[MarkTwain]

  Actually it costs a lot like a new iPhone 7 i think

 but sounds way better, due to better hardware (in the sense of audio hardware)

 
It may look better than iPhone 7 (subjective) and hardware listing seems better, but it may not necessarily sound better. Only when you try it and probably listen with blind tests with your own ears to decide whether it is indeed better.
 
I like my ZX2, but I can't hear any differences between this or my iPhone6 with a blind test done.
 
Some have better ears to hear small differences, but most of us don't have this special abilities.

 

[unknownguardian]

What is the point of talking about resale value in two or three years? Do you guys have any idea what the market will be like in two or three years? If you buy a 1Z or A, keep it for 3 years at least, and enjoy great music all this time then it is worth it. If you are considering resale value the next year as a major argument, then don't buy TOTL audio material in the current market. Don't buy a DAP, don't buy CIEMs, etc.

But most of all, a few people on this thread seem to have no interest in these DAPs except to communicate bitterness and promise doom, disappointment, and waste of money to anyone who buys them.

And don't get me started on the battery...my Ipod classic is 10 years old and just showing signs of weaker battery. And if it does fail, send it back to Sony, will certainly costs a hundred bucks or so. I would happily pay these hundred bucks for you just to avoid listening to this OLD non replaceable battery rant for the millionth time.

Guys get a life. Or even better, get a DAP that makes sense for you and go talk on that thread.

I had already preordered a WM1A but am still bitter because the wait for it to be released in Singapore is so long (was expecting it to be around the same time as Japan/China) and darn, I ain't like Michael who can afford a 1Z. LOL.

 

[cazone]

For those who are up to resale value,
Buy vintage hi-fi gear.
Get a audio research SP6B and you are good

 

[Decreate]

Maybe after 10-20 years the DAP would be considered a valuable antique and be worth 10x more. 

 

[likearake]

Any reports on whether this hisses less than the ZX2?

 

[Mimouille]

I had already preordered a WM1A but am still bitter because the wait for it to be released in Singapore is so long (was expecting it to be around the same time as Japan/China) and darn, I ain't like Michael who can afford a 1Z. LOL.

I was not talking about you, I didnt notice you said anything in that area. The discussion on who can / can't afford what is no really productive IMHO.

 

[unknownguardian]

I was not talking about you, I didnt notice you said anything in that area. The discussion on who can / can't afford what is no really productive IMHO.

I'm just trying hard to troll LOL.

but back to topic both players are amazing. and the differences between them are much greater than what I had expected initially, which led me to wonder whether are they tuned to sound differently or is it really due to the internal differences.

 

[nanaholic]

I'm just trying hard to troll LOL.

but back to topic both players are amazing. and the differences between them are much greater than what I had expected initially, which led me to wonder whether are they tuned to sound differently or is it really due to the internal differences.

 
They are tuned differently for sure - the team members have made that very public. The tl;dr version is that they clearly wanted the two Walkmans to sound different since the product conception stage, and as such during the tuning process to achieve that goal it lead to the difference in the internals like different resistors and capacitors used.

 

[unknownguardian]

They are tuned differently for sure - the team members have made that very public. The tl;dr version is that they clearly wanted the two Walkmans to sound different since the product conception stage, and as such during the tuning process to achieve that goal it lead to the difference in the internals like different resistors and capacitors used.

I see. Thanks for clarifications.

 

[T.R.A.N.C.E.]

but back to topic both players are amazing. and the differences between them are much greater than what I had expected initially, which led me to wonder whether are they tuned to sound differently or is it really due to the internal differences.

 
Switching components and tuning often mean the same thing, obviously there may be some resistance changes etc to accommodate different components which encompasses tuning. You shouldn't be surprised that switching a few components can change sound drastically, you and I both own a QA360LE, we know it sounds like a completely different dap to the regular QA360, yet you literally cannot tell them apart from looking at their insides, as the only thing that has changed is a few identical looking voltage regulator LDO's and resistance values, but sound has morphed completely.
 
Objectively your not actually changing performance much, as all high quality components perform roughly on par, rather we are relying on component swaps and tuning to alter the sound sig which can sound subjectively better or worse.
 
Sony created the 1Z first, it's their be all end all sound that their prepared to charge 3.2k for, then they just switched a few of it's components and you get the 1A, objective performance will be similar, but sound may be appreciably different. I'm content springing for the objective high performance to cost ratio of 1A, but subjective value based on sound is another thing entirely, making 1Z justifiable to those interested in it's top dog sound.
 
Capacitors: 1Z: 13x Sony FT,  1A: 8x Sony FT, 5x Sanyo OS-CON
Resistors: 1Z: 10x Fine Sound, 1A: 4x Fine Sound, 6x MELF
Chassis/Ground: 1Z: Copper, 1A: Aluminium
Jack Wiring: 1Z: Kimber Kable, 1A: OFC 22AWG

 

[nanaholic]

 
Sony created the 1Z first, it's their be all end all sound that their prepared to charge 3.2k for, then they just switched a few of it's components and you get the 1A.

 
That's actually not what happened - the WM1A and 1Z were developed in parallel with the specific aim that they were to sound different from the very beginning.

 

[T.R.A.N.C.E.]

 
That's actually not what happened - the WM1A and 1Z were developed in parallel with the specific aim that they were to sound different from the very beginning.

 
Bottom line is a shared architecture was singularly developed, then using this architecture they differentiated two daps by using a few different components mentioned above. The order of event's makes no difference to the end product, the list of differences between the daps tells you everything you need to know about development.

 

[Whitigir]

What size is the Kimber Kables in the 1z ?

 

[nanaholic]

   
Bottom line is a shared architecture was singularly developed, then using this architecture they differentiated two daps by using a few different components mentioned above. The order of event's makes no difference to the end product, the list of differences between the daps tells you everything you need to know.

 
The order of events makes all the difference in the world, especially the way you originally worded it to imply the WM1A is a cost down version of the WM1Z, which it isn't. If anything, it would seem the WM1A was the one that was completed first, and the WM1Z was the one that came after, especially if you read how they had more difficulty making the 1Z than the 1A.
 
The list of difference between the DAPs actually doesn't tell you everything you need to know.

 

[Sonyvores]

   
That's actually not what happened - the WM1A and 1Z were developed in parallel with the specific aim that they were to sound different from the very beginning.

No, Trance is right the actual 1A is just a variant from 1Z.
 
Nanaholic you are kind of right but it only concerns the 1rst 1A version that did't carry the balanced output that we dropped in the middle of the run