I do miss my rs130. Im waiting for them to release an updated version, rs130a with processing power same as rs151
1 Like
Hello,
Thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback. We truly appreciate the time and effort you have taken to outline your concerns and suggestions. We understand the importance of clarity for both current owners and prospective customers, and we are reviewing the matters internally.
- Regarding the request for a timeline
You have asked for a specific timeframe for follow-up. We would appreciate clarification on which specific item(s) you are requesting a timeline for.
For some matters, we are able to provide estimated timelines. However, for others, it is difficult to commit to specific dates. This depends largely on the nature of the issue.
For example, when it comes to new feature development or certain technical improvements, the schedule may depend not only on our internal development roadmap, but also on coordination with third-party partners, certification processes, external testing, and other variables beyond our direct control. In such cases, providing a specific date before it is fully confirmed may create confusion or unrealistic expectations.
Therefore, when a timeline has been clearly finalized internally, we are happy to share it. Otherwise, we ask for your understanding that we may not be able to provide precise dates in advance.
- Regarding transparency of board revision information after repair
With respect to your request for transparency regarding board revision levels during service (e.g., Rev A, Rev B), we would like to better understand the specific purpose or concern behind this request.
In general, not only HiFi Rose but most audio manufacturers and consumer electronics companies provide the following information after service:
- What issue was identified
- What component was repaired or replaced (e.g., main board replacement, digital board replacement, etc.)
- Confirmation that the unit has been tested and verified to operate normally
However, internal revision levels (such as Rev A, Rev B) are typically considered engineering and production control information. It is standard industry practice not to disclose revision levels directly to customers.
This is because revision differences do not necessarily indicate changes in performance or sound quality. In many cases, they reflect internal production adjustments or component sourcing updates. Publishing such details without context may unintentionally create confusion or misunderstanding.
That said, if your concern relates to reliability, repeated repairs, or long-term confidence in the product, we fully understand the importance of trust and transparency. If you could further clarify the underlying concern behind your request, it would help us evaluate the matter more thoroughly internally.
Thank you.
Hi HiFi Rose Team, @ROSEHAN @ROSELOA @Rose_love @moderators ā
Thank you again. I want to follow up because the most recent response felt a bit inconsistent with what HiFi Rose stated earlier in this thread, and I think clarifying that inconsistency would materially help owners.
1) Quick recap of what I asked (policy/process timelines)
As I wrote in my prior post, Iām not asking for feature-development dates. Iām requesting an estimated timeline for your internal review and written position on three policy/process items:
A. Service part control for RS130 repairs
Whether you will implement guidance that RS130 repairs use current/approved-latest revision boards (or at minimum define which revisions are acceptable), rather than allowing outdated distributor inventory indefinitely.
B. Repair traceability / documentation standard
Whether service documentation to the owner will include part number + revision (or an equivalent identifier) for replaced mainboard/CPU/audio boards.
C. Repeat-failure owner protection guidance
Whether you will publish a simple global guideline for repeat major repairs (even if executed via distributors), so outcomes arenāt entirely discretionary by region.
A reasonable response would be: āWe will provide a written position on A/B/C within X weeks,ā even if the final answer is āno.ā
2) The inconsistency Iām asking you to resolve
Earlier in this thread, HiFi Rose explicitly stated that:
- boards have part numbers and revision markings ,
- replacements may be same or newer revision, and
- because distributors may hold inventory, repairs may be done with older revisions,
- and you even noted that owners could contact the distributor to confirm the revision installed.
Given that, it was surprising to later see revision/part-number transparency framed as ātypically not disclosedā or potentially āconfusing.ā HiFi Rose already introduced revisions into the discussion and acknowledged that older revision boards may be used in repairs. That is precisely why owners are requesting traceability.
3) Clarifying the purpose (again, plainly)
This is not about sound quality, schematics, or supplier details. Itās about service accountability and reliability confidenceāensuring a flagship repair isnāt inadvertently installing older inventory and increasing the risk of repeat failures.
If your concern is misunderstanding, the service record can include a simple disclaimer such as:
āBoard revisions are internal identifiers and do not necessarily indicate performance differences. They are provided solely for service traceability.ā
4) If revision labels are sensitive, propose an alternative traceability method
If you truly cannot provide āRev A / Rev Bā style information, then please propose an alternative that accomplishes the same traceability goal, such as:
- part number + ācurrent approved service revisionā designation, or
- a service code indicating the installed board is from the current service inventory set.
