A Vote About the Headphone Jack Position of Bluetooth DAC/Amps
- Thread starter FiiO
- Start date
Bottom would be my choice, but since there are only top and side, I choose top.
with competitor going out with both 2.5 and 4.4, why can't FiiO do it too? it will make the dimension larger yes, but it will be more convenient for all people. I'm new in HiFi, so I only have 2.5mm balanced cable so far, I have to buy another 4.4mm cable for my FH3 and this new BTR, the extra cost makes me suffer.
other things I hope to see in this new BTR is how the dual DAC should workout for 3.5mm too and improvement in the bluetooth quality connection.
with competitor going out with both 2.5 and 4.4, why can't FiiO do it too? it will make the dimension larger yes, but it will be more convenient for all people. I'm new in HiFi, so I only have 2.5mm balanced cable so far, I have to buy another 4.4mm cable for my FH3 and this new BTR, the extra cost makes me suffer.
other things I hope to see in this new BTR is how the dual DAC should workout for 3.5mm too and improvement in the bluetooth quality connection.
I prefer bottom to be honest
captblaze
Headphoneus Supremus
No need for 4.4mm (for me), but top or bottom jack placement or I need a different cable setup
Hanesu
1000+ Head-Fier
I know I belong to a minority, but I never understood why people hate 2,5 so much and prefer 4,4. Imo 2,5 is much more versatile than 4,4 because by using an adapter you can easily make a 3,5 or 4,4 plug out of any 2,5 plug. That is not as easy with a 4,4 plug because adapters need to be huge. Also I think it is just a rumor that 2,5 plugs break easier and it cannot be supported by statistics. But anyway buyers have chosen 4,4…maybe because bigger plugs give more “substantial” haptics to Hi-Fi fans, what they have always liked 
Last edited:
Muddy Walter
100+ Head-Fier
More power please - must be possible to generate 200mW SE @ 32Ω and could there be a SE only version, I'm sure I'm not the only one who has no intention of using balanced connections.
I'm with you. To flip that around, though: because 2.5mm makes such a good modular termination, it hardly matters what jack is on the amp. There are these really nice, ultra-low profile adapters from ddhifi that turn my 2.5mm cables into whatever I want, and it's all nice and compact.I know I am a minority, but I never understood why people hate 2,5 so much and prefer 4,4. Imo 2,5 is much more versatile than 4,4 because by using an adapter you can easily make a 3,5 or 4,4 plug out of any 2,5 plug. That is not as easy with a 4,4 plug because adapters need to be huge. Also I think it is just a rumor that 2,5 plugs break easier that could not be supported by statistics. But anyway buyers have chosesn…maybe because bigger plugs give more “substantial” haptics to Hi-Fi fans, what they like
Cessnas172
100+ Head-Fier
I had 3 2.5 end break. I can't say th same about 3.5 or 4.4I know I belong to a minority, but I never understood why people hate 2,5 so much and prefer 4,4. Imo 2,5 is much more versatile than 4,4 because by using an adapter you can easily make a 3,5 or 4,4 plug out of any 2,5 plug. That is not as easy with a 4,4 plug because adapters need to be huge. Also I think it is just a rumor that 2,5 plugs break easier and it cannot be supported by statistics. But anyway buyers have chosen 4,4…maybe because bigger plugs give more “substantial” haptics to Hi-Fi fans, what they have always liked
Hanesu
1000+ Head-Fier
Well, i actually have experience with one broken 4,4 and never broke a 2,5. But these are all individual experiences and if some of us post those things here, other people will read it and just get the impression that something breaks easier or more difficult...but it does not tell us anything about real statistics. If I remember correctly some of the AK staff have posted here that AK has researched this and could not find any evidence of 2,5 breaking easier. In addidion: What part of the construction would be the reason for breaking easier, in your opinion? Just because it is smaller?
Last edited:
I will say this, FiiO: I'm listening to the ES9219 right now, and you shouldn't hesitate to let the price go up a little to incorporate it. It's really nice. I won't be surprised if it is regarded as the most desirable portable DAC chip once word starts to get around.
Also, please turn on the 9219's built-in MQA support. It's a damned shame to have a chip with support built in at the hardware level that's being ignored.
Also, please turn on the 9219's built-in MQA support. It's a damned shame to have a chip with support built in at the hardware level that's being ignored.
npfries
Head-Fier
I’m assuming this is in order to hit a certain price target. Including it would add some licensing cost into the cost of the device.
Cessnas172
100+ Head-Fier
It deals mainly with the size of the connector and the ease of which it dislodges from the port. The 2.5 is thinner and has a little more grip to it that the 4.4 coming into and exiting the female port. Those aspects cause it to not fully release and then bend in the port breaking it. The 4.4 doesn't grip as well. It is similar to a 1/4 inch jack how easily it slips in and out.
Garreth83
Head-Fier
Aha, good to see that this conversation is reaching the inevitable endpoint of any good conversation, ease of insertion.
Users who are viewing this thread
