Guys, please put there your opinions on RS130B its weaknesses and, on the contrary, its strengths compared to the RS150B, there is probably no other competitor in its range…
(+) not have DAC chip
(+) USB Audio DAC
(+) I2S (HDMI conector)
(+) Clocks
(+) more sophisticated intestines
(-) front display TFT LCD
(-) more expansive
(-) if remote control PVC quality same as RS150B !!!
(+) Oven baked clock (keeping in mind the clock chip in the 150b is high end and most users will not hear any different between the two oscillating chips 150 vs 130), this is more marketing than a real improvement
(+) Fiber media connection (can be had with the 150b for as little as $75 USD with same benefits
(-) Same two i2s profile vs the standard 4 plus with other streamers. Connecting directly from the 130 to external DAC with i2s will be limited. A DDC most likely will be required or direct with USB which can introduce noise.
(-)Screen is a big downgrade
(-)Price TBD but if more that $3995 that will confuse the market compared to the 150b
After studying the specs compared to the 150b here are two major differences beyond the obvious.
The screen on the 130 is TFT vs IPS on the 150b. A definite downgrade. The clock chip appears to be OXOC which is oven controlled on the 130 vs voltage controlled on the 150b. The 130 wins on that one.
The use of fiber connections on the 130 is novel but can be equally achieved with the 150 for less than $75.
Take out all the DAC / PreAmp components of the 150b with the exceptions noted above and you have the 130.
Two additional changes was the change from DVI i2s of the 150b to the standard HDMI on the 130 but sadly there are still only two profiles (PS Audio or Javs) so if your external DAC can not accept either of those two profiles you will be out of luck on connecting the 130 to the DAC via i2s. All other connections should work without issue but you won’t get the i2s clock synchronization
Additionally the ability to add an external word clock to the 130. Not sure why you would do this vs adding it to your DAC like DCS, Gustard and many others do but the option is there on the 130 if needed.
If I had to guess they are going. to price this at $2999 but it really should be $2499. Just my 2cents but it looks like a great product.
“Oven baked clock (keeping in mind the clock chip in the 150b is high end and most users will not hear any different between the two oscillating chips 150 vs 130), this is more marketing than a real improvement”
I have a EtheterREGEN switch that I use with an external clock from Afterdark. The clockchip on the 150b is on par with the clockchip in the EtherREGEN. I can truly say that the sound of the EhterREGEN with the external clock in all ways outperforms the internal clock of the EtherREGEN. This is not a maketing improvement. The proof is my ears.
@stig
You are not wrong I am talking about one internal clock compared to another when paired with an external DAC in which a superior clock already exist. What I am saying is between the 150b and the 130 you would be hard pressed to hear a difference in audio quality based on the use of the internal clocks as the DAC clock is what takes priority. With the 150b the DAC and internal clock are used together unless you are bypassing the internal dac and exporting the audio via USB, i2s, etc then the internal clock on the DAC takes priority. This is why the 130 allows for an external word clock and if configured correctly that external word clock (like your setup) would control all clock timing from the streamer (130) and the DAC.
What you are doing is just that, that AfterDark word clock is superior to both the 150 and the 130 internal clock which is why you will have an increased audio experience.
So with HiFi Rose implying there will be a audio increase noticeable because of the 130’s oven backed clock that is total marketing as it remains internal and will be overridden by the clock in the DAC which will be external. Unless the end user does exactly what you are doing which is the optimal way to do it.
So if people are considering selling the 150b to get a 130 I would simply suggest, get a superior external DAC and use the internal clock of the DAC via i2s if possible or use it via USB with a DDC in-between so. you can output to i2s and the clock experience will be as good if not better than the 130b and in both cases you are buying a external DAC already or using one you already have. The next level is to get an external DAC and / or DDC that allows for the afterdark type word clock and now you are at the ultimate level, like you are. I am just saying to those that have the inch to upgrade the clock should not be a deciding factor. Use the external DAC’s clock or go big and go external. That is the true upgrade.
Congrats on the great setup.
I believe that the support team reads every single topic and analyzes it. If I’m wrong, it’s not a good path to success. Behind success is a lot of hard work, effort, disappointment, but also joy. As a user, I want to share my knowledge and participate in the development at least with my comments. I know, one swallow doesn’t make a summer and that’s why I’m a little skeptical. My last streamer was the top model D300REF from the Soundaware brand and I got rid of it only for a small or no response from the developers or his support. I would hate to have to repeat my step. It is human that errors appear on new products, but it is a different view of the matter when the manufacturer does everything to correct the errors. My father always told me to learn from the mistakes of others, not from my own. I wish the rose team only the best and now to the question about the RS130. What is your opinion on the LCD display, as there are different opinions, it is worse, better than the predecessor RS150B and why it was included in the top model. The second minus is the remote control for RS130. You don’t mention it anywhere, do you take note of the complaints about the RS150B remote control?
There is very little support for the new streamer on websites, I would welcome more professional parameters, especially comparisons with the competition 
I believe that you want to play in the highest league and I support you in that, but without the support of customers it will be very difficult to impossible…
I second everything you stated. A user base can be a thorn but also a rose. (yes, trite, I know).
