either, maybe a touch better in D16 tracking micro-dynamic changes with small nuances, but the macro-dynamics is similar.  They also have quite a few similarities in tuning, having a more linear tuning of the bass from sub- to mid-bass, and natural neutral tonality of mids.  Treble is where I do hear some difference, with N7 packing a bit more sparkle in comparison to a more natural presentation of treble in D16.

D16 vs L&P P6 Pro – Both have a very similar imaging and the overall soundstage spread, but I noticed vocals to sound a bit wider in P6pro while being a bit more center-focused in D16, the opposite of what I found in previous comparison, but that is what I found in this relative comparison.  Interestingly enough, the overall soundstage expansion is similar, but upper mids/vocals do spread out a bit wider in P6pro.  Both have a very similar technical performance relative to a precise layering and separation of the sounds and the vertical dynamics expansion.  Both have a similar amount of treble sparkle and extension, and natural neutral tonality of mids.  But P6pro has more sub-bass rumble. which gives the sound a bit smoother coloring while D16 has a more linear bass tuning which gives the sound more transparency; again, in this relative comparison.

D16 vs iBasso DX320Max Ti (Ultimate mode) & PB5 (low gain) – by itself DX320Max has more holographic soundstage expansion with more 3D level of imaging.  D16 spreads wide, but I think the reference tuning of DX320Max with its extra airiness between layers of the sound makes the perception of the sound to spread even more, surrounding and going behind you.  Vertical dynamics is very similar between these two, and in general, keep in mind they share the same Class A amp design.  But the tuning and the tonality here is quite different.  Max has a more reference tuning with deeper and slightly more elevated bass and airier and more extended treble with extra crunch, while D16 has a more linear balanced tuning with a natural neutral tonality and more natural treble sparkle.  Adding PB5 into the mix gives Max more body which changes its reference tuning to a more natural tonality in mids and treble, but it also boosts its bass a bit higher which has the effect of pushing mids slightly back when using Max together with PB5.  In comparison, D16 still sounds more neutral and smoother in tonality.

D16/PB5 vs DX320 w/AMP14 (NuTube) – The soundstage width of D16/PB5 combo is wider, more expanded, perhaps due to a better stereo separation using dual NuTube vs a single AMP14 NuTube.  But the imaging is very similar in this comparison.  The tonality has a similar more natural textured smoother sound.  I do hear more rumble in D16/PB5 combo, but it was only noticeable using IEMs with DD bass or full-size headphones.  The bigger difference here is in technical performance where D16/PB5 has a better separation and layering of the sounds, and also more noticeable micro-dynamics nuances.

D16/PB5 vs N30LE (Hyper Mode w/P+ and Class A, Classic Tube) – N30LE soundstage does spread a little wider, wrapping around and behind you, but their imaging is on the same holographic level.  Both have a very similar technical performance when it comes to layering and separation of the sounds and the vertical dynamics expansion.  But the tonality has some variation.  I noticed a bit more weight with deeper rumble and stronger punch in iBasso stack vs a touch more relaxed linear tuning of the bass in N30LE (all with the same pair of IEMs, volume matched).  Mids are similar, natural, detailed, textured.  N30LE has more sparkle/air in treble, while iBasso stack has a bit smoother treble, similar extension but just a bit smoother in comparison.  Difference in tonality will be up to a pair up preference here.  And another thing to keep in mind in this comparison is that you have all-in-one N30LE DAP solution while iBasso stack has 3 pieces of DX260/D16/PB5.  Furthermore, iBasso stack (this particular combo) combined price will be a bit cheaper and will have a higher output power to drive more demanding headphones.  Since a limited edition N30LE is already sold out, maybe it is something to keep in mind.

Comparison (PB5).

I don’t have any other portable amps, so a comparison between PB5 and C9 was the only logical choice.  In this comparison test between PB5 and C9, I was using DX260/D16 where D16 had DAC: HG, vol 95, AMP: N/A, Line Out.  PB5 (low gain, vol 5 clicks) and C9 (Tube, low gain, Class A, vol 9 o’clock).  Jewel and AP were used for testing.

PB5 vs C9 – Very similar soundstage expansion with an enhanced width/height and pretty good depth, and nearly holographic level of imaging.  Also, very similar technical performance when it comes to layering and separation of the sounds with an excellent vertical dynamics expansion.  But when it comes to the tuning, there are a few noticeable differences.  PB5 yields a stronger bass impact (especially in mid-bass), a touch warmer lower mids which give more body to the sound, and a bit smoother treble.  C9 has a more linear bass tuning between sub- and mid-bass, a little brighter mids, and more airy sparkle in treble.  As a result, PB5 has a smoother and more musical tonality with slightly more coloring, while C9 has a little less coloring (more transparency) in mids and a bit brighter treble which makes its tonality to be more revealing based on this relative comparison.

