The discovery thread!

[JAnonymous5150]

No mention of which DAC chip they use.

That's all bad.

 

[nraymond]

The lack of updates is due to DAP manufacturers refusing to pay for the specialist dev work implementing the new drivers to the hardware at the Linux base level layer (though again not super costly considering DAP prices).

The Android OS is free (on paper) but that only provides the source code (AOSP) which you can modify (as most phone manufacturers do) and pay the GMS license and other certification (which gets you access to services that in turn allow Google products such as chrome and mail to function “fully” (as @FlacFan notes) - so long as you pay for this service you also are under an obligation to bundle the Google suite of apps - competition issues). Most Android DAP manufacturers already pay this cost so that you can use core tech within the device such as payments, location, cloud storage, etc… and have familiar apps such as chrome on hand, so this issue in reality has little impact on the DAP OS updating issue.

If you do need to update android you need to reference the chipset and other hardware in use and utilize multiple drivers at the low level software layer. Initially these are provided by the SOC and other hardware manufacturers like Qualcomm but to get the updates when android OS updates (usually after a grace period) you need to pay or have your own in house team to dev the AOSP.

DAP manufacturers just use the base drivers provided from the hardware manufacturers and that is how they pass a limited certification that doesn’t allow for upgrades as they would break the hardware connection (in some cases this also triggers new certification testing which they will want to avoid).

So the android OS model will depend on the actual chips and hardware within a device (price of chip, SLA, build dates, etc…) and what work the hardware manufacturers have done or provide. As you can imagine more recent or pricier chips are likely to be provided with more recent Android OS drivers on manufacturer supply. But to many hardware manufacturers this is not their job or priority and to Google there are too many combinations of hardware solutions for them to provide for them all.

So the updates from Google are available - just the DAP manufacturers are unlikely to be provided with the manufacturer driver info in a timely manner, lack expertise, lack outside dev or service support funds, and also business wise lack a desire to spend to implement them as it provides another means to differentiate models and persuade the customer to take a higher model.

Thanks for the info, that does help to explain the behind-the-scenes issues affecting DAP makers. One thing I'm still confused about though is why DAPs are released with anything other than Android 11 at this point though... I can understand an older DAP being stuck with an older Android release because a DAP maker lacks the expertise or desire to spend the time/money to update/support an older product, but I don't get why a new product would come out with an older Android version. For instance, we have very affordable Android gaming handhelds getting released with Android 11, and they cost well below what these Android DAPs cost:

https://www.goretroid.com/products/retroid-pocket-3-handheld-retro-gaming-system

 

[mndless]

Thanks for the info, that does help to explain the behind-the-scenes issues affecting DAP makers. One thing I'm still confused about though is why DAPs are released with anything other than Android 11 at this point though... I can understand an older DAP being stuck with an older Android release because a DAP maker lacks the expertise or desire to spend the time/money to update/support an older product, but I don't get why a new product would come out with an older Android version. For instance, we have very affordable Android gaming handhelds getting released with Android 11, and they cost well below what these Android DAPs cost:

https://www.goretroid.com/products/retroid-pocket-3-handheld-retro-gaming-system

My best guess, aside from hardware requirements for CPU and RAM being higher, is that newer versions of Android are more difficult to modify the audio path in. Android does weird things with the audio processing path which can make it difficult to actually realize a device-wide EQ, along with per-app clock and bit depth adjustment for the DAC circuit. Companies that produce phones with discrete DAC and amp circuits typically charge a premium over those that just use the integrated Qualcomm DAC. My guess is that it takes some effort to ensure that everything works properly and routes to the discrete DAC in a reliable way. Given that most DAPs feature balanced output circuits that use a matched pair of DAC+amp chips, I'd expect that to be even more annoying to code drivers and software controls for. My guess is that a lot of the work has already been done for older versions of Android and they're reluctant to try to port it to newer versions which have stronger OS security restrictions.

 

[Kenyon]

Thanks for the info, that does help to explain the behind-the-scenes issues affecting DAP makers. One thing I'm still confused about though is why DAPs are released with anything other than Android 11 at this point though... I can understand an older DAP being stuck with an older Android release because a DAP maker lacks the expertise or desire to spend the time/money to update/support an older product, but I don't get why a new product would come out with an older Android version. For instance, we have very affordable Android gaming handhelds getting released with Android 11, and they cost well below what these Android DAPs cost:

https://www.goretroid.com/products/retroid-pocket-3-handheld-retro-gaming-system

I can only take a best guess here - so apologies in advance - but the DAP is limited as it will only go as high as the lowest rung of support for the hardware. Audio hardware (and software) manufacturers not known as being the fastest to update drivers to a stable level. I have producer/DJ friend’s running OS from 10 years ago due to software driver stability. Also the sales demand in absolute terms is low which when coupled with an audience that traditionally has not been so demanding on the software side but hardware focused has provided little incentive.

