[ybbobserrot]

For 3.5mm:
https://store.hiby.com/products/hiby-type-c-to-3-5mm-gold-plating-coaxial-cable
For RCA:
https://www.aliexpress.com/i/4000589035319.html

Do you think this will work as well?

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Do you think this will work as well?

Yes, definitely

 

[Safeinthemountains]

WAV is PCM, so is FLAC. DSD is its own format, and R4 has separate audio circuits for playing WAV/FLAC/MP3 (all PCM) and DSD. In my experience the DSD circuit sounds more 'analogue' (warmer, slightly rolled off transients) and the PCM circuit more 'digital' (sharper, cooler, with a hint of treble glare). That's not a value judgement - some may prefer the more clean sounding PCM circuit, while others will favour DSD. Hopefully HiBy does us all a favour and let us select which circuit to use for playback regardless of file format.

A purely technical question then comes to my mind...

@Joe Bloggs : For the ES9219P or the ES9038Q2M used in R5G2 and R6III; Hyperstream II or III are delta-sigma conversion techniques ? Can you confirm ? Normally the name should speak by itself... Because it is not really explained in the datasheets of ESStech, but there is a stage called "modulators" in the digital section of the functionnal block diagram...
So in the end both PCM and DSD are converted using Delta-Sigma principle, right ?
Then I don't really see the point of having two different paths, only the resolution (sampling freq) of the stream is in theory natively higher for DSD, as opposed to 44/16 data converted into Delta-Sigma stream inside the chips...
Could you tell us more about that ?
Thanks

 

[gLer]

Hey guys, my full review of R4 (featuring Project Ace) is now online here. Enjoy!

​

 

[Joe Bloggs]

A purely technical question then comes to my mind...

@Joe Bloggs : For the ES9219P or the ES9038Q2M used in R5G2 and R6III; Hyperstream II or III are delta-sigma conversion techniques ? Can you confirm ? Normally the name should speak by itself... Because it is not really explained in the datasheets of ESStech, but there is a stage called "modulators" in the digital section of the functionnal block diagram...
So in the end both PCM and DSD are converted using Delta-Sigma principle, right ?
Then I don't really see the point of having two different paths, only the resolution (sampling freq) of the stream is in theory natively higher for DSD, as opposed to 44/16 data converted into Delta-Sigma stream inside the chips...
Could you tell us more about that ?
Thanks

Yes, both PCM and DSD are decoded in multibit delta-sigma. The issue lies in the output of this decoding. For DSD, the noise floor is a crazy high -6dB (because the bit depth is one bit) before noise shaping. The saving grace is that there's several megahertz's worth of frequencies for the noise to be shaped up into and out of audibility. But for DSD64, this "several megahertz" is actually less than 3MHz, and the noise shaping only just manages to shape it out of the audible band, into the high 20s kHz, before the noise floor increases significantly.

Whereas, the noise floor of, say, 24/192 is -145dB all the way out to 96kHz. And high fidelity oversampling pushes any aliasing noise way above that frequency. So one would plausibly have a post-DAC low-pass-filter (for antialiasing) that only cuts in at several hundred kHz, to maximize the utility of hi-res audio.

This is where the two separate pathways come in: for DSD, to accommodate the higher noise at lower (still ultrasonic) frequencies especially of DSD64, an analogue lowpass filter of lower corner frequency (still ultrasonic) is wired in. For PCM, one with a higher corner frequency is wired in (reasons above). This allows for better audio reproduction in both formats.

 

[Safeinthemountains]

Yes, both PCM and DSD are decoded in multibit delta-sigma. The issue lies in the output of this decoding. For DSD, the noise floor is a crazy high -6dB (because the bit depth is one bit) before noise shaping. The saving grace is that there's several megahertz's worth of frequencies for the noise to be shaped up into and out of audibility. But for DSD64, this "several megahertz" is actually less than 3MHz, and the noise shaping only just manages to shape it out of the audible band, into the high 20s kHz, before the noise floor increases significantly.

Whereas, the noise floor of, say, 24/192 is -145dB all the way out to 96kHz. And high fidelity oversampling pushes any aliasing noise way above that frequency. So one would plausibly have a post-DAC low-pass-filter (for antialiasing) that only cuts in at several hundred kHz, to maximize the utility of hi-res audio.

This is where the two separate pathways come in: for DSD, to accommodate the higher noise at lower (still ultrasonic) frequencies especially of DSD64, an analogue lowpass filter of lower corner frequency (still ultrasonic) is wired in. For PCM, one with a higher corner frequency is wired in (reasons above). This allows for better audio reproduction in both formats.

Thanks for the highlight ! I didn't realize that a delta-sigma flux had a SNR of 6dB, but according to the theory it seems realistic

But then, why not just use the same "DAC" part, and just switch in between two filters ? I guess that's what is done in other DAP's implementation like R5/R6 with "single" DAC ?

(in fact, the "DAC" for a one-bit or delta-sigma stream, should simply be a low pass filter, right ?)

 

[ybbobserrot]

Yes, both PCM and DSD are decoded in multibit delta-sigma. The issue lies in the output of this decoding. For DSD, the noise floor is a crazy high -6dB (because the bit depth is one bit) before noise shaping. The saving grace is that there's several megahertz's worth of frequencies for the noise to be shaped up into and out of audibility. But for DSD64, this "several megahertz" is actually less than 3MHz, and the noise shaping only just manages to shape it out of the audible band, into the high 20s kHz, before the noise floor increases significantly.

