Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › RoCoo P DAP - Full Review
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

RoCoo P DAP - Full Review - Page 3

post #31 of 498

Here's my take:

Things like packaging, cosmetics and amount of tailoring have virtually no importance to me. If it sounds good and I can find and play my files, I'm happybigsmile_face.gif. That and lack of bulk for portability makes the Rocoo a winner for me.

 

That said, the packaging gives a nice and safe to ship presentation of the product. Needed accessories to charge are there with a USB cable and wall adapter. However, there's no US socket adapter included but no biggie. Who doesn't already have a wall power to female USB wall wart?

 

My particular unit looks great. This is no biggie for me but I do need to note that the top portion of the C in RoCoo is faded. It will not get worse over time as it sits under the clear face covering and being a portable DAP, it's  not going to be perfect for long anyway. The display is useful and well laid out with all important info on hand with the play screen.

 

The OS takes a bit to master like most DAPs but it's easy enough to navigate and select what you want to do or listen to. Personally, I don't care for a function beep so I can turn it off. It has  some EQ presets that I briefly tried and will never do so again. This is my bias as I never use EQ. This player does not have user adjustable EQ and that's great by me.biggrin.gif It's represented as a purist type product and I'm good with that description.

 

The RoCoo comes in 2 versions. Standard and Power (-P). The P version is intended for the added power requirements of full size and portable cans so my review will center on driving this load. On hand I have Beyer DT931, Grado 125 and the notorious AKG 701 which are always stated as hard to drive. I'll just say all sounded great. Revealing, solid in the bass and rhythmic. It's got a natural smoothness while still sounding very dynamic. An autoritative control that is both relaxed and interesting at the same time. It was clearly better than using an Ipod touch via LOD with an E11. It's possible a better amp would turn the tide but at what price and inconvenience for portable use? 3x the price or more with the added bulk?

 

I tested it with .wav, FLAC and various AAC files and it was excellent with all. I really like that it does AAC as I think AAC the best compression format and the Nero encoder can do 400 CBR which takes it up a notch. I prefer CBR as it seems to have better timing for me and the RoCoo decoded this higher bit rate without issue. For test I also tried other formats and high bit rate ABR and VBR without issue.

 

What else do I need to say? It rocks. The timing, resolution an control are all exemplary. Good with quartets both classical and jazz, orchestration, Nelly, Radiohead, folk, pop etc. That it does at this size without rubber bands, extra cables and bulk is wonderful. It played the AKGs louder than I'd ever listen without distortion. I don't really know or care what the power spec is or actually measures to. In use, it has enough. As long as it controls a devise and plays loud enough, more gets you nothing but additional unneeded volume.

 

I felt it a little weighty sounding on my IEMs but on the phones it was designed for, it had no hint of that. Overall I'd say this is a complete success for it's intended purpose and my comment on IEMs isn't shared by others with the unit. They love the added warmth. I would think if I still had B2s, Jays or another lean phone, I'd agree. I do have Phonaks (gray), M1's and Grado GR10s so I have 3 different type of drivers that I drew this overall conclusion from but my personal preferences don't lean as warm as most. If I was to get one for IEMs, I would opt for the designed for same standard version but you wouldn't go wrong with a P either. More to follow.

 

Addendum:

These definitely break in. I'm very happy with stock FW at this point, IEMs included. The top has opened up just enough where stock is preferred. It's also got more texture and the mids has lost that extra thickness. Really happy with this unit. I suspect I could give it a run with an Ipod touch3/lod/amp but it would need to be an amp that cost as much as the retail Rocoo on it's own and then we run into my bulk issue. I wouldn't mind trying a Studio at some point but the Rocoo is a sweet spot for me.


Edited by goodvibes - 8/4/12 at 12:02am
post #32 of 498

I didn't think this appropriate for the main review and is why a new post.

 

The IEM conundrum. While it's a flavor thing, there's been a firmware swap thing going on here. To be clear:

 

 HISound does not warranty or recommend swapping away from from the standard RoCoo firmware which is already great for it's intended use. There is a warning of bricking the unit along and paying for return and repair.

 

I tried the firmwares from the Studio. The Dynamic version was similar to the RoCoo P but the BA, (while sounding too lean on full size phones) just had my jaw drop on my IEMs. It had a few DB less gain and an open textural presentation that was just fantastic for the purpose. The bass is still full and extended but without the extra weight. Now. I can't recommend you try this as bricking is a very bad thing but if you plan on using these for IEMs, I recommend you opt for the standard version. It will have a firmware designed for the purpose. The idea that anything can be perfect for everything is a misnomer. While I'm sure these all measure flat, HiSound is on to something. Whether it be more current for driving the additional mass of cans or some other manipulation of parameters. they seem to be getting the most perfrmance for their intended purpose.

 

All that said, I want to reiterate that others genuinely prefer the standard warmer sound of the stock firmware with their IEMs but it's my review, LOL. I've also found that on the Studio V, which has supported firmware options, some have called the BA firmware warmer while others that have found it leaner as I do so take it all with a grain and be assured that whatever HiSound you buy, you'll be getting outstanding audio performance.

 

To add, the Live buds are sonically all you could hope for in a bud but the fit leaves some to be desired. I'm going to find some rubber washers that are the same diameter as the perimeter and stick them under the foam. I suspect it will be an easy way to make them much more accomidating and to get that great sound consistantly.