The retroid handheld is using components that will have in reality a higher lowest rung. But in general, gamers have higher demands - which would include an up to date OS (I seem to recall a technical reason for this regarding Android gaming performance but it’s been a long day - will try and find the article and will come back to attach). If I remember (please correct me if I am wrong as I haven’t looked at one of those handhelds for a couple of years) Retroid use their own version of AOSP and produce their own firmware updates - even as a small company.

So in truth there is no good reason I can think of (other than business decision) as to why it cannot be done - please do not take this as fact as there maybe something audio industry specific that I have overlooked.

 

[PhonoPhi]

New ultra-budget dongle DAC/AMP from Moondrop:

The Moondrop Click

USD $19.99

Cables look non-detachable, but can't argue for the price. No mention of DAC chip. 3.5 mm only.









https://www.aliexpress.us/item/3256804613214339.html

Looks good; specs are very solid.
Ordered for my dongle stable to compare with Apple (super value, no matter how audiophiles try not to admit it).

As for the chip - it is secondary to overall engineering.
Case in point - ESS-based Shanling UA2 - there is a noise out of ESS (!!!), so god awful specs (which they do not publish, understandably), while some may like heavy distrortion of the "house signature". Coupled with reading the UA5 thread, with all the problems reported and not addressed, and the company ideas on "software readiness" - Shanling is totally banned out of my audiophile universe forever.

 

[Jmop]

Simgot has released an interesting IEM which is tunable - not via traditional nozzles or switches - but by different cable plugs!

SIMGOT EN1000

$190 USD

DLC and beryllium plated composite DD

I suspect the "tunable plugs" function as impedance adapters? The FR just seems to change around the upper mids/treble region only (assuming store graph can be trusted).









https://www.aliexpress.com/i/3256804467634099.html

It's a shame they didn't get any better at the response, that design is so comfortable. I had the EN700 Pros.

 

[o0genesis0o]

Looks good; specs are very solid.
Ordered for my dongle stable to compare with Apple (super value, no matter how audiophiles try not to admit it).

As for the chip - it is secondary to overall engineering.
Case in point - ESS-based Shanling UA2 - there is a noise out of ESS (!!!), so god awful specs (which they do not publish, understandably), while some may like heavy distrortion of the "house signature". Coupled with reading the UA5 thread, with all the problems reported and not addressed, and the company ideas on "software readiness" - Shanling is totally banned out of my audiophile universe forever.

They miss output power and output impedance. Though I assume that Moondrop has done their homework and built something at least decent for their own IEMs.

Agree about the Apple dongle as well, though not for the audio output part (no doubt it is decent and arguably adequate for most, but it’s not be all end all like some try to make them to be). I’m impressed by its audio input side. Because of Apple dongle, I thought that every audio input interface has flat response from 20 to 20000hz. Oh no, my friends. I have tried some laptop inputs and the Creative X1 input, all of them roll off in the bass and treble, making frequency response measurement impossible.

 

[PhonoPhi]

They miss output power and output impedance. Though I assume that Moondrop has done their homework and built something at least decent for their own IEMs.

Agree about the Apple dongle as well, though not for the audio output part (no doubt it is decent and arguably adequate for most, but it’s not be all end all like some try to make them to be). I’m impressed by its audio input side. Because of Apple dongle, I thought that every audio input interface has flat response from 20 to 20000hz. Oh no, my friends. I have tried some laptop inputs and the Creative X1 input, all of them roll off in the bass and treble, making frequency response measurement impossible.

Very good points.

I assume the power is at par with the Apple dongle that is sufficient for most well-behaved IEMs (and I would not ask for more for the money, I have E1DA sg3 as the power beast that I must be sure to be software limiited).

The output impedance would be more complex. The mantra of the lowest being better is a good starting point. Then starting to use impedance adapters recently and getting good synergies, I got more open to different impedance values as well, for dongles being different and providing diverse synergies.

 

[Redcarmoose]

https://www.head-fi.org/showcase/penon-audio-os133-adapter-module.26090/reviews#review-29322

 

[PhonoPhi]

https://www.head-fi.org/showcase/penon-audio-os133-adapter-module.26090/reviews#review-29322

Where does "amplifier" come from? A cable extender is a cable extender. How can it change one's perception of music propelled by imagination is totally wild open, but the functionalities fall under legal definitions

P. S. I will likely get one out of curiousity, it is not far in price from $15-$20 good cable adaptors/extenders, and I do need one. It will be my first Penon item, since I am usually not into sponsoring hype-related entities...

