[rmap]

Thanks for the detailed comparisons. Which firmware version was installed on the DX100 you used in the tests?
 

 

[Birdoffice]

Thank both of you for impression
Please help repeat it again with ak120 firmware patch on ms ak100

 

[the wizard of oz]

Quote:

Thanks for the detailed comparisons. Which firmware version was installed on the DX100 you used in the tests?
 

 
I was going to say that. The different FW versions of the DX100 do influence the sound sig & impact. Noticeable and important depending on the type of music listened to, from classical, jazz, rock to electronic.

 

[AnakChan]

Birdoffice, I don't think we'll be doing another test anytime soon considering they were tolerant to let us demo for 1.5 hrs without buying anything much.

tWoO, good point. I forgot to mention my DX100 was on 1.4.2. So those who are familiar will know how that sounds like compared to earlier versions.

 

[Birdoffice]

Hi, i donot expect the full comparison. Just upgrade ak100 with firmware and test with the same song and let us know what you feel. Still have question in my mind on should i buy ak120 or stay with ak100 with ak120 firmware.

Thank

Birdoffice, I don't think we'll be doing another test anytime soon considering they were tolerant to let us demo for 1.5 hrs without buying anything much.

tWoO, good point. I forgot to mention my DX100 was on 1.4.2. So those who are familiar will know how that sounds like compared to earlier versions.

 

[Gintaras]

frankly speaking i would not expect firmware update to lift AK100 to AK120 unless Iriver is cheating us completely which i do not see as well. mind this having new UI and gimmicks is worth, i am still on the fence waiting for Vinnie today to tell us about output.

 

[AnakChan]

Quote:

Hi, i donot expect the full comparison. Just upgrade ak100 with firmware and test with the same song and let us know what you feel. Still have question in my mind on should i buy ak120 or stay with ak100 with ak120 firmware.

Thank

 
I can try again, maybe at e-earphone though. But it's not a matter of a full test or not cos we have to ask the product from Fujiya staff every time we want to test. So kind of awkward that at least for _me_ I've already been there twice asking for product to test without buying. I think they already know that we're not potential customers but there just to demo without buying.

 

[the wizard of oz]

What would be interesting is comparing components between AK100 & AK120 by opening both up and seeing if there is any serious justification for iRiver / Astell & Kern in cheating us asking near double the price... especially since both can run a rather snappy UI and support gap-less. I do understand the law of diminishing returns in going higher-end, but, you know, just what kind of ride are they taking us on

...

 

[AnakChan]

Quote:

What would be interesting is comparing components between AK100 & AK120 by opening both up and seeing if there is any serious justification for iRiver / Astell & Kern in cheating us asking near double the price... especially since both can run a rather snappy UI and support gap-less. I do understand the law of diminishing returns in going higher-end, but, you know, just what kind of ride are they taking us on

...

 
I'm not defending iRiver here but I think in general running DACs in mono, one per channel, is a little more than just "adding another DAC" to the AK100 design.

 

[Gintaras]

Anak
+1

 

[Chank]

Quote:

frankly speaking i would not expect firmware update to lift AK100 to AK120 unless Iriver is cheating us completely which i do not see as well. mind this having new UI and gimmicks is worth, i am still on the fence waiting for Vinnie today to tell us about output.

 
 
Actually, I would totally expect it to work. Since both devices are very similar hw wise and iRiver is likely sharing code library between the two devices to cut down on maintenance and to keep from duplicating effort; it's expected that the the OS will load on all devices of similar architecture. 
 
Also, software CAN change the sound signature of a device if it's whats responsible for feeding the output to the hardware. It's not like say a cd player where the data is typically read and directly piped to the dac. In this case the software is between the sound file and the dac and it can modify what it ultimately sends to the dac.

 

[spkrs01]

Quote:

Spoiler: Warning%3A%20Spoiler!

 
AK120, RWAK100. MS-AK100, Hifiman 901, DX100, Fostex hp_p1.
 
Headphones ATH-ESW11 Limited Ed, ATH-ESW9 and Translucent 1plus2 IEMs.
(Anakchan and my tastes in headphone sound and music differ quite a lot, but our findings/opinions on gear have proved eerily similar in the past).
 
NOTE:We need a `Battle of the DAPs -Comparisons` thread, imho. Where users and experimenters can post their findings/impressions.
 
Anyway here I go with my crappy ears......and crappy bullet points.......BRIEF impressions.
 
ATH-ESW11
MS-AK100 - Nice, lush, full, deeper bass.
RWAK100 - Clear, accurate, honest.
Fostex hpp1 - More forward.
 
Vs
Fostex hpp1 (gain1, filter2) - MS-AK100 -They sound similar.
Fostex hpp1 (gain1, Filter 1) -RWAK100 has slightly more treble.
                                                     MS-AK100 is darker.
                                                      DX100-Accurate.
 
DX100 -clear, full, `flat`, no romance, slightly darker.
 
AK120  vs DX100.
AK120 -slightly shrill
DX100 - laidback.
 
Fostex hpp1 vs DX100.
Fostex - Full, lush, nice highs.
DX100 - Accurate, not sterile.
 
