FIIO KA11 DAC dongle

[CedarX]

Nice, let us know if it shows any issue, hopefully not.

First thing I noted about JM20-Max: it does get hot! Not like burning hot, but definitely noticeable.

 

[mc.god]

First thing I noted about JM20-Max: it does get hot! Not like burning hot, but definitely noticeable.

As @HissingFree said, it can be a good sign, the SGM opamp clearly generates some heat and the dongle chassis is correctly dissipating it. The point is if the dissipation is enough in the long run.

 

[HissingFree]

There is also a similar device, Shanling UA Mini, also 200mW at 32 ohm with CS43131 + SGM8262.

UA Mini_Shenzhen Shanling Digital Techno

 

[pioterd]

My second copy of KA11 gives different voltage to each channel. Right - max 2.55V, left max 2.0V. Firmware 0.08 out of the box, reinstallation did not help. In fiio control app channels matched, in windows channels matched. Maybe Shanling UA mini will have better quality control and less negative feedback from users

 

[amanieux]

FiiO KA17

I only have a 30 Ohm dummy load, so my measurements show that the best THD+N is -109 dB (0.00034%) at -12 dBFS, which is about 45 mW of output power.
This is also equivalent to 0 dBFS and a volume of 36 (out of 60) on the device itself.

View attachment 392366View attachment 392367

very usefull thanks, this was made high gain+desktop mode on, did you also do the measurements in low gain desktop mode off ? i am trying to figure out what setting to put to get the best sound quality on low impedance high efficiency iems that requires only low power ( my hype4 is already loud enough at volume 30/120 in low gain desktop mode off, but i read that most reviewers claims ka17 sounds better in high gain desktop mode on)

 

[Bernard23]

very usefull thanks, this was made high gain+desktop mode on, did you also do the measurements in low gain desktop mode off ? i am trying to figure out what setting to put to get the best sound quality on low impedance high efficiency iems that requires only low power ( my hype4 is already loud enough at volume 30/120 in low gain desktop mode off, but i read that most reviewers claims ka17 sounds better in high gain desktop mode on)

Unless those other reviews have some measurement data then their opinions aren't worth much, so in this instance you can only make that judgement using your own ears. Personally I'd assume that if you can get away with less gain then potentially your snr and dynamic range would be higher and you use less battery energy.
Oddly, I have to use it in high power mode to drive all of my iems and full size.

 

[amanieux]

Unless those other reviews have some measurement data then their opinions aren't worth much, so in this instance you can only make that judgement using your own ears. Personally I'd assume that if you can get away with less gain then potentially your snr and dynamic range would be higher and you use less battery energy.
Oddly, I have to use it in high power mode to drive all of my iems and full size.

yes that makes sense, i remember my topping g5 in low gain mode sounds flat and dull even if i raised volume to match loudness i got in medium gain which made no sense but i confirmed it with my own ears, that don't seem to be the case with ka17 (low gain+desktop mode off don't sound worse than high gain+desktop mode on) i guess this come from the different type of amp used in topping g5 vs ka17

 

[CedarX]

i guess this come from the different type of amp used in topping g5 vs ka17

No, this comes from your own hearing. Unless you can provide data (measurements) or references to data supporting your claim…

 

[amanieux]

No, this comes from your own hearing. Unless you can provide data (measurements) or references to data supporting your claim…

don't think so because for ka17 i read everywhere that desktop mode sounds better but i don't hear it and for g5 i also read everywhere that low gain was flat and lifeless and indeed it was, if placebo/expectations worked for g5 it should have worked also for ka17. not every aspects of the sound are captured by one measurement. it is very obvious for iems that can sounds completely different even though they have a similar frequency response

 

[CedarX]

don't think so because for ka17 i read everywhere that desktop mode sounds better but i don't hear it and for g5 i also read everywhere that low gain was flat and lifeless and indeed it was, if placebo/expectations worked for g5 it should have worked also for ka17.

This is just your opinion. Completely respectable, but nothing more than an opinion.

not every aspects of the sound are captured by one measurement.

You're correct about 'one' measurement. But every aspect of a recorded sound/music (I'm not talking about hearing or perception where the human brain get involved...) can be captured by measurements: if we can record a sound--mankind has developed the technology--what aspect of that sound can't we measure?

it is very obvious for iems that can sounds completely different even though they have a similar frequency response

You're mixing two different things. G5 is way beyond "transparent" as far as audio reproduction and, although not measured here, I suspect KA17 is also completely transparent.
On the other hand, two IEMs may measure very similar on a given test fixture, yet exhibit differences in your own ears: your ear canal geometry, how you insert the IEMs, what ear plugs you use, etc. may impact these two IEM's differently. Unless you precisely model the IEMs, the test fixture, and your own ears, the correlation between the test fixture measurements and your ear is approximative.