Another difference between PB5 and C9 is that C9 has a stronger waterfall hissing with sensitive IEMs, while PB5 has it as well but it is quieter.  But on the other hand, C9 design has more tuning options such as a selection between Class A and Class AB or Solid State and NuTube timbre, and it does have a higher power output (2600mW vs 1700mW).  But you also have to keep in mind that C9 cost more.

While in the previous test I was using DX260/D16 as my source with LO output, I decided to run another test, double amping PB5 and C9 from PO of D16.

Double-amping D16 (phone output, vol 12 clicks) + PB5 (vol 14 clicks) – similar technical performance as with LO, still a little more impact in mid-bass, but the overall tonality is smoother and warmer, having more analog texture.  The only drawback with such double-amping config is that I hear more background hissing with high sensitivity iems.

Double-amping D16 (phone output vol 12 clicks) + C9 (vol 12 o’clock) – similar technical performance as with LO, but the overall tonality is warmer in comparison to D16 LO + C9.  The overall warmth and texture are still not on the same level as with PB5, but it is warmer than from D16 PO.  Hissing also scaled up.

Source Pair up.

In this test I tried D16 with different digital sources, where D16 (DAC: HG, vol 95, AMP: LG) was used with Jewel and AP for testing.

via USB

• DX260/D16 (Mango app) is my baseline setup.
• R8ii/D16 (Hiby music app) – R8ii has a similar performance w/D16 as DX260/D16.
• N7/D16 (Hiby music app) – N7 has a similar performance w/D16 as DX260/D16.
• iPhone XS Max/D16 (Hiby music app) – iPhone has a similar performance w/D16 as DX260/D16.
• Samsung Galaxy S22/D16 (Hiby music app, HQ usb audio access w/usb audio performance mode) – I noticed DX260/D16 combo to have a slightly wider soundstage in comparison to S22/D16 combo.  But a more noticeable difference was a blacker background with DX260/D16 in comparison to using my Smartphone as a source.  I’m using the same USB-C interconnect cable, so it was a bit of a surprise.  It is still the same tonality and overall technical performance, and background is still black with a smartphone, but it was blacker with DX260 and other sources.
• Thinkpad T480s/D16 (Win10pro) – when using D16 as USB DAC connected to my laptop, the sound tonality was similar to as with DX260/D16, but the soundstage expansion got wider.  I was a bit surprised here as well since I don’t have any specific iBasso Windows drivers installed.

via COAX

COAX (w/DX260) vs USB-C (w/DX260) – with COAX there is a noticeable improvement in a black background with a fast and cleaner transient of notes on/off.  And I also hear some improvements in vertical dynamics while focusing on peak transients.  After this test I decided to use Coax instead of usb-c since there is an improvement in sound quality and I can free up usb-c port of DX260 to charge it during the playback.

via Optical

OPT (w/SP2000) vs USB-C (w/DX260) – with OPT I hear a downgrade in the sound, becoming smoother, a little less resolving, and with the soundstage being a bit narrow.

Conclusion.

I spent a long-time testing DX260/D16/PB5 stack, even imagining how cool it would be to have everything combined inside of one single DAP.  And who knows, maybe in the future iBasso can take this into the consideration while working on their next gen Max DAP.  But if you look at it from a different perspective, they (iBasso) chose a different route using separate devices to mix and match components in your own audio-chain, to pick your own digital source, to decide if you need extra power or you have just enough, and to figure out if you do or don’t need extra coloring to enhance the pair up synergy with your IEMs and Headphones.

To get there, iBasso came up with a 1bit discrete DAC design under their own custom FPGA-Master 2.0 control driving PWM-DACs which operate in FIR mode.  Add to this a powerful Class A internal amp based on the architecture of DX320Max, and you have a portable audio solution to deliver a flagship level DAP performance with a neutral sound tuning and a natural analog tonality.  And, if you want to add more analog texture with bigger soundstage expansion to D16 or DX320Max or any other DAP, PB5 with its balanced dual NuTube design will give you both the coloring and the power boost to drive more demanding headphones.

At the end of the day, either if you go with an all-in-one or separate components solution, it is always great to give audiophiles more choices, exactly what the ultimate dynamic duo of iBasso D16 DAC/amp and PB5 amp brings to the table!