We who bought the product want it to be the very best it can be. We saw something great in the product and want very much for it to succeed. As users we also see room for improvements. I have a Tesla and Elon Musk doesn’t have a marketing department. He has customers who he listens to every day all day long. His customers are his best marketers and product development adjuncts. I wish that for HiFi Rose as well. So far, my experience with Rosehan and Eun-Seong Han has been that they are very responsive. The hardware design and quality of construction is excellent. On the other hand, there are many spelling errors in the English version of the Operating System and there effectively is no user manual in English for the Rose-Connect Program. The Internet Radio portion of the software is poor but due to be improved later this Summer. Try to find the queue. it’s well buried. It takes four “clicks” to get there and it’s not in a logical place. These things can be easily fixed. I think with HiFi Rose’s support we can together take a good product and make it great.
Sounds like the appointment was a mistake.
Hello duffer5 on web I found this note about dispaly.
The unique full-size HiFi ROSE front screen has been improved in resolution over the RS150B model. The 15.4-inch multi-touch LCD screen with a wide viewing angle ensures clear picture quality at different viewing angles, and reproduces the picture quality of album art and videos smoothly and clearly …
I’m interested in this analysis. I’ve searched for it but can’t find it on the internet. Could you please give me the URL? It seems to say that the RS 130 display is not inferior to the 150B as some have said on this forum. Is that correct?
According to the words mentioned above, when the RS130 was produced at the German electronics dealer, it looks like this…
The 130 is TFT technology in the screen unlike the 150’s IPS. TFT is widely considered inferior to IPS. That being said the description for the 130’s screen is almost identical to the marketing description of the 150’s screen. There is an improvement in the 130’s screen size because the screen is marginally larger but that doesn’t change that the screen is TFT not IPS. The marketing description of the 130’s screen, to me, is just that, a marketing claim. Take it with a grain of salt. At this point let’s wait for the reviews to make any final judgements.
Final note. The 130’s screen does increase resolution due to the increase screen size (marginal) which means more pixels. So yes an improvement over the 150 for pixels also known as resolution but nothing is said about what really matters, CLARITY. TFT will never have the clarity of IPS. That is why IPS’s screen cost significantly more that TFT. So once agin it is all a sly marketing message. All tech companies do marketing like this.
I’m also interested in the possibility of overkill on the Streamer at the expense of the DAC. Given a total to spend of 10X what proportion should be spent on the DAC vs. the Streamer? Is it 5X/5X or 7X/3X or what? I’m wondering what I would have to spend on a DAC to realize the improvements which are in the RS 130.
Speaking of “marketing” how is it that a circuit breaker produces better sound than a fuse?
A wire is a wire. If it transmits the necessary amperage i.e. doesn’t have a resistive load and doesn’t introduce capacitance or resistance which I don’t think a fuse could do, then how can it affect the sound in any way?
Also the audio USB output from the 130 to any potential DAC is now USB 2.0 vs the 150’s audio output USB to any external DAC is USB 3.0. Not sure if this will make a difference in audio quality but it is an odd spec change. Along with using TFT over IPS it appears there maybe some technical choices by Rose that are partly chosen for cost cutting. Again, just an opinion.
Keeping in mind there are several ways to connect the 130 to an external DAC beyond USB but going from USB 3.0 to 2.0 is curious at best.
There is a possibility that USB 2.0 is less susceptible to noise than USB 3.0.
2.4 GHz wireless devices
The 2.4 GHz ISM band is a widely used unlicensed radio frequency band for devices such as wireless routers, as well as wireless PC peripherals such as a mouse or keyboard. These devices may use standard protocols such as the IEEE 802.11b/g/n, or they may use proprietary protocols.
The radios may use frequency hopping, frequency agility, or may operate on a fixed frequency. In order for a wireless radio receiver to detect the received signal correctly, the received signal power must be greater than the sensitivity of the radio. The sensitivity limit of the receiver is influenced by the minimum signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) required for demodulation. The receiver sensitivity, transmitted signal power, receive and transmit antenna gain, and wireless link path loss dictates the achievable wireless range by determining the signal and noise power at the receiver.
Any wired signal will radiate electromagnetic waves unless it is direct current (no frequency change) or completely shielded. The intensity of interference is related to the signal (such as voltage, current, frequency) transmitted on the cable.
USB 3.0
USB 3.0 uses 4 data lines to form 2 groups, that is, USB3.0 has two high-speed line pairs. The two-wire pairs perform TX and RX transmission respectively, so USB3.0 is a full-duplex 500MBps. The transfer rate on each pair is 500MBps*8 (Byte→bit)/(8/10) (USB3.0 is 8B/10B encoding, that is, 8 of the 10 data are actually transmitted) = 5Gbps. The reference frequency of each data line is 2.5 GHz. 2.5 GHz is too close to the frequency of 2.4GHz devices, and because most high-frequency equipment uses SSC technology, the signal is not completely distributed on a fixed frequency.
When USB 3.0 is in use, it will add about 20dB of noise in the 2.4G band, causing radio frequency interference to the 2.4GHz ISM band. This interference will reduce the sensitivity of wireless reception, thereby reducing the range of reception, which is enough to affect the normal use of interfering wireless devices (wireless network cards, wireless mice, wireless headphones, etc.).
Excellent points. Makes a lot of sense.
Not sure if this has been posted else where but an announcement of the 130:
It appears that it’s design and engineering when combined with an on par external DAC will produce superior sound to the 150, Of course this assumes that the rest of one’s system (Amp/speakers) is also on the same par. As always, the key is in the listen to evaluate the actual value of these differences.
Enjoy the Sounds,
John