 

[amanieux]

You're correct about 'one' measurement. But every aspect of a recorded sound/music (I'm not talking about hearing or perception where the human brain get involved...) can be captured by measurements: if we can record a sound--mankind has developed the technology--what aspect of that sound can't we measure?

it's not that we can't measure, it is more that multiple different measurements is harder to sell and understand than a single grade to help choose. for iems we have frequency response but we never give measurements such as impulse response time ( that varies per driver type, what do you do for tribrid iems, you give 3 numbers ?) . having multiple measurement dimensions is not practical and does not guarantee we covered all aspects of sound in the measurements ( there are discussions about influence of infra sounds and ultrasounds on human sound perception)

 

[CedarX]

for iems we have frequency response but we never give measurements such as impulse response time

Frequency response and impulse response are two different representation of the same thing: when you have one, you can mathematically calculate the other.
FR is generally easier to grasp.

having multiple measurement dimensions is not practical and does not guarantee we covered all aspects of sound in the measurements

The FR measurement of an IEM addresses ~80 (making the number up) of what we need to know about that IEM. Add distortion measurements, and there is not much “unknown” left.

there are discussions about influence of infra sounds and ultrasounds on human sound perception

Yes there are discussions… From what I have read, ultrasounds may cause some measurable brain activity spikes. Whether it correlates to the sounds we can hear and participate in our like/dislike of a particular track is not even close to be established and accepted. So why worry about something with no practical relevance?

 

[amanieux]

Frequency response and impulse response are two different representation of the same thing: when you have one, you can mathematically calculate the other.
FR is generally easier to grasp.

i did not knew that. how do you explain that 2 iems that graphs similar can sound different

 

[CedarX]

i did not knew that. how do you explain that 2 iems that graphs similar can sound different

I think what’s going on is that the test fixture impedance characteristics and your ear canal acoustic impedance characteristics are not the same. Therefore, two IEMs may measure the same on a given test fixture (they have the exact same FR or have been EQ’d to graph exactly the same), but yet respond slightly differently when exposed to a different acoustic impedance—your ear canal.

It’s kinda of the same as if you were painstakingly EQ two different speakers to sound exactly identical in a given room and realize they no longer sound identical anymore when you move them to another room, you need to redo the whole EQ…

However, I believe there are a lot more variability in rooms than there are in ear canals geometry… so the measured FR differences between two IEMs should not be too different from what you actually hear (again, what you perceive, what your brain tells you, is a completely different story !!!)

I’ll stop here: it’s (very) off-topic, and I’m certainly not the best qualified to write about this stuff!

 

[HissingFree]

Obviously it is not all about frequency response, as in that case, an IEM would sound similar to a speaker with identical frequency response, there is more to it.
If I have headphones with a much bigger distance between pads and driver, increasing the soundstage or at least giving that perception, how does one measure that? certainly not by frequency response.

 

[Bernard23]

FR tells you a good deal, but there are more and equally important factors like phase, alignment etc. The shape of the tips, your ears all impact how you perceive the sound, if multi driver then phase alignment. Impedance response of the drivers and the effect they have on the output of the amp that's driving them, some random examples of electrical and physical characteristics that we can measure directly or simulate (with varying degrees of ease) that have an impact. I suspect, though I cannot qualify that the HRTF plays as a big a role in determining SQ for a particular set of ears in the same way a room interacts with a loudspeaker that makes every other measurement secondary, so arguably a set of IEMs that measure well might not sound great to you (because of the unique shape of your ears). I've not read Sean Olive's research in detail, but I think that's largely his conclusion

 

[HissingFree]

My issue with IEMs is just how congested the sound is, like if I separate them slightly from my ears, obviously it sounds less congested but then I lose most of the bass. With Over Ear Headphones one can get at least some soundstage and localization, while retaining bass if it's a closed back.
No matter how expensive an IEM is, it cannot beat the physical limitation of IEMs, that is, the sound always comes from inside the ear.

 

[Bernard23]

My issue with IEMs is just how congested the sound is, like if I separate them slightly from my ears, obviously it sounds less congested but then I lose most of the bass. With Over Ear Headphones one can get at least some soundstage and localization, while retaining bass if it's a closed back.
No matter how expensive an IEM is, it cannot beat the physical limitation of IEMs, that is, the sound always comes from inside the ear.

Whereas I don't have that problem, the spatial cues are much the same for iems closed and open back over ears.

 

[amanieux]

My issue with IEMs is just how congested the sound is, like if I separate them slightly from my ears, obviously it sounds less congested but then I lose most of the bass. With Over Ear Headphones one can get at least some soundstage and localization, while retaining bass if it's a closed back.
No matter how expensive an IEM is, it cannot beat the physical limitation of IEMs, that is, the sound always comes from inside the ear.

iem are know for having less soundstage than headphones but what iem were you using ? when a/b test hype4 to mega5est, price difference is only $150 but imaging and soundstage is much better on mega5est so there are differences, hype4 was like a 2D wall of sound in front of you but mega5est had different sound position in space

 

[johny_2000]