# i-Qube review



## Swelled Head

I recently acquired an i-Qube portable headphone amp from Drew Baird at Moon Audio in Holly Springs, NC. I am submitting this review of the unit because in my view, it is an exemplary product. 

 My father was an audiophile while I was growing up. I joined him in the hobby, and even in a small business for a while. I've been an avid user of high end home audio gear for roughly 50 years. I have personal experience with high end gear up to, but not including the maniacally pricey stuff. Speakers costing 10k, amps and a preamps costing 3-4k, this is the altitude I've cruised at for years. I don't know much about the stratospheric levels where equipment costs more than my Toyota Avalon, or even my home. Wish I did, but I refuse to expose myself to products I'll never be willing or able to buy. I don't want to become dissatisfied with what I have. 

 I purchased an iPod Touch a while back, mainly for its non-musical functions, and recently got interested in listening to music on it. I purchased a pair of Ultimate Ears Triple.Fi earphones, and then a pair of Shure SE530s. They're both very good, each with its own, minor tonal flavorings, but little to complain about. Then I ran across a post about the i-Qube portable headphone amp and jumped at the chance to raise the anti for a reasonable cost. Having listened to the iPod itself for weeks, my reactions to the i-Qube are informed by that previous experience with both earphones powered by the headphone output of the iPod. With the i-Qube, or any other headphone amp for that matter, one has the option of driving it with the iPod's line out signal, which I highly recommend, bypassing the iPod's headphone amp circuitry. 

 The i-Qube is a class D amplifier, which gives it certain advantages, including much improved efficiency. See elsewhere for details. Based on previous experience with class D amplification on my main system, I'm convinced that dollar for dollar, class D amplification as a technology is superior to class A or AB. The i-Qube did not disappoint in this regard. 

 The i-Qube transformed both brands of earphones dramatically, flattening their response and expanding their sonic image. Headphones usually make music sound like it's happening inside one's head. This little amp threw the image well outside the boundaries of my head, more or less reproducing, in a two dimensional plane, the sense of a large, perhaps unbounded recording space. Presumably, with a true binaural recording, a three dimensional image is possible. In any case the large image was accompanied with greater clarity and separation between instruments, sort of like going from a 35" standard television to a 60" HD screen. It was much easier to follow the separate contributions of each instrument or voice to the music, similar, in clarity, to the experience of live music. But these are recordings, after all. At their best, they can only come very close to mimicking reality, and sometimes even seem more interesting and dramatic than reality, but never quite the real thing. What's required to approach the goal of natural sound is exceedingly low distortion and the corresponding clarity of tone and image that arises from such equipment and properly engineered recordings. The i-Qube pushed the envelope on this quality for me, reinvigorating my enjoyment of recorded music. Certain complex recordings from which I thought I'd exhausted all the details were revealed as possessing previously hidden information. It's been a long time since I've been sufficiently involved in musical reproduction to enjoy the sense of discovery of new details and nuances in music I'm familiar with. I found myself listening to entire albums that I thought I'd become bored with due to over exposure over the years. 

 A note on headphones: Headphone listening eliminates a source of distortion inherent in ordinary stereo reproduction--cross-feeding of signals from the left speaker to the right ear, and vice-versa. Cross-feed causes image shrinkage, comb filtering of frequencies, and a generalized lowering of the perception of sonic details. IEM earphones further clarify the signal by coupling the drivers directly with the ear canal, very close to one's eardrums. The result is an enhanced sense of tonal clarity and purity. They also make the image plane bisect the head, and with most headphones/amps, the image is a little cavern inside or nearly inside the head. The expansion of recorded space was perhaps a function of the low distortion of the resulting playback. Really low distortion tends to throw a huge image. The i-Qube, particularly with the SE530s, and just slightly less so with the Triple.fi earphones, really blew up the image into a life-like sensation. 

 My thanks to Drew Baird for his excellent taste in equipment and for making the i-Qube available in the US. 

 Curt Raney

 Addendum: since writing this review, I've spent many additional hours listening at length to both sets of earphones, and many more sources. This leads me to emphasize that the SE530s have a noticeably larger soundstage than the Triple.fi earphones, and to comment that the Triple.fi earphones are somewhat warm, which flatters some music, and is a bit much for others. At lower volume levels, it makes for a nice experience, a little like the old fashioned "loudness" control. However, on some sources, such as pop engineered with a great deal of sizzle, the SE530s focus too much on the highest frequencies. In general, I regard the SE530s as the better balanced earphones in terms of tonality, and have a slight edge on clarity. This is evident from listening to the highest quality recordings by Sheffield, Keith Johnson, and other engineers respected for their efforts to produce natural sound. But I'm not going to give away my Triple.fi earphones. Personality can make some things more interesting, and variety, with limits, is very much the spice of life. 

 I also need to emphasize that the soundstage size is very dependent on volume and source material. The louder the volume, the larger the instruments' images. I wonder at times whether the sensation that the soundstage is larger than between the ears is to an extent psychological, due to a sense of extreme openness that makes some recordings sound as if the soundstage is boundless, even when I can't say I'm aware of specific sounds coming from outside the boundaries of my ears. It may be that more attention by recording engineers to encoding spatial information, beyond the simple left-right panning of the image, would improve sound-staging enormously. I'm still looking for a source of binaural recordings to test out their characteristics. 


