[musicheaven]

Specs pretty good for a 235-270 ish device, at that price point the decision to get one is easy.

Wish other vendors would be as competitive price/feature wise with their gear.

 

[jamato8]

Quote:

Specs pretty good for a 235-270 ish device, at that price point the decision to get one is easy.

Wish other vendors would be as competitive price/feature wise with their gear.

From seeing many other specs, they seem more than pretty good, IMO. :^)

 

[Theogenes]

From seeing many other specs, they seem more than pretty good, IMO. :^)

Tease

 

[musicheaven]

From seeing many other specs, they seem more than pretty good, IMO. :^)

I was modest about it, I would have paid double if it had dual mono stage Wolfson in it and even more if it would have been the 8741 chip. A Sabre light chip would be more than welcome hahahaha well call it Christmas wish list.

 

[doublea71]

Quote:

 
 
Bit rate and mastering are completely different concepts. 
 
When I see people with albums that weigh over 1gb, I shake my head because all those extra bits are nothing but zeroes.

I use flac with my J3, but a well-mastered album at 320kbps sounds fine and I doubt I would be able to tell the difference....I'm seriously considering going through the trouble of converting everything to 320 to open up some memory space. Not sure why I haven't already done this - I've read the articles that have been mentioned and I can't argue with it. 

 

[Anthony1]

Quote:

Specs pretty good for a 235-270 ish device, at that price point the decision to get one is easy.
 

sweet mother of... I have been skim reading all my notifications on this thread and ignoring most of the hi-res chatter. Anybody kindly point me to the post where the price/date was announced?

 

[Achmedisdead]

Quote:

I use flac with my J3, but a well-mastered album at 320kbps sounds fine and I doubt I would be able to tell the difference....I'm seriously considering going through the trouble of converting everything to 320 to open up some memory space. Not sure why I haven't already done this - I've read the articles that have been mentioned and I can't argue with it. 

 
If you're going to do it, don't do 320kbps....use LAME V0. That is the highest quality VBR, and loses nothing in SQ to 320 yet saves even more space. The more complex passages of the music will have a higher bitrate, and the less complex will have a lower bitrate. Try a test album if you like, and play it in foobar2000, and you can watch the actual bitrate as the song plays......it will jump right on up towards 320 at times, and drop down at other times.
 
All my FLAC sits on two external hard drives, and I have LAME duplicates of them on the desktop and laptop that are what I use on my DAPs.

 

[nihontoman]

Quote:

sweet mother of... I have been skim reading all my notifications on this thread and ignoring most of the hi-res chatter. Anybody kindly point me to the post where the price/date was announced?

http://ibasso.com/en/news/show.asp?ID=116

 

[Anthony1]

Quote:

http://ibasso.com/en/news/show.asp?ID=116

 
 
 

 

[musicheaven]

Sure is!!!

 

[goodvibes]

Quote:

Lets drop the debate regarding high res music files. Countless DBTs and decades old research papers at AES have proven there can be no discernible differences between well encoded lossy files and lossless files. If the members here who think high res files offer dramatic improvements, they will 'hear' the ameliorating effects. Both parties have perks. One saves storage the other gets to hear 'all those fine details'.

Then stop arguing the point. Sometimes we don't know what we don't know. Assumptions get made on both sides of this argument and can hinder an evaluation. I'm in the HiRes camp and have compared by copying master tape quality analog sources directly into a Nagra VI at different res and comparing. Easy blind compare on good kit. I didn't prefer 192 to 96 until Nagra updated the VI to 192. 96 is still plenty good if done right which is usually more the issue when results aren't great. I'd never use a USB device or DAC with an asrc at it's input for this for instance. These are self fulfilling prophesies of kit not up to the compare.16/44 can't even copy a great turntable properly. Does this mean that 16/44 is good enough for most USB DACs? Maybe, but there's much more to had by those more discerning.
 
Whether it's meaningful for portable format is a different and more viable argument but just doesn't need to be addressed in product thread. Folks can figure it out for themselves, that is if you don't also object to them buying the kit of their choosing. I guess we all need to own Clips at 256 to be left alone.

 

[Anthony1]

I was just about to buy the RWAK120-S and now I have to try this first at this price point.
 
Sorry Vinnie mate if you are reading this thread 

 

[Theta Alpha 1]

Quote:

Quote:

From seeing many other specs, they seem more than pretty good, IMO. :^)

I was modest about it, I would have paid double if it had dual mono stage Wolfson in it and even more if it would have been the 8741 chip. A Sabre light chip would be more than welcome hahahaha well call it Christmas wish list.

 
x2 the ES9018 only costs them around $30 more and you'd be willing to pay $200 more, this means $170 profit for iHazzo per unit, it simply does not compute.
 
Perhaps they think WM8740 sounds better than everything else.
 
PERHAPS

 

[musicheaven]

We won't get into the economics of running an electronic manufacturing business that is to say the least not equal to an Apple computer so for those guys charging more provides them with the necessary cash & R&D to stay in business and make us happy. It certainly beats paying 1300$ US for a double Wolfson dacs doesn't it?

You just can't look at a number and say one component cost n and you pay y, it does not compute There is more under the cover than just one chip. It's having a very narrow vision of what goes into a device.

 

[Lawrenceho]

Quote:

 
x2 the ES9018 only costs them around $30 more and you'd be willing to pay $200 more, this means $170 profit for iHazzo per unit, it simply does not compute.
 
Perhaps they think WM8740 sounds better than everything else.
 
PERHAPS

 


I think it is because ES9018 consumers much more power than WM8740.