Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › The New iRiver AK100: A High-End DAP
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The New iRiver AK100: A High-End DAP - Page 128

post #1906 of 8671
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrumpyOldMan View Post

Regarding the "Format Unsupported" message, got those a couple of times, but mostly after playing around files, playlists etc. so the message is a bit misleading in some cases since it seems to be more about an out-of-sync database vs. what's on the drive(s). Be aware that if you use two cards and accidentally swap slots, that's enough to throw things off...

 

I would strongly suggest to erase the two database files (something.db3 & AlbumArt.dat) in the System folder (via computer), then do a fresh Library Scan, then try again. If the error persists after that, then indeed there might be an issue with the (FLAC) file(s) specifically.

The "Format Unsupported" and "File not Found" messages sometimes pop for me if I leave the player idle and it automatically powers down.  When I get the message, I manually shut down the player and turn it back on, and this resolves the issue.  Hopefully, a future firmware update can fix this.

post #1907 of 8671

AK100 with To Go! 334 just sounds good but not perfect.

Can't find where the imperfection is.

When TG334 is paired with my Ipod Classic, it sounds much darker, and lack of details also.

When TG334 paired with my AK100, it sounds more natural and neutral, treble brighter and bass deeper.

But i still think there is something wrong in AK100, 334, or the combination of them. 

Maybe i really should get RWAK100.

post #1908 of 8671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alias Gu View Post

AK100 with To Go! 334 just sounds good but not perfect.

Can't find where the imperfection is.

When TG334 is paired with my Ipod Classic, it sounds much darker, and lack of details also.

When TG334 paired with my AK100, it sounds more natural and neutral, treble brighter and bass deeper.

But i still think there is something wrong in AK100, 334, or the combination of them. 

Maybe i really should get RWAK100.

 

At least from my experience, it was in the upper bass/low mids that was somewhat thin. Also lacked the 3D imaging presentation I was used to in the TG!334.

 

RWAK100 with the TG!334 sounded more robust.

post #1909 of 8671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naras View Post

Be careful with HDTracks, I bought a bunch of albums over there only to find out later that the quality is misrepresented for many selections.  I had mixed results with my initial purchases.  If you haven't already, check out the thread at computeraudiophile in which people discuss the various options.  Everything I bought after discovering that thread has been top notch and sounds fantastic on the AK. 

I would agree. I got a refund on some. I found out they were being upsampled. They have been called out on this before and are suppose to be using only true high res now but who knows.

post #1910 of 8671

RWAK100 has a longer battery?

It seems in RWA's official website they post 20 hours battery life for MP3.

Now i only play FLAC or WAV, but far less than 20 hours, even not more than 10 hours.

post #1911 of 8671
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post


Jwm I think its not really the Sabre chip that give you that sound you speak of. More so the amp section with the Op Amp they chose. I wouldn't be surprised if indeed it is Op Amp 627 used in the DX100. I swear it sounds quite similar to my UHA6 MKII with that very same Op Amp. Using the DX100 via its LO through my Tralucent T1 amp gave me the sound that I really would desire from a DAP. If I could get that sound in a portable package I'd be extremely happy as well.

 

But I agree with you that the unit definitely has improved for the better. Wait til you get to 80+ hours. I think you're gonna really like it then.

 

What is strange is I thought the unit would only last for 5 hours at max volume? I put it at 75 with a 75 ohm impedance adapter and left it that way for about 8 hours I think. The battery was barely drained at all when I came back to check it.....

 

I don't think so since we know HDP-R10 uses OP627 whereas DX100 doesn't advertise it. What's more that supports that proposition is that HDP-R10 does sound somewhat different from the DX100 - so unless a voltage drop from 8.4 -> 4.2V is making the HDP-R10 sound more warm/full, I'm more inclined to think it's the OpAmp difference. Whether the HDP-R10 is worth the cost difference over the DX100, is a different matter.

post #1912 of 8671
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnakChan View Post

 

I don't think so since we know HDP-R10 uses OP627 whereas DX100 doesn't advertise it. What's more that supports that proposition is that HDP-R10 does sound somewhat different from the DX100 - so unless a voltage drop from 8.4 -> 4.2V is making the HDP-R10 sound more warm/full, I'm more inclined to think it's the OpAmp difference. Whether the HDP-R10 is worth the cost difference over the DX100, is a different matter.


