Any chance of incorporating the new AK4911 into the RD 160?

ROSE Products RD160
#1

This looks like a real opportunity for upgrading the RD 160, particularly since the SINAD specs on the RD 160 aren’t world beating by any means. This looks like a real opportunity to improve those specs without too much development time or investment.

I do have an RD 160 and love it but this AKM AK 4911 looks very good with SINAD at -150dB.

The noise figure is the real story. MUSES8920A’s 8.0nV/√Hz is decent but unremarkable by today’s best-in-class standards. AK4911’s 0.96nV/√Hz is roughly 8x lower noise voltage — that’s not a marginal improvement, that’s a different tier of part. For reference, that puts the AK4911 in the same league as the very best discrete-class and ultra-low-noise op-amps on the market (e.g., LME49710-class or better), explicitly because AKM designed it as a current-summing output stage for multi-bit current-output DACs like the AK4499EX — a much more specialized job than a general-purpose audio op-amp.

THD comparison is apples-to-oranges as published. MUSES8920A’s 0.0004% converts to about −108dB. AKM’s claimed −150dB THD+N is over 40dB better — again consistent with AK4911 being a purpose-built, modern part rather than a general dual op-amp from over a decade ago (the MUSES8920 datasheet itself dates to 2012-2013).

StandardModel

2 Likes
#2

I agree that if you’re going to refresh a product, you should improve the quality of the components when ever possible. I’d say upgrade the chips and also the clock. SC cut clocks also reduce the noise floor along w jitter and drift.

But I believe that its not just the measurements but the ensuing sound that matters most.
Once you get to a certain point… the measurements become marketing or bragging rights.

Note: I can hear a difference between an AKM vs ESS DAC. But if you ask me which do I prefer? Sorry they both sound good. (Depending on the chip set)

1 Like
#3

@StandardModel

Just to add, I agree that the products seem to be getting a bit ‘long in tooth’ (old) when you see the competition releasing new products.

The RS520 is another example of a product that needs a refresh.

#4

@StandardModel

Thank you for your technical feedback and for sharing your thoughts regarding the AK4911.

We have forwarded your comments to our hardware development team for review.

However, please understand that the RD160 is an already finalized hardware platform, and upgrades involving changes to the DAC chip or major analog circuit components are not feasible for the existing product.

That said, our development team is continuously evaluating various next-generation components and design approaches for future DAC products. Your suggestions regarding the AK4911 have also been shared internally as valuable feedback for consideration in future product development.

At HiFi ROSE, product development is based not only on measurement specifications, but also on overall sound quality, circuit design, power supply architecture, and system-wide performance in real-world listening environments.

3 Likes
#5

I don’t really disagree with the suggestion, but fads (and DAC chips) come and go (1) and (2) SNR chip specs only is very simplistic approach. We use the final product to play music not a DAC chip and other noise specs matter more. For example does audio signal modulate the noise floor and to what extent? And so on so forth

#6

Serge,

I’m making the assumption that in the last 15 years there has been significant progress in chip design as represented at least in part by an incredibly better (40 Db) noise floor. True, I only cited one statistic. If you believe that there have been no real advances in op-amp design in the last fifteen years then you are correct.

StandardModel

1 Like
#7

I think it is a good suggestion for Rose to test the AK4911 in an RD160 “mule,” But I never thought it realistic to expect Rose to change the configuration of the current model, which is already in production and is receiving excellent reviews. I could see the new chip in the RD161 though if the designers and engineers think it improves sonic quality.

1 Like
#8

I always interpreted the request to mean the next model in the evolution not just make a RD160a.
So its not just the chip but everything around it to improve the DAC.

#9

@StandardModel

After checking with our hardware team, I can confirm that there are currently no plans for a successor to the RD160.

As mentioned previously, please understand that the RD160 is an already finalized hardware platform, and upgrades involving changes to the DAC chip or major analog circuit components are not feasible for the existing product.

3 Likes
#10

Rosehan,

Thank you for investigating.
Your hardware team does an excellent job.

StandardModel

#11

Any chance you could tell us if a successor is planned for the RS130?

#12

My guess is that they are and should be planning successor models of everything in the lineup. Say for instance that RS130 was launched 3 years ago. They had to have started the engineering on that at least 2 years before that. I can’t imagine that they don’t have a product manager thinking about improvements to the RS130, such as multi-channel output of Dolby Atmos via HDMI or getting Apple Music, Amazon Music and Spotify Lossless to play properly. Or to be able to use individual company’s “Connect Apps” to work properly, which would go a long way to solving many of the complaints about the Rose software we read about every day.

That said, I do not believe they should launch any new products until the operating system and app are rock-solid, otherwise the company risks disaffecting more future customers.

2 Likes
#13

That’s exactly how it has to be! I don’t know why, or for whom, this should be useful.

Greetings Bonte… :v:t2:

1 Like
#14

@Tony22

We are considering a successor to the RS130.
However, I’m afraid I can’t make any promises regarding when it might be released.

2 Likes
#15

Rosehan,

Now THAT is interesting news.

StandardModel

#16

Interesting news. Thank you. I for one feel your streaming hardware design is exceptional, easily comparable to the top tier audiophile streamers in the same price range and above. Without belaboring the point, it’s a shame the SW is not up to the same standard.

1 Like
#17

What difference could a new hyped opamp do in a network streamer? Are you people running on crack?

Please stick to physics that are common globally :wink:

1 Like
#18

Ha! This entire industry is premised on convincing consumers that they can hear the unhearable!

1 Like
#19

Very nice, there are also normal thinking people in this forum.

But beware, those who think too normal will be banished.

See @BorisM.

#20

Oh what, all op-amps sound the same? :joy:
Must be a member Amir’s cult of measurements.

@Bonte, Boris was booted because he was rude and attacking individuals.
AFAIK you can go and find his earlier posts where he was insulting to other posters and harassing them. Long before I got here.

The reality is that we as community members can ask Rose to do something… sort of a wish list. Whether or not Rose will do them… is a different matter.

1 Like