This is a long-term review of product that I've owned for over a year. It sounds great and I've really wanted to love it, but I now have to face facts and accept that the only possible conclusion I can reach is that no-one should buy this product.

On paper it looks great. Fresh out of the box it sounds wonderful and works fine. But sooner or later you'll notice a missed call notification on your phone, and then discover that the BT earphones were active even though they're in the case. You'll open the case to put them on before going out only to find that the battery on one earphone has drained overnight and only has a few percent left. You'll clean the charging contacts and pins but find the problems come back in a day or two. You'll send them back for a replacement (I did this twice, and many thanks to the understanding folks at advancedmp3players who were very good about the process), only to find that the replacement suffers the same problems. You'll desperately keep waiting for a firmware upgrade that might fix the problem, only to find that it doesn't.

That's because it suffers a fatal flaw in the design of the charging pins and pads that no firmware will fix. The pads on the earhooks are sited so they sit right next to the skin of your neck and only have a thin nickel plating. Inevitably, they pick up acid and sweat from the skin and begin to corrode. When you put them back in the case this is transferred to the cheap, sticky pogo pins used for charging, and those end up sticking even more. The only solution it to clean the pads and pins metculously with contact cleaner on a regular basis and try to tease out any pins that have got stuck in a depressed condition. If you're prepared to spend half an hour or more cleaning your BT earphones every day then you just might be able to get away with something that works. If you think BT earphones should be convenient, reliable and low-maintenance (you know, like just about every other example you can buy) then you'll end up with a non-functioning product.

Maybe one day Fiio will design a product that isn't doomed to fail because of a stupid design error. But I think I'll be giving their stuff a miss in future.

More and more phones are ditching the 3.5mm jack as manufacutrers succumb to the epidemic of courage that began in Cupertino. In response, 2019 has seen a wave of Bluetooth headphones released and prices have tumbled. If you're going wireless you might as well go all the way, and for in-ear headphones this means the variety called True Wireless Stereo (TWS). These have moved on a lot since Apple's clumsy AirPods design, and there are now a large number of players offering sets at very attractive prices.

I'm reviewing a pair of these at the low end of the market, which allows a concrete comparison. One is the widely-praised and well-known QCY T1 (which is probably identical to the SoundPeats True Free+ that has been reviewed elsewhere), the other is the Syllable S101, which hasn't received as much attention.

The QCY T1 earbud comes in two versions, which seem to differ only in terms of the battery capacity in the charging station. I will be reviewing the QS2 model, with a 800mAh reserve. The unit uses a single dynamic driver fed by a BT 5.0 Realtek RTL8763B chip capable of SBC and AAC codecs. The unit is rated at 4 hours of life on a single charge, and with the charging station claims a total of 32 hours play time. it has an IPX4 rating.

The S101 uses two dynamic drivers with a crossover and a BT 5.0 Qualcomm QCC3020 chip handling the signal. This can handle SBC, AAC and AptX. It claims 10 hours playback on a single charge, with the 500mAh charging station and claims a 50 hour total play time. It has an IPX6 rating. Confusingly, Syllable's Aliexpress store has several listings for the S101, one of which is named just 'S101', another is 'Original S101' and a third is '2019 New S101'. But I can see no difference between these apart from the text used in the listing title. FWIW, the one tested here is the 'Original S101', but I think they're all the same.

Both sets were ordered from the respective official store on Aliexpress. The QCY QS2 cost me £15.99, and the Syllable S101 was £26.64. Both came via Aliexpress Standard Shipping and arrived in the UK in under 10 days.

Box

The QCY comes in a fairly non-descript card box, but the more expensive Syllable box is more impressive, with the case carried inside a larger foam insert. This might be relevant if you're looking for a gift, but most people are just going to throw this stuff away. Both sets come with the bare minimum of accessories: a USB charging cable and 3 pairs of earbud tips (S, M and L).

Build quality / charging case

The cases are roughly the same size, with the QCY being slightly longer and deeper, but also slightly shorter. Both have translucent lids which allow you to see the status of the LEDs on the earbuds inside. Both charge via a micro-USB port on the back.

