Qudelix 5K Reference DAC AMP

Product Information

What sets Qudelix apart is that the company is an official Sony LDAC technical partner. Reportedly Qudelix was responsible for developing the LDAC solution for the Qualcomm QCC5000 platform. The QCC5124 receiver, as seen in just about every higher-end Bluetooth DAC/amp, relies on the work done by Qudelix to operate using the LDAC codec. One can turn down the system gain if any digital boosting is present to avoid clipping. The “QX-feed” enables crossfeed, which I find inoffensive, if a little simplistic, compared to more advanced solutions on the market. Best to experiment with what works best here. In the DSP settings lies the main strength of the Qudelix 5K – total control over tone shaping

To make a phone/portable dac with glass/metal construction, you still need to get a better quality materials, like a better or multiple antennas and have some non glass/metal spaces on the case (if you watch JerryRigEverything bending phones, the breaking point of the phones are normally antennas). This kinda constructionstill presents is a sacrifices to be made. The DSP settings in the app are where the magic happens and where the biggest value of the Qudelix 5K is found.I’d be lying if I said I bought the Qudelix 5K without reservation. My previous encounters with ESS chip-based DACs have been less than pleasant. I expected stringent highs and the meme “hi-end” sound that instantly wows with detail but fatigues in minutes. In everyday use, the first hurdle is memorizing the button press commands and which button does what. As seen in the app, one can expect up to 2VRMS SE and 4VRMS BAL out of the 5K. It’s a smart rating for a portable device, as battery power means limited voltage.

A few weeks ago I made the leap off of the True Wireless train by grabbing my first pair of wired IEM's (Fiio FH3's) and a Bluetooth DAC, the Qudelix 5K. In terms of bugs and problems, I can’t really report much. Firmware updates over Bluetooth take a few minutes and sometimes fail; however, the 5K always remembers the last good version and boots up nicely.Qudelix released a pair of wired IEMs called the QX-over. By having two ES9219C audio chips on board the 5K, Qudelix used the four separate audio outputs to create a digitally filtered active IEM system. Judging by the published impressions, while technically interesting, the QX-over didn’t really deliver sound-wise. Technical Specifications I have no issue whatsoever with the construction, for me it is far better than the BTR5. The things I would say the BTR5 is better for is the buttons, they are bad on the Qudelix, and the screen on the BTR5 is handy, to be able to see volume and what it is connected to.

Mentioning a person that on purpose instills excessive and extreme force to purposely damage electronics, just for views and money....not at all a realistic or real world scenario. No one bends their phones like that, and certainly not a small form factor device like this DAC can even bend as such. The general sound signature is decently detailed and somewhat warm. Not a hint of the olden ES9018’s icy tinge.

Whoops!

I have the BTR5, which is metal and glass, as well as the Qudelix. It has very poor range, compared to the Qudelix. It's fine, if you are right beside it, but Qudelix continues to work in the next room where the BTR5 starts to cut out. My only other critique is the inbuilt mic array is a bit weak. Maybe a software algorithm/optimization thing, but that would also be an appreciated area to improve. Of course, driving 4V into a dead short won’t mean infinite power as the specified max power is 80mW for the 3.5mm and 240mW for the balanced 2.5mm. On the other hands, the high-impedance headphones require a higher power amplifier. Those headphones usually have low sensitivity, and they are free from the white noise affected by the amplifier noise characteristics. Instead, they need higher power from the amplifier output to deliver enough loudness and headroom. 10-Band PEQ/GEQ (64-bit double precision) Wish people would Please stop defending the fallacy that something has to look ugly or use cheap feeling materials to perform well.