 Binaural Recordings: Since writing above about binaural recordings and headphones, I read the excellent material on Wikipedia about the topic. Then I checked out some of the references at the end of the article to find some binaural recordings to listen to, found them, and concluded from listening that the information on Wiki about the limitations of earphones vis-a-vis binaural recording reproduction seemed accurate. I had hoped to experience a more or less convincing 3D sound image, and was disappointed, as I was years before when trying out binaural sound on over-the-ear headphones. The image field lacked front to back dimensionality, although the left-right ear boundaries often characteristic of headphone and earphone listening didn't seem very noticeable. Apparently, that's all one's going to get with earphones. Read the Wiki article "binaural recording" for the details. 

 I liked the binaural recordings, and according to the Wiki article, there is at least one headphone optimized for them, but I'm not rushing out to buy a pair. There are so few binaural recordings available, and there are stereo recordings that approach binaural recordings in their spaciousness, making the soundstage sound less crammed between the ears. I confess to a love affair with natural, acoustic instrumental/voice recordings. Done right, they almost sound like you're there, though I have yet to experience much in the way of front-back dimensionality. The old Capital recordings labeled "full dimensional stereo" are typically very spacious. Several of Stan Kenton's albums were produced in this series, as were some dynamite organ recordings by Virgil Fox. Unfortunately for headphone lovers, so many of the great, popular jazz recordings of the late 50s and early 60s were produced with what we used to call ping-pong effect, isolating instruments on one or the other channel to make the stereo effect obvious to people who didn't know what to listen for. On headphones, I find any sounds that lack some degree of spread between the channels to be annoying. Ah, but so much good music recorded that way. Whadayagointodo?

 Curt Raney



 August 22, 2008
 More on iQube vs. Classic headphone output, and Shure SE530 vs. Ultimate Ears triple.fi 10 pro earphones:

 I've been giving evaluation a rest to refresh my impressionator by listening to the iPod Classic for a while, sans iQube. General conclusion after going back to the iQube--the iQube is significantly superior to the Classic's headphone output when driven by the Classic's line out from the DAC. However, the Classic by itself is good enough that I'm not motivated to carry around the iQube when I go out and about. Too much stuff to carry around, too much stuff to keep charged up, etc. The Classic by itself is quite acceptable. The iQube adds a significant boost in clarity and soundstage width/depth. I'll be using it at home when I'm kicking back in my Lazy Boy recliner. One advantage is I can keep it plugged in to a USB charger at home. 

 Last night, I woke up at 4AM and cued up Pat Metheny's album "First Circle." Metheny's recordings are typically very layered and require great clarity to experience the depth of feeling he puts into them. The iQube added to the musical experience. Then I got back to comparing the SE530s with the UE triple.fi units. It's almost a matter of taste. Parts of the spectrum are more clear and detailed with each. I like the somewhat brighter presentation of the 530s. The mid-bass on the UEs is more detailed and prominent. I suspect that the 530s are more neutral, and the UEs are a little warm, but they're both very, very good and I could live happily with either. I wish I could reach a more definite conclusion for those of you out there who are trying to decide which to purchase. 

 Next on my agenda: I dug up an adapter for the quarter inch plug on the Sennheiser 650s. I'll be comparing these phones on the iQube vs. my state-of-the art dynahi circuit headphone amp custom built with high grade parts by Drew Baird at Moon Audio. The darn thing weighs a ton for a headphone amp, but it's really clear and neutral. Since I haven't used it for a while, it should function as an interesting comparison with the iQube. 

 Curt Raney


----------



## dazzer1975

Absolutely superb first post sir, I hope to read a very many further reviews from your good self.


----------



## tha_dude

What did you think of opening the case?


----------



## Aurven

Excellent first post! Welcome to head-fi!


----------



## BigTony

Can you buy the IQube with the rechargables installed? Safe a huge amount of grief!


----------



## dazzer1975

Yes you can.


----------



## analogbox

Nicely done. I very much enjoyed reading your review. Keep up the good work, sir.


----------



## nsx_23

Got some pictures?


----------



## BigEat

Nice job. I agree with your observations by the way. Getting the thing opened to replace the batteriies is half the fun.


----------



## BigTony

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dazzer1975* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes you can._

 

So if I buy them off their EU website the rechargables are fitted?
 I'm pretty much 'MrBreakIt' in these parts, I'd most likely get my partner to try (but she has a sore hand atm) as I'm well known for just ripping it apart with my hands, and whisper 'Opps - must have broken in transit!' (the only time I was asked to put up sheves in the house I pushed the screw and the screwdriver through the house wall - 'well you said push hard!')

 BT


----------



## dazzer1975

lol.

 well, if you are in the us you have to order them from moon audio (I think its moon audio who is the licensed iqube reseller for north america) otherwise the official iqube site run by qables has the option of buying the iqube with rechargeable batteries already installed.

 You will need to add the usb charging cable though as the amps dont come with a charger.


----------



## BigTony

Part amp - part puzzle game!

 i'll see how sterling is shaping up against the euro, seems cheaper to import from the usa than buy in europe.

 BT


----------



## hatethatgiraffe

Moon Audio are the official american seller but will not send outside continental America Tony!!
 Sucks huh?


----------



## musicmaker

What a great review. And this is your first post !!

 Very well written, enjoyed reading it. Hope to hear more from you.


----------



## ralfale

Nice review on iQube with the 2 earphones. Hope to see your posting more.


