Sound Analysis.

The sound analysis of the A200 was conducted using various IEMs and headphones, as mentioned below, while playing a variety of test tracks, including 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”, Galantis’s “Hunter”, Iggy Azalea’s “Black Widow”, Indila’s “Boite en argent”, Dua Lipa’s “Love Again”, Counting Crows’ “Big Yellow Taxi”, Bob Marley’s “Jamming”, David Elias’s “Vision of Her”, Michael Jackson’s “Dirty Diana”, and SaberZ’s “Without Your Love”. I had at least 150 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, since it doesn’t have a distinct sound on its own. We perceive the sound through connected IEMs/headphones or by comparing differences relative to the source using the same pair of IEMs/headphones. This is my subjective opinion, based on my analysis of the A200’s sound, with greater depth in its comparison with the A100.

I hear the A200 to have a neutral, resolving, natural sound with a rich, dynamic tonality.  While there is little added coloring and the presentation is relatively neutral, it doesn’t sound thin, overly revealing, or artificial; rather, it is very detailed, natural, dynamic, layered, and expansive.  The expanded vertical dynamics, as with A100, were among the first 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 recording’s dynamic range was expanded, making it feel like you are listening to an unprocessed live performance, with none of the softer sounds lost in the mix or the louder sounds saturated as you raise the volume.  It’s the same as I have noticed with A100, where in both cases it felt as if a remastering filter had been applied to reconstruct and enhance the digital data.  I tried several of my familiar test tracks at different volume levels and found this effect consistent.

The sound remains fast and punchy, bringing out plenty of deep rumble without an exaggerated boost in bass quantity, and giving more speed and control to the mid-bass punch. But unlike the A100, the A200 has a more balanced sound tuning, bringing the mids a little more forward and improving sound resolution, detail retrieval, and layering. The A100 puts a little more emphasis on bass and treble, pulling the upper mids slightly back. At the same time, the A200 draws more attention to the mids while avoiding coloring or adding extra body to the sound, keeping it resolving and layered, and making the mids’ tonality more natural, which makes vocals shine. As a result of this tuning change, perhaps due to the transition from ESS to AKM DAC, mids/vocals gain more focus, with improved natural texture and a more balanced tuning across the FR.

With treble, I find A100 making its tonality more hi-res with an extra crunch, in a controlled way without introducing excessive sharpness.  In A200, due to an improved sound balance, with mids slightly more forward than in A100, the treble is less intense, more natural, and feels less fatiguing than with some brighter-tuned IEMs.  The upper frequencies of the IEMs I tested with the A200 were still well extended, just less intense than with A100.

When I originally tested the A100, I found its soundstage to be quite expansive and holographic. A200 imaging remains holographic, but the expansion in all three directions is more pronounced, especially in width. This will depend on the synergy of the pair-up. With many of my IEMs and some headphones, the soundstage of A100 felt like it was in front of me, while with the A200 I felt like I was inside the sound, surrounded by it, resulting in a wider spread with everything pushed further apart. I do want to note that this expansion felt rather natural, not exaggerated or artificial.

Overall, both A100 and A200 have a very rich, dynamic, natural tonality, with the main differences in technical performance, soundstage, and tuning relative to their signatures. I wouldn’t say the tuning is a huge leap forward. It is definitely improved, and if given a choice between these two, I would pick A200 in a blind test every time as my preferred source with the IEMs I’m using. For example, with my reference Jewel, the balanced tuning brought more attention to the mids while keeping the DD bass tight, punchy, and very engaging. And when paired with IBUKI and Fulgrim/Luna, their powerful bass impact remained deep and articulate, with unmistakable physical presence and authority. Furthermore, in both cases the treble was also natural and extended. These IEMs have a stronger source dependency (relative to their treble tonality) and pair well with both A100 and A200, but the A200 gives their treble a more natural tonality. When switching to headphones like my demanding 470-ohm, low-sensitivity R70x cans, the difference is more noticeable in the mids/vocals, with A200 offering more clarity and higher resolution, making A100 sound a bit too smooth by comparison. The difference in sound signature also played a big role: R70x, as I mentioned in my A100 review, sounded more revealing and crisp up top.  But with the A200, R70x tuning was more evenly balanced and natural.

3.5mm vs 4.4mm

As expected, I hear a lower volume and a slightly narrower soundstage when switching from 4.4mm to 3.5mm.  Otherwise, the tuning and tonality are nearly identical.

Background, Hissing, and Interference

The A200’s background was extremely dark and quiet, which I found very impressive. I tested it with my sensitive IEMs (like VE10), even at high gain, and it was pitch-black, with no noticeable waterfall hiss. I found the A100’s background to be just as dark, and both impress me a lot with sensitive IEMs. 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 when the A200 was piggybacked on my S25. I guess this is one of the significant benefits of having an isolated, filtered internal power supply and sharing data only with the source during playback.

Line Out (LO) test

I tested the A200 LO using the Brise Audio WATA amp. When switching to LO, the A200 volume is locked at max, allowing you to control it from the external amp. Using A200 BAL LO into WATA, the sound was clean, dynamic, and expansive, with a relatively black background. For reference, compared to the SP4000 LO (with the flagship AK4499), the A200 LO is slightly warmer and smoother, though the difference is not exactly night and day. Many other dongles don’t offer a clean LO to bypass their internal amplification, which can introduce sound artifacts, especially in the presence of background noise. Here, the LO would be adequate for use with a portable amp on the go or even at the desktop.

