iFi iOne best buy with Bluetooth

[bigbob]

"At iFi we believe that high-quality sound is a way of life. The nano iOne was created for both audiophiles and those who yearn for better sound quality from their existing home systems.
The iOne is neither a one-trick pony nor is it a jack-of-all-trades. It is simply incredibly versatile and offers cutting-edge technology, with each separate function designed and implemented with as much care and dedication as they would receive in a single function device from iFi Audio."

Bluetooth connectivity.

In two words, that is what makes the iFi nano iOne different from any other external DAC in the marketplace.

The postman dropped off a unit today for my review and recommendation. It is a very remarkable device and we here at "Computer Audiophile on the Cheap" are putting this to the test.

At an MSRP of $199, it certainly fits into our price range. It can become part of your home audio system, and set-up is almost too easy.

"The Burr-Brown True Native chipset is a MultiBit DAC which represents the ‘best of the best’ chipset design. This chipset handles PCM and DSD natively, so the music signal stays in its original format all the way through."

There is a difference between the DAC chipset in the nano iOne, and the Schiit Modi 2, which is the standard reference in my system.

I reviewed the iFi iDSD nano LE, which is a DAC/headphone amplifier. I felt that the amplification stage for headphones had an adverse effect on the line output through the RCA connectors. I liked the sound that it produced, but I found that too many pots spoiled the soup.

There were issues when the signal was amplified in the DAC, and then the volume could also be adjusted by the receiver or pre-amp.

Call me crazy but in a head to head competition, my lament was the iFi didn't sound as "musical" as the Schiit. I thought at that time, that it was a shame that the RCA line out was running through the amplifier stage. It affected the Sound Quality, and not in a good way.

My contact at iFi offered to loan me the Black Label version of the nano LE, but in its current ideation, it is strictly a headphone DAC/Amplifier.

Now I love headphones for my Smartphone, and when I want to really hear my music, even if nobody else likes it.

I wanted to review the iOne mainly because it is a "pure DAC" with RCA output. There is no amplification stage, which suits me just fine.

My man at iFi emphasized the "Bluetooth connectivity" as the selling point for the iOne.

I was thinking, "Yeah, right" because my CAOTC system is computer-based, and with a Denon AVR-2805 to provide all the amplification I need to drive my Advents--the Bluetooth was a nice feature, but I hardly doubted if I would be doing much with it.

Man, was I wrong?
It was so simple to set-up. and the sound quality was remarkable. The files on my Moto G3 are all MP3 @ 192, hardly "Hi-Res Audio" but when the Moto was paired via Bluetooth, the SQ was still remarkable. I am using open-source VLC as my media player-- so playing FLAC Hi-Res files would not be a problem. My only consideration would be the file sizes--meaning I might need a 32 Gb SD Micro card for the phone instead of the little 16 Gb card, filled with MP3s.

But streaming DSD files--which is basically the best source material in our current technology would be a breeze with iOne and the Bluetooth. (Sure I could stream through the computer, which is on my Internet connection-- but that is hardly a 'portable' option)

How does the iOne stand up against the Schiit Modi 2?

That is apples and oranges. My Schiit sells for $99 and is NOT Multibit. The Multibit version of Schiit Modi will cost you $249.
The iFi nano iOne is a Multibit DAC which can play DSD natively. It sounds incredible.

Does this mean that I can no longer use the Modi 2?
Absolutely not. It will replace the Dragonfly by Audioquest (Version 1.2) on my second system in the bedroom. That will give me 24/192 resolution back there, instead of the 24/96 from the Dragonfly.

But on the big rig-- my main listening system with the Denon and the $4,000 Nordost Valhalla speaker ribbon cables--the iFi nano iOne is the new Sheriff in town.

I just finished listening to Thomas Dolby's "Aliens Ate My Buick"-- a very well engineered but not that popular recording that even Dolby himself said was a bit over the top.

You know Dolby for his "She Blinded Me with Science" off his debut "The Golden Age of Wireless" album. I am playing that now, and it is crisp, clear, and accurate reproduction without any coloration.

In the audiophile world, 'coloration' can be an attribute or a detriment. I prefer "pure" reproduction. I want to hear what the Engineer heard through their headphones when they were making the mix-down in the recording studio.

I want to be able to listen at a moderate level and want for nothing more.

I don't want any point in the signal path to be adding "warmth" or some other buzz word that describes what some say "makes digital sound like an album".

