[Strifeff7]

I'm excited,
is there a clip?
or a case or something,
I want to use it while jogging/workout,
@iFi audio

 

[Barusu Lamperouge]

I'm excited,
is there a clip?
or a case or something,
I want to use it while jogging/workout,
@iFi audio

Just a carry pouch. Clip and case is under deliberation per ifi's spokesperson.

 

[iFi audio]

Clip and case is under deliberation per ifi's spokesperson.

Yes, we're discussing it indeed @Strifeff7

 

[monsieurfromag3]

Who’s up for a cuppa?
A “portable Tone2 Pro” incoming.

 

[ClieOS]

Who’s up for a cuppa?
A “portable Tone2 Pro” incoming.

There is almost no actual info from the page.

 

[monsieurfromag3]

There is almost no actual info from the page.

True. The newsletter states:
“This portable amplifier features the high-performance ESS ES9281AC Pro DAC, as well as LDAC and aptX HD bluetooth audio via the Qualcomm QCC5125 chip.”
It also states:
“The ‘Tea’ DAC is thinner than an iPhone 13, but has a slight bump to accommodate the 3.5mm headphone jack, and the weight of this audio marvel is just 74 grams.”
Launch is slated for October 28. The one thing the Tea doesn’t have is balanced output.

 

[ClieOS]

True. The newsletter states:
“This portable amplifier features the high-performance ESS ES9281AC Pro DAC, as well as LDAC and aptX HD bluetooth audio via the Qualcomm QCC5125 chip.”
It also states:
“The ‘Tea’ DAC is thinner than an iPhone 13, but has a slight bump to accommodate the 3.5mm headphone jack, and the weight of this audio marvel is just 74 grams.”
Launch is slated for October 28. The one thing the Tea doesn’t have is balanced output.

That seems to be describing more like a Bluetooth DAC/amp, not a Bluetooth headphone adapter. Guess we will know more in a month.

 

[Gee Simpson]

Patiently waiting for the updated BTR5. They said it would be released in September....not long left!

 

[Ynot1]

I read a post from a chord mojo owner who wants a bluetooth transport to bypass expensive polly. I think m0 and m5 may offer bluetooth transport. So why don't newer bluetooth receivers allow people to add bluetooth via usb to their dac/amp. I think I asked this before but I can't recall where. But I can't be the only person thinking this can be done and is very much wanted.

 

[ClieOS]

I read a post from a chord mojo owner who wants a bluetooth transport to bypass expensive polly. I think m0 and m5 may offer bluetooth transport. So why don't newer bluetooth receivers allow people to add bluetooth via usb to their dac/amp. I think I asked this before but I can't recall where. But I can't be the only person thinking this can be done and is very much wanted.

Yes, you are not the only person who think this can be done - mainly because you are also not the only person who don't understand the complexity behind it. It is not a 1 + 1 = 2 kind of implementation. Far from it.

Here is the reply I posted for a similar questions regarding iFi GO Blue, and the answer applied to other BT headphones adapter as well, so here it is:

Long story short, some DAP can receive BT signal then output digitally over Type-C to an external DAC/amp because: (1) they have a powerful enough SoC to handle the process and (2) they have a complex enough OS (*usually some simplified Linux variations) to do the job.

Given GO Blu, and in fact most BT headphones adapter, have neither (1) nor (2), it is only natural that they can't output digital signal over Type-C or whatever USB port they have. Therefore it really isn't much of any missed opportunity but rather you are asking the wrong device to do an impossible task. If a manufacturer want to design a BT headphones adapter with USB output with all the required hardware, they might as well just make a small DAP instead since it is only a screen and an internal memory storage away from one. Then again, DAP and BT headphone adapter are two different market all together and not every company want to be in both at the same time.

 

[gordec]

Does UP5 have a pretty clean background? I'm debating between UP5 and the new Ifi Go Blu, but it sounds like the Go Blu is pretty noisy with sensitive IEMs.

 

[iFi audio]

Long story short, some DAP can receive BT signal then output digitally over Type-C to an external DAC/amp because: (1) they have a powerful enough SoC to handle the process and (2) they have a complex enough OS (*usually some simplified Linux variations) to do the job.

Given GO Blu, and in fact most BT headphones adapter, have neither (1) nor (2), it is only natural that they can't output digital signal over Type-C or whatever USB port they have. Therefore it really isn't much of any missed opportunity but rather you are asking the wrong device to do an impossible task. If a manufacturer want to design a BT headphones adapter with USB output with all the required hardware, they might as well just make a small DAP instead since it is only a screen and an internal memory storage away from one. Then again, DAP and BT headphone adapter are two different market all together and not every company want to be in both at the same time.

