Sound Analysis.

The 340m sound analysis was conducted using the IEMs and headphones listed in the pair-up section of the review. However, I mainly focused on Jewel and ATH-R70x, 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,” Michael Jackson’s “Dirty Diana,” and SaberZ “Without your love.” As recommended by iBasso and while using their provided burn-in cable, I completed 250 hours of burn-in before beginning my sound analysis.

I prefer to describe the DAP’s sound by comparing it to other DAPs and by pairing it with different IEMs/headphones, since the DAP itself doesn’t have a distinct sound. What we perceive is how it sounds through connected IEMs/headphones, or the differences in sound when comparing sources using the same pair of IEMs/headphones.  This is my subjective opinion, detailing how I hear it while analyzing the 340m sound, and you will gain a broader understanding of this DAP’s sound in the following sections on Comparison and Pair-ups with specific headphones and IEMs.

Considering so many people have asked me about the DX340Max vs. DX340 w/amp18 difference and how it compares to the DX320Max, I decided to approach my sound analysis a bit differently in this review.  Here, let me start with a quick summary and comparison by talking about each DAP separately (relative to IEMs/headphones I tested them with), and, again, please keep in mind that 340m (DX340Max Ti), 320m (DX320Max Ti), and 348 (DX340 w/amp18).  Also, I was using the following settings:

• DX340 w/amp18 (DAC HG, AMP HG, H2 natural harmonic filter) – 348
• DX320Max Ti (Ultimate mode On, Gain III, D2 digital filter) – 320m
• DX340Max Ti (DAC HG, AMP HG, H2 natural harmonic filter) – 340m

348 – very neutral tonality, not a lot of coloring, fast transient response, very articulate, punchy, tight sound; rounded, expanded soundstage; tight, fast mid-bass, modest rumble, neutral, colder mids, snappy, crisp, natural treble, modest airiness.  Overall, the sound is more neutral, reference quality, fast, and articulate.  Very black background.

320m – the soundstage expansion and shape are very similar to those in 340m, but the soundstage imaging, in terms of how sounds spread and are positioned in space, is more holographic in 340m.  By no means is a 320m soundstage small, but if you are focusing on imaging and positioning of individual sounds in space, 320m can sound a bit more intimate than a 340m.  The sound of 320m is also very energetic and dynamic, a touch smoother, and more textured in the mids than 340m. This difference in tonality is based on a few tuning differences: I hear 340m with more emphasis on mid-bass punch, while 320m has more texture coming from its sub-bass rumble.  Also, the 320m treble is a bit more relaxed compared to the crisper treble in 340m.  Both have natural, resolving mids.  But as a result of differences in bass and treble, 320m mids sound a little smoother and slightly more colored, while 340m mids are relatively more neutral, with subtler natural coloring.  When I switch the 340m DAC to LG, its mids gain more texture and additional smoothness, bringing them closer to 320m, but the 340m treble still has a bit more sparkle in comparison to 320m.

340m – more energetic dynamic sound, still reference tuned, but with more natural coloring; fast, punchy, tight mid-bass with more sub-bass rumble, textured, natural mids, crisp, natural, more extended treble; the sound has more lifelike dynamic, especially noticeable in vertical expansion of peaks, making it sound more multi-dimensional, improved layering and separation with more air between the layers of the sound; the soundstage expansion is more holographic, especially when it comes to imaging.  Lowering the DAC to Low Gain, while keeping the AMP in High Gain, gives the sound a bit more smoothness, more texture in the mids, and less intensity in the treble, without compromising resolution, detail retrieval, or dynamics, and also brings up a bit more rumble in the bass.  The only step back of DAC LG/AMP HG is the soundstage width being a little narrower, in terms of L/R spread, but the imaging remains holographic.  I still preferred this setting because it gave me a more natural tonal reference tuning.  Also, I hear a very black background.

Despite a similar, though not identical, DAC and amp architecture, I found a more noticeable difference between 348 and 340m, whereas 340m and 320m were more similar.  348 stands out as more neutral, less colored, faster, and a bit more sterile compared to 340m, which is more dynamic and energetic, with subtler natural texture and coloring, more bass rumble, and extra treble airiness.  320m, while not too far off, gives the sound a bit more coloring in the mids, slightly more weight in the sub-bass rumble, and a bit more relaxed treble extension.  All these comparisons are relative to using my reference set of Jewel IEMs.

When it comes to more demanding headphones, as I will go over in the pair-up section of the review, DC-IN Super Gain plays its own important role, and the effect will vary depending on how the transducers respond to higher voltage and extra juice.  The effect of DC-IN was more noticeable with demanding headphones than with your typical IEMs.  One universal change was improved imaging when DC-IN is engaged, and both full-size and IEMs with DD drivers also benefited from technical performance improvements, including expanded dynamics and even some gains in clarity and detailed retrieval.  But, again, I’m hearing a more noticeable improvement with headphones rather than IEMs when applying DC-IN, also appropriate considering people use headphones more often at home when they can be tied to another power supply. In contrast, on the go, with IEMs, you can go lighter.

Mango app vs Mango OS

No, I didn’t make a mistake; this comparison is in the right section, where it belongs, under Sound Analysis, because there are differences in sound when you switch between Android OS with the Mango app and a dedicated Linux-Mango OS, where all the Android-related “junk” is removed.

There is a delay as you switch between these two OS, but it is easy to hear that Mango OS has a slightly expanded soundstage, in both shape and imaging, and a blacker background.  With many on Head-Fi in various iBasso threads discussing 340m sw/fw optimizations to improve its sound performance, switching to Mango OS, in a way, gives you a taste of that.  But for consistency, I always review a stock DAP setup without any 3rd-party optimizations; even so, I do respect all the work iBasso enthusiasts put into countless hours of optimizing the Android OS.