The QCY is plastic, and makes no attempt to hide it. The earbuds are a plastic shell with one large button on the outer face. The charging case is all plastic as well and there's a slight play in the lid. It seems fairly sturdy, however: I managed to drop it a few times onto the pavement with no sign of damage. There are two LEDs on the front that indicate the battery level while charging, but remain off until the battery drops low, at which point they warn you by blinking every 30 seconds (which can be easy to miss). The well for the earbud tips is quite shallow, the buds will fit in with the supplied generic olive tips, but you will struggle to get alternative tips to fit, and they need to have a short eartube. With a bit of searching I managed to find a long-flange tip (I think this was from my old Havi B3s) that fit and gave a better seal in my ear.

The Syllable S101's case is immediately more impressive. The bottom is made of metal with the top being thick translucent plastic. The lid fits perfectly and feels robust. Most importantly, it has a deep well for the tips of the earbuds. This is very nice and I had no problems putting on a pair of KZ Starline tips. Even foam tips would fit with a little encouragement. Given the importance of finding a tips that will give a good fit, the flexibility offered by the deeper well is a serious plus. The case has four LEDs on the front to indicate level of charge, which can be checked by pressing a button on the back.

It should be noted that the two sets differ in the way they interact with the charging case. The QCY earbuds disconnect and start to charge as soon as they hit the gold pogo pins in the charging cradle. The S101s only do so when the lid of the case is closed. When you open the case lid the S101s react by powering up and starting to connect, but this only happens with the QCY after physically removing them from the case. Both units light up like a Christmas tree when searching for a signal, but once connected the lights are turned off.

Fit


As shown in the picture, the S101s are significantly bulkier than the QCY earbuds. The body of the QCYs fits neatly in the concha and very little of it sticks out. You can use them while lying with your ear on a pillow, though there is a small amount of pressure. I've seen one review on YouTube that stated they would fit under a motorbike helmet. The S101s, on the other hand, stick out noticeably. Wearing them while resting the ear on a pillow is possible, but rather uncomfortable and I very much doubt they'd fit under a helmet. There's a small plastic lug that rests on the inside of the antitragus to give some support, but most of the fit is determined by friction from the tip with the earcanal. I haven't tested while doing strenous activity, but I didn't experience any real problem getting either to stay in place.

Neither set has ANC, but a good fit with the right tips provides enough noise isolation for ordinary purposes.

Controls
The QCY has a large button on the outer face of the earbud. The S101 has a much smaller single button. Both are physical, which I prefer as capacitative touch controls will fail if your finger is moist. Some people have complained about pressure on the button causing the earbud to press into the ear uncomfortably, but I didn't experience any discomfort on using the buttons with either set. Both offer play/pause, phone answer/hangup, track skip forward/back and assistant; the S101 additionally supports volume control. The S101's manual is rather opaque and it took some experimetation to work out the control scheme - short press: play/pause; long press ~1s: track skip (right: forward, left: back); double press: volume control (right: up, left: down); triple press: assistant; longer press ~4s: turn off. The QCY uses a double press for track skip instead, and, combined with the larger button, I found it noticeably easier to use. The small button on the S101 is a little fiddly and you have to put in some effort to learn the right amount of time to press it in order to get the track skip function without turning it off.

The S101 uses voice messages (in English) to signal power, pairing and connection, whereas the QCY uses tones.

Volume
The S101s offer volume control on the earbuds themselves, and when everything's maxxed out these things can go LOUD. The QCY have no volume control and are solely dependent on the phone setting. With everything cranked up, the S101s are 11.45dB louder than the QCYs (tested with a 1kHz sine wave). That is a lot of extra volume. Having said that, the QCYs are loud enough for almost all purposes, and I had no problem getting a comfortable listening level, though I had to set the phone volume to 80% or so.

The volume control on the S101s has 16 steps then mute, with most steps being -3dB, except for two of them. Thus if full volume is 0dB, lowering it will give you:
-3 dB, -6dB, -9dB, -11dB, -14dB, -17dB, -20dB, -23dB, -24dB, -26dB, -29dB, -32dB, -35dB, -38dB, -41dB, -44dB, mute

Unsuprisingly, the upper volume levels on the S101 introduce some hiss, though this is only just noticeable and not intrusive, and produce slightly more harmonic distortion. But I found that the distortion plateued from about the 4th step down, and that reduced the hiss to a level that was inaudible against the ambient background.

I didin't notice any hiss when using the QCY with my Android phone, though strangely it was moderately noticeable when I briefly tried it on my iPad.

