The New iRiver AK100: A High-End DAP - Page 196

Quote:

Originally Posted by uelover 

 

Thanks for the verification~

 

 

 

I believe that all the data contained within the ALAC/FLAC/WAV/AIFF are the exactly same. However, there are times whereby the sound is different as a result of the playback software (could be the codec or the decoding process). Processor speed, ram and hard drive spinning rate are of modern day's standard so the effect is not a result of the hardware latency.

 

I am not sure how the software in the AK100 treats Apple file format (ALAC/AIFF) as opposed to the Windows file format (FLAC/WAV).

I've done only one track (Yo-Yo Ma's Cockeye's Song from Once Upon A Time In America) from SACD/DSF converted to WAV, AIFF, ALAC, and FLAC. I've found it hard to discern any differences. This test was particularly of intertest 'cos I've read that some audiophiles have claimed WAV sound better than FLAC but not to my ears with this track. I may try converting different tracks to see if I hear a difference or not.

Just curious, those of you who had the RWA mod done, how long does it take from the time RWA receives your stock AK100 & it is actually shipped back to you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnakChan 

 

I've done only one track (Yo-Yo Ma's Cockeye's Song from Once Upon A Time In America) from SACD/DSF converted to WAV, AIFF, ALAC, and FLAC. I've found it hard to discern any differences. This test was particularly of intertest 'cos I've read that some audiophiles have claimed WAV sound better than FLAC but not to my ears with this track. I may try converting different tracks to see if I hear a difference or not.

Don't bother. 

I wasted hours ABXing those formats. I am completly happy with Lame MP3 VBR 320kbs when on the move. Just enjoy the music. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by feverfive 

Just curious, those of you who had the RWA mod done, how long does it take from the time RWA receives your stock AK100 & it is actually shipped back to you?

I ordered mine directly from Vinnie at Red Wine Audio.   From the time I placed the order it was at my house within a few days. I know Vinnie is working on getting some more in stock.  In a previous post somebody stated Red Wine Audio was currently out of stock.

Joe

Quote:

Originally Posted by zenpunk 

Don't bother. 

I wasted hours ABXing those formats. I am completly happy with Lame MP3 VBR 320kbs when on the move. Just enjoy the music. 

My initial question was posted to ask if there are any difference in SQ during its playback of different file formats specifically on the AK100, not on other DAPs.

I do hear differences on certain audio playback softwares on PC but on DAPs like the iPod, Sony Walkman, and DX100, I don't hear them at all.

It is not to ask whether there exists audible difference across the various file formats in general as I shall leave that to another debate of its own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnakChan 

I've done only one track (Yo-Yo Ma's Cockeye's Song from Once Upon A Time In America) from SACD/DSF converted to WAV, AIFF, ALAC, and FLAC. I've found it hard to discern any differences. This test was particularly of intertest 'cos I've read that some audiophiles have claimed WAV sound better than FLAC but not to my ears with this track. I may try converting different tracks to see if I hear a difference or not.

That's good to know =))

I asked this about a week ago...

Can the lag that occurs when going from folder to folder be fixed by a FW update, or is it just an inherent limitation with the hardware?

Thanks if someone can answer this 

Anyone here listened to AK100 plus Miracles?

Someone told me the high impedance of AK100 with low impedance of Miracles will sound wired.

Just want to make sure if it's true.

I probably will Mod my AK100 into RWAK100.

Thanks all for responses.

Still wondering about Suyama AK100-111iS IEMs. Are they worth the money? Or Tzar350 is a smarter buy?

As for the battery - modern laptops have special controllers inside, when the battery is fully charged and they are hooked up to the electric line with AC/DC adaptor, they just work and the battery is not affected. So I was hoping AK100 is the same case. Because using it at full volume with an amp - the battery discharges faster...

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnakChan 


Actually I recently shared with another head-fi member of old iTunes 4-ripped 160kbps lossy vs current iTunes-rippled lossless ALAC. Hard pressed to hear a difference. At least to me, there was some magic going on with the old iTunes & I got to save disk space at the same time. Happy to share with others the samples if they are prepared to listen to my dodgy music.
I can't speak for the Miracles but I did test with my (then) FitEars TG!334. A very noticeable difference. The RWAK100 just feels more rich and wholesome. The mid bass filled in nicely.