If I wanted to replace my entire music library with 180 gram Virgin Vinyl LPs and all the accoutrement of that--then I would not be a "Computer Audiophile" and I would be hearing clicks and pops, not to mention having to get up from my sweet spot to flip the disc over every 15 minutes. No, Thank you!

In my former life, as a photojournalist, I remember people asking me if Digital was "as good" as the film.

From my practical considerations as a wire-service photojournalist, I had to admit the convenience of no wet processing made digital my preference. But those were the days of less than 5-megapixel files from my Nikon D2H.

Once I moved up to a 16 Mp sensor on my Sony, I could honestly tell people that Digital was Better than film. Without question, the film was a nostalgic, albeit troublesome choice.

Kodachrome had long since been discontinued, and if the reference was ISO 800 Fujicolor negative film--a 16 Mp file blew film off the map.

In audiophile world, there is a traditionalist snobbery associated with spinning vinyl. And since the roof has been blown off the high-end turntables, cartridges, and record-cleaning machines--I have to put all my effort into digital as my source.

If you want to defend analog (LP records) you need to find someone else to argue with.

I am a Modern consumer, I have no use for Tubes or LP records. I will take an HDTracks 24/192 file and enjoy the Hell out of the listening experience for hours on end with no record flipping, no pops, and cracks, no scratches, period.

Two albums into this testing session and iFi have convinced me that this is the Modern Solution to digital music reproduction.

Now I am listening to a playlist of 24 bit 192 recordings. One word...Spectacular!

The Brown-Burr chipset is awesome with Hi-Res Audio recordings from Linn, on their 40th Anniversary Collection sampler.

There is NO noise floor, it is gone.
What is coming out of these 40-year-old loudspeakers is a sound that Henry Koss could have never imagined when he designed these speakers.

The iFi Nano iOne is an obvious "Must Buy" when you are ready to upgrade your music system.

Back to the Apples and Oranges-- the Schiit is a good DAC for $99, but the iFi with Bluetooth Connectivity is a steal at $199, and well worth an extra C-note.

Recommended by the Computer Audiophile on the Cheap! That is my highest accolade.

Computer Audiophile on the Cheap

Magazine

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chat (26)

[franz159]

On 11/01/2018 at 6:57 PM, bigbob said:

Absolutely not. It will replace the Dragonfly by Audioquest (Version 1.2) on my second system in the bedroom. That will give me 24/192 resolution back there, instead of the 24/96 from the Dragonfly.

 

And 24/192 is going to be systematically better than 24/96?

 

In my experience that is not the case (of course that might be my rig or my ears!)

The quality of the recording is influencing the end sonic result much more than a format difference such as 24/96 vs 24/192.

 

 

[bigbob]

22 minutes ago, franz159 said:

 

And 24/192 is going to be systematically better than 24/96?

 

In my experience that is not the case (of course that might be my rig or my ears!)

The quality of the recording is influencing the end sonic result much more than a format difference such as 24/96 vs 24/192.

 

 

 

 

 

I can not speak to "systematically better". In this case, I own both, and the Schiit will do 24/192 native with a Linux OS, and the AQ DF v1.2 does 24/96  only. From my extensive collection of both, I would say that the 24-bit remastered files by HDTracks there is a difference--on my rig and with my ears. I will add that many of the 24/192 vinyl rips can be great, or can be a couple of Gb of pure crap, no matter the playback.

If someone writes a short technical paper on the entire lineage from the stylus tip to the device that made their 24/192 rips, those are the Gemstones we mine for. Vinyl-rip is code for "crap-shoot" .

In one particular case-- Janis Joplin "Pearl"-- the levels on the 24/192 'audiophile rip' was so non-existent as to be unlistenable, and the 24/96 HDTracks allows you smell the Southern Comfort on her breath, from your FOB seat at some intimate venue.

[buonassi]

I just got the idac2 micro and am very impressed.  I also have the modi2 multibit.  I haven't spent enough time comparing them to make any absolute statements, but I don't consider the analogue stage on the idac2 to be inferior to the modi multi despite it having a headphone amp.  Playing native 44.1 using the minimum phase filter on the idac2 is outstanding.  I didn't feel I got the same precision from the schiit unless I upsampled to 186.4 using izotope in Audirvana Plus (negating the DACs filtering).  This isn't to say the schiit isn't a great unit, rather I'm saying that I prefer the drier, less ringing with the filter of the idac2. 

 

still my experience with iFi has been very positive thus far. 

