[stozzer123]

thanks clieos, sounds bang on to what im hearing with the c3,  also your right no 24bit on flac but yes on wav.  Power slightly less than clip's.

 

[goodvibes]

Quote:

HiSound use Sigmatel SoC, likely either SMTP3770 or 3780 (same SoC has been used in lower end Sony and Fuze+). It doesn't support external DAC. On the other hand, C3 uses (probably) a RockChip SoC, which does support external DAC (as well as having internal DAC section). By SoC alone, RockChip really isn't that much better than Sigmatel. While the PCM1770 (a DAC, not a SoC) might be a better DAC than that inside SMTP series, the problem is. it is still a relatively lower end DAC. Given RockChip has a history of poor support on 24bit stuff, I have a feeling C3 might be limited to 16bit only. Another issue is PCM1770's relatively low output power, meaning ti will have a hard time on demanding load. Since the headphone section has been integrated into the DAC, there isn't much ColorFly can do either. My suspicious is, ColorFly picks this particular DAC to save cost - just a single chip and you save up more than half the DAC and amp section. On the other hand, SMTP does support line-out on the chip, and that's probably what HiSound feeds to the external amp section - and good reason why HiSound DAP generally seems much more powerful than DAP of same size.
Basically, by only looking at the design, both have their own compromises. HiSound opts for an easy-to-use SoC with integrated DAC, then put more effort on the amp section; while ColorFly picks an SoC that does support external DAC, but choose to use an all-in-one DAC+amp chip with relatively low power. These reflect in the design philosophy difference of the two companies: HiSound tends to tailor their DAP for the audiophile crowd while C3, as I know, is closer to a consumer level product in the ColorFly line-up.
As for the 'Rocco A' story - no, the market didn't get filled up by copycat. The internal design of RoCoo-A is very different from other look-alike players such as Gumstick and C30. That's a long story behinds it and I really don't want to go into it right now.
Anyway, rest assure X3 will use neither Sigmatel nor Rockchip as SoC.

Thanks for correction as I should have looked closer and yes while the 1770 isn't a full SOC it's more than a DAC with an integrated amp. There will be compromises vs a dedicated stand alone HiDef DAC and there's nothing wrong with that either. The point you make is exactly what I was getting at. There's more than one way to do this well and judging a device by it's topology is not how to best evaluate it's performance. They all have compromises as you'd expect from their size etc. It's how well they are chosen, worked around and meet a particular need that matters.
 
From a company as large and capable as Fiio, sky is the limit. It will likely be as good as it can while meeting their marketing needs for a viable commercial niche. ei: very unlikely to be just a transport.

 

[qusp]

Quote:

Sometimes i think you read into posts far to much qusp.  Sorry for not putting "almost" infront of my 50%.  The following "and has never been" was not to quote you merley a statment of fact, im sure people were capable of reading the post before mine and seeing your exact wording.  Purley speculative to at the time you posted where the vote stood.  Assuming 35 people we will say closest to 50% while not over would in fact be 17 votes for transport, thats 48.5% take away my vote and place it in the other category the resultnant figure is: 54.3% all in one, 45.7% transport.  Thus giving a difference of 8% wich is far from a "almost 50/50 split".
 
I wouldnt really even point this out bar your comment        " wow, can so many people have such bad reading skills? "
 
 
I had stated earlier in the thread that my vote was misrepresented, so by your standard it should have been factored.     
 
 
Only having a bit of semantics fun here btw         

haha now youre just arguing for the sake of it, 54.3/45.7 isnt almost 50/50, when a single vote would come close to evening it up? thats funny, even using 'its far from...' typical I suppose in a forum that spends most of its time claiming/arguing over 'extreme' differences in the last 10%

 

[stozzer123]

Again your reading skills seemed to elude you, or maybe comprehension.
 
"I wouldnt really even point this out bar your comment"
 
"Only having a bit of semantics fun here btw "

 

[ClieOS]

From a company as large and capable as Fiio, sky is the limit. It will likely be as good as it can while meeting their marketing needs for a viable commercial niche. ei: very unlikely to be just a transport.

Actually I would think ColorFly should have been the one to do it. They are already a fairly established graphic card OEM (also sell under their own brand) before their boss decided to go into the audio market, so they already have most of the tech, tools and people with the necessary skill in place to get the job done, probably a much more flexible R&D budget as well, and commercial failure won't put the company into too much of a bad position.

 

[bowei006]

Quote:

Actually I would think ColorFly should have been the one to do it. They are already a fairly established graphic card OEM (also sell under their own brand) before their boss decided to go into the audio market, so they already have most of the tech, tools and people with the necessary skill in place to get the job done, probably a much more flexible R&D budget as well, and commercial failure won't put the company into too much of a bad position.

I have NEVER heard of the graphic card OEM vendor Colorfly.
 
The main ones I know of that are established are ASUStek, EVGA, HIS, Sapphire, XFX and a few others I am forgetting, the lesser cheaper ones with questionable quality are from Diamond, maybe Galaxy and what not.

 

[stozzer123]

the vendor name would be Colorful as opposed to colorfly

 

[bowei006]

Quote:

the vendor name would be Colorful as opposed to colorfly

Thanks, well I guess they are fairly established in other countries, they are virtually extinct in North America.

 

[eke2k6]

Quote:

the vendor name would be Colorful as opposed to colorfly

 
I think you guys are referring to Powercolor

 

[stozzer123]

No we are not, Colorful are the company that make Colorfly and they have been in the graphics game for some time before they even came near to making players.
 