----------



## davidhunternyc

Thank you so much for that review. I just got interested in portable audio a couple of months ago and I quickly decided that I wanted to get a 160GB iPod Classic, the iQube, and SE530's. After reading other reviews of IEM's, I was persuaded by the Triple Fi 10's. It is fantastic and a coincidence to read that everything you talked about is in my short list of what I want in a portable rig. It seems by your review, that with this system at least, you preferred the SE530's. Now I am reconsidering going back to them. Unfortunately, I could only afford to buy one pair of IEM's. Is there any more feedback you can share with me about how those two IEM's in this system? I would be very grateful. Thank you.


----------



## Swelled Head

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *davidhunternyc* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thank you so much for that review. I just got interested in portable audio a couple of months ago and I quickly decided that I wanted to get a 160GB iPod Classic, the iQube, and SE530's. After reading other reviews of IEM's, I was persuaded by the Triple Fi 10's. It is fantastic and a coincidence to read that everything you talked about is in my short list of what I want in a portable rig. It seems by your review, that with this system at least, you preferred the SE530's. Now I am reconsidering going back to them. Unfortunately, I go only afford to buy one pair of IEM's. Is there any more feedback you can share with me about how those two IEM's in this system? I would be very grateful. Thank you._

 

I have to say that I continue to prefer the Sure SE530s to the Ultimate Ear Triple.fi units. There are albums that sound better on one or the other, but on average, the SE530s seem more natural and flattering. In particular, the UE units seem excessively warm in the lower midrange/upper bass region. The SE530s strike my ears as more neutral. There are, as I wrote in my review, some pop albums with too much sizzle for the SE530s, and after listening to a fair amount of Vivaldi, Jazz, and other sources, I have to say the very high frequencies on the SE530s are a bit too hot. So it's not like one is perfect and the other is imperfect. Perhaps because I'm older and the hearing in my left ear is degraded by a childhood illness, I'm partial to a slightly brighter headphone. I do like the highest frequencies on the UE units better. I wish I could blend them. As for low, low bass, they both go very low, but the SE530s have the edge on the lowest frequences, whereas the UEs are a bit boosted in the midbass. As for comfort, which is not an insignificant consideration, the UE's are a bit larger, I think, so I use them with the smallest soft covers I could find. The stock soft covers that came with the SE530s are OK for me. However, my ears are not identical in shape, so it's a little like I could use something different in each ear. Perhaps I should have gone for the UE Ultimate earphones for around a grand, plus. They are reputed to be the best, but I've already got $2,500 sunk in this little carry-around music playback system. Just can't justify to myself going that high. My advice: If you like it warm, get the UEs, but if you like it cool and perhaps icely natural, go for the Shures. 

 Good Luck,
 Curt Raney


----------



## Swelled Head

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tha_dude* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What did you think of opening the case?_

 

The I-Qube ran out of juice (came installed with alkaline batteries) at 2:00 AM when I grabbed the amp/iPod combo for a listen. Disgusted with its bad timing, I got up, went over to my computer, brought up the info on how to open the darned thing, and proceeded to nearly give myself arthritis in the thumbs trying to open it. I got the one side open, with the single catch, but I couldn't get the other side open until I gave up pretending to be Arnold S., and tucked a putty knife in the opening at the end, and pried while I held down the open side. Bang, it popped open easily. Nevertheless, I would have ordered it with NiMH batts installed, had that option been available, and had I known how hard it would be to open it. But as they say, what doesn't kill you....., so perhaps in quickly learning what's required to open it, I'm better prepared for the eventual demise of the set of rechargeable batts. For a long time, I've advocated an engineering award for the year's worst case ergonomics. Who, in their right mind, was content to ship a product so difficult to open? Nevertheless, I love the amp, and wouldn't hesitate to purchase it again, if need be. But still...., you gotta wonder. Perhaps the Nederlanders will put the engineer in a gilded cage and parade him about for all to sneer at. Such bad design for such an otherwise well designed product!

 Curt Raney


----------



## davidhunternyc

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Swelled Head* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I have to say that I continue to prefer the Sure SE530s to the Ultimate Ear Triple.fi units. There are albums that sound better on one or the other, but on average, the SE530s seem more natural and flattering. In particular, the UE units seem excessively warm in the lower midrange/upper bass region. The SE530s strike my ears as more neutral. There are, as I wrote in my review, some pop albums with too much sizzle for the SE530s, and after listening to a fair amount of Vivaldi, Jazz, and other sources, I have to say the very high frequencies on the SE530s are a bit too hot. So it's not like one is perfect and the other is imperfect. Perhaps because I'm older and the hearing in my left ear is degraded by a childhood illness, I'm partial to a slightly brighter headphone. I do like the highest frequencies on the UE units better. I wish I could blend them. As for low, low bass, they both go very low, but the SE530s have the edge on the lowest frequences, whereas the UEs are a bit boosted in the midbass. As for comfort, which is not an insignificant consideration, the UE's are a bit larger, I think, so I use them with the smallest soft covers I could find. The stock soft covers that came with the SE530s are OK for me. However, my ears are not identical in shape, so it's a little like I could use something different in each ear. Perhaps I should have gone for the UE Ultimate earphones for around a grand, plus. They are reputed to be the best, but I've already got $2,500 sunk in this little carry-around music playback system. Just can't justify to myself going that high. My advice: If you like it warm, get the UEs, but if you like it cool and perhaps icely natural, go for the Shures. 