 

Addendum: I'm now rather convinced that HiSound has a clue about voicing.

These definitely break in. I'm very happy with stock FW at this point, IEMs included. The top has opened up just enough where stock is preferred. It's also got more texture and the mids has lost that extra thickness.


Edited by goodvibes - 1/8/12 at 3:06am
post #33 of 498

Nice to know that we can use the firmware from the Studio with the Rocoo :)

 

I want to know if the Rocoo is much better than a T51 ! I dont want to be disapointed, the Teclast have already a very nice sound for me, and the Studio is more expensive and thick !

post #34 of 498

Remember that HiSound says it's actually a no go. DAPs don't necessarily brick immediately from mistakes. It can just take the right circumstances to occur. Depending on your needs I'd get the appropriate unit or wait for a compare of that model.

post #35 of 498

Yes I will wait little more, but not too much, the Rocoo looks very good any way :)
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by goodvibes View Post

Remember that HiSound says it's actually a no go. DAPs don't necessarily brick immediately from mistakes. It can just take the right circumstances to occur. Depending on your needs I'd get the appropriate unit or wait for a compare of that model.



 

post #36 of 498

I'm also baffled between the t51 and this !

post #37 of 498

I had the T51/S:Flo2. For SQ, I preferred them over any hisoundaudio dap (owned original AMP3 Pro v1, RoCoo-C, Studio-I, and now the RoCoo-P).  The problems I had with former is buggy UI and I personally don't like touch screens which is a shame because my recently sold Samsung Galaxy S /w Voodoo controls sounded better over the hisoundaudio daps.  If the T51/S:Flo2 or the Galaxy sound could be ported into the RoCoo/Studio chassis and even keep the same UI, it would be a near perfect dap for me.

post #38 of 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphaphoenix View Post

I had the T51/S:Flo2. For SQ, I preferred them over any hisoundaudio dap (owned original AMP3 Pro v1, RoCoo-C, Studio-I, and now the RoCoo-P).  The problems I had with former is buggy UI and I personally don't like touch screens which is a shame because my recently sold Samsung Galaxy S /w Voodoo controls sounded better over the hisoundaudio daps.  If the T51/S:Flo2 or the Galaxy sound could be ported into the RoCoo/Studio chassis and even keep the same UI, it would be a near perfect dap for me.



Guess everyone has different taste. I just found the T51 to sound so artificial and digital. Just not how music is made to sound. Maybe for music like trance its a good DAP but in general just didn't like the fake sound. The 601 walks all over the Sflo2 IMO. I even found more detail in the 601 as it drew me into the music while the T51 just annoyed me. Its treble overshadows its mid range and its bass while very nice, doesn't have the impact and texture that I expect. And don't get me started on the reliability issues (2 defective units in a row... they don't deserve my business). All I can say from my experience with this product, stay clear or have a back up DAP as this one will be in for warranty support for months at a time lol...


Edited by lee730 - 12/29/11 at 9:59pm
post #39 of 498

I would be happy as well if the HM601/602 sound was ported in the same chassis and keep the same UI as the RoCoo/Studio.

post #40 of 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphaphoenix View Post

I would be happy as well if the HM601/602 sound was ported in the same chassis and keep the same UI as the RoCoo/Studio.



If they manage to fix the bugs in the Rockbox firmware the 601/602/603/801 will dominate the audiophile market. Its been ported but has bugs. If they can fix this, and if Dr. Fang is intelligent, he will support rockbox in making a stable version to run on his units. As this will generate him a lot more money as people won't be turned off from the UI, which is the only fault in the Hifiman (other than battery life). Hope you are hearing this Mr. Fang.

post #41 of 498

So finally someone with both the t51 and the rocoo p speaks out, so t51 for me then.

post #42 of 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by noobass456 View Post

So finally someone with both the t51 and the rocoo p speaks out, so t51 for me then.


Keep in mind now its subjective. While Alphaphoenix may prefer the T51, others prefer the Rocoo P. I haven't heard the Rocoo P so I wouldn't know. I should be receiving my Studio V and can only compare to the T51 by memory. But I do own a Hifiman 601 and will compare it to that. I found the 601 superior to the T51 and I owned them both at the same time doing, side by side comparisons. The hifiman is just better IMO.


Edited by lee730 - 12/30/11 at 9:16am
post #43 of 498

Indeed.  Key word is "subjective".  Try it, if you don't like it, sell it and move on.

post #44 of 498

Good advice.

 

I wanted to add that I may have a handle on why there is debate on FW sound. I had lent out my GR10s and just got them back. The BA was too upper middy and top lean on them. Now the GR10 behaves a lot like a dynamic with diaaphram suspended much like a dynamic. I clearly preferred the stock firmware here. Not listening back and forth between the firmwares on different phones again I think I know why some find the BA warm. It character is one of being less damped in the bass so how that manifests itself will vary by transducer. The top is more apparent but that may be good or bad depending on device but if the bass is less controlled the top may not be the significant difference on a given phone. BA are known for an overdamped sound. This may be their way of leveling the playing field. Why the top is different, I haven't a clue but it may just be part of whatever overall parameter was changed.


Edited by goodvibes - 12/30/11 at 11:35pm
post #45 of 498
t51 seems to be out of stock at houseofdap, cant add to cart. ownta selling blue screens t51, wont want to take any chances. Anyone knows whether the rocoo p will go well with tf10?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › RoCoo P DAP - Full Review