[bigbob]

The comparison of iFi to Schiit in that 'entry level' price point is very subjective. I only wish that iFi would not have run the RCA line-out through the amp. I tested the nano iDSD LE against the Modi 2, not the micro. I do know that the iOne uses the same multi bit DAC as the nano LE, so the only difference is the headphone amplifer in the nano. To fairly compare iFi to Schiit I would need the Modi Multibit which is $249 or Fifty bucks more the iOne. Unless someone  makes DSD more accessible, I found little use for it in my opinion. PCM produces beautiful music without esoteric players that need 64-bit architecture and a degree in Computer Science to configure.

[Nikon Nutter]

I’d be interested if someone could compare the aq beatle to the iOne. Anyone tried?

[Nikon Nutter]

can bt sound good enough for Ca people?

[Maccamad]

Hi. Am a newbie here but looking for a easy to use DAC that I can remote control. But I'm a bit worried about using BT. What does it sound like? I fear it will disappoint. 

 

[AMR/iFi audio]

On 24.01.2018 at 12:15 PM, Nikon Nutter said:

can bt sound good enough for Ca people?

 

We believe it can indeed, that's why we've used it in one of our products. The feedback gathered is very positive thus far.

[bigbob]

49 minutes ago, AMR/iFi audio said:

 

We believe it can indeed, that's why we've used it in one of our products. The feedback gathered is very positive thus far.

 

Believe it or not, but MP3 files @192kBps sound as good as the same album in a conventional 16/44.1 "Redbook" CD--when ported to the iFi iOne through Bluetooth.

 

So as the Computer Audiophile on the Cheap,  Bluetooth connectivity is a plus.

 

The real battle at that price point pits the Schiit Modi 2 ($99) plus an iFi iPurifier2 ($129) versus the iFi iOne with both Bluetooth and Active Noise Cancellation at $199.

 

In that match, the iOne wins! So Bluetooth connectivity is a bonus feature at a $30 discount.

 

 

[mjb]

8 hours ago, bigbob said:

 

Believe it or not, but MP3 files @192kBps sound as good as the same album in a conventional 16/44.1 "Redbook" CD--when ported to the iFi iOne through Bluetooth.

 

Well, 16/44.1 definitely sounds better than MP3 @192kBps to my ears, and so it should - but the iOne is not able to demonstrate a difference? I'm not sure that's a selling point.

[bigbob]

The question was dealing with the Bluetooth connectivity, not your (or my) subjective impressions of the differences two resolutions.

I would concur that a discerning listener could maybe 'hear' a difference between two sources at different resolutions in a head-to-head DBT, but what I was saying that the MP3 (which lives on my Moto G phones) sounds as good as the same passage, played directly from a 16/44 file.

Or to simplify even more--considering it was an MP3 file to start with, and going through the Bluetooth transmission, is just as acceptable for general purposes.

I also ported Spotify from my Smartphone to the big speakers via Bluetooth through the iOne, and it sounded just fine. Does iFi claim equal quality from MP3s and 24-bit Hi-Res Audio? No, nor would I make such a claim. Bluetooth is a connectivity feature which IS a selling point for this $199 multibit DAC, but it is not an alchemist which will turn straw into gold. But, it will be the best sounding straw... The Bluetooth protocol doesn't improve MP3 to Lossless quality, but it is a convenience.

[beerandmusic]

On 1/24/2018 at 6:39 AM, Maccamad said:

Hi. Am a newbie here but looking for a easy to use DAC that I can remote control. But I'm a bit worried about using BT. What does it sound like? I fear it will disappoint. 

 

just buy jriver software (includes free web remote).

You can make your avr or enet port on your bluray player a dlna endpoint and will get excellent sound for no money.

[bigbob]

On 1/26/2018 at 1:55 AM, mjb said:

 

Well, 16/44.1 definitely sounds better than MP3 @192kBps to my ears, and so it should - but the iOne is not able to demonstrate a difference? I'm not sure that's a selling point.

 

@mjb one factor that we left out of the comparison, and it might lend further clarity.

 

Both MP3@192 and the 16/44 CD were processed into a 24-bit waveform by the AL24 processing on my Denon AVR 2805. All signals, no matter the native quality, run through this DSP when in the Pure Direct option on the Denon. So if anything explains why they still sounded similar, that might be it.

[mjb]

On 2/3/2018 at 6:23 PM, bigbob said:

 

@mjb one factor that we left out of the comparison, and it might lend further clarity.

 

Both MP3@192 and the 16/44 CD were processed into a 24-bit waveform by the AL24 processing on my Denon AVR 2805. All signals, no matter the native quality, run through this DSP when in the Pure Direct option on the Denon. So if anything explains why they still sounded similar, that might be it.

That sounds like a plausible explanation