 Good Luck,
 Curt Raney_

 

Thanks for your help. I think it is so strange that everything I am considering is what you have reviewed in your opening post. Reading your latest comments, I was swayed back to the SE530's. I have small ears and the thought of IEM's being too large scares me a bit. But then at the very end you said if I liked things colored to the the warm side, to get the Triple Fi's. I do like sound to be on the warmer side and it is why I like tube amplifiers. I have always been in the camp that all electronic reproduction of music is colored. There isn't such a sound as clear and transparent. I go to all these high-end audio shows and these $150,000 systems sound brilliant. Do they sound like actual music being played? Not even close. So I have to pick and choose my preferences. I would rather reproduced music sound warm than cold. "Neutral" is a tricky word for me. So now I am back at square one. If I could only hear both on the iQube, it would be easier to choose.


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

Very good first review/post! 

 I agree with the SE530 vs Triple.fi thoughts. Sometimes the SE530 can have a little sibilance, but their transparency outweighs that flaw. In my case, I did sell the triple.fi, and I converted the SE530 into a hard shell custom molded earphone which I still use (don't ask, they don't want to do any more of these jobs 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 ).


----------



## davidhunternyc

Thanks. Now I am back in the SE530 camp. I guess for comfort, the olives are a nice fit too. At least that is what I have read.


----------



## BigTony

Hummm,

 I'm getting close to caving in and going for the IQube and Shure 530. I liked my old shures, great sound, but a tad uncomfy to wear, but I guess its all about working with it, and maybe better tips.

 BT


----------



## slowfreight

Nice review!! My wheels are turning and I'm wondering if the IQube is worthy as a stand alone amp to replace my MK V? With rechargeable batteries of course...


----------



## Swelled Head

Since writing all this stuff up about the i-Qube and the earphones, I purchased an iPod Classic 160GB model (6th generation) from amazon.com. I should have been better prepared for considerable differences between iPod models. My experience with the i-Qube and earphones prior to the Classic were with a 16GB iPod Touch. The Classic has much, much better sound at its headphone output than the Touch. There's nothing cold or clinical about the SE530s played solo on the Classic. I haven't listened to the Triple.fi units on the Classic yet. Moreover, I suspect that the i-Qube is cooler with the Classic using the output from the Classic's DAC than the Touch's DAC. I would need to compare them more rigorously to be sure. My next move will be to try the i-Qube with my Sennheiser 650s, which I suspect will be a good match. For now, though, I'm NOT going to carry the i-Qube about with the Classic. I'm happiest with the SE530s straight out of the Classic's headphone jack. They're warm and spacious. Go figure. Too bad Apple hasn't paid closer attention to the quality of sound these different units emit. I guess they were never intended for high end listening. 

 Curt Raney


----------



## davidhunternyc

^^^ Are you saying you prefer the SE530's straight from the headphone out in the iPod Classic? You prefer this set-up to using the iPod with the iQube? Well, it certainly would save a lot of money and space to not buy an iQube. But this is the first time I heard such a thing. From what I've heard, the iPod Classic's amplifier is mediocre at best. I would love it if you could elaborate about the sound quality with the iQube and without the iQube.


----------



## Swelled Head

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *davidhunternyc* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_^^^ Are you saying you prefer the SE530's straight from the headphone out in the iPod Classic? You prefer this set-up to using the iPod with the iQube? Well, it certainly would save a lot of money and space to not buy an iQube. But this is the first time I heard such a thing. From what I've heard, the iPod Classic's amplifier is mediocre at best. I would love it if you could elaborate about the sound quality with the iQube and without the iQube._

 

Yes, for now, with only a couple of albums under my belt with the Classic/Shure combo, sans i-Qube. One thing to remember is that IEMs are easy to drive. The i-Qube may be essential for driving standard, over-the-ear headphones like the Sennheiser 650s, given the relatively high impedance of the iPod headphone amp circuits and the considerably lower sensitivity of the Sennheisers. They're much higher in impedance than the IEMs, but I haven't seen a graph of their impedance by frequency. 

 Since these iPods sound so different from each other, a blanket recommendation may not be in the offing. I will be listening to the Classic/Shure combo at some length over the next three days while on vacation. When I've come to a more certain opinion based on many albums of various types, I'll report back. I feel guilty about launching into an extensive review of the i-Qube before testing it with various combinations, but I stand behind what I wrote because I mentioned I was using an iPod Touch. A professional reviewer, which I'm not, would probably have forewarned readers to keep that in mind. I've certainly learned my lesson about overly simple test situations. I'm not used to such wide variation in sources and amps from past experience with home system gear. Usually the differences are more subtle than the differences between the Touch and the Classic. And to be even more careful, remember I'm talking about the 16GB Touch and the 160GB Classic that's labeled the 6th generation. I've also read that Apple has issued some software upgrades in recent times aimed at, among other things, fixing the sound of some of the iPods. I don't recall which were involved. My quick estimation that the Classic sounds warm on the Shures is based on two albums I listened to last night with which I am very familiar. This is admittedly a limited comparison, but not naive, and I usually find that first reactions are true, although not always well understood as to their cause. Don't be dismayed. The audio journey has its ups and downs, as with life in general. Whatever you do, you shouldn't rely on any one user/reviewer. I didn't, when I purchased both the Shure and UE IEMs. I did the unusual thing by purchasing the Shures after the UEs, having read another set of reviews by an apparently knowledgeable source. I wish I'd bought the Shures first, but that's for now. Who knows? In the future I may be glad to have the UEs. 

