[xuan87]

 
No, I didn't say that. I said that I didn't hear any difference with 3 different devices running 2.40, 2.41 and AK120 on 1.40 Firmware. Since the bits are certainly touched by the AK100 with or without the equalizer, earlier FW might have a different sounding output. However with the above the difference was inaudible. But I have not downgraded anything, the players came with the latest firmware so we didn't play around with that.
 
The A1 is amazing!
 
Cheers,
K

 
I trust your ears lol. Since you couldn't hear any difference among the different firmwares, I doubt I could too.

 

[BRCMRGN]

Just received mine. I'm using it with a stock AK100 that I got for a ridiculously low price (I already had a RWAK100). The AK/JH Audio Angie sounds great with the 2.5mm balanced cable. 

 

[Koolpep]

Ohhhhh, I just received my first balanced cable....from PlussoundAudio....
 
Just connected it to my UE900S and am listening via Gloveaudio A1 balanced. 
 
Lovely, lovely, lovely. Smooth and with much more push. I always had the feeling these earphones are very hard to be driven good to sound great. But now I finally have a method. Amazing. The soundstage is wider, everything has more intensity and the bass shows his face too. 
 
I will try this cable next on the JVC HA-FX850 and the Onkyo HS-FC300 and see what balanced can do for these headphones. 

 

[ianmedium]

Koolpep, perfect description of the difference between running balanced as opposed to regular on the Glove.
I really need to get my T5P's and Ety ER4S converted to balanced, oh I wish I were good with a soldering iron!

 

[Koolpep]

Koolpep, perfect description of the difference between running balanced as opposed to regular on the Glove.
I really need to get my T5P's and Ety ER4S converted to balanced, oh I wish I were good with a soldering iron!

I am truly amazed. Just connected the balanced cable.i got for the HE-400 with the A1 and the same again my goodness. The difference between single ended and balanced is breathtaking can't stop playing all my favourite songs and just having a ball here. So much more engaging. I wish more of my headphones had exchangeable cables. Or like you said - be good with a soldering iron - I am not. Wish my T90 would be easy to switch to balanced. Wow... nice.

Music music everywhere am so excited haha....

 

[Ritvik]

My A1, AK100 and a host of cables are up for sale should anyone be interested. 
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/757803/portable-balanced-setup-complete-with-transport-amp-dac-and-cables
 
Great setup, but I've moved to a desktop rig and find keeping both a bit too much of a luxury

 

[SckT]

I wonder if anyone can hear any difference between 16 bits 44.1 khz and 24 bits 192khz lossless files?
I normally rip my files from CDs, but I don't seem to hear the difference between these wav or flac files.
The 24 bits 192khz files are taking so much more space.....do they really have an advantage over the 16 bits 44.1khz files?
Thanks!

 

[Sam Edwards]

  I wonder if anyone can hear any difference between 16 bits 44.1 khz and 24 bits 192khz lossless files?
I normally rip my files from CDs, but I don't seem to hear the difference between these wav or flac files.
The 24 bits 192khz files are taking so much more space.....do they really have an advantage over the 16 bits 44.1khz files?
Thanks!

Are you up sampling your CD's to 192khz? If so you won't hear a difference on most equipment between those and standard 44.1khz 16bit files, because you're just padding out the bits and not filling in new information. It's like taking an iPhone photo and up sampling it to 50 megapixels, you're not going to get anything between the samples that were never taken in the first place.
If you're buying 192khz 24bit downloads and comparing them to your CD rips there's almost always a difference, but occasionally pretty darn subtle. 

 

[SckT]

Are you up sampling your CD's to 192khz? If so you won't hear a difference on most equipment between those and standard 44.1khz 16bit files, because you're just padding out the bits and not filling in new information. It's like taking an iPhone photo and up sampling it to 50 megapixels, you're not going to get anything between the samples that were never taken in the first place.
If you're buying 192khz 24bit downloads and comparing them to your CD rips there's almost always a difference, but occasionally pretty darn subtle. 

Thanks! Good point!
I forgot to compare the sources.
But I just wondered if I would be able to hear the differences even if they were there. Cheers!

 

[HeavenMore]

Hi to all
 
I have question about Glove Audio A1.
 
Since i used to have AK100 and AK120, does Glove Audio A1 can really change the sound "day and night"?
 
Cheers

 

[jlbrach]

It does not change it night and day but definitely in the case of the 100 it improves the DAC in my opinion and in the case of the 120 the combination of the DAC and the increased power makes for a wonderful sounding unit

 

[HeavenMore]

  It does not change it night and day but definitely in the case of the 100 it improves the DAC in my opinion and in the case of the 120 the combination of the DAC and the increased power makes for a wonderful sounding unit

As i know it by pass DAC of AK100 or AK120 and use its own DAC,right?
 
Well, my friend  was argue to me that A1 with AK100 will not sound better than AK240.
 
But i think this is depend own  taste and price also different.

 

[ianmedium]

I wonder if anyone can hear any difference between 16 bits 44.1 khz and 24 bits 192khz lossless files?
I normally rip my files from CDs, but I don't seem to hear the difference between these wav or flac files.
The 24 bits 192khz files are taking so much more space.....do they really have an advantage over the 16 bits 44.1khz files?
Thanks!

This is an interesting question. What I find more important than bit rates is the quality and care taken in making the copy from the original master tapes or files and also how well done the actual recording was in the first place.

On some transfers I prefer the CD ripped to Flac over the high bit rate versions and the reason for this is two fold.

How much care was taken in the process of making the high resolution file and is it really what it says it is?

HIFi News in the UK has started something I wish all music reviewers would do and that is test the quality of the high bit rate version. Looking at their results over the past few months is very sobering as it seems to be only one in five get it right! The rest have either done the job of making the digital copy poorly or they have used lower rate files such as 24/48 and turned them into 24/192 ( this happens a lot!)

I have CB rips of albums that I much prefer over the high resolution versions and via versa! It's a minefield out there and something needs to be done to regulate it so that when we buy and more cost a high resolution file we are actually getting for the extra money both something that is what it says on the box and that has been transferred with great care and attention!

 

[jlbrach]

It is not better than the 240,your friend is right i have both...it is however outstanding and damn near as good

 

[zniper2984]

It is not better than the 240,your friend is right i have both...it is however outstanding and damn near as good

Do they share the same sound sig?