Connection
I ran these from a Pocophone F1 with a Qualcomm 845 SoC. Both are Bluetooth 5.0 devices, as is the phone. The QCY can handle SBC and AAC codes, though strangely it would only connect to my Pocophone using SBC (an old OnePlus 2 running Lineage had no problems getting AAC however). Given that Bluetooth AAC on Android is a dog's dinner I wasn't too concerned about this. The S101 automatically connected using the AptX codec (no current TWS offers AptX HD). With modern Qualcomm chips acting as both source and sink, I was hoping that this would enable Qualcomm's True Wireless Stereo Plus mode with the S101, in which both earbuds connect directly to the phone rather than one connecting to the phone and then relaying the data to the other earbud. I don't know of any way to test this, but did notice that the right earbud remained charging slightly longer than the left, which suggests it is acting as the master connection point.

The QCY's connection is ... adequate. Once it's connected properly it will work fine most of the time until it suddenly throws a fit. These disconnects can range from brief crackles to a paroxysm of stuttering which could only be fixed by pausing the player (which presumably allows the buffers to reset and lets the buds renegotiate their connection). I noticed more connection problems with the left earbud, possibly because I wear glasses with metal arms, which might interfere with the relayed signal. Having said this, the QCY's connection was generally quite acceptable.

The S101 connection is markedly superior. It's not perfect, but the worst I suffered was a short crackle of less tham half a second. This is one of the improvements I was hoping for in buying a device running a Qualcomm chip, and my hope was fulfilled.

Both buds connect automatically on removing them from the charging case, though occasionally this failed and I needed to go into the Bluetooth menu on my phone to get them to link up. Again, this happened less frequently with the Q101. Both boast a range of 10m, but I didin't test that because there are too many other variables that can affect connection quality.

I didn't bother testing the mic quality. Both are adequate for calls and I was only interested in the audio quality for listening.

Sound
Measurements
Raw Frequency Response


It looks like someone ordered the extra bass, with a side-order of low-end. Both sets try to impress with masses of bass grunt, and while this makes a splash at first it soon becomes tiresome. Luckily, this can easily be remedied. The raw frequency repsonses shown here are each an average of 5 separate measures recorded by playing the sweep on my phone and then importing this ito Room EQ Wizard as an offline measurement. Apart from the exaggerated bass, the principal feature is a degree of mismatch in the driver repsonses. Unfortunately this is going to happen with cheap headphones, which generally aren't matched carefully at the factory. While this is undesireable, I didn't notice it subjectively.

All results are shown unsmoothed, and it should be noted that with proper smoothing that relfects the ear's actual frequency acuity many of the peaks smooth out considerably.


To correct the response curves I averaged the response from right and left 'phones. I set up low-shelf filters to match the bass region and used REW's auomtaic optimisation function to handle the upper end. The target curve shown here is Olive & Welti's 2014 revision. The QCY could be matched quite easily, but the automatic results for the S101 included too many Q=5 notch filters. These were hand-optimised to use filters with a gentler slope. I use Neutron Music Player on Android, and have listed the code for each EQ below. This can be pasted into the eq_presets.xml file in the NeutronMP folder, just below the <eqp version="3"> tag. Make sure that the id values are unique and don't clash with any other presets you have in the file.
Poweramp is another popular Android music player, and is frankly prettier and easier to use than neutron. Unfortunately its inbuilt EQ isn't nearly as good, offering 10 bands with fixed frequencies and a fixed bandwidth at Q=1.5. Still, you can approximate a decent match with the following values:
Obviously, these values are only a guide, and there are many ways to get the EQ to give a similar result.


Harmonic distortion with EQ engaged is quite well controlled in each set, with generally very low values. The numbers given in the legend reflect THD at 1kHz. The QCY peaks at around 1.5% THD and the S101 at 0.89%, but both are quite acceptable. The distortion graphs reflect the entire playback chain, though the overwhelming bulk is 2nd harmonic from the speakers themselves.


Intermodulation distortion (DIN standard) is generally acceptable for both sets, but the S101 does show a lower spread of components and lower overall level.


Subjective assessment
I measured the levels from each earphone with the relevant EQ engaged and was able to macth volumes to within 1dB for the listening tests.

As with all subjective reviews, the following needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, as I didn't even attempt to perform a properly blinded assessment. Any differences are quite subtle.