 By the way, there's a store on ebay selling the Shure SE530s for $279. The model with the by-pass switch/microphone is a little more. That's cheaper than I paid for the UE Triple.fi 10 pros. 

 Happy Hunting,

 Curt Raney


----------



## hatethatgiraffe

curt
 The iqube sounds great with both the classic and the touch so no worries there!
 Also sounds good withiphone 3g but not used that combo as comprehensively as others!
 Were you using the lineout on touch during review?


----------



## davidhunternyc

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hatethatgiraffe* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_curt
 The iqube sounds great with both the classic and the touch so no worries there!
 Also sounds good withiphone 3g but not used that combo as comprehensively as others!
 Were you using the lineout on touch during review?_

 

Yes, thanks again Curt. But, hatethatgiraffe, you said the iQube sounds great with the Classic. That seems to not be in doubt. But running the SE530's directly from the headphone out of the iPod doesn't seem to be that much difference in sound quality according to Curt. If this simple combination is great, why not save the money and extra bulk, and not purchase the iQube for portable use? The iQube would have to be a significant improvement in sound quality to justify its cost and added bulk.


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

He is right about the iPod Classic 160gb headphone out being better than the Touch headphone out. The line out dock of the Touch is better than the headphone out.

 I didn't realize you were using the headphone out to feed the iQube. I always say "garbage in, garbage out" - so always use your best source. There is also such a thing as synergy, and some surces and amps work better together than others, and it's possible one combo can amply flaws instead.


----------



## hatethatgiraffe

true the shure could be driven from the headphone out but the iqube just adds that little bit extra!
 Midrange has more depth and everything just has that little bit extra!
 Particularly on lossless!
 You could drive a Ferrari slowly and be happy but put your foot down to see what it can do and you will really smile!


----------



## davidhunternyc

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HeadphoneAddict* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I didn't realize you were using the headphone out to feed the iQube. I always say "garbage in, garbage out" - so always use your best source. There is also such a thing as synergy, and some surces and amps work better together than others, and it's possible one combo can amply flaws instead._

 

No, I think swelledhead was using the headphone out of the iPod to feed the Shure's. I think he was using the line out of the iPod to feed the iQube.


----------



## davidhunternyc

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *hatethatgiraffe* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_true the shure could be driven from the headphone out but the iqube just adds that little bit extra!
 Midrange has more depth and everything just has that little bit extra!
 Particularly on lossless!_

 

Does the iQube add "that little bit extra" or a lot extra? It better add more than just that little extra for its price and additional bulk as a portable rig. It seems the swelledhead thinks that the iQube doesn't add enough to justify its use with the iPod Classic and SE530's. With lossless, is the difference still just a little or a lot? Hmmm. Now I am wondering what ripping format swelledhead used for his comparisons. That could be one of the reasons he didn't hear much of a difference with the iQube or not.


----------



## thejoneser

Hi Curt, 

 As others have mentioned, excellent review! I really enjoyed it. 

 As an iQube owner I can only hope that you'll someday have the chance to hear other portable amps to compare against your iQube. I currently own four portable amps and would rate the iQube my third favorite due to its slightly recessed presentation. This is, of course, my own personal opinion. But I must say that my SE530s pair up even better with my Ray Samuels Hornet, an amp that I just acquired a few weeks back. The Hornet's slightly forward midrange combined with the 530s magic midrange puts me in the fourth row, where the iQube leaves me 20 rows back. Then there's the Pico which beats the iQube for tonal accuracy, but puts you "on stage" - a little too close to the performers for my taste. Again, this is just what I hear after comparing amps on a daily basis. But I will say one thing, it's a fun game to play and I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts.

 Enjoy!


----------



## BigTony

Can I take it that the IQube works well with the 530's? How do they compare with the Klipsch Image? 
 I had the 530 on my list, turned down a good offer on a pair, and ever since then people have been saying great things about them again! I had replaced them on my list with Klipsh Image.
 Seems the more we think and dither, the harder it is to get things done.

 Cheers

 BT

 PS has only driven the HD 650's with this yet?


----------



## trickywombat

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *BigTony* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_...
 I had the 530 on my list, turned down a good offer on a pair, and ever since then people have been saying great things about them again! I had replaced them on my list with Klipsh Image.
 Seems the more we think and dither, the harder it is to get things done._

 


 If it sounds good to you, It sounds good.
 If it sounds bad to your ears, it doesn't matter what other people say. 

 Sometimes, opinions/reviews are more informative for the pricing info. than indicative of how much you will enjoy the product.

 In the absence of an audition but provided there's a good return policy, if it looks good - go for it. Return/sell it if you don't like it. Don't let other people's personal preference deny your wallet a rightful purge.


----------



## Swelled Head

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *davidhunternyc* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Does the iQube add "that little bit extra" or a lot extra? It better add more than just that little extra for its price and additional bulk as a portable rig. It seems the swelledhead thinks that the iQube doesn't add enough to justify its use with the iPod Classic and SE530's. With lossless, is the difference still just a little or a lot? Hmmm. Now I am wondering what ripping format swelledhead used for his comparisons. That could be one of the reasons he didn't hear much of a difference with the iQube or not._

 

I used CD's imported to iTunes using Apple's lossless coding, which saves about half the space of the original CD's files. And to make what I wrote clear, I originally compared the headphones using the Touch's headphone output, and then when I got the i-Qube, I tapped the Touch's DAC off the multi-connector at the bottom. When I got the iPod Classic, I also began by tapping off the DAC, and then switched to listening to the SE530s using the headphone output of the Classic. This tortured path to knowledge led to the meandering evaluations in my post and subsequent replies. It's been quite a lesson, unmatched by my experience with high end home systems. It's a truism that components interact with each other in complex ways, but still I was not prepared for the scale of differences between the headphone output of the iPod Touch vs. the iPod Classic. As a character in the film Under Siege said, assumptions are the mother of all screw ups. 

