stozzer123
Aka: whodiss, whodisss, whodatt
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2010
- Posts
- 974
- Likes
- 48
thanks clieos, sounds bang on to what im hearing with the c3, also your right no 24bit on flac but yes on wav. Power slightly less than clip's.
HiSound use Sigmatel SoC, likely either SMTP3770 or 3780 (same SoC has been used in lower end Sony and Fuze+). It doesn't support external DAC. On the other hand, C3 uses (probably) a RockChip SoC, which does support external DAC (as well as having internal DAC section). By SoC alone, RockChip really isn't that much better than Sigmatel. While the PCM1770 (a DAC, not a SoC) might be a better DAC than that inside SMTP series, the problem is. it is still a relatively lower end DAC. Given RockChip has a history of poor support on 24bit stuff, I have a feeling C3 might be limited to 16bit only. Another issue is PCM1770's relatively low output power, meaning ti will have a hard time on demanding load. Since the headphone section has been integrated into the DAC, there isn't much ColorFly can do either. My suspicious is, ColorFly picks this particular DAC to save cost - just a single chip and you save up more than half the DAC and amp section. On the other hand, SMTP does support line-out on the chip, and that's probably what HiSound feeds to the external amp section - and good reason why HiSound DAP generally seems much more powerful than DAP of same size.
Basically, by only looking at the design, both have their own compromises. HiSound opts for an easy-to-use SoC with integrated DAC, then put more effort on the amp section; while ColorFly picks an SoC that does support external DAC, but choose to use an all-in-one DAC+amp chip with relatively low power. These reflect in the design philosophy difference of the two companies: HiSound tends to tailor their DAP for the audiophile crowd while C3, as I know, is closer to a consumer level product in the ColorFly line-up.
As for the 'Rocco A' story - no, the market didn't get filled up by copycat. The internal design of RoCoo-A is very different from other look-alike players such as Gumstick and C30. That's a long story behinds it and I really don't want to go into it right now.
Anyway, rest assure X3 will use neither Sigmatel nor Rockchip as SoC.
Sometimes i think you read into posts far to much qusp. Sorry for not putting "almost" infront of my 50%. The following "and has never been" was not to quote you merley a statment of fact, im sure people were capable of reading the post before mine and seeing your exact wording. Purley speculative to at the time you posted where the vote stood. Assuming 35 people we will say closest to 50% while not over would in fact be 17 votes for transport, thats 48.5% take away my vote and place it in the other category the resultnant figure is: 54.3% all in one, 45.7% transport. Thus giving a difference of 8% wich is far from a "almost 50/50 split".
I wouldnt really even point this out bar your comment " wow, can so many people have such bad reading skills? "
I had stated earlier in the thread that my vote was misrepresented, so by your standard it should have been factored.
Only having a bit of semantics fun here btw
From a company as large and capable as Fiio, sky is the limit. It will likely be as good as it can while meeting their marketing needs for a viable commercial niche. ei: very unlikely to be just a transport.
Actually I would think ColorFly should have been the one to do it. They are already a fairly established graphic card OEM (also sell under their own brand) before their boss decided to go into the audio market, so they already have most of the tech, tools and people with the necessary skill in place to get the job done, probably a much more flexible R&D budget as well, and commercial failure won't put the company into too much of a bad position.
the vendor name would be Colorful as opposed to colorfly
the vendor name would be Colorful as opposed to colorfly
No we are not, Colorful are the company that make Colorfly and they have been in the graphics game for some time before they even came near to making players.
FYI the Colorfly c4 used to be referred to as the Colorful Colorfly c4
http://en.colorful.cn/Product/Vga.aspx
http://www.colorful-europe.de/europe/news-and-innovation/colorfly.html
Well I never had issues with them. There new Studio V and Rocoo BA are excellent players and IMO superior to the Sflo2. Side by side I found my Hifiman 601 superior to the Sflo2. Then when I got the Studio V I found that to be a significant upgrade over the Hifiman and then sold the 601. I think you are putting way too much merit regarding specs. What matters in the end is the sound quality.
The Sflo2 had somewhat decent parts but the implementation was ****ty and that lowered it potential sound quality. Even ClieOS considers the Rocoo P on par sound quality wise with the Sflo2. The Rocoo P is hisounds lowest offering. The Rocoo BA and Studio V are noticeably better sounding. Just going from memory alone the Studio V is a significant upgrade over the Sflo2 keeping pure sound quality in mind. Plus the build quality and UI are noticeably better. I had 2 Sflo2s come to my house defective in a row. That speaks loads on how crappy Teclasts quality control is. They were obviously discontinued for a reason. Even the later models had different parts in them that affected sound quality and caused distortion.
As for the 'Rocco A' story - no, the market didn't get filled up by copycat. The internal design of RoCoo-A is very different from other look-alike players such as Gumstick and C30. That's a long story behinds it and I really don't want to go into it right now.