[robopanda]

What's your obsession with DSD512? It can't have any possible benefit with a device at this level. If you're up-sampling, just use DSD256. That being said, I just switched to 5.2 and the BitPerfect (NOS) mode sounds glorious, especially with high-res material. Much better than the mushed transients you get from DSD.

My obsession is with actually getting a product as advertised. Their website said it's DSD512 capable and all I want is for that to be a reality. If I bought a car from a company who advertised that it can go forward and backwards, and I found out after buying it that it doesn't go backwards, I would be pretty upset. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect getting what you have supposedly paid for.

I have a few albums from NativeDSD that's DSD256 from analog source. As the "new" signature units currently only support DoP maxing out at 128, I have to downsample those albums or convert to PCM on a Mac, and it just sounds different.

 

[dannyvstheworld]

Lastly though, iFi, you really need to get it together with manuals and web page info.

And probably the numbering of FW versions - you don’t go from v5 to v7 for a patch without functionality upgrade.

 

[B Manoj Kumar]

You didn't realise that just about every component manufacturer out there changes parts internally and does silent-upgrades without announcement?

I do understand this happens with other manufacturers- but I am surprised that for something like “Signature” which going by its name is supposed to be a special and 3rd iteration of an existing micro iDSD line that itself means they must have done their part in getting to a finalised design.

Plus these kind of changes happen usually after the initial design of the unit is found to be flawed or some issues with it being reported from end users / customers. In this case if they changed it within a month or two of release which means it’s not due to customer’s demand but the change happened from manufacturer itself - why couldn’t they provide the updated design from the first unit itself?

We are paying a hefty price for products and we expect to get the best from them. I don’t want it to be a debate.

 

[kion]

And probably the numbering of FW versions - you don’t go from v5 to v7 for a patch without functionality upgrade.

This is what gets me, v7 is meant to be superior than v5 typically. They could have avoided half of the drama by using v5.3d, v5.3e etc, you don’t change the major revision number unless they are major revisions, and they decided to jump by 2! I would be really upset if it is some kind of bait & switch due to undisclosed issues, but thankfully it doesn’t seem to be the case for now.

Still curious about the real reason of the switch though now it is under the spotlight.

Edit: also, by using a higher version number only for alternative serial number, you create the impression that future firmware updates will not support the older models, which is hopefully not the case?

 

[robopanda]

I do understand this happens with other manufacturers- but I am surprised that for something like “Signature” which going by its name is supposed to be a special and 3rd iteration of an existing micro iDSD line that itself means they must have done their part in getting to a finalised design.

Plus these kind of changes happen usually after the initial design of the unit is found to be flawed or some issues with it being reported from end users / customers. In this case if they changed it within a month or two of release which means it’s not due to customer’s demand but the change happened from manufacturer itself - why couldn’t they provide the updated design from the first unit itself?

We are paying a hefty price for products and we expect to get the best from them. I don’t want it to be a debate.

and to add on to this, it’s clearly not silent if the update removes advertised features from what they still list on their own website and on their vendor’s websites. This is slipping fast into false advertising or bait and switch territories, which coincidentally are frowned upon legally.

 

[Sebastien Chiu]

The fact that our micro iDSD Signature is the 3rd iteration of our most known platform is of no importance when changes in parts occur. As a manufacturer, we have to proceed accordingly when they do, but we're doing our best to keep our customers happy.

Although it wasn't easy, we managed to provide MQA playback for every DAC we've released in the past and free of charge, and we will support our products just as we did in the past. The fact that we released FW7.0 is no forecast of us abandoning older platforms, not only those unfit for this firmware but in general. That's not how we roll

And lastly, at the end of the day, the most important thing to take note of is that there is no audible or functional difference between products subject to FW 7.0/7.0c and those fit for FW 5.3/5.3c.

Thank you for your understanding, and your continued support of iFi!

 

[bflat]

The fact that our micro iDSD Signature is the 3rd iteration of our most known platform is of no importance when changes in parts occur. As a manufacturer, we have to proceed accordingly when they do, but we're doing our best to keep our customers happy.

Although it wasn't easy, we managed to provide MQA playback for every DAC we've released in the past and free of charge, and we will support our products just as we did in the past. The fact that we released FW7.0 is no forecast of us abandoning older platforms, not only those unfit for this firmware but in general. That's not how we roll

And lastly, at the end of the day, the most important thing to take note of is that there is no audible or functional difference between products subject to FW 7.0/7.0c and those fit for FW 5.3/5.3c.

Thank you for your understanding, and your continued support of iFi!

At least we know that once you release version 11, that will be the last one....

 

[robopanda]

The fact that our micro iDSD Signature is the 3rd iteration of our most known platform is of no importance when changes in parts occur. As a manufacturer, we have to proceed accordingly when they do, but we're doing our best to keep our customers happy.

Although it wasn't easy, we managed to provide MQA playback for every DAC we've released in the past and free of charge, and we will support our products just as we did in the past. The fact that we released FW7.0 is no forecast of us abandoning older platforms, not only those unfit for this firmware but in general. That's not how we roll

And lastly, at the end of the day, the most important thing to take note of is that there is no audible or functional difference between products subject to FW 7.0/7.0c and those fit for FW 5.3/5.3c.

Thank you for your understanding, and your continued support of iFi!

You ask us for our understanding. If you want to be more transparent and understanding of your customers’ concerns, can you let us know when a v5.2 equivalent is going to be available. This way your product can actually provide the functionalities as advertised? Let’s see if you dodge this direct question again.

 

[Sebastien Chiu]

You ask us for our understanding. If you want to be more transparent and understanding of your customers’ concerns, can you let us know when a v5.2 equivalent is going to be available. This way your product can actually provide the functionalities as advertised? Let’s see if you dodge this direct question again.

As soon as we have any information, we'll be happy to share!

 

[iFi audio]

You ask us for our understanding. If you want to be more transparent and understanding of your customers’ concerns, can you let us know when a v5.2 equivalent is going to be available. This way your product can actually provide the functionalities as advertised?

Let me just chime in and say that we're fully aware that some of our customers want DSD512 and no GTO filtering in their latest iFi hardware, and our R&D team is on the case.

 

[robopanda]

Let me just chime in and say that we're fully aware that some of our customers want DSD512 and no GTO filtering in their latest iFi hardware, and our R&D team is on the case.

Thank you for admitting that there is a problem with the unit and updating us that the technical team is trying to fix the issue. Now I feel heard as a customer and am hopeful that the problem can be resolved.

 

[yiauta]

Let me just chime in and say that we're fully aware that some of our customers want DSD512 and no GTO filtering in their latest iFi hardware, and our R&D team is on the case.

XU216 chip supports PCM768kHz, DSD512 & MQA Full decoding, so hopefully they are working on using the full capabilities of the chip for the signature.

 

[kion]

XU216 chip supports PCM768kHz, DSD512 & MQA Full decoding, so hopefully they are working on using the full capabilities of the chip for the signature.

Does the older model use XU208 and cannot support all 3 at the same time (hence either MQA or the other via different firmwares)?

 

[B Manoj Kumar]

Does the older model use XU208 and cannot support all 3 at the same time (hence either MQA or the other via different firmwares)?

I have the same question- please clarify @iFi audio

 

[iFi audio]

I have the same question- please clarify @iFi audio

There's nothing to clarify at this time. We'll gladly share any new info once we have it, so please stay tuned