 I just returned from a trip, and will soon continue, mainly by comparing the SE530s with the UE Triple.fi Pros on the Classic's headphone out jack, and also focus more on how the UEs sound in various contexts. Also I plan to listen to the i-Qube at length on Sennheiser 650s, which probably require an amp more than those little earphones things whose delicacy and close coupling to the eardrum make them so easy to drive by portable gear. 

 As for the i-Qube, I liked it better using the Touch's DAC than the Classic's DAC. On the Classic, it seemed more bright. The profound limitation of evaluating equipment is one can't listen to anything by itself. You can't hear a recording without a playback system. You can't listen to any particular piece of equipment in the chain of a playback system without listening to a complete chain. Nobody's ever heard an amp, preamp, speaker, recording, CD, record, etc., but in the context of an array of all the rest. I am guilty of rushing to judgment by ignoring what I know about the complexities of subjective evaluation because I didn't anticipate the scale of the problem using iPods, which without really thinking about it, had me assuming their sonic qualities were more or less equivalent. Dumb, Dumb, Dumb. I won't make that mistake again. 

 I still think the i-Qube is a fine piece of equipment. Question is, what's it really good for, and what is it not particularly good for. I can also compare the i-Qube with my custom built Dynahi headphone amp, built by Drew Baird at Moon Audio. So far, I've only listened to it on my Sennheisers. I never thought of driving those little earphones with it, but why not give it a try?

 Thanks to all for your interest and useful comments.
 Curt Raney (a.k.a. Swelled Head, a particularly apt moniker it seems.)


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SwelledHead* 
_ Question is, what's it really good for, and what is it not particularly good for._

 

I'd say it's good for driving difficult headphones, like HD600/650, while away from your main rig - or to let you use a superior source if that source is a line out and needs a volume attenuator, like the touch line-out vs touch headphone out.

 If the phones are easy enough to drive, and the source's headphone out is good enough, then the iQube becomes optional, as you found with your Classic.


----------



## Swelled Head

Back and forth, from iQube driven by Classic line out, to the Classic's headphone jack, listening mainly with Shure SC530 earbuds. 

 There are aspects to the tonality comparison that I can't find words to express. There's something smooth, almost earily smooth about the iQube, while the Classic headphone jack has the slightest sound of grain, or something not quite as smooth. What really got my attention was listening to Paul Simon's "Hearts and Bones." Simon mixes most of his albums on the warm, thick side, with lots of low midrange and midbass. It take a very good system to separate the instruments and voice in this range into the various sources. Mid-fi tends to lose the details and sound a little resonant or boomy in that region, chesty in the voice region. Well, the iQube is champ on this one. I've never heard the various ovelapping bass lines in Paul Simon's music so distinctly, as well as subtle overdubs in the background that I'd never noticed, either. Very impressive achievement for both the SC530s and the iQube. 

 A note on the UE triple.f1s. Want to get rid of the bassy, cluttered sound in that same region.... program the iPod for treble boost. I haven't tried to compare the triple.f1s against the SC530s on Simon's album yet, but I'm looking forward to the experience. I confess that I'm a lazy, half-hearted audiophile who went into remission years ago. Every once in a while I'm roused to revisit the condition, but it doesn't last long. I got into the iPod/iTunes thing mainly as a way of consolidating my music collection which had grown unmaginable, physically speaking. Now I've got all 1,500 albums on a single medium. I had to resort to AAC files, but a brief listen convinced me they are close enough to the real thing. That, alone, disqualifies me as a member of the audiophile tribe. Frankly, I don't even want to spend several hours or days confirming my first impressions on this issue. What do you guys out there think? Are the 256 kb/sec AAC files good enough? 

 Curt Raney


----------



## hew

I use WMP lossless and made same type of comparisons. The major difference I found was the loss of details such as resolution of ambient cues. But for convenience sake I am willing to live with that.


----------



## SACD-Man

For me, lossless at all times!! Especially when using the iQube and its resolution capabilities!


----------



## Luminette

Lossless for me, I also use an iQube


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

I think for certain music like electronic, new age, rock, hip hop etc that the 256AAC should be good enough to enjoy. Heck, one of my best albums is a 180-190 kbps eMusic CD (Guinea Pig "Kool Cats"). If you ripped 1,500 CDs at 256AAC you are not missing out on a lot and I would never go back and re-rip them all higher, unless I was doing it to have perfect backups in case the CD were lost stolen or damaged. But to have them on an ipod and bring it all with you, you should be fine. 

 But for music with real instruments or live performances or where the ambience is vital to the transparency of the music, then lossless rips off a CD is my choice. The iQube should have no problem resolving the extra ambience and detail, if connected to the Line Out Dock with a good cable and headphones.

 In my case, I now import my CDs as Apple Lossless which uses 200-350 mb hard drive per CD (like a zip file and lossless, not like a jpeg and lossy), and then I will have iTunes convert it to a smaller 256k bitrate file for iPod. So I often have two playlists for a CD, where one has ALAC and one has 256k, so I can know whether it goes on the 80gb iMod or the 8gb nano.


