1.1.7 is the best sounding by far. Open, airy, good bass and on and on. IMO

Jamato and Saraquie
 
keep in mind that you are refering to both the firmware and app update (which is part of the update.img file made available by iBasso). I have since been able to take the app by itself and mod one thing (which did not impact the inital file cut-off) and it can be installed in any f/w version of the DX100. This requires rooting and delete of the OEM music player application.
 
Sorensiim or lee
 
did the sound change at all with the 1.2.3 player on 1.1.7? Ignore the initial cut off for now
 
If it didn't, then that is good as it means the sound signature was changed in the firmware not the app. If it did change then that is definetly an EQ setting baseline that was changed.
 
Speaking off, did the gapless setting change or no? Never heard confirmation if it did or didn't

Hello,

Small problem with my DX100.

I finally covers CooL ( Directly in my FLAC)

I can play songs in CD's order if I go through directory.

But if I go through Albums, track appears well in CD's order, but reading isn't in CD's order .

I have checked if I wasn't in shuffle mode.

Do you have any idea how to solve my problem ?

Thanks in advance

Gandalf

PS : Good Player with my HD800 Now i need a better AMP for my desk
PS 2 : I'm with 1.2.3 FirmWare

btw
 
someone mentioned the EqData
 
[size=x-small][size=x-small]/data/data/particle.media/databases/EqData[/size][/size]
 
[size=x-small][size=x-small]that is the file that stores the EQ information. It is created during the inital bootup and modified when ther EQ settings are adjusted.[/size][/size]
 
[size=x-small][size=x-small]will need to have root access to get to it. It is a DB file based on SqLiteDataBase[/size][/size]

Quote:

saraguie said:

If you make the sound of the 1.2.3 as good as 1.1.7, then I think the other updates to 1.2.3 (like seeing the album pix) make the later release more desirable.

Click to expand...

I tend to concur
 
The main desirable thing about 1.2.3 over 1.1.7 is the artwork showing .
 
Thanks figgie
 
Sounds like Ibasso should be sending you a pay cheque

Quote:

rozeqloud said:

I tend to concur
 
The main desirable thing about 1.2.3 over 1.1.7 is the artwork showing .
 
Thanks figgie
 
Sounds like Ibasso should be sending you a pay cheque

Click to expand...

I would like 2 DX100. That way I can run some custom ROM (read DSP Clk changes) on one and then an app development unit.
 
btw to address some issues that were raised here.

It is not all development house issue. It also has to do with the QA testing done after they recieve product.
 
This is an example.
 
For instance, when we asked for a blu-ray player at best buy, we did not ask for Just a blu-ray player.

We asked for a Blu-ray player that had X amount of built in memory, a usb port, wi-fi etc.
 
Those where the baselines, once we recieved the prototype blu-ray for QA testing, then we made sure that it met OUR minimum specs,
 
For instance on the Wi-Fi, it had to reach out to 250 feet from the source in a high wi-fi useage environment (think channels and bands).
The blu-ray player HAD to read files of the USB thumb drives. mp3, jpg etc.
The files had to show in Alphabetical order, not the order copied onto the USB thumb drive.
The blu-ray player HAD to support normal english charachters along with Chinese (Cantonese, Mandarin), Japanese, and Slavik for file support.
the blu-ray player had to had power on response of x (where X was in seconds).
The blu-ray player had to have no typos on the UI.
The blu-ray player had to have no development WAP when shipping.
The Blu-ray player must have a initial setup for the user once unboxed.
etc
 
there were a total of about 700 tests we did on ONE blu-ray player. Some where show stoppers (read hard freezes etc) others where no ship until fixed (ALL typos) and others where considered important but fixed at a later date (read duplicate IP address when IP address is entered manually).
 
But if the items tested failed, we would go back to the dev house and basically ride them until fixed. Literally for one tiny product. it would take about 6 months of testing to come out with a good product.
 
