Unfortunately no. The device is fragile at best.

Sure.

You’re wrong.

Ummm no… (???) I’m saying that ifi made a commitment to have a solution for v1 to operate as a decoder. To be clear, again, this is about a commitment ifi made, not about MQA being unfolded using one method or another. If @Milan79 is content, then all good.

https://www.mqa.co.uk/how-it-works The differences, as per the source.

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/ifi-zen-dac-discussion-impression.917041/page-50#post-16322075 The issue was/is that Zen DAC v1 (later models) has the SAME XMOS chipset as V2. It can technically be made to act as FULL MQA decoder, not just as a renderer, something promoted as a distinct feature...

For what its worth, you raised it a long time ago. Given that no update was provided by ifi, it started to bother me - when you raised it AGAIN, I had forgotten as well, and had responded back to you with incorrect information initially that ifi didn't correct. I'm glad you got resolution...

1) Great! Thats a bit better - hey @Mr BubbaHyde - this is what I am talking about. They don't need to defend themselves. They just need to be transparent 2) @iFi audio - thats a little ambiguous after months of the issue straggling. No one is "offended" but consumers expect commitments to be...

Had a feeling you would respond that way 1) https://www.head-fi.org/threads/ifi-zen-dac-discussion-impression.917041/post-16322075 - Read it. Go ahead. - When is SOON? When you make it up? - A commit was made with no timelines. Hence the point. 2) You act as if we don't understand agility in...

1) This is what I mean. The promise wasn't made to ME. It was made to @Milan79. (https://www.head-fi.org/threads/ifi-zen-dac-discussion-impression.917041/post-16547819) and to the rest of the community. ifi isn't tracking. 2) Why is a DAC v1 serial number required for a general commit made to...

This is an indication that there are multiple people monitoring the forums without any sense of history Reminder: the last generation of DACv1 has the same XMOS chip as the v2. It is fully capable of FULL MQA decode. (for those who explicitly want this) Those that have been keeping up are...

I’m not at all worried. Really. In behest of ifi better interests, it looks kinda sloppy to produce updates, have them be incomplete, pull them, and give no update on when or how releases will be brought back. Not to be a hard sell here, but I have not seen a single open request from ifi get...

1) I am suggesting that if there are any specific validation activities that need to be done to ensure that ifi's next driver set is deemed compliant with what Windows deems mandatory to be complaint with Windows 11, that its better the developers ensure its addressed in the next release. So far...

Sure. No sense rushing them - notably, the next round of drivers HAS to include firmware upgrade tools. Windows 11 specific support would be handy (if it isn't just slapping a sticker on the driver) and 384 KHz PCM will make it so we can leverage PCM natively to the full extent of Zen DAC v2.

Nope - I mean the 5.3 drivers for windows that were released and pulled from the downloads site. The drivers allowed for 384 KHz native PCM. Version 3.2 only allows a max 192 kHz over PCM. 5.3 was completely missing the firmware upgrade utility. (See previous posts)