IEM Reviewer Extraordinaire
- May 11, 2004
- Mid Johor, Malaysia
I do not compare the sound of UP4 and BTR5. I only said about that FiiO hides from users in the description of the device. About the implementation of the audio path - it is the same. ES9218. And that’s all. Or in the BTR5 are audiophile gold-plated capacitors or tubes? )))
Tell us about it.
And I repeat - what you personally breathe is your opinion. And do not force it on others.
And it’s not ethical to advertise another product in this thread.
First of, I didn't advertise anything on this thread (*unless you don't understand what the meaning of the word "advertise" is). I am merely pointing out that your underlying assumption that having double the chips brings double the performance between different audio devices is untrue in most case. What I want to point out is that Implementation is always more important than the number of chips, i.e. a good single chip design can outperform a poorly designed double chips circuit. I have no problem if you have heard BTR5, UP2 and UP4 and find BTR5's 3.5mm to be the same level of UP2, I only have problem if you have made those claim based solely by the number of chips you read from spec. Here at Head-fi, we don't make claim or give opinion without at least some personal experience or knowledge - and to be frank, I don't find BTR5's 3.5mm to be that great sounding either, and I have posted that opinion a few time in the forum as well - but that's besides the point.
As for whether FiiO hides any info about BTR5 audio path - you should read the replies by FiiO in the BTR5 thread, then you will know what you are saying is not true as well. I only bring this up not because I am advertising BTR5 over UP4, but because you are making some very misleading claim in this thread.