In this instance, it is a 2 part failure, one, iBasso for not cleary stating what they wanted out of the DX100 and then not testing very thoroughly and 2. for RockChip for not having a good inhouse development team with lackluster revision control.
 
the reason for the update.img file?   so they do not have to publish the music player on the google play store.

ok
 
I think I found the file cut
 
 
[size=x-small][size=x-small]int[/size][/size][size=x-small] i = 10 * (paramString.charAt(0) - [/size][size=x-small][size=x-small]'0'[/size][/size][size=x-small]) + (paramString.charAt(1) - [/size][size=x-small][size=x-small]'0'[/size][/size][size=x-small]);[/size]
 
[size=x-small][size=x-small]int[/size][/size][size=x-small] j = 10 * (paramString.charAt(3) - [/size][size=x-small][size=x-small]'0'[/size][/size][size=x-small]) + (paramString.charAt(4) - [/size][size=x-small][size=x-small]'0'[/size][/size][size=x-small]);[/size]
 
[size=x-small][size=x-small]int[/size][/size][size=x-small] k = 10 * (paramString.charAt(6) - [/size][size=x-small][size=x-small]'0'[/size][/size][size=x-small]) + (paramString.charAt(7) - [/size][size=x-small][size=x-small]'0'[/size][/size][size=x-small]);[/size]
 
[size=x-small][size=x-small]return[/size][/size][size=x-small] 1000 * (i * 60) + j * 1000 + k * 10;[/size]
 
[size=x-small]without getting into the paramSting.charAt(x) thing. those 0 do NOTHING. so why even put them there.[/size]
 
[size=x-small]if they would do as an example[/size]
 
[size=x-small](paramString.charAt(0)) + [size=x-small](paramString.charAt(1)) it is the SAME thing. This assumes that this is the logic flow they want. I think they probably wanted[/size][/size]
 
[size=x-small][size=x-small][size=x-small]int i = 10 * ((paramString.charAt(0)) + (paramString.charAt(1))[/size] ) which would change the value of i as instead of it being 10* total value of charAt(0) it is the 10 multiplied by the total of charAt(0) + charAt(1)[/size][/size]
 
[size=x-small][size=x-small]now where I am thinking the file cut takes place is that last line.[/size][/size]
 
[size=x-small][size=x-small]1000 is usually the milliseconds * the total of int i multiplied by 60 + the total of int j multiplied by 1000[/size][/size]
 
[size=x-small][size=x-small]i don't see any division happening so will have to do a compare of 1.1.7 and see if I am correct.[/size][/size]

Quote:

figgie said:

before I get neck deep in the coding.
 
I keep seeing like the preffered player is the one in 1.1.7 over 1.2.3?
 
is this correct? I have been focused on 1.2.3 so far but can go tro 1.1.7.
 
with that said,
 
was there anything that 1.1.6 did that 1.1.7 broke?

Click to expand...

Yes figgie go for 1.1.7. I don't give a rats a%% about 1.2.3. The sound is crap on their latest firmware and is a disgrace to what the unit is truly capable of.

Quote:

figgie said:

Jamato and Saraquie
 
keep in mind that you are refering to both the firmware and app update (which is part of the update.img file made available by iBasso). I have since been able to take the app by itself and mod one thing (which did not impact the inital file cut-off) and it can be installed in any f/w version of the DX100. This requires rooting and delete of the OEM music player application.
 
Sorensiim or lee
 
did the sound change at all with the 1.2.3 player on 1.1.7? Ignore the initial cut off for now
 
If it didn't, then that is good as it means the sound signature was changed in the firmware not the app. If it did change then that is definetly an EQ setting baseline that was changed.
 
Speaking off, did the gapless setting change or no? Never heard confirmation if it did or didn't

Click to expand...

The sound didn't seem to change. At least not to my ears and not for the worse, that's for sure . Doesn't seem like anything on gapless has changed. The fade in is still there at the beginning of each track when you manually change tracks. So back to the drawing board . Would also be wonderful to get album art to show up on 1.1.7 as it does on 1.2.3. Thanks figgie!

Oupss i think i go installed this old version .....
 
I didn't read this Topic often.. i go check if my pb it's resolve with ths 1.1.7

Quote:

lee730 said:

Yes figgie go for 1.1.7. I don't give a rats a%% about 1.2.3. The sound is crap on their latest firmware and is a disgrace to what the unit is truly capable of.

Click to expand...

yes
 
but the version you and sorensiim have is 1.2.3 running on 1.1.7 f/w hence why i asked if it does in fact sound different than the stock 1.1.7 OEM player on 1.1.7 f/w.

Quote:

rozeqloud said:

I tend to concur
 
The main desirable thing about 1.2.3 over 1.1.7 is the artwork showing .
 
Thanks figgie
 
Sounds like Ibasso should be sending you a pay cheque

Click to expand...