Power is everything AnacChan lol. You can never have enough clean power. Having a good dedicated PSU from the Triad has made a big difference IMO in the amps overall performance. They are not comparable on batteries at all lol. Then again why would they scrape off the Op Amp code and then leave it on the other device? I wouldn't be surprised if indeed it is the same Op Amp or from the same family. It really does remind me of 627 having a pair of 627AP in the UHA6 MKII as well. Just you are paying for an item that is marketed in Japan which always means you pay more :).


Edited by lee730 - 1/15/13 at 8:12pm
post #1913 of 8671
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post


Power is everything AnacChan lol. You can never have enough clean power. Having a good dedicated PSU fro the Triad has made a big difference IMO in the amps overall performance. They are not comparable on batteries at all lol. Then again why would they scrape off the Op Amp code and then leave it on the other device. I wouldn't be surprised if indeed it is the same Op Amp or from the same family. It really does remind me of 627 having one on the UHA6 MKII as well.

 

Clean power doesn't equate more power. I agree that clean power can improve sound quality. But for the DX100 vs HDP-R10 case of 8.4V down to 4.2V and the HDP-R10 sounding better because of it is nonsensical. Besides, circuit-wise the power is transformed/regulated. Otherwise you can't simply 1/2 the power and still expect it to operate.

 

 

It makes more sense the HDP-R10 sounding different from the DX100 because OpAmp difference. The OP627 is a well known OpAmp and a maker were to put that into their device, it's makes more sense to advertise it (like the HDP-R10) than to scrap and hide it.

post #1914 of 8671
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnakChan View Post

 

Clean power doesn't equate more power. I agree that clean power can improve sound quality. But for the DX100 vs HDP-R10 case of 8.4V down to 4.2V and the HDP-R10 sounding better because of it is nonsensical. Besides, circuit-wise the power is transformed/regulated. Otherwise you can't simply 1/2 the power and still expect it to operate.

 

 

It makes more sense the HDP-R10 sounding different from the DX100 because OpAmp difference. The OP627 is a well known OpAmp and a maker were to put that into their device, it's makes more sense to advertise it (like the HDP-R10) than to scrap and hide it.


Well still AnakChan it doesn't make sense to do that for one and hide the other. Pretty much they are very similar devices other than the OP Amp (if indeed they are different in this respects). Do you see the point I'm getting at here? Because when I plugged in the unit to my UHA6 MKII with Op Amp 627 AP to the LO they pretty much sounded very similar to me in comparison to the HO. Thus why I didn't use that OP Amp as I could just use the HO if that was the case. It would be interesting if someone could figure out what that mysterious OP Amp is though :). But keep in mind how ibasso edited the firmwares also played a major role on the sound quality. Even hisound is known for this. So there may be more to it than meets the eye.


Edited by lee730 - 1/15/13 at 8:26pm
post #1915 of 8671
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post


Well still AnakChan it doesn't make sense to do that for one and hide the other. Pretty much they are very similar devices other than the OP Amp (if indeed they are different in this respects). Do you see the point I'm getting at here? Because when I plugged in the unit to my UHA6 MKII with Op Amp 627 AP to the LO they pretty much sounded very similar to me in comparison to the HO. Thus why I didn't use that OP Amp as I could just use the HO if that was the case. It would be interesting if someone could figure out what that mysterious OP Amp is though :). But keep in mind how ibasso edited the firmwares also played a major role on the sound quality. Even hisound is known for this. So there may be more to it than meets the eye.

 

Actually I've talked to some manufacturers about this and the reasoning that was presented to me was this...quite often the OpAmps are scratched off cos they don't want you to know what components they're using and how much they cost, redirecting the focus on the DAC instead (if it's as DAC/Amp or a DAP).

 

As such when a maker does put a well known OpAmp, they do advertise it widely.

 

It may be the makers blowing smoke up my @ss but so far it's made sense :-

 

iBasso DX100 advertises the ES9018 more openly than it does with OpAmp (and is scratched off)

Fostex HP-P1 advertises it's AKM AK4480 but says nothing about it's OpAmp (and is scratched off)

TTVJ Apex Glacier advertises its Cirrus Logic DAC but says nothing about it's OpAmp (dunno if it's scratched off though)

iRiver AK100 advertises it's Wolfson WM8740 but says nothing about it's OpAmp (and is painted over)

iBasso HDP-R10 advertises it's ES9018 and the OP627 openly

VentureCraft Go-DAP 4.0/X advertises its AKM AK4353 and offers various OpAmp upgrades starting with with the Burr Brown OP2134 as it's base

post #1916 of 8671
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnakChan View Post

 

Actually I've talked to some manufacturers about this and the reasoning that was presented to me was this...quite often the OpAmps are scratched off cos they don't want you to know what components they're using and how much they cost, redirecting the focus on the DAC instead (if it's as DAC/Amp or a DAP).