But āmain board replacedā with no traceability is not sufficient for a premium product where owners are discussing repeat failures and repair outcomes.
5) Direct ask
Can HiFi Rose please clarify its position, in writing:
- Will you support a traceable service record (part number/revision or equivalent identifier) for RS130 major board replacements? Yes or no.
- And can you provide an estimated timeframe for a decision/position on items A/B/C above?
Thank you ā a clear answer here would significantly reduce speculation and improve confidence for both current owners and prospective buyers.
2 Likes
First, we would like to sincerely thank you for taking the time to share your thoughtful and detailed feedback. We take your concerns regarding RS130 service policy, documentation transparency, and repair standards very seriously.
We fully understand that for a flagship product, clarity in service processes is essential, and that confidence in repair outcomes is directly connected to overall ownership satisfaction. Please allow us to provide our official position on each item below.
A: Service Part Control for RS130 Repairs
HiFi Rose distributors in each country operate under internally approved service part standards. Authorized distributors and service centers are instructed to use only officially approved components supplied through the official service channel.
Some distributors may hold service inventory from previous production batches. However, all parts distributed through our official service network meet the required quality and functional standards at the time of approval. At present, HiFi Rose does not maintain a public policy requiring that only the latest revision be used for repairs. Earlier approved revisions that remain within the authorized service inventory are considered functionally valid for service purposes.
B: Repair Traceability and Documentation Standard
Each board is marked with a revision designation and production date. There is no separate customer-facing part number assigned to each individual board in the manner described. Internally, however, all service parts are managed and tracked according to part number and revision.
At this time, no final decision has been made regarding changes to the global documentation standard.
C: Repeat-Failure Owner Protection Guidance
We would like to clarify once again that, even in cases of repeated repairs, HiFi Rose will continue to apply and maintain its existing international warranty policy without change.
We appreciate your understanding and continued support.
Dear HiFi Rose Team, @ROSEHAN @ROSELOA @Rose_love @moderators
Thank you for your detailed response and for formally outlining your current positions regarding service part control, documentation standards, and repeat-repair handling.
I appreciate the transparency. However, your response also confirms several material points that remain concerning for a flagship product owner.
To ensure there is no misunderstanding, I would like to clarify and request written confirmation of the following:
āø»
- Service Part Revision Control
You have stated that earlier approved revisions remain eligible for service installation and that HiFi Rose does not require the latest revision to be used.
For a flagship product such as the RS130, revision changes typically occur for one or more of the following reasons:
ā¢ Reliability improvement
ā¢ Performance refinement
ā¢ Component substitution due to supply constraints
ā¢ Thermal or power-stability adjustments
Given that reality, installing an earlier revision when a newer revision exists may introduce avoidable repeat-failure risk.
Accordingly, please confirm in writing one of the following:
Option A (Preferred):
Any future mainboard replacement for my RS130 will utilize the most current officially approved revision available at the time of repair.
OR
Option B:
HiFi Rose may install earlier revisions even when newer revisions exist, and no disclosure of revision difference will be provided to the customer.
I am requesting clarityānot policy overhaulāso that expectations are aligned.
āø»
- Repair Documentation / Traceability
You confirmed that internal tracking by revision and production date exists.
If that is the case, please confirm whether, upon request, a customer may receive written confirmation of:
ā¢ The revision designation installed, and
ā¢ The production date of the replacement board.
This does not require a global documentation change. It simply allows traceability in the event of repeat service.
āø»
- Repeat Repair Handling
You stated that existing international warranty policy will continue without change.
Please confirm whether HiFi Rose maintains any internal escalation threshold (e.g., multiple identical failures within warranty period) that would allow for unit replacement rather than repeated board swaps, even if that threshold is not publicly published.
If no such internal guideline exists, please confirm that as well.
āø»
Why This Matters
The RS130 is marketed and priced as a flagship component. For flagship ownership, confidence in service standards is directly connected to long-term brand trust.
My objective is not confrontation. It is to ensure that:
ā¢ Revision control does not unintentionally perpetuate avoidable repeat failures,
ā¢ Traceability is available when needed, and
ā¢ Expectations are clear before any future service event occurs.
I would appreciate a clear written response addressing the above confirmations.
Thank you for your time and attention.