It should be no surprise that there's very little difference in tonality, which just shows that the EQ matching is doing its job. For mormal listening I'd probably lift the low shelf filter a few dB to give a bit more bass, but for this comparison I stuck to the O&W curve.

Percussion Imaging test from the HeadFi Open Your Ears album: QCY seems a little more compressed in depth, with slightly less distinction between distances, especially with the close ones. The drum set feels more three-dimensional on the S101, and on the QCY the cymbals are a little splashy.

Laurie Anderson My Eyes: The S101 has more space around the instruments and feels less congested. The track features a changing sense of space that occurs as it moves metaphorically from the depths of the ocean to the heavens, and this distinction feels more apparent on the S101.

Belly, The Bees & Super-connected: Again, I found the S101 presented a slightly more convincing sense of space, with greater delineation of the instrument placing. Having said that, the S101 did suffer from some distracting sibilance, possibly related to its 8kHz peak, so I might need to go back and refine the EQ further.

The National, Quiet Light, Where is Her Head, Not in Kansas: The QCY seems ever-so-slightly dull and veiled on these tracks. The S101 is a little more involving and beguiling.

The Cure, Lovesong, Last Dance: The two sets are a lot closer on these tracks. In fact I might marginally prefer the QCY here, which seems better suited to the dense mix used here.

Radiohead, All I Need, Let Down: The S101 certainly sounds more poised and confident with these tracks. This is particularly noticeable on Let Down, where Yorke's anguished vocals sound a little strained on the QCY.

Suzanne Vega, Last Year's Troubles: This one is a wash and it's hard to say which I prefer. There is perhaps a slight emphasis to the sibilance with the S101, similar to that described earlier.

Gorillaz, Dare: Everything just seems a bit better defined on the S101. Whereas the QCY seems to blur the edges of the motoric beat the S101 drives it along and is more compelling.

Handel, Le Cantate Italiane Vol 1 Un pensiero voli (La Risonanza): Both sets are very listenable on this excellent recording. But the S101 gives a greater sense of space, with a clearer depiction of the ambient environment around the instruments, and greater definition of the soprano's modulation.

Bach, Brandenburg Concerto #3, III (Dunedin Consort, Butt): I chose this particular track as, under John Butt, it's a riotous assembly that can easily become chaotic if not handled well. The S101 puts in an exemplary performance, keeping the instruments well defined even in the busiest passages. The QCY makes a brave attempt, but just can't produce the same sure-footed rendition.

Obviously, any subjective review like this is inherently subject to a whole load of bias, and it should be clear that I'd decided I prefered the S101 fairly early on. I made my best effort to be impartial, but in the absence of a properly blinded methodology these assessments should be taken with care. Even if I did have assistants with deep wells of patience and diligence, the fit differed sufficiently between the two earphones that it was fairly easy to distinguish them just by the feel in my ear.

Summary
The QCY offers a smaller and more unobtrusive earpiece with a less fiddly control mechanism. The S101 offers better connection (with a phone running a modern Qualcomm chip at least), more volume, volume control, better battery life and a more impressive build quality.

Most importantly, the S101 sounds better, though the QCY certainly won't disappoint for non-critical listening. The important proviso is that you need to be prepared to correct the frequency response on both these devices to prevent the overblown bass swamping the sound.

Update
I did some further fiddling with the EQ this morning, and I think these settings give a better result and tame the slight sibilance I noted.

For a few years now the Sansa Clip+ and ClipZip have been the goto DAPs for audiophiles on a budget. But times change, and Sansa no longer sells either of these, having moved on to new models based on a different chip that isn’t getting such rave reviews (though you can still find retailers with old stock if you hunt around).
 
Luckily, the past couple of years have seen the rise of Chinese makers who design and manufacture their own DAPs, some at very attractive prices. xDuoo received a lot of attention for its X2 model priced around the same as the Sansa Clips. Though it suffers from a few quirks (critically, no support for aac), its sound quality has received considerable praise. Their latest model is the X3, which costs around twice as much but introduces significant improvements. How does it compare to the aging Clip? More importantly, if you already have a Sansa Clip, does it represent an upgrade worth spending money on?
 