LO test.

As I was analyzing the PO (Phone Output) of 340m and thinking about its neutral, natural, reference tuning, I started to think about its actual DAC output (LO) and how it would pair with external amps to color the sound.  The following are comparisons between 340m PO and 340m LO + amp.  Plus, based on the number of questions I receive about pairing the iBasso PB5 and PB6 with the 340m, I will use them for “coloring” and the Brise Audio WATATSUMI amp for neutral “buffer” output analysis.

PB5 – this was a very interesting comparison, since the PO output and LO+PB5 give a very similar, smoother tonality, but there are a few noticeable differences.  PB5 does give you a wider soundstage relative to L/R spread, and it also gives more weight in sub-bass, with more texture and rumble.  But the biggest difference was in the mids.  Warmth is just a sound coloring, and 340m PO by itself has a very clean, precise coloring.  But PB5 adds a very noticeable layer of texture, tubey distortion without the actual “distortion” of the sound, which gives the mids extra dimension.  340m/PB5 is not exactly portable. Still, it is transportable, and this pair-up is very good.

PB6 – in Class AB of PB6, the tonality is a bit more revealing and more neutral when compared to 340m PO.  It is still fast, tight, and detailed, but it has a bit more sparkle in the treble, a touch less coloring in the mids, and a bit more width in the soundstage.  Switching to Raytheon tubes in PB6 gives you performance similar to PB5, with mids offering a similar level of warmth and even more texture than 340m PO.  But, PB6/tubes warmth/texture is somewhere between 340m PO and 340m/PB5.  PB5 is warmer and has a more tubey sound; PB6 scales it back a bit, taking it a notch down and making it slightly more neutral than PB5.  If you don’t need to turn up the “heat” of the warmer PB5 amp tonality, PB6 is a great option and offers a more portable alternative.

WATA – this Brise Audio amp is all about transparency, less coloring, and more technical enhancement.  As expected, the soundstage expanded into a huge 3D holographic field, placing you right in the middle of the music, with the sound surrounding you.  The tonality is very clean, precise, and neutral.  Tbh, while it does give the sound a very clean, dynamic treatment, with 340m, it makes more sense to add coloring if you are connecting the external amp.  Don’t get me wrong, this is a great pair-up, but it makes more sense to add tubey coloring to 340m instead.

The burning question in my mind was how the DAC of 340m compares to the DAC of 340, and I decided to test it by comparing their LO outputs using the WATA amp.

340m LO vs 340 LO – this was the best test to demonstrate the difference between the 340 and 340m DAC sound quality, since I removed the internal amp circuit from the equation and used a neutral reference-quality buffer amp.  Well, the difference is quite noticeable.  340m has a blacker background, with a faster transient of notes on/off.  The sound from 340m was tighter, more dynamic, with more precise layering and separation.  I mean, the difference was easily noticeable even in a blind test, enough to hear and understand that the 340m DAC wasn’t a copy’n’paste, but a reworked and updated design with a technical improvement.

Comparison.

In every comparison, I used my reference Aroma Jewel IEMs, ensuring volume was matched while listening to the same test tracks across DAPs.  Here, I’m primarily focusing on the differences in sound as I perceive them.  I would also like to add a side note, since I received a laundry list of comparison requests, including a few other flagships with tube outputs.  I don’t have every flagship DAP at my personal immediate disposal.  And in general, I find that those looking at the DX340Max Ti are probably audiophiles seeking a clean, neutral, reference-type sound.  IMHO, Tube-enhanced DAPs belong in a different category for comparison.

340m vs A&K SP4000 – the first thing you notice, even with Advanced DAR enabled on the SP4k, is the soundstage width, which spreads noticeably wider L/R on 340m.  Both have a holographic level of imaging, but 340m L/R separation stretches wider.  Both have a similar level of sub-bass weight, and I hear Jewel has more punch paired up with 340m.  Mids have more coloring in SP4k, with smoother, more laid-back natural tonality and a bit more note weight, while 340m, with its natural texture, still sounds more revealing by comparison.  The same with treble: SP4k is more relaxed, a bit less airy, while the 340m treble has a crisper, airier extension, making Jewel sound a little brighter up top compared to SP4k.  The difference in treble also affects layering and separation of the sounds, since 340m gives you more air between the layers.  This comparison is another example of how iBasso stands on solid, neutral ground in reference tuning.  And aside from different high-power output and DC-IN Super Gain options, it is worth mentioning an improvement in battery life, with almost double the 340m playback time.

340m vs Hiby RS8ii – based on the sound quality alone, these two have a lot in common.  The soundstage expansion is quite similar between these two, having a wide, holographic expansion.  I would consider both to have more of a reference tuning, but there are differences in tonality.  Similar to 320m vs 340m, I hear more weight in the sub-bass rumble with RS8ii, while 340m has a stronger, more tactile mid-bass punch.  Their mids are not too far off, both with a natural, revealing, textured, layered sound.  But with treble, RS8ii has more energy and crunch, sometimes pushing the treble toward being a bit splashy (relative to Jewel), while 340m gives the treble a more natural, airy crunch.  From a technical perspective, aside from the already-mentioned soundstage expansion difference, 340m has a faster transient response for notes on/off and a noticeably blacker background with sensitive IEMs, without a hint of waterfall hiss. At the same time, sensitive IEMs do have a noticeable hiss with RS8ii.  In general, I would classify 340m as having a more natural reference tuning, while RS8ii leans more toward a revealing one.  Plus, 340m high-power with external higher-voltage DC-IN Super Gain mode makes it stand out with more demanding headphones.

Page 4 – Pair up, Wired/wireless connections, and Conclusion.