Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Colorfly CK4, finally some competition for the HifiMan 60X ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Colorfly CK4, finally some competition for the HifiMan 60X ? - Page 2

post #16 of 268

im hoping this player lives up to the hype/potential.... i've been wanting a higher end dap....but the s:flo2, while very pretty, has a dreadful UI.  Hm-602/601 has some quirks like having the eject and re-insert the sd card to read again or the internal memory not functioning properly

post #17 of 268
Thread Starter 
I found some info about the opamp on a japanese blog. It's supposed to be an ADA4075-2 and similar sounding to an AD275, according to the author, but I have no idea where he got that. So that's speculation, or hearsay at best, and should be taken as such.

EDIT : The ADA4075-2 is confirmed, as we can see it on the pictures from soomal.com. Seems like a quite new chip from Analog Devices. It's also used by Yulong in the new U100 Amp-DAC, reviewed by Project86 here : Review Yulong U100
post #18 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by frenchbat View Post

I found some info about the opamp on a japanese blog. It's supposed to be an ADA4075-2 and similar sounding to an AD275, according to the author, but I have no idea where he got that. So that's speculation, or hearsay at best, and should be taken as such.

EDIT : The ADA4075-2 is confirmed, as we can see it on the pictures from soomal.com. Seems like a quite new chip from Analog Devices. It's also used by Yulong in the new U100 Amp-DAC, reviewed by Project86 here : Review Yulong U100


Thank you for this information gathering :) The opamp, next to the DAC is very important how the whole thing will sound. I am kind of very curious about this DAP and its new opamp.

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by TekeRugburn View Post

im hoping this player lives up to the hype/potential.... i've been wanting a higher end dap....but the s:flo2, while very pretty, has a dreadful UI.  Hm-602/601 has some quirks like having the eject and re-insert the sd card to read again or the internal memory not functioning properly


I haven't seen much hype about it, at least not in this forum,but potential is there. There are not many people owning its bigger brother, the C4, so I do not expect much love for this one too. In the headfonia review, it is stated, that the C4 has a nice UI. Maybe this is a sign that we will get a nice ui for the CK4 too.

 

Yes the UI of the s:flo2 is somehow not good, but as an owner of the HM-601, I have not experienced any of these problems.

 

 

 

 

 

post #19 of 268

I found a Colorfly CK4 RMAA test here somwhere on the bottom of the page: http://www.soomal.com/doc/10100001891.htm

For comparison I have added the T51/S:flo2 RMAA test. Honestly I do not know how to interpret this, but there are people who do.

 

 

Colorfly CK4:

 

RMAA.jpg

 

 

T51/S:flo2:

 

4659359878_f3ee5845fb_b.jpg

found here: http://www.touchmyapps.com/forums/showthread.php?583-Teclast-S-Flo2-RMAA-measurements-part-1

 

EDIT: the T51s test is from the LO. Also for your interest some ui pics can be found on the bottom of the soomal page from above.

 

 

post #20 of 268

Anyone know from when and where i can pick up one of these and ill be the guinea pig?

post #21 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAFA View Post

I found a Colorfly CK4 RMAA test here somwhere on the bottom of the page: http://www.soomal.com/doc/10100001891.htm

For comparison I have added the T51/S:flo2 RMAA test. Honestly I do not know how to interpret this, but there are people who do.

 

 

Colorfly CK4:

 

RMAA.jpg

 

 

T51/S:flo2:

 

4659359878_f3ee5845fb_b.jpg

found here: http://www.touchmyapps.com/forums/showthread.php?583-Teclast-S-Flo2-RMAA-measurements-part-1

 

EDIT: the T51s test is from the LO. Also for your interest some ui pics can be found on the bottom of the soomal page from above.

 

 


Pretty much most if not all the tests and impressions you read about the Sflo2 were pre 2.3 firmware so take that for what it's worth.  Anything more recent will be more accurate to the product you would get today.

post #22 of 268

I prefer my Archos 70IT8GB a lot better than my Sansa Fuze, treble is shimmering splendid :)
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nywytboy68 View Post

The Archos 70 is doing great, I love it - but NOT for audio.