 
FYI the Colorfly c4 used to be referred to as the Colorful Colorfly c4
 
http://en.colorful.cn/Product/Vga.aspx
 
http://www.colorful-europe.de/europe/news-and-innovation/colorfly.html

 

[eke2k6]

No we are not, Colorful are the company that make Colorfly and they have been in the graphics game for some time before they even came near to making players.


FYI the Colorfly c4 used to be referred to as the Colorful Colorfly c4

http://en.colorful.cn/Product/Vga.aspx

http://www.colorful-europe.de/europe/news-and-innovation/colorfly.html

Well...whaddya know

 

[stozzer123]

 something new every day hehe

 

[AlexRoma]

Quote:

 
Well I never had issues with them. There new Studio V and Rocoo BA are excellent players and IMO superior to the Sflo2. Side by side I found my Hifiman 601 superior to the Sflo2. Then when I got the Studio V I found that to be a significant upgrade over the Hifiman and then sold the 601. I think you are putting way too much merit regarding specs. What matters in the end is the sound quality.
 
The Sflo2 had somewhat decent parts but the implementation was ****ty and that lowered it potential sound quality. Even ClieOS considers the Rocoo P on par sound quality wise with the Sflo2. The Rocoo P is hisounds lowest offering. The Rocoo BA and Studio V are noticeably better sounding. Just going from memory alone the Studio V is a significant upgrade over the Sflo2 keeping pure sound quality in mind. Plus the build quality and UI are noticeably better. I had 2 Sflo2s come to my house defective in a row. That speaks loads on how crappy Teclasts quality control is. They were obviously discontinued for a reason. Even the later models had different parts in them that affected sound quality and caused distortion.

 
 
[size=12.0pt]I am not a fan of Sflo:2 /T51 DAP either. But the thig is,  for a long time it was a product of it’s own. I am not trying to admit, SFlo2/T51 was the ultimate DAP. No, no, and no. Both Teclast/HiSoundAudio had major downfalls. Teclast/SFlo2 – offered quite strong hardware design, but terrible interface, and yes, poor factory control. But it was OK (if you were lucky to get the first revision) because of low price, "proper" size and glorious sound (It's all I needed). Meanwhile, after T51 got strong popularity, Teclast began cheating their costumers (they started using fake/worse parts on their second revision), that speaks everything about the manufacturer's credibility…  [/size]
 
[size=12.0pt]Now we have HiSoundaudio. Ok, I can admit, their fresh product line might look better, but a year ago, it was also one big disappointment (bad revisions, damaged factory units, loud hisss). Now look at the price ! HisoundAudio price policy is one big rubbery. Why do they ask pay so much for a device that looks like my grandpa’s radio and can offer me just a well-made amp section ? If the price was 200$ for a Studio and <150 for the rest, I would not bash the manufacturer, kip my mouth shut, but the price policy is simply insane. Pay 450$, or even 250$ for what ? Check again ClieOS’s post #2430 ! “HiSound use Sigmatel SoC, likely either SMTP3770 or 3780 (same SoC has been used in lower end Sony and Fuze+). It doesn't support external DAC”[/size]
 
[size=12.0pt]I do respect Colorfly DAP series. Those offer adequate price/performance/hardware policy and good customer service. Ok, not so cheap as we would like, but at least we get what we’ve paid for (a really premium C4, HiFi-ish multimedia CK4 and an affordable/decent C3). And the same old story - too big size, poor battery...[/size]
 
[size=12.0pt]I do also respect Hifiman products for glorious SQ and sophisticated architecture. The only major HiFiMan problem remains the size, the looks (and poor battery ). But looks like HiFiMan had released a new SLIM revision, which is a major success (if they leave the old hardware intact). [/size]
 
[size=12.0pt]The only well priced, adequate sized HiFi DAP remains Teclast T51 IMHO (the first revision on newest firmware) . For a 150$ price tag we’ve got powerful hardware, HiFi sound, proper size and 10+ hours battery. Then again, if Fiio could offer an upgraded T51, leaving the adequate price (<200$), it would be a big success. Nowadays market lacks viable T51 alternatives (that's my subjective opinion). HiSound isn't an alternative because of it’s crazy price policy, HiFiMan remains too big/ugly, Colorfly CK4 too big. DAP’s like Ipod, Cowon, Sony are not even worth mentioned in this thread. We are talking about HiFi products, not SoC toys. [/size]
 
Quote:

As for the 'Rocco A' story - no, the market didn't get filled up by copycat. The internal design of RoCoo-A is very different from other look-alike players such as Gumstick and C30. That's a long story behinds it and I really don't want to go into it right now.
 

 
 
Oh, that was my mistake, sorry. 
 
[size=12.0pt]P.S. and sorry for my English.[/size]

 

[stozzer123]

Agree with a lot there but a few i dont.
 
Hifiman 801 is thought of as way overpriced and under performing.
 
Also ipod cowon and sony ARE all worth a mention as none of those supposed hifi players do anything that is by any great stretch better than them, its marginal with daps.
 
Weird design + average/good sound + marketing bumf + gigantic price tag to imply quality =  High-fi dap

 

[Parall3l]

Off topic: I'm pretty sure I still have a Colorful card lying around the house somewhere...

What's the X3 going to look like again? I'm assuming it's still the same design from the last time I checked, with the oddly shaped back that allowed a bigger battery.