Two slots, Baby!
We might as well start with the headline, knock-it-out-the-park homerun advantage the X3 brings: dual microSD slots. If you spend a lot of money on music and want it all in one convenient place, then the 119GB offered by a 128GB card just doesn’t cut it. You can spend a lot of money on a larger 200GB card, but that only gives you an extra 64GB of actual space. There are other players with dual slots, but they cost around three times as much as the X3. You can futz around swapping cards in and out, but that means finding a place to store your extra cards and hoping you don’t lose the tiny things. Two card slots gives you 240GB of hassle-free space using cards that are now fairly cheap.
 
Of course, the X3 brings other significant improvements to the table. While the Sansa Clips rely on the DAC and amplifier built into their single-chip system, the X3 uses Cirrus Logics’ CS4398 DAC hooked up to a set of TI amplifier chips. This provides full high-resolution file support (24bit/192kHz) and the amplification needed to handle a far wider range of headphones than the Clip on its own. xDuoo’s specification of 250mW into 32Ω is perhaps a little optimistic - the X2 claimed similar specs, but X2 measurements show a more reasonable, but still respectable, 37mW into 32Ω, four times what the Clip can produce. Importantly, it can handle all the major music formats, AAC, MP3, FLAC, APE, ALAC, OGG and WMA (and WAV for the masochists), as well as DSD64 in DFF format. Some have reported problems with DSD playback, but I was able to play DSD64 samples from this page without any hassle.
 
The Interface
The Clip does have a trump card to play, though, and that’s support for Rockbox. This gives it a highly configurable user interface and advanced features like a full 10-band parametric equaliser, replay-gain and crossfeed. The X3’s UI is incredibly spartan in comparison, with no support for browsing by tag at all. It supports cue sheets for custom playlists, but the main mode consists of simply browsing through the file structure, though it does allow the songs in a folder to be set on repeat (one/all) or random shuffle. Luckily foobar2k makes it fairly simple to set up a folder and filename structure on your cards that matches your preferred method of accessing your music. The X3 will also present a long list of all the song files present on the device, though it’s hard to imagine what use this serves. There’s no equaliser or tone controls of any sort, and only two settings, one to switch to a +6dB high gain mode and one to toggle the slope of the CS4398’s interpolation filter (which should be kept to fast rolloff).  There’s no support for album artwork, and never will be as the screen is monochrome. The firmware is upgradeable (reviewed on V1.0) and xDuoo are said to be working on bringing some form of tone control, though this won’t be a full parametric equaliser. Hopefully they’ll also implement gapless playback, which is currently missing.
 
There can be a frustrating lag while navigating the folders if there are a large number of items to read from the card. Clearly the X3 is building the directory listing fresh from the card each time and doesn’t cache it. The Clip exhibits a slightly worse lag on navigating the tag database in Rockbox, which is a result of its poky processor. Annoyingly, adding or deleting files over USB will cause the X3 to rebuild its list of songs when the player is unplugged, even if ‘Auto-update’ is turned off. This can take some time when you have a lot of files. The X3 remembers the track you’re playing when you turn it off and then back on, but the position within the track is lost and it starts playing from the start, whereas Rockbox allows you to resume  from the exact position you stopped. This would be an issue for those listening to audiobooks or podcasts, but isn’t much of a burden for music.
 
The USB 2.0 interface is solid and trouble-free, the device is recognised instantly as mass storage and files transferred as swiftly as the USB speed allows. This is in stark contrast to the defective USB implementation offered by Rockbox on the Clip, where getting your computer to recognise it is a lottery (this is a pure software issue, as there are no such problems with the Clip on stock firmware).
 
In general, the X3’s software is perfectly stable, with no crashes or glitches. xDuoo clearly spent their time on making sure they had a solid and thoroughly-tested firmware build for the release rather than on adding features, and this was a wise choice. Holding down the Prev or Next buttons allows you to scroll through a track, but otherwise the simplicity of the interface means there are no complicated ‘hold this button, press that one’ contortions needed as in Rockbox. Buttons can be locked by a switch on the left side.
 
Build
 
The X3 certainly wins in terms of build quality, having a solid, aluminium case with an attractive radially-brushed finish to the front and 45° chamfers on the back to make it comfortable to hold. The buttons are large, firm and wobble-free and far easier to operate than the Clip’s. It’s a handsome device, sadly let down by the film that’s required  to protect the delicate covering of the OLED display. As the photo shows, getting all the bubbles out after applying it was beyond my ability. The screen protector is an unwelcome throw-back to the years before toughened glass, but at this price it’s hard to complain.
 