1 Like
Hi HiFi Rose Team, @moderators ā @ROSELOA @ROSEHAN @Rose_love
There is now another RS130 failure report (two units in this case), and once again the response is effectively: ācontact your distributor.ā
That may be the correct service channel for an individual repair, but at this point it is not an acceptable public answer to the broader issue. When repeated failures are being reported in the community, owners deserve an official explanation and a clear policy response ā not a link and silence.
So Iām asking directly, and Iām asking for direct answers:
- Do you acknowledge a broader RS130 reliability concern ā yes or no? If yes, what are the primary failure modes youāre seeing (high-level) and what corrective actions have been implemented?If no, then say so plainly and explain how you are reaching that conclusion.
- Are RS130 repairs guaranteed to use current/revised service parts ā yes or no? You previously stated distributors may use older revision boards from inventory. That is a serious problem for a flagship product and directly undermines confidence that a ārepairā reduces the chance of recurrence.
- Is HiFi Rose evaluating a service bulletin / proactive repair campaign / recall-type action ā yes or no? No one is asking for proprietary details. We are asking whether you are formally evaluating whether these failures warrant a broader program beyond one-off repairs.
- What is the owner protection policy for repeat failures? If a unit has repeated major board replacements, what is the threshold for replacement, and what is the warranty treatment? āIt depends on the distributorā is not a sufficient answer at this price point.
At this stage, non-answers and generic distributor links are not acceptable. This thread is being read by current owners and prospective buyers, and the continued lack of a clear, written response is itself damaging confidence in the RS130 platform.
HiFi Rose: please respond here with direct answers to the four questions above.
2 Likes
I am curious. Just how many RS130 hardware failures have you documented on this board? Have you had a hardware failure with yours yet?
We have no idea what percentage of RS130s have suffered hardware failures yet you seem to make this issue your raison dāetre. What is your threshold percentage for hardware failures that should trigger a recall or service bulletin or an extension of the warranty?
Rose is not going to provide this information, yet you keep asking. I am impressed with your persistence, as well as the volume and eloquence of your writing, but my god this is getting tedious.
If you have an RS130 you should sell it or donate it to charity. Its presence in your life has become a burden when it should just bring joy. And donāt spend so much on its replacement, you wonāt feel so bad when it doesnāt live up to your expectations. Might I suggest the T8 at 20% of the cost?
2 Likes
Respectfully, no @Eleven
Iām not claiming a precise failure percentage, and Iāve never represented that I have statistically valid field data. What I am doing is documenting repeated owner reports in a public support forum and asking the manufacturer to provide a high-level reliability and policy response. That is reasonable for a flagship product.
To answer your questions directly:
ā¢ Yes, I have had an RS130 hardware failure and it required service/replacement. Thatās why I care, and why Iām not treating this as an academic exercise.
ā¢ No, Iām not demanding proprietary failure-rate disclosures or internal databases. Iāve asked for the standard middle ground: acknowledgement of common failure modes, confirmation of corrective actions, and clear owner protections for repeat failures. Many manufacturers in other categories manage to do this without publishing sensitive numbers.
ā¢ Recall threshold: Iām not dictating a magic percentage. A recall is one possible outcome, but the more practical ask is a service bulletin (root-cause summary + guidance + revised parts policy) and a repeat-repair policy (replacement/warranty treatment). Those are normal, responsible responses when failure reports become visible.
ā¢ āRose wonāt provide this infoā: Theyāve already engaged and provided partial answers in this thread. If they choose not to provide a meaningful policy response, thatās their decision ā but itās also highly relevant information for owners and prospective buyers.
As for the personal commentary: Iām here to make the RS130 better supported for everyone, not to be shamed into silence. If you find the thread tedious, the simplest solution is to mute it. Many owners are reading this because they do care about reliability, support process, and long-term viability ā and theyāre entitled to ask those questions.
2 Likes
Far be it from me to attempt to shame you into silence, that is not something I would ever do. Also there are members here who are far better equipped for shaming you into silence than I am. I think you offer helpful thoughts here, so I think you should (and will) continue, I am just calling to attention the futility of your campaign.
Rose has no interest whatsoever in providing data into āreliability, support process, and long-term viabilityā to owners and prospective buyers.
First, the prospective buyers. When anyone buys a piece of equipment they expect it to work and to not have mechanical issues for a reasonable length of time. For a component like this, letās call that length 5 years. Now if Rose comes out and says āWe just want you to be aware that 20% of units will suffer some type of a hardware failure within the first two years, well within the warranty period,ā what would you as a prospective buyer think? Would you be comforted by the fact that it is only 20% and that there is an 80% chance that you will be ok? That the warranty would cover you? No. You would do further research or ask your dealer about another brands of similar quality.