 

 

This is very interesting, waiting for a head-fi review.

post #23 of 268

In order to make the test copmparable, you would have to use the same upstream amp: iBasso T3D, the same interface: Edirol FA-66, and match the output volume. Otherwise, the test is only a guideline. 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anaxilus View Post




Pretty much most if not all the tests and impressions you read about the Sflo2 were pre 2.3 firmware so take that for what it's worth.  Anything more recent will be more accurate to the product you would get today.

post #24 of 268

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the C4 is doing better in the domestic market rather than out west.  They are readily available at my local shop and every time I've been there, the demo unit has been in someones hand. I've seen three sold in two visits.  For such an expensive item , especially by Chinese prices (Almost as expensive as an Ipad here) without the fancy name brand, seems impressive to me (though that's all conjecture).  

 

Hopefully, it will turn up at the same shop soon and if the rumored prices prove accurate, I might just pick one up.  

post #25 of 268
Thread Starter 

Hi all,

I've been trying to get some new info from the review of a prototype at soomal, and here are some of the tidbits :

 

C4 functions suppressed from CK4 :

- CUE file support

- SPDIF Input

- SRC  

 

C4K related info:

- Support confirmed for 24/192 on WAV (don't know for FLAC or APE)

- Battery life of 6-7 hours with APE and FLAC on loop with load (Vsonic GR07) on HO, 65% volume.

 

It also seems that the release date was referring to the review, rather than the player itself (again google translation), as the review was done on a prototype and not a final release model. So it will be probably some time before we see a final model in the market. I'm not even sure we can give any kind of credit to the RMAA tests done, (independantly from what was said before by Anaxilus and Shigzeo, on the meaning of doing a direct comparison of RMAA tests done in different settings), or the SQ comments.

post #26 of 268

The only way i'd suggest referencing ANY hardware test is if all the metrics are set equally with the same hardware. Or, use the RMAA FR graphs to see how well a ubit holds up under load, AND unloaded. But, don't compare other numbers. Rather, treat them as general guides.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by frenchbat View Post

Hi all,

I've been trying to get some new info from the review of a prototype at soomal, and here are some of the tidbits :

 

C4 functions suppressed from CK4 :

- CUE file support

- SPDIF Input

- SRC  

 

C4K related info:

- Support confirmed for 24/192 on WAV (don't know for FLAC or APE)

- Battery life of 6-7 hours with APE and FLAC on loop with load (Vsonic GR07) on HO, 65% volume.

 

It also seems that the release date was referring to the review, rather than the player itself (again google translation), as the review was done on a prototype and not a final release model. So it will be probably some time before we see a final model in the market. I'm not even sure we can give any kind of credit to the RMAA tests done, (independantly from what was said before by Anaxilus and Shigzeo, on the meaning of doing a direct comparison of RMAA tests done in different settings), or the SQ comments.

post #27 of 268
Thread Starter 


Thanks for giving an even clearer comment on the RMAA. That's also the way I was understanding it, hope it's clear for everyone now.

 

Independantly, my main concern is rather the fact that these RMAA have been done on a prototype, or at the very least on a pre-release hardware. How could we actually trust these to be similar to a final release hardware ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by shigzeo View Post

The only way i'd suggest referencing ANY hardware test is if all the metrics are set equally with the same hardware. Or, use the RMAA FR graphs to see how well a ubit holds up under load, AND unloaded. But, don't compare other numbers. Rather, treat them as general guides.
 


 
post #28 of 268

Well, HiSound's final productions were bad betas at best. 

 

My iBasso T3D is a pretty common amp, so I'd expect it be easy to do the same test, especially considering how the T51 is also popular. I had to use the T3D as the T51 overpowered the input on my feeble audio interface.

post #29 of 268
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by shigzeo View Post

Well, HiSound's final productions were bad betas at best. 


You got a point, we're talking chinese hardware here. It will probably depends on the actual release date, if colorfly actually releases it sooner than later, then it wasn't so much of a prototype tongue_smile.gif.

 

As for your RMAA with the T51/S:Flo2, that'd be great to have an update with the new firmware which seems to have brought some nice improvements. I think I read somewhere that the overload was fixed later on with a firmware update. Too bad you don't have your unit anymore, but if/when you come to Tokyo, I could lend it to you for an hour or two wink_face.gif

post #30 of 268

heers, Frenchbat. I'll be in Japan in May and may well take up your offer.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Colorfly CK4, finally some competition for the HifiMan 60X ?