The 4-line display is quite clear, but not very bright, and is even harder to read in sunlight than the Clip’s. The decreased contrast caused by the screen protector doesn’t help here either.
As would be expected given its larger size, the X3’s battery will comfortably keep going through many days of use, though I haven’t attempted a formal capacity test.
 
 
The X3 has a dedicated line-out port, which is switched and turns off the headphone-out when you plug it in. This convenience obviously saves power, but also means you can’t run two sets of headphones without some form of splitter. The jacks themselves are reassuringly solid without any wobble and provide a far more positive connection than the lightweight jack on the Clip.
 
The Sound
Now to the sound, which is the whole point. Headphones used were the Etymotic ER4S, and for comparison I used my ClipZip running the latest version of Rockbox and feeding a Topping NX1 amplifier (as the Clip doesn’t really have enough grunt to power the ER4S on its own). All EQ and tone controls were set flat and all other processing like crossfeed was turned off. I matched levels using a pink noise file with one earpiece shoved up against a microphone and think I got them fairly close, at least within a couple of dB of each other.
 
Obviously, all the comparison was done sighted, and is thus merely a matter of opinion. Nothing should be taken as gospel, but then I hope readers of this forum are smart enough to realise that applies to all opinions formed from subjective and uncontrolled tests. I like to think of myself as an audio sceptic: there should be minimal differences between gear that’s been well-specified and designed, especially when it comes to electronics. But like any kid with a new toy I’m biased, and definitely wanted the new toy to be better than the old one. I feel fairly sure my findings would survive a proper double-blind test, but without the facilities to perform one (i.e. an assistant with a lot of patience) that doesn’t mean much.
 
The first thing that was noticeable on playing Beach House’s Lazuli was that the X3 has a weight and authority to its bass that the Clip/NX1 simply can’t provide. The kick drum came in with a solidity I could never achieve by fiddling with tone controls. I must admit I’ve been guilty of goosing up the bass on the Clip with the ER4s, which are tuned to be flat. But I didn’t feel the slightest need for a base lift on the X3.
 
The second impression was a feeling of space, and most importantly depth that was missing with the Clip. The easiest analogy is the difference between watching a film and watching a play from the rear stalls. The instruments were layered back-to-front and, probably as a consequence, there was a far greater feeling of separation between them.
 
Moving on to Suzuki’s rendition of the Bach BWV161 Cantata showed some improvement at the top-end as well, with none of the slight glare the Clip lends to the tenor’s high notes. The sense of spatial precision and depth was felt here as well, and on the alto recitativ the concluding four notes of recorder and organ drop into space with an impressive clarity.
 
The opening movement of John Butt’s recording of the first Brandenburg Concerto is a riotous festival compared to other interpretations. On the Clip the riot becomes a little chaotic at times,  but the X3 keeps things far better controlled, letting the rambunctious oboes huff and puff without trampling on the other instruments. Again, the solidity of the bass allowed the continuo to anchor the whole piece as it should, whereas the Clip allowed things to fly away a bit.
 
No listening session is complete without a visit to Laughin’ Len. Leonard Cohen’s Tower of Song has a fairly simple scoring, and the difference between the X3 and Clip was much less obvious than with the other tracks. There was perhaps a touch more clarity to the catarrh in his gravelly ‘born with the gift of a golden voice’, and the backing singers were more clearly in the back rather than washing over the lead vocals. But I would probably be hard-pressed to distinguish them on a double-blind test.
 
The Clip is certainly very good, which is a testimony to the AMS AS3525 chip it uses. But the X3 is a clear improvement, especially in terms of the three dimensional sound stage it can produce. There is a far more precise feel to the instruments, and the bass has an authority the Clip cannot match.
 
Final Remarks
In conclusion, the X3 is a worthwhile upgrade simply for the extra space it offers those with large music collections. But you’ll experience a definite improvement in sound as well. Obviously at this price some corners had to be cut, and the interface is extremely spartan to those used to the flexibility of Rockbox. But it’s functional and, most importantly, stable. xDuoo are working on the next version and I hope they enable gapless playback. Storing the exact track position when turning it off would also be a useful addition.
xDuoo has very little in the way of distribution in the West, but can be bought from PenonAudio or various sellers on Aliexpress (where it was going for as little as £61 in the recent sale).