Source Pair up

I tried my Samsung Galaxy S25, iPhone XS Max, SP4000, LPGT, RS8ii, N8iii, and DX340Max Ti as digital sources driving the A200 and found hardly any noticeable difference in sound quality among them. There were also no issues using the A200 as a USB DAC with my aging ThinkPad T480S Win10Pro laptop; it was recognized right away, no drivers were required, and it sounded as good as with other mobile sources.

Comparisons.

I used Aroma Jewel in my comparisons, matching volume 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. Other dongles provide either a display with additional settings or access to the app, allowing you to modify some of them. Also worth noting, no hissing was detected with any of the sources. Furthermore, the A100 vs A200 comparison was already covered in the sound analysis section.

A200 vs iBasso DC Elite – Both have a very similar, expansive, and round soundstage with holographic imaging of sound placement. They also share very similar technical performance, with a dynamic, layered sound. But their tonality does vary. DC Elite’s tonality is more revealing, with softer tactile bass, a colder midrange presentation, and crisp, airy treble. A200 sounds more neutral, less revealing, smoother in the mids with a touch more body and texture, and less intense treble definition. In many comparisons between these IEMs, it felt like the DC Elite pushed the upper mids and treble crunch further forward, while the A200 kept the tuning more balanced and natural in the mids and had more tactile precision in the bass punch. Also, keep in mind, DC Elite’s step-attenuator volume control can be a bit tricky with sensitive IEMs; it doesn’t use an internal battery, and there is no LED screen to adjust settings, but it offers app control.

A200 vs L&P W4 – This was another interesting comparison.  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.  The W4’s softer treble is probably more noticeable here.  Both have a similar natural, resolving tonality with extended, textured bass, natural, resolving mids, and extended, natural treble.  Another noticeable difference was the A200’s scaling up of technical performance, with a more expansive holographic soundstage that stretched wider and taller than W4.  Also, A200 tuning is more dynamic, with slightly better layering and sound separation.  I also noticed that A200 has a blacker background.  Here, please keep in mind that W4 is smaller since it doesn’t have an internal battery.

A200 vs Cayin RU9 (AKM4497 SVQ vs AKM4493 SEQ) – Regardless of whether RU9 is in SS or Tube mode, its tonality is warmer and more colored, and the sound is more organic.  In more detail, RU9-SS has a smaller soundstage and a denser, warmer sound, while A200 has a larger, more holographic soundstage and a more layered, dynamic sound presentation.  When you switch RU9 to Tubes, its soundstage expands, vertical dynamics improve, and you will hear better layering of the sounds.  In comparison, A200 offers a more neutral and balanced sound presentation, with less coloring and a less pronounced bass and treble boost than RU9. It also provides greater transparency, better detail retrieval, and improved dynamics.  RU9 is a larger, heavier device, especially noticeable when magnetically attached to your smartphone, and, in general, it is better suited for those who want to add more NuTube coloring to their sound.  In terms of functionality, both offer similar features, including an internal battery, an LED display, and access to many settings.

Conclusion.

Ever since I received the A200 Pro for review, I keep referring to it as my new audio toy that merges technology, aesthetics, and sound tuning in one compact eye-candy unit, making me want to take a break from my DAPs.  It’s ironic, since I’m usually complaining about using my smartphone as a DAP because of all the notifications and other distractions that come with it.  Here, I caught myself looking for excuses to use it more often.  And it’s not just its cool cassette-tape shape, but the slim, flat, magnetic design that fits like a glove when attached to my S25 smartphone, even without obstructing the camera.  Something bigger, like RU9, felt a bit bulky piggybacking on my phone, or smaller non-battery dongles didn’t have as strong/secure a magnet, making holding the phone a bit awkward.

I know that sound tuning is subjective, but either the A100 or the A200 Pro is well-tuned, though you do get a more balanced, natural sound and much higher output power with the A200.  Either device is not cheap, and in other cases I would have paused before recommending an upgrade if you already own the A100.  But NiPO made a big leap from the A100 to the A200 Pro, with an updated design and functionality, so it is hard not to recommend it, even if you already have an A100.  Aside from a classic cassette tape chassis, they added a bright OLED screen and easy navigation to access and adjust a ton of new settings without needing an app.  The output power went up to 1.6W (BAL output), headphone output was complemented with a clean Line Out, UAC2.0/1.0 compatibility was added, a separate Type-C charging port was added, and you even get a Play/Pause button.

I usually try hard to stay neutral in my reviews.  After all, I don’t consider myself an influencer, and I’m not a consumer but a reviewer who helps other consumers make the right choices (on their own) about how to spend their hard-earned money.  But when it comes to the NiPO A200 Pro, it is hard to stay “neutral” because there is so much going for this device, and how far they have come since the A100 design.  After the A100 review, while still enjoying it, I had a wish list of improvements, but I can’t think of any here.  I don’t even care much for the lack of Bluetooth since the ergonomics of the magnetic attachment are so well implemented here.  Would be curious to see what NiPO has in store next, since I believe they are working on the new DAP.  Either way, well done on the A200 Pro design!