----------



## Swelled Head

A month or two after purchasing an iQube headphone amp, the volume control became noisy. Whenever I rotated it, it produced a scratchy sound in the earphones. Repeated rotations reduced the volume of the scratchy sounds, but never eliminated the problem. The next time, they were back at full, annoying volume. 

 After a while, I concluded that the problem wasn't going to go away. Fortunately, it was still under warranty. I contacted Drew Baird at Moon Audio, where I purchased the iQube. He referred me to Hans Oosterwaal, who asked me to return the amp to him for evaluation. He is one of the wizards behind the iQube. I wasn't too happy about having to send the unit to the Netherlands, but what else could I do? 

 Ten days later, Hans emailed me to report that he'd received the amp, and couldn't replicate the problem. I explained that I've sold and repaired audio equipment my entire adult life (not a professional technician, though), and felt certain that the volume control was noisy. I had no explanation for why he didn't hear the same scratchy sounds. I implored him to replace the volume control at my expense. He countered with an offer to send me a replacement amp at no charge, since the volume control couldn't be removed. Evidently it's cemented in place on the circuit board, or something like that. 

 As you might imagine, I was delighted! I can't recall the last time someone simply took me at my word in a business transaction. This was way above and beyond normal business practices. To make things even more delightful, Hans answered my email inquiries promptly and completely. I've never had such a rewarding experience with a manufacturer/distributor before. 

 I have the replacement in my possession now, and it is working perfectly. It was such a pleasure to put it back into service. I'd missed the for-all-intents-and-purposes "perfection" that little iQube produces. Since more than a month has gone by since I sent the defective unit back, I can't compare the replacement unit with the one I originally purchased, but my first impression was that something seemed more "right," than before. Maybe it's just the fresh bloom on the rose. 

 To all of you out there, I can't say enough nice words about Hans Oosterwaal. I wish everyone I purchased equipment from was as cooperative, trusting, responsive, and helpful. Maybe good people attract each other. In my previous dealings with Drew Baird, he too, has been an exemplar as a dealer and a human being. And honestly, folks, there's no quid pro quo involved here. I just feel moved to sing their praise. 

 As for the iQube, it's a honey. It's a first rate product that produces world class results—smoother than a baby's bottom, as my grandmother used to say. I'll be falling asleep many nights with it cradled in my arms. 

 Curt Raney


----------



## drubrew

Glad we could solve the issue for you. Happy Listenig


----------



## dazzer1975

I concur, hans really is one of the best people to do business with, supreme customer service and everything seems like such a pleasure for him too.


----------



## vkvedam

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HeadphoneAddict* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I think for certain music like electronic, new age, rock, hip hop etc that the 256AAC should be good enough to enjoy. Heck, one of my best albums is a 180-190 kbps eMusic CD (Guinea Pig "Kool Cats"). If you ripped 1,500 CDs at 256AAC you are not missing out on a lot and I would never go back and re-rip them all higher, unless I was doing it to have perfect backups in case the CD were lost stolen or damaged. But to have them on an ipod and bring it all with you, you should be fine. 

 But for music with real instruments or live performances or where the ambience is vital to the transparency of the music, then lossless rips off a CD is my choice. The iQube should have no problem resolving the extra ambience and detail, if connected to the Line Out Dock with a good cable and headphones.

 In my case, I now import my CDs as Apple Lossless which uses 200-350 mb hard drive per CD (like a zip file and lossless, not like a jpeg and lossy), and then I will have iTunes convert it to a smaller 256k bitrate file for iPod. So I often have two playlists for a CD, where one has ALAC and one has 256k, so I can know whether it goes on the 80gb iMod or the 8gb nano._

 

This is what I do on a regular basis.


----------



## Swelled Head

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vkvedam* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is what I do on a regular basis._

 

I like the idea of two playlists, but I would have to reconfigure my storage to make room for all that lossless data, and it took me two weeks to rip my collection the first time, when I wasn't working. Now that I'm back at work, it would take months, I fear. I hate being a copy slave for mass reproduction. Maybe next time I'm off for an extended period, I'll do it. It certainly maximizes flexibility. 

 When I made a comparison between lossless and AAC coding, and couldn't tell the difference, it was with jazz recordings. Frankly, I didn't spend much time agonizing over the issue. Lazy, I guess. If I couldn't tell the difference easily, I didn't want to go down that road. For too many years I spent way too much time straining to hear differences between recordings, equipment, etc. I'm not convinced at this point that it was worth all the attention. On the other hand, all those baby steps eventually improved my appreciation for good audio, and my system evolved from mid-fi to a high end system, my credit card debt soared, and I had to take out a low interest second mortgage to pay off the credit card. That's all behind me now, thank heaven. I don't buy anything I can't pay cash for (housing excepted if I ever move again). I'm even saving for my next car. 

 Audiophilia is aptly named. It is an obsession. Technically, it doesn't qualify as a neurosis because it isn't the product of trauma, at least it wasn't for me. But it certainly is living life out of balance. It even gets in the way of enjoying music, which ought to be the main reason for the hobby. I envy the guy who gets more pleasure out of listening to an old mono recording of Louis Armstrong than anyone ever got from listening to some audiophile recording. Interestingly, though, a good system makes ordinary recordings more interesting, too. It's all in what you love. What thrilled me about these new, high end IEMs and the iQube was how the combo reignited my love of music. 