Whereas, the noise floor of, say, 24/192 is -145dB all the way out to 96kHz. And high fidelity oversampling pushes any aliasing noise way above that frequency. So one would plausibly have a post-DAC low-pass-filter (for antialiasing) that only cuts in at several hundred kHz, to maximize the utility of hi-res audio.

This is where the two separate pathways come in: for DSD, to accommodate the higher noise at lower (still ultrasonic) frequencies especially of DSD64, an analogue lowpass filter of lower corner frequency (still ultrasonic) is wired in. For PCM, one with a higher corner frequency is wired in (reasons above). This allows for better audio reproduction in both formats.

I am quite amazed at your adeptness in handling these incessant and complex questions in this platform You even answer questions at those times when people are probably sleeping. Are you an AI? (I meant that as a compliment)

 

[theintention]

I am quite amazed at your adeptness in handling these incessant and complex questions in this platform You even answer questions at those times when people are probably sleeping. Are you an AI? (I meant that as a compliment)

Yeah @Joe Bloggs awesome work man, this is my first hiby product and it’s nice to see some sort of representation here!

 

[UnderwaterB0i]

So I have the R4 preordered (stuck on Ready to Ship...) and I have mostly budget-ish IEMs, and am looking for an upgraded IEM as well potentially an open over ear headphone. I listen to pretty aggressive rock/metal, and pop. For IEMs, I'm thinking about the Kiwi Ear Quartet (really like the Cadenza), Simgot EM6L or EA500LM, and the Letshuoer S12/Pro. For over ears I was hoping for something under $200USD, so I was considering the Hifiman HE400SE, or Sennheisers, specifically the HD 6xx, HD 58x Jubilee, HD599se, or the HD 560 S.

Does anyone have any suggestions based on these that would pair well with the R4? I assume I won't need an additional amp/dac with the R4 to drive some of these? I hear the HE400SE normally would need an amp to drive properly.

 

[Murgatroid]

I find the Hifiman HE400SE, as well as the Ananda Nano, are driven nicely by all my DAPs, including the anemic Sony A306 (uncapped version) which surprised me. I've been eyeing the Meze 99 Classic. They are currently $250 on Amazon. The Neo version is $200. The 99's are supposedly very easy to drive.

 

[UnderwaterB0i]

I find the Hifiman HE400SE, as well as the Ananda Nano, are driven nicely by all my DAPs, including the anemic Sony A306 (uncapped version) which surprised me. I've been eyeing the Meze 99 Classic. They are currently $250 on Amazon. The Neo version is $200. The 99's are supposedly very easy to drive.

Cool, I was leaning towards the HE400SE because of price. I'm aware there's some QC issues, but I'll buy on Amazon and return if I have issues.

 

[Discordiain]

So I have the R4 preordered (stuck on Ready to Ship...) and I have mostly budget-ish IEMs, and am looking for an upgraded IEM as well potentially an open over ear headphone. I listen to pretty aggressive rock/metal, and pop. For IEMs, I'm thinking about the Kiwi Ear Quartet (really like the Cadenza), Simgot EM6L or EA500LM, and the Letshuoer S12/Pro. For over ears I was hoping for something under $200USD, so I was considering the Hifiman HE400SE, or Sennheisers, specifically the HD 6xx, HD 58x Jubilee, HD599se, or the HD 560 S.

Does anyone have any suggestions based on these that would pair well with the R4? I assume I won't need an additional amp/dac with the R4 to drive some of these? I hear the HE400SE normally would need an amp to drive properly.

Meyer Audio CKLVX D41 is under $200 and well worth a shout.

I have the 99 Noirs, the HD58X and Sundaras, but until my R4 arrives tomorrow, I won't be able to say what it's like for driving them.

 

[JimiMack]

I just received my R4 DAP unit today and I am having an issue with it. The short time I have been using it, it is getting VERY hot. To the point that I have to shut it down as it is burning my hand. The unit is only playing files I had downloaded already to the SD card from Tidal. Playing for no more than 15 minutes, it becomes too hot to handle.

The player is getting hot on all four sides but only from the bottom half of the unit. The top half on all four sides is remaining cooler but it is to the point I am worried and very concerned that it will fry or burn me. Thinking of requesting a refund already regarding this issue.

 

[ybbobserrot]

I just received my R4 DAP unit today and I am having an issue with it. The short time I have been using it, it is getting VERY hot. To the point that I have to shut it down as it is burning my hand. The unit is only playing files I had downloaded already to the SD card from Tidal. Playing for no more than 15 minutes, it becomes too hot to handle.

The player is getting hot on all four sides but only from the bottom half of the unit. The top half on all four sides is remaining cooler but it is to the point I am worried and very concerned that it will fry or burn me. Thinking of requesting a refund already regarding this issue.

Yeah, that is definitely not normal. I've had my unit for about a week now, and I play at least 6-8 hours every day. it just gets a little warm, but never as you described. The unit is too good to pass up. I highly suggest to get a replacement versus a refund.

 

[ybbobserrot]

I just received my R4 DAP unit today and I am having an issue with it. The short time I have been using it, it is getting VERY hot. To the point that I have to shut it down as it is burning my hand. The unit is only playing files I had downloaded already to the SD card from Tidal. Playing for no more than 15 minutes, it becomes too hot to handle.

The player is getting hot on all four sides but only from the bottom half of the unit. The top half on all four sides is remaining cooler but it is to the point I am worried and very concerned that it will fry or burn me. Thinking of requesting a refund already regarding this issue.

By the way. When you say "files downloaded from Tidal" did you mean for offline listening or did you actually convert it to files that can be played independently from Tidal?