That is perfectly fine, but there are maybe a better options than combo you mentioned as all-in-one device. I like Metronome sound, far better than same price level dCS, or Chord. The rest of the pack is not on the same level…
Thanks for your opinion. I have play Denafrips Terminator II in my setup connect with RS150B via USB A to USB B (audioqest cable Carbon 0.7m) and sound is amazing. I hope with I2S (HDMI) connect from RS130 to TII will be better. I2S on RS150B guys from Denafrips not recommended …
Of course, I expect better sound quality from the RS130, the display surprised me if it’s true… I’m still playing on the RS150B and I’m not disappointed.
I do have the terminator II in combination with the 150 but wondering if the 130 will make a big difference.
Keep in mind you probably have to pay around 1500 euro extra when trading in the 150 for the 130
I’m also considering but really want to hear the 130 connected to my terminator II and then decide if it’s worth the money
1 Like
HiFi system is a waste of money, but if the listener wants quality, he has to pay extra for it.
So far I’ve been playing a Soundaware D300REF and TII combo with a clock and I2S cable connection and the sound has been amazing. The design of the three-line text menu decided to change the streamer. Maybe I made a mistake but I like a nice design.
I’m just sorry that one day a week ago I bought an RS150B and two days later a report was sent that there was an RS130 in the offer. I regret that the most 
I use my R2R DAC with the 150b without issue (well sorta). I wanted to use it via i2s only and was told I could but the 150b only has 2 i2s profiles (that will be the same 2 profiles for the 130b) as most higher end streamers have 4 or more profiles to cover the full range of 3rd party DACS. With that being said you can always use the USB audio out of the 150b into the USB in of the external DAC or you can put a DDC in-between the 150b and the external DAC and potential convert USB audio into i2s and drive your external DAC that way. The same setup would need to be the same for the 130b unless you are fine with USB audio out only or one of the two profiles match the i2s profile of your external DAC. (make sense?)
If I were you I would not get the 130. You will see little to no benefit. The only difference is they use fiberoptic input to decrease the transmitted noise from ethernet. This can easily be achieved my using a fiber media conversion kit which can be had without a linear power supply for under $100 USD with a linear power supply it would cost a total of under $500 depending on the quality of the power supply you purchase. So the only real difference is the clock which is a nominal upgrade at best. In reality you would not notice a sound difference from the 150 to the 130. And the screen in the 130 is a downgrade as it is now TFT vs IPS on the 150.
See the link for the FMC upgrade I mentioned. It is in English on YouTube but it clearly lays out how to do what the RS130 is doing with ethernet vs the RS150b by using Fiber Optics.
1 Like
@duffer5 Thanks!
I use Melco S100 and the ADOT Kit with SFP+ Finisar FTLX1475D3BTL. Then the network acoustics muon pro at last as a RJ45-Cable into the ROSE RS 150B.
The Rose RS 130 maybe has a better USB 2.0 output then the RS 150B which based on 3.0…maybe it will sounds better to the DDC…at the end DDC and DAC via i2S is 100% the best setup…maybe the RS130 is the ultimate transport…the reviews in the future can show this…perhaps great youtubers like Jay’s Audio Lab will test this piece…
@JOGA69 All excellent points. The DDC most likely has really good USB isolation and when passed onto i2s and outputted the USB is not a factor as the audio and clock timing are all outputted via i2s. The DDC cleans up the USB when converted to i2s. It would be better if the 150b had more i2s profiles and you could run i2s directly from the 150b to a external dac without issue, that would be ultimate but once again with your DDC you most likely would not notice a big improvement from direct i2s or usb to ddc to i2s.
Thank you for your observations. I sold the RS150B today and was waiting for the RS130. I don’t know when it will come to the Slovak market, but I’m starting to look forward to it anyway. As for the display, that it will be weaker, I don’t see it as bad as the sound is important. When I consider that all top streamers don’t even have a display, it’s ok. I want to make full use of my DAC and I believe that the RS130 must sound better. I believe that this will be confirmed by tests and user comments.
I don’t think you can go wrong. I am sure you will enjoy the rS130 as it looks to be like a great bit of kit. I look forward to hearing your impressions. Enjoy.
1 Like
I believe my own ears and no other opinions or marketing materials…
I’m sure you would be ok with lower budget dCS agaist anything else mentione here…
Hi, what model from dcs do you mean exactly? Transporter only without a dac? I think to go with the RS 130, but I must listen it before and compare it to AURALIC ARIES G2.2 or Lumin U2 or Innuos PULSAR (might not Roon-ready…)
I meant Rossini as an all-in-one. Don’t see any sense puting 5k for transport and then 5k for dac, dac is more complex and expensive and important part of the chain. That means you either pust less costly transporter with mentioned dac’s or use 130 with something more serious in a range >10k. With the latter you are close to mentioned dCS model( even you could find Bartok as cheap option from their range) and from my experience no such combination will beat Rossini in that price range.
The main conclusion is, transport is 2-3x cheaper comparing to dac from price range and pairing them in the same level makes sense. Otherwise you have disbalanced setup where one component bring less it should for the final outcome except more costs.
It’s not about dCS rather cost vs outcome…
US spec sheet is up: HiFi ROSE
Differences:
150’s Dispay IPS vs 130’s Display TFT 14.9in / 15.4in
150’s CPU = 130’s CPU
150’s GPU = 130’s GPU * T864 / T860
(Mali-T860 is a configurable product which chip manufacturers can size to meet their needs. Mali-T864 is a 4 core Mali-T860. Note that Arm’s official name for this would be “Mali-T860 MP4”, but some chip manufacture datasheets use the short-hand Mali-T864 name)
150’s Memory LPDDR3 @4gb vs 130’s LPDDR4 @4GB
150’s has no cache vs 130’s NVMe SSD 256GB
150’s ethernet standard interface vs 130’s SFP (150 can externally get same feature w/ FMC conversion kit)
150 has no clock input vs 130’s 75/50 clock input (Debatable Feature as most high end DAC’s have external word clock inputs)
150 Voltage controlled femto internal clock vs 130 oven baked clock 0.38 / 0.3 PPM (virtually identical)
150 Fuse T3.15Al / 250v vs 130’s 6A Thermal Circuit Breaker
150’s Storage Interface:
USB3.0x2, micro SDx1, SSDx1
130’s Storage Interface
USB3.0x2, SATAx1, USB 3.0 Fiber
(No internal storage for the 130 except for the onboard 256gb SSD, I could be wrong as they do reference SATA but no donation to location)
Per the marketing message from Rose the 130 is superior to the 150 due to Fiber isolation for the ethernet signal, USB fiber isolation which reduces noise further, Oven baked clock for increased audio timing / synchronization, linear power supply with high capacity super capacitor and word clock inputs for external master synchronization. I will leave the display features open to your opinion as I view that spec as a downgrade. (I guess this is the value proposition).
The one major issue I have is the discussion on the upgraded Linear Power supply is implying the 150’s LPS is inferior and without super capacitor. The 150B does have a high quality LPS with super capacitor.
I am sure there is more that I missed but these are the obvious ones…