 

As such when a maker does put a well known OpAmp, they do advertise it widely.

 

It may be the makers blowing smoke up my @ss but so far it's made sense :-

 

iBasso DX100 advertises the ES9018 more openly than it does with OpAmp (and is scratched off)

Fostex HP-P1 advertises it's AKM AK4480 but says nothing about it's OpAmp (and is scratched off)

TTVJ Apex Glacier advertises its Cirrus Logic DAC but says nothing about it's OpAmp (dunno if it's scratched off though)

iRiver AK100 advertises it's Wolfson WM8740 but says nothing about it's OpAmp (and is painted over)

iBasso HDP-R10 advertises it's ES9018 and the OP627 openly

VentureCraft Go-DAP 4.0/X advertises its AKM AK4353 and offers various OpAmp upgrades starting with with the Burr Brown OP2134 as it's base


I guess you have a point lol. Then again you'd think when they buy this stuff in the amounts they do it would amount to a cheaper price overall from what we pay. We pay retail, they pay wholesale/dealer price.... Still if they put the Op Amp that is used in the T1 amp into the DX100 & if it had similar results in sound through the HO, they'd have a winner on their hands, hands down... That combo I could call my reference sound in a DAP. Just could not find any fault with it at all.... Besides the bulk and battery life/UI lol. But I do know it's more than just the OP Amp used as well. It's the design of the overall circuit board for the amp/player as a whole (implementation)...


Edited by lee730 - 1/15/13 at 8:53pm
post #1917 of 8671
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post


I guess you have a point lol. Then again you'd think when they buy this stuff in the amounts they do it would amount to a cheaper price overall from what we pay. We pay retail, they pay wholesale.... Still if they put that Op Amp that is in the T1 amp into the DX100. If it had the same results or similar to using the T1 amp itself. They'd have a big winner on their hands hands down. That combo I could call my reference sound in a DAP. Just could not find any fault with it at all.... Besides the bulk and battery life/UI lol. But I do know its more than just the OP Amp used as well. Its the design of the overall circuit board for the amp...

 

Oh it is cheaper bought in bulk. This can be easily checked just by going to mouser. But then when you do check (which naturally I've done it myself) you'd see a difference in say $7 OpAmps in quantities of 1000 vs $2 OpAmps in the same quantity. For the makers, that $5 makes a difference.

 

Anyhow, as the AK100 has clearly demonstrated, it may not matter what DAC and or OpAmp you put in there, if the circuitry around it is not optimal, then it's not worth advertising.

 

I'm giving the AK100 too little credit. But so far my faith has been in the RWAK100 instead.

 

Anyhow, what I've mentioned has been based on talks to some makers (whilst others are simply not prepared to talk about it), and by visual of internals. Admittedly I've not done so much in terms of listening 'cos I feel that's somewhat not as accurate. But having said that using all 3 methods to back each other up to determine the real story is relevant.

post #1918 of 8671
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnakChan View Post

 

Oh it is cheaper bought in bulk. This can be easily checked just by going to mouser. But then when you do check (which naturally I've done it myself) you'd see a difference in say $7 OpAmps in quantities of 1000 vs $2 OpAmps in the same quantity. For the makers, that $5 makes a difference.

 

Anyhow, as the AK100 has clearly demonstrated, it may not matter what DAC and or OpAmp you put in there, if the circuitry around it is not optimal, then it's not worth advertising.

 

I'm giving the AK100 too little credit. But so far my faith has been in the RWAK100 instead.

 

Anyhow, what I've mentioned has been based on talks to some makers (whilst others are simply not prepared to talk about it), and by visual of internals. Admittedly I've not done so much in terms of listening 'cos I feel that's somewhat not as accurate. But having said that using all 3 methods to back each other up to determine the real story is relevant.

 

lol the unit is indeed getting better. I was in a way hoping to want to sell it yet at the same time I got the devil on my left shoulder saying "you know you want to keep it!" ;).

post #1919 of 8671

Does anyone know the AK100s output power mW rating? I can't seem to find it anywhere. I'm sure its quite high. At least 50 mW I'd think.
 

post #1920 of 8671
I'm pissed because Fang was at the convention center at CES with the 901. I missed hearing it, oh well now he says March. What do you think 2014? I'm waiting for Nagra to come out with a player, now that would be special.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › The New iRiver AK100: A High-End DAP