Problem is Rozeqloud is the album art worth sacrificing the entire point of purchasing this player (for sound quality)? Because 1.2.3 is a big compromise in sound for me. I'd have sold the device already if it really sounded that bad. Even the previous firmwares were leaving me underwhelmed until 1.1.7 hit.

Quote:

figgie said:

yes
 
but the version you and sorensiim have is 1.2.3 running on 1.1.7 f/w hence why i asked if it does in fact sound different than the stock 1.1.7 OEM player on 1.1.7 f/w.

Click to expand...

I think you may be right on the changing of the Sabre DAC frequency settings affecting sound between 1.1.7 and 1.2.3. If anything the key to solving this may be comparing both firmwares .

192GB on a DX100.  I wanted to get my entire library on the DX100 WITHOUT using an OTG cable.  Here's how I did it.
 
You take one of these:
 

 
Got it here for $20 + shipping: http://www.hwtools.net/extenderboard/KZ-B19.html
 
IMPORTANT UPDATE (10/31/12): - the cable on the above adapter is very, very fragile!  I moved the location where I had it attached, and at the point where the cable attaches to the SD Card side, it tore, disconnecting 2 of the lines.  Bummer.
 
Found this one instead, $29 + shipping (and as a bonus for those in the US, the company is in California, and it ships from CA):http://www.ameri-rack.com/APA-TFC1m.html.  Another benefit is that it's shorter and can mount to the back of the DX100.  The first one was too long - it extended past the DX100.
 

 
UPDATE (11/1/12) - the new cable is definitely more sturdy than the old one.  It's also just the right length to mount to the back of the DX100, so the SDXC card is protected between the DX100 and the attached amp.  I now have a Ray Samuels SR-71A amp instead of the ALO The Continental v2.  It's slightly smaller than the ALO model, so I attached the amp to the DX100 with double sided heavy duty Velco tape.  It holds the amp to the DX100 securely plus it gives just the right amount of clearance between the two to protect the SDXC card.  I've attached a few new pics at the end of this post.
 
Add one of these (formatted to FAT32, the same way as with a microSDXC):
 

 
Got mine here for $120 + shipping: http://www.jr.com/kingston/pe/KGS_SDX10V128GB/
 
UPDATE:  (11/4/12): Amazon US has Transcend 128GB SDXC Class 10 for $106! (http://www.amazon.com/Transcend-SDXC-Flash-Memory-TS128GSDXC10E/dp/B00966J1WC/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1352054972&sr=8-7&keywords=128gb+sdxc).
 
The result is 64GB internal + 128GB SDXC = 192GB (actually, slightly less after formatting).  I tried this approach because using the OTG cable and a USB flash drive ate up the battery too fast.  The SDXC card is (according to the specs) electrically the same as the microSDXC card.  Hence, I assumed no extra hit on the battery.
 
UPDATE (11/4/12): After extensive testing I can confirm that the SDXC card with the adapter has the same battery consumption as the microSDXC.
 
Old setup (with original, fragile adapter + The Continental):
 

 

 

 
I've got it mounted to the amp with velcro.  Unfortunately, the shortest adapter I could find (the 65mm one pictured above) is just slightly too long to mount to the back of the DX100 - the ribbon cable between the microSDXC slot and the SDXC adapter is not snug, and I didn't want it loose.  However, since I keep my DX100 strapped to my ALO Continental V2 amp all the time anyway, I just mounted it as shown.
 
So far, seems to work exactly the same as if I had a 128GB microSDXC card in the slot.  I imagine it will probably be a year or so before 128GB microSDXC cards are available and at a reasonable price, so this is my interim setup.  It takes a little while on the first boot to read everything on the SDXC card and update it's database.  But, after the first time the performance is the same as with a 64GB microSDXC card.
 
Yep, it looks a bit goofy, but now I have 192GB with no extra battery hit!  Woo hoo!!
 
New setup (with new adapter + RSA SR-71A):
 

Yes, that's just packing tape affixing the cable to the back of the DX100.
 

 

 

 

The SDXC card is the small black thing in the center between the DX100 and the amp. The only downside to this new cable Vs the original one is that the SDXC card in this one does not spring load - it just pushes in.  So, it's a bit more challenging to insert and remove it because of the way I have it mounted between the DX100 and the amp.
 

Better pic of the card between the two pieces of double-sided velco tape.
 

nice one sir... does it have to be gold plated?