Hifiman 901 vs DX100.
Hifiman (gain1, HD) - Full deep bass, more highs, a bit more soundstage, slightly blacker background.
DX100 -Duller, but still rich, richer in some parts.
 
 
ATH-ESW9.
MS-AK100 - clear, a lttle grainy, likes a bit of bass, crisp, slight warmth.
RWAK100 - Neutral, flat, `quieter`, likes flat headphones, more `body`.
Fostex hpp1 (Gain1, Filter 2) - Power, full, lush, clear, recessed, more body and bass.
Fostex hpp1 (Gain 1, Filter 1) - Lighter, accurate, more grain).
 
****
All sounded very similar, any differences were rather subtle to my ears and very minor, but they were there.
It did lead me to think that the differences would be more pronounced with high end In Ear Monitors (IEMs), I did find the differences were easier to spot at the Tokyo headphone show when I demo`ed with Fitear 335(?) and custom cable.
 
****************************************************
Translucent 1 plus2.
 
DX100- Accurate, clean, neutral
RWAK100 - Ok, light, very slight hiss.
MS-AK100 - Ok, light, slight hiss.
AK120 - Ok, listenable, light, good.
Fostex hpp1 (Gain1, Filter 2) - Nice.
 
AK120 and the Fostex hpp1 sounded similar.
The DAPs didnt like it at too loud a volume, got a bit shrill for me.
 
******************************************************
 
Hopefully these short impressions i wrote down whilst listening can help someone out, at the very least more for us gear-nuts to read and fret over
 
*Also I didnt pay attention and thought I was listening to the AK100 not the AK120!. I was quite surprised at how much better it sounded from last time. Only when I got home did Anakchan set me straight lol.
 
Final thoughts.
I thought all are quite stellar products as far as sound goes, they are more similar than radically different.
Lets say that again, repeat after me
 
DX100, Hifiman and dare I say it  perhaps even the AK120 belong on the top shelf, although I did find the AK120 and the MODDED AK100s to be on a fairly even par (whilst i write this I am mentally only putting the DX100 and Hifiman on the top shelf, fyi). i was quite surprised for some unknown reason to find the Fostex hp_p1 held its own against the specialized daps.
If I was to buy one for myself out of all the DAPs (not counting the Fostex) i would probably go for the Hifiman 901 - something in the sound just edged it forward for me.
 
But in the end it is all about synergy of source, headphones and even taste in music. What suits my ears may not suit yours etc.
 
Thanks again to Anakchan for getting me out of the house and for Fujiya Avic for letting us sit there.
 
TLDR.
 

 

 
 
Quote:

Spoiler: Warning%3A%20Spoiler!

 

Errr...not too certain where to put this but since there's 2xAK100's so in here it goes I guess.
 
I'll leave it up to ExpatInJapan to divulge his thoughts. As for me I didn't get to test as much as EIJ. For 1xtrack, I preferred the AK120 over my DX100 but listening to more tracks, I had my senses knocked back straight and the DX100 had the nicer fuller sound. Meanwhile between the DX100 and HM-901, I enjoyed the HM-901 very much. My issue with the HM-901 is it wouldn't read my 2GB MicroSD regardless of SD adapters used. I found another microSD which did read but twice the OS crashed on me in the middle of a track (and this time it wasn't a WAV file).
 
Between the MS-AK100 and RWAK100, I couldn't decide which one I'd consider better. For my ears the RWAK100 was a warmer signature whilst the MS-AK100 was a somewhat more sparkly. With my FitEar MH335DW, the MS-AK100 was more agreeable. However with the Tralucent 1Plus2, I think I'd lean more towards the RWAK100. So headphone signature plays a part as to which one would be more suitable.
 
MS-AK100/RWAK100 comparisons with the AK120 from me unfortunately.
 
By the way, a big thank you to Fujiya for letting us sit there for almost 2 hrs demoing their gear almost without buying anything.
 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 
Thank you both for the time and effort to put this together

 

[Currawong]

Thanks for taking time to get impressions of the different DAPs. I want to suggest getting SoundMeter for your iPhone, as well as a Pink Noise file and level-matching devices when comparing if possible. I caught myself out a couple of times thinking gain levels sounded different when it was only the volume that was different. 

 

[the wizard of oz]

Quote:

Quote:

What would be interesting is comparing components between AK100 & AK120 by opening both up and seeing if there is any serious justification for iRiver / Astell & Kern in cheating us asking near double the price... especially since both can run a rather snappy UI and support gap-less. I do understand the law of diminishing returns in going higher-end, but, you know, just what kind of ride are they taking us on

...

 
I'm not defending iRiver here but I think in general running DACs in mono, one per channel, is a little more than just "adding another DAC" to the AK100 design.

I do understand that too; but again, is that worth nearly twice the price is what I'm curious about.

 

[Achmedisdead]

Quote:

 
I'm not defending iRiver here but I think in general running DACs in mono, one per channel, is a little more than just "adding another DAC" to the AK100 design.

 
Quote:

I do understand that too; but again, is that worth nearly twice the price is what I'm curious about.

I highly doubt it. I'm sure it sounds somewhat better, but unless it sounds twice as good, then it's not worth twice the price. Logic ftw