Second, the current owners. Letās use the same example. Rose announces that 20% of units have hardware failures within two years of purchase. You have a unit that hasnāt failed yet. You become worried that your unit might fail on Day 800, just outside the warranty period. What do you do? Do you complain hoping that they extend the warranty period to 5 years because it is a condition known to Rose? Do you sell your unit and move onto a different brand never to return? Or do you just say this is a piece of tech that will be obsolete in 5 years anyway?
The fact is there will be a RS130b or RS131 in a year or two. The RS130s in the channel will be offered at a 20% discount until they are cleared. Rose would have strived to make sure that the future revision did not suffer from the points of failure that the RS130 did.
And so it goes. This is the business. This is not the auto industry where safety recalls are mandated by law. And thank God they are. But they do add to the purchase price of the vehicle, just as if Rose added 3 years to the warranty, it would add to the purchase price.
Good luck and peace.
1 Like
Appreciate the thoughtful reply and the āpeace.ā
I agree Rose will never publish failure-rate percentages ā but thatās not what Iām asking for. Iām asking for the reasonable middle ground: a high-level acknowledgement of common failure modes, confirmation of corrective actions, and clear owner protections for repeat major failures. That doesnāt require disclosing proprietary data.
Silence is also a business choice, and it has costs: it fuels speculation, erodes confidence, and pushes owners/buyers out of the ecosystem. āThere will be an RS131 soonā doesnāt help owners dealing with failures now, or anyone worried about an out-of-warranty board event.
So Iām not running a ācampaign.ā Iām doing basic owner due diligence ā because ācontact your distributorā isnāt an adequate public response at this point.
5 Likes
First, we would like to thank you for raising your concerns in a direct and constructive manner.
However, at this stage, we are not in a position to provide further detailed responses on the points you have raised. We have discussed your questions internally once again, and it has been decided that we are unable to offer additional detailed clarification beyond what has already been provided.
As previously explained, matters related to repair, replacement, and purchase policies are handled by the official distributor in each respective country.
If you are currently experiencing an issue with your unit, please let us know the exact model name and a clear description of the symptoms. We will communicate the details to your distributor, MoFi, and assist in ensuring that your case is addressed as promptly and smoothly as possible.
We appreciate your understanding and remain committed to helping you resolve any product-related concerns.
Thank you for the reply ā but for the benefit of current owners and prospective buyers, this is effectively a refusal to engage.
To summarize the outcome plainly: HiFi Rose is unwilling to provide any further public clarification on RS130 reliability, service-part revision controls, or repeat-failure owner protections beyond prior generic statements, and is directing all meaningful questions about repair/replacement policy to regional distributors.
Offering to āhelp my caseā if I provide symptoms is fine ā but itās not what this thread is about. This thread is about whether RS130 owners can expect transparent, standardized, manufacturer-backed guidance when multiple failures are being reported publicly. Your answer is: no.
So readers should take note: if you buy or own an RS130, the support posture is distributor-only, policies are regional/discretionary, and when broader reliability concerns are raised publicly, you should not expect substantive manufacturer engagement beyond ācontact your distributor.ā
2 Likes
Hi
I just joined the forum and am considering purchasing the RS130, but the warranty and reliability issues Iām seeing are really making me reconsider.
I currently own a NAD M50.2 streamer/transport and itās built like a tank. Iāve never had an issue with it and itās over 6 years old now.
Am I the only one with these concerns?
Welcome,
Why are you looking to replace the NAD? Sounds like it still works.
What are you using for your DAC?
1 Like
This is just trolling
Hi Eleven
The NAD does still work and I like it, but Iāve been looking to upgrade and have considered the RS130. I saw it at Axpona two years ago and have been intrigued with it every since. I recently found this forum and have read the issues others have had with the unit. That being said Iām probably going to pause on a purchase for now.
BTW, i use the DAC built into my McIntosh C2700 pre.
Hi Carnelian
Sorry you think that. Iām too old for ātrollingā and I donāt have time for it.
Your second post explains your situation a lot better. My take is if you are primarily looking for a great piece of hardware, the RS130 is really good. If you are looking for a āsoftware platformā that is also a streamer, other people can weigh in better. The people that never complain around here are the ones who use Roon and the RS130 as an endpoint.