Those are words of wisdom. I'd have to ask at our R&D whether GO blu could in theory process data incoming via BT and send it over via USB elsewhere to thus act as a BT transmitter for other devices. But even if that's possible, using a wireless DAC/amp such as GO blu like so... kinda defeats its core purpose.

Does UP5 have a pretty clean background? I'm debating between UP5 and the new Ifi Go Blu, but it sounds like the Go Blu is pretty noisy with sensitive IEMs.

With many it will work without issues, but those really sensitive might pick up background hiss.

 

[Hanesu]

Does UP5 have a pretty clean background? I'm debating between UP5 and the new Ifi Go Blu, but it sounds like the Go Blu is pretty noisy with sensitive IEMs.

UP5 is super clean from my experience. No hiss even with quite sensitive IEMs.

 

[Ynot1]

Missed opportunity in my humble opinion not to pursue bluetooth transport. There are so many dac amps in the world, it's a pity not one bluetooth receiver would transport, just saying.

One more dap.

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/ap80-hidizs-next-portable-hi-res-music-player.878141/post-15426392

Tell you the truth, I would not want a bluetooth receiver that can transport if it has to cost more than the dap.
I hate to remind you manufacturers of great audio gear, this is a very competitive market space.

Another dap:

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/hib...ifi-digital-audio-player.943808/post-16147671

I have had this question a long time about double amping being undesirable. However if analog out is the only way to transport to another amp to get more power, at what volume level would produce the least amount of negative alterations into the output? Most amps behave undesirably at high volumes, but high volumes give you high voltage or signal levels. And when the amp is driving high output impedance there is very little current draw and therefore the amp is not breaking any sweat. My thinking is just used a high volume setting. But optimally a lower volume setting may make the host operate at a cleaner level. I could avoid all of this thinking if they just added the bluetooth transport.

 

[ClieOS]

Missed opportunity in my humble opinion not to pursue bluetooth transport. There are so many dac amps in the world, it's a pity not one bluetooth receiver would transport, just saying.

One more dap.

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/ap80-hidizs-next-portable-hi-res-music-player.878141/post-15426392

Tell you the truth, I would not want a bluetooth receiver that can transport if it has to cost more than the dap.
I hate to remind you manufacturers of great audio gear, this is a very competitive market space.

Another dap:

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/hib...ifi-digital-audio-player.943808/post-16147671

I have had this question a long time about double amping being undesirable. However if analog out is the only way to transport to another amp to get more power, at what volume level would produce the least amount of negative alterations into the output? Most amps behave undesirably at high volumes, but high volumes give you high voltage or signal levels. And when the amp is driving high output impedance there is very little current draw and therefore the amp is not breaking any sweat. My thinking is just used a high volume setting. But optimally a lower volume setting may make the host operate at a cleaner level. I could avoid all of this thinking if they just added the bluetooth transport.

I think you have some very odd opinion regarding BT transport

As said before, making a BT transport is almost as complex and expensive as making a DAP, sharing most of the same internal component as well as software. To ask a manufacture to make a BT transport is about the same as asking them to make a DAP without screen and internal storage. So why won't them just make a DAP with BT transport capability (and in fact that's precisely what they choose to do)? That way they can sold the same device for multi functionality instead as an one-trick pony.

As far as my opinion goes, those DAP you pointed out are exactly the kind of BT transport you are looking for if you used them that way. Removing the screen and internal storage will not have any major impact of cost (*we are talking maybe $20~30 less per unit, could be even less), since most of the cost will be on the SoC and the firmware development.

On the other hand, I think most people who ends up using BT with higher end headphone are well aware about the shortcoming of BT impact of SQ,. Those people choose BT because they want the convenient and simplicity of having a very small device that can pair of a smartphone and willing to sacrifice some level SQ and output power in the process. An BT transport connect to a a portable DAC/amp in many way just defeat the idea of convenient and simplicity in the first place. For those who are willing to carry a full sized portable DAC/amp, we already have portable DAC/amp that has BT function built-in. I will argue that adding a small DAP with BT transport functionality to a portable DAC/amp will not actually impact most of those people willingness to carry a large stack of device on-the-go. So essentially a complex-to-build, BT transport only device is just a very niche product that don't quite fit into the market. It is an easy decision for the manufacturer - for about the same price, would you want to buy a small DAP with BT transport capability or just a BT transport? What do you think will be an easier product to sell? How would a manufacturer explain to its customer that the BT transport they made has almost all the hardware and software of a DAP, but they decided not to include a screen and internal storage to make it a fully capable DAP, but instead believe it is better off as a BT only transport?