 

[Redcarmoose]

Where does "amplifier" come from? A cable extender is a cable extender. How can it change one's perception of music propelled by imagination is totally wild open, but the functionalities fall under legal definitions

P. S. I will likely get one out of curiousity, it is not far in price from $15-$20 good cable adaptors/extenders, and I do need one. It will be my first Penon item, since I am usually not into sponsoring hype-related entities...

Right, if you read the review it’s fairly non-biased, even from a cable believer which I am. Any non-cable-believers would be better to skip the write-up as to not waist time or life effort. It is a new product and from the manufacturer. Just skip reading it, you will probably have a much better day in the end.

If you read the review in its entirely it’s self-explaining.

I explain how it does work, but it doesn’t work in every situation, really my best luck was with a bright source and a bright cable but relatively neutral IEM. I envision a day when there will be two part cables as regular things. Half dark, half brighter, then you have four modules and mix and match. The effect is small, realize it’s half of a cable effect change anyway, so it’s small. But it’s basically like adding a little copper to a brighter silver cable in the end. It will tune down a fraction of the silver response, but it won’t work in extreme situations.

 

[PhonoPhi]

Right, if you read the review it’s fairly non-biased, even from a cable believer which I am. Any non-cable-believers would be better to skip the write-up as to not waist time or life effort. It is a new product and from the manufacturer. Just skip reading it, you will probably have a much better day in the end.

If you read the review in its entirely it’s self-explaining.

I explain how it does work, but it doesn’t work in every situation, really my best luck was with a bright source and a bright cable but relatively neutral IEM. I envision a day when there will be two part cables as regular things. Half dark, half brighter, then you have four modules and mix and match. The effect is small, realize it’s half of a cable effect change anyway, so it’s small. But it’s basically like adding a little copper to a brighter silver cable in the end. It will tune down a fraction of the silver response, but it won’t work in extreme situations.

I understand your points and what you present and describe.
"Amplifier" is an active device that is not the case for the cable not to confuse people and to put Penon to legal challenges.

Also, it should not be "half" of the cable effect.
8 cm is 1/15 of usual 120-cm cables, if my math is right, so people should be very perceptive to feel it

 

[Redcarmoose]

I understand your points and what you present and describe.
"Amplifier" is an active device that is not the case for the cable not to confuse people and to put Penon to legal challenges.

Also, it should not be "half" of the cable effect.
8 cm is 1/15 of usual 120 cm, cables, if my math is right, so people should be very perceptive to feel it

Well, I put amplifier as a word in there? I personally think I can use any word I want. It’s just a review, it’s not a legally binding agreement, it’s a simple stretch of a writer who is trying to explain something in audio which is relatively new. It’s an amplifier accessory as it’s not really a cable to the IEMs. I may take out that word it two places if someone else besides you tells me it’s wrong or misleading? Really the two places the word is use is inconsequential to the meaning of the review, it shouldn’t ruffle your feathers that much?

It’s totally subjective, as when I put the 2X share cable in-front of the regular OS133 cable it didn’t seem to do anything.

 

[Redcarmoose]

I understand your points and what you present and describe.
"Amplifier" is an active device that is not the case for the cable not to confuse people and to put Penon to legal challenges.

Also, it should not be "half" of the cable effect.
8 cm is 1/15 of usual 120-cm cables, if my math is right, so people should be very perceptive to feel it

I am not sure how to quantify the phenomenon, so I use the simple cooking methods (amounts) to describe the effects. I just go by what I hear, at times it made a little change and at times it didn’t do anything, depending on equipment used.

I knew writing such a review would put me at risk of getting my arm chopped off.

 

[PhonoPhi]

Well, I put amplifier as a word in there? I personally think I can use any word I want. It’s just a review, it’s not a legally binding agreement, it’s a simple stretch of a writer who is trying to explain something in audio which is relatively new. It’s an amplifier accessory as it’s not really a cable to the IEMs. I may take out that word it two places if someone else besides you tells me it’s wrong or misleading? Really the two places the word is use is inconsequential to the meaning of the review, it shouldn’t ruffle your feathers that much?

It’s totally subjective, as when I put the 2X share cable in-front of the regular OS133 cable it didn’t seem to do anything.

If one uses words arbitrary - then words lose their meaning... I will end the conversation here not to chop your arms and other body parts...