NiPO A100

Sound Analysis.

The sound analysis of the A100 was done using various IEMs and headphones listed in the pair-up section of the review. However, I lean more on Jewel when analyzing the sound while playing a selection of test tracks such as Agnes Obel’s “The Curse,” Sandro Cavazza’s “So Much Better” (Avicii remix), C-Bool’s “Never Go Away,” Ed Sheeran’s “Shape of You,” Alan Walker’s “Darkside,” Ariana Grande’s “Break Up With Your Girlfriend,” Galantis’s “Hunter,” Iggy Azalea’s “Black Widow,” Indila’s “Boite en Argent,” Dua Lipa’s “Love Again,” Counting Crows’ “Big Yellow Taxi,” David Elias’s “Vision of Her,” and Michael Jackson’s “Dirty Diana.” I had at least 100 hours of burn-in time before I began my analysis.

I prefer to describe the DAP/DAC/source sound by comparing it to other DAPs/DACs/sources and pairing it with different IEMs/headphones, as they don’t have a distinct sound on their own. We perceive the sound through connected IEMs/headphones or by comparing the differences in sound relative to source comparisons using the same pair of IEMs/headphones. This is my subjective opinion, based on my analysis and comparison of the A100 sound.

I hear A100 to have a neutral, resolving sound. While there is not much added coloring and the sound has a relatively neutral presentation, it doesn’t sound thin, nor too revealing or artificial, but rather very resolving, natural, dynamic, layered, and expanded. The expanded vertical dynamics were one of the things that stood out to me as soon as I hit play. While other portable sources could make the sound denser and more compressed, here it felt like the dynamic range of the recording was expanded, making you feel like you are listening to an unprocessed live recording performance, with none of the softer sounds being lost in the mix or louder sounds being saturated as you raise the volume. It almost felt like a remastering filter was applied to reconstruct and enhance the digital data. I tried quite a few of my familiar test tracks at different volume levels and found this effect to be consistent.

The sound was fast and punchy, bringing out plenty of deep rumble without an exaggerated boost of the bass quantity, and giving more speed and control to the mid-bass punch. The tuning of A100 avoids coloring the mids, doesn’t add too much extra body to the sound, keeps it resolving and layered, yet makes the tonality of the mids more natural at the same time, which is especially noticeable in vocals. I find A100 to sharpen the treble, making it more hi-res with an extra crunch, but in a controlled way that doesn’t make the sound harsher. The upper frequencies of the IEMs I tested with A100 were well-extended, preserving the airiness of their original tuning, in some cases even enhancing it.

The soundstage was expansive, extending in all three directions, and featuring a round shape with the holographic positioning of the sounds. The soundstage and imaging here are BIG, making, for example, Jewel sound more holographic than I’m used to hearing it. Yet, this expansion feels rather natural, not exaggerated or artificial.

I can’t judge how the original A100 sounded, but Leo told me that its soundstage was more intimate. Also, the overall sound of the original A100 design was more revealing, which implies that MT’s tuning with new component suggestions expanded its soundstage and made the sound more natural.

3.5mm vs 4.4mm

As expected, I hear a lower volume and slightly reduced width of the soundstage when going from 4.4mm to 3.5mm. Other than that, tuning and tonality are nearly identical.

Background, Hissing, and Interference

The background of A100 was extremely dark and quiet, which I found to be very impressive. I tested it with my sensitive IEMs (like VE10 and Andro), even in high gain, and it was pitch black, with no noticeable waterfall hiss. Also, in my testing, I didn’t find any interference. Of course, that is subjective and relative to my smartphone and laptop use, but I saw no EMI interference with A100 piggybacked on my S25. I guess this is one of the significant benefits of having an isolated, filtered internal power supply and only sharing data with a source during the playback.

Comparisons.

I used Aroma Jewel in my comparisons, ensuring volume was matched while listening to the same test tracks. Additionally, I’m primarily focusing on the differences in sound as I perceive them. These are my quick analysis notes. It’s worth noting that DC Elite and W4 are dongles without a built-in battery, relying on the source’s power. RU9 even offers dual tonality, including SS and Tubes. Additionally, other dongles provide either a display with more settings or access to the app, allowing you to modify some of these settings. I’m focusing on the sound performance comparison. Also, worth noting, no hissing was detected with any of the sources.

A100 vs iBasso DC Elite – Both have a very similar, expansive, and round soundstage with a holographic imaging of sound placement. They both have a very similar technical performance with a dynamic, layered sound. But their tonality does vary. I always considered DC Elite to be a mini-DX320Max, having the same transparent, revealing, airy sound. So, DC Elite tonality is more revealing, with a softer tactile bass, slightly more forward presentation of the mids, and crisp, airy treble. A100 sounds more neutral, more natural, smoother in mids with a touch more body, and also more balanced. For example, using the same pair of IEMs, like Jewel, DC Elite mids are more forward in presentation, and treble is a bit crisper. At the same time, the A100 bass is more balanced relative to mids and has a more tactile punch. Mids (in A100) are as resolving but slightly more natural, and treble is as extended but has a bit less crunch.

A100 vs L&P W4 – This was another interesting comparison. Here, while switching between these two dongles, the tonality and sound presentation weren’t too far off; however, W4 has slightly more body and a bit more relaxed treble. But both have a similar natural, resolving tonality with extended textured bass, natural, resolving mids, and extended, airy treble. The most significant difference was in A100 scaling up in the technical performance, with a more expanded holographic soundstage, stretching wider and taller in comparison to W4. Also, A100 sound is more dynamic, with slightly better layering and separation of the sounds.

A100 vs Cayin RU9 – Regardless of RU9 being in SS or Tube modes, its tonality has more coloring, being warmer, and the sound is more organic. In more detail, RU9-SS has a smaller soundstage expansion, denser, warmer sound, while in comparison, A100 has a bigger and more holographic soundstage expansion, and more layered and dynamic sound presentation. When you switch RU9 to Tubes, its soundstage becomes more expanded, the vertical dynamics improve, and you will hear improvement in the layering of the sounds. In comparison, A100 offers a more neutral and balanced sound presentation, with less coloring and a less pronounced bass boost than RU9. It also provides more air between the sound layers and shows improvements in dynamics, particularly in how softer sounds increase in volume.

In all of these comparisons, I can’t point a finger at one dongle being superior or inferior to the other. It’s not a cop out reply, avoiding the question of which one is better. They all have their pros and cons based on their features. And they do vary in tuning and sound presentation, along with the variation in technical performance. Often, it comes down to a pair-up synergy with your IEMs/headphones and which one you prefer better, and then figuring out the priority of features you do or don’t need.