As a test to ensure it really was the impedance "feature", I tried a higher impedance headphone (HD700) and although difference was still there, the two sounded somewhat more similar.

Highly recommend the RWAK100 for the average IEM.

Anakchan,  how old is the itunes you speak of?,  the one that you use to rip the 160 kbps files? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Retrias 

Anakchan,  how old is the itunes you speak of?,  the one that you use to rip the 160 kbps files? 

This is somewhat OT but here we go.

So I've been on Apple exclusively since 2001. Around 2003 I started ripping all the CDs I've had and continued ripping for the next few years as I purchased more and more CDs. The oldest rips I've got are the from iTunes 4.0.1 (and the iTunes database merely transfered over from Apple computer to Apple computer as I upgrade them). Most are 4.0.1 but I've got albums that are also v6.0.3 and newer. I  ripped all those at 160kbps.

When I got serious into audio again in the past 2 yrs, I re-ripped the same old CD with the latest iTunes (9, 10, 11) but this time lossless. What I noticed was that when comparing the new lossless to the old 4.0.1 160kbps ripped tracks, I was hard pressed finding any discernable differences. This was over multiple albums. However compared the new lossless to the v6.0.3 160kbps, the lossless naturally sounded better as it should.

But I suspect that Apple had changed the lossy encoding algorithm somewhere between iTunes 4.0.1 to 6.0.3 that made 160kbps lossy actually worse (to justify the sale of 256kbps online sales?  Don't know!).

Here's the thread I started last year  (which if interested should probably carry on the discussion there) :-

http://www.head-fi.org/t/623705/itunes-encoding-changed-over-the-years-versions

Meanwhile, if you want sample tracks of what I'm talking about, please PM me and we'll find a way for me to share samples for you listen to. You'd have to bear with my "less than popular" music preferences.

What's the best way to contact Vinnie? I tried emailing him on Friday but haven't heard back yet. Maybe he doesn't respond to work email on the weekend? (like any sane person, lol).

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisSC 

I asked this about a week ago...

 

Can the lag that occurs when going from folder to folder be fixed by a FW update, or is it just an inherent limitation with the hardware?

 

Thanks if someone can answer this 

It probably could, but it might require an increase in CPU usage for UI and less available for music.   This could have an adverse effect when playing hi-res files.  I would much rather have a lag in the UI as opposed to lags and glitches in the rendering and playing of music.  Since it is reported that they will have a fw update to add gapless support, this might make CPU and memory resources much more scarce to dedicate to reducing lag in the UI.  I don't know if anyone here can say anything for sure about this though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lerxst 

What's the best way to contact Vinnie? I tried emailing him on Friday but haven't heard back yet. Maybe he doesn't respond to work email on the weekend? (like any sane person, lol).

Correct, but you can take it to the bank he will on Monday.

Quote:

Originally Posted by uelover 

 

My initial question was posted to ask if there are any difference in SQ during its playback of different file formats specifically on the AK100, not on other DAPs.

 

I do hear differences on certain audio playback softwares on PC but on DAPs like the iPod, Sony Walkman, and DX100, I don't hear them at all.

 

It is not to ask whether there exists audible difference across the various file formats in general as I shall leave that to another debate of its own.

 

 

That's good to know =))

Obviously, compression can change the rendered SQ on any device.  For instance, compression often reduces high-frequencies.   These differences can lead to differences in the SQ of the AK as well.   I have noticed that music played in lossless formats will sound brighter on the AK ... sometimes.  This is of course explained by the absence of the compression reducing the higher frequencies.    The differences though are not always detectable and will often vary based on the type of music and the headphones used.   As an example, the SM3 headphones I have been using do not have a prominent presentation of the higher frequencies.  For that reason, it is harder to notice a difference between the higher frequencies in lossy vs lossless files.

To answer your question then, yes, there can be a detectable difference between the AK's presentation of lossless vs lossy formats.   Whether it is perceptible will depend on the headphones you are using and possibly the music itself.