 Thanks for the tips, vkvedam.


----------



## vkvedam

Well my storing is slightly different to that of HeadphoneAddict's (Larry) as I have got only one iPod. I use lossless for Rock/Vocals and 256~320 Kbps for Trance or New Age etc... I prefer listening to CD at home in my Sony D-301, iPod can't match that.


----------



## Swelled Head

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *vkvedam* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well my storing is slightly different to that of HeadphoneAddict's (Larry) as I have got only one iPod. I use lossless for Rock/Vocals and 256~320 Kbps for Trance or New Age etc... I prefer listening to CD at home in my Sony D-301, iPod can't match that._

 

The new Wadia 170 iTransport picks up the digital code directly from the iPod, and uses it's own DAC to convert to analog. It sounds very good. You'd never guess you were listening to an iPod. Moreover, it's not that expensive ($379). I love having my entire music collection at my fingertips fed by an excellent source. Convenience matters to me because my collection is unwieldy, and I'm not well organized enough to put my hand on a particular CD without searching. If I really wanted perfection, I'd feed my headphone amp from the Wadia. Hmmmm. Now there's an idea.


----------



## trickywombat

I thought the Wadia doesn't have a DAC - you have to supply your own.


----------



## vkvedam

Instead I am thinking of going for an iMod.


----------



## davidhunternyc

Yes, I was under the impression that the Wadia doesn't have its own DAC too. I thought it was purely a digital transport.


----------



## HeadphoneAddict

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Swelled Head* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The new Wadia 170 iTransport picks up the digital code directly from the iPod, and uses it's own DAC to convert to analog. It sounds very good. You'd never guess you were listening to an iPod. Moreover, it's not that expensive ($379). I love having my entire music collection at my fingertips fed by an excellent source. Convenience matters to me because my collection is unwieldy, and I'm not well organized enough to put my hand on a particular CD without searching. If I really wanted perfection, I'd feed my headphone amp from the Wadia. Hmmmm. Now there's an idea._

 

Basically the Wadia makes the iPod work like the optical digital out on a Mac, without needing to spend $599 on Mac mini + the cost of monitor or $999 on a Macbook. It turns the ipod into a hard drive based media server without needing to use a computer.

 There is no DAC onboard.


----------



## qusp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Swelled Head* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The new Wadia 170 iTransport picks up the digital code directly from the iPod, and uses it's own DAC to convert to analog. It sounds very good. You'd never guess you were listening to an iPod. Moreover, it's not that expensive ($379). I love having my entire music collection at my fingertips fed by an excellent source. Convenience matters to me because my collection is unwieldy, and I'm not well organized enough to put my hand on a particular CD without searching. If I really wanted perfection, I'd feed my headphone amp from the Wadia. Hmmmm. Now there's an idea._

 

yes, this begs the question do you have a wadia?? because if you werent using an amp before, how were you listening to it?? considering its the wadia i*TRANSPORT* and therefor has no amp or dac in it


----------



## Swelled Head

You guys are absolutely correct. The Wadia doesn't have a DAC. I mispoke. What it does is decode the files on the iPod, outputing a digital stream. When I expressed the thought of maybe mating the Wadia to my headphone amp, I momentarily overlooked the lack of a DAC. My preamp/processor has a built-in DAC, and once I hooked it up, I sort of overlooked that important fact. Getting old will do that to you. Thanks for correcting my mistake, fellas.


----------



## 3602

Curious about the fact that with the Qube, SE530 is the more neutral IEM while it is almost always regarded as 'too mid-forwardy'.
  So the Qube has perfect synergy with the TF10 (some people here say) but has better synergy with the SE530? :headscratch:


----------



## Swelled Head

I was humbled by the surprising degree of interaction between the i-Qube and brand/model of earphones. I still prefer the SE530 earphones with the i-Qube, and the Ultimate Ears straight off the iPod Classic. Forget the iPod touch with earphones alone.


----------



## ibis99

That was a outstanding review! Welcome.


----------



## i_djoel2000

i've been experiencing a problem with my iqube. there is this scratching noise made by the iqube volume control when i rotate it(turn up or turn down the volume). the noise is only present when the volume control is rotated, but totally silent when the volume knob is motionless. nevertheless, it's still a little annoying when i'm enjoying the music to listen to this kind of problem. is this thing normal?


----------



## ClieOS

Quote: 





i_djoel2000 said:


> i've been experiencing a problem with my iqube. there is this scratching noise made by the iqube volume control when i rotate it(turn up or turn down the volume). the noise is only present when the volume control is rotated, but totally silent when the volume knob is motionless. nevertheless, it's still a little annoying when i'm enjoying the music to listen to this kind of problem. is this thing normal?


 

 Almost all pot will face that problem eventually. It is caused by either rust or dust accumulation. The easy fix is to unplug your headphone, turn the pot from one side to the other and repeat it for 3~5 minutes, then check if the problem goes away or not.


----------



## i_djoel2000

Quote: 





clieos said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 works like a charm!! thank you clieos


----------



## rasmushorn

clieos said:


> Almost all pot will face that problem eventually. It is caused by either rust or dust accumulation. The easy fix is to unplug your headphone, turn the pot from one side to the other and repeat it for 3~5 minutes, then check if the problem goes away or not.







Ahhh cool. Thanks. I needed that advice and it worked for mé too.


----------

