Neutron HiFi DAC V1 Review

[DanTheMan]

If it were a cheaper, I’d have one on its way. Doubly so if it were available on Amazon. That would just sweeten the deal. For my purpose(s), it’s essentially perfection. I could actually leave this one at home connected and take my 5k with me everywhere else.

 

[dmitrykos]

Fiio just released a new BTR13 at $70. Looks a lot like a Q5K, but built around 2x CS43131, and with a display.

Doesn’t change anything about the V1 and its (excellent) measurements… But it makes me question the price a little more…

First of all disclaimer: In my reply I do not intend to disparage another manufacturer's product and am giving a personal answer to the question asked.

--

BTR13 looks to me as an attempt to compete directly to Qudelix 5K and replace it in the market by targeting much lower price. FiiO did not do anything revolutionary, BTR13 is like a clone of Q5K (hardware and exterior with some adjustments) - made it more rounded, added more buttons and display. In this case you would better ask Q5K producer - why BTR13 costs $70 and Q5K - $110. Q5K costs around 36% higher than BTR13.

Materials used in production of any device is very important factor which adds cost. The audio performance is unknown (not yet tested on ASR), so can't comment. But functionally you get the same up to 96 kHz PCM only - no hi-res PCM (176.4 kHz - 384 kHz and higher), no DSD. DSP abilities look limited either, just PEQ. Will it be supported by producer by advancing its firmware and software further - unknown but it also involves cost. What components are inside, what is their quality and thus cost - unknown, so very difficult to directly compare from this aspect as well. Maybe there are some other compromises in action which allow to cut costs.

For example, it is not said in description but likely BTR13 is made of plastic and has plastic transparent display panel (correct me if I am wrong, just my raw assumption). Plastic is the most cheap material. You spend more on production of the mold but then get cheap, always uniform stamping of housings with very low bad count during the production. So, overall cost is low if it is a mass product.

If I take DAC V1 as example, although BTR13 is completely unrelated to DAC V1, then DAC V1 has aluminum alloy anodized rounded enclosure which is difficult to produce because it involves manual/man's work - polishing of edges and it involves increased % of defects. In return, as consumer, you get solid enclosure which is nice to keep in hands, has great look and feel. It also acts as a radiator for heat dissipation from PCB. On top you get Gorilla Glass 3 glass panel which is also polished and is fully rounded on all edges. It is scratch resistant, unlike any plastic material and very durable. These are premium materials which increase cost considerably.

Therefore if you want cheap mass market device then go forward for it. If you are looking for exceptional properties in terms of performance, materials, long-term support from producer and etc, then you have alternatives but they, of course, will cost more for the producer and thus for consumer.

Could we be happy if all producers would produce only mass market devices? I guess not.

 

[SeriousSam70]

First of all disclaimer: In my reply I do not intend to disparage another manufacturer's product and am giving a personal answer to the question asked.

--

BTR13 looks to me as an attempt to compete directly to Qudelix 5K and replace it in the market by targeting much lower price. FiiO did not do anything revolutionary, BTR13 is like a clone of Q5K (hardware and exterior with some adjustments) - made it more rounded, added more buttons and display. In this case you would better ask Q5K producer - why BTR13 costs $70 and Q5K - $110. Q5K costs around 36% higher than BTR13.

Materials used in production of any device is very important factor which adds cost. The audio performance is unknown (not yet tested on ASR), so can't comment. But functionally you get the same up to 96 kHz PCM only - no hi-res PCM (176.4 kHz - 384 kHz and higher), no DSD. DSP abilities look limited either, just PEQ. Will it be supported by producer by advancing its firmware and software further - unknown but it also involves cost. What components are inside, what is their quality and thus cost - unknown, so very difficult to directly compare from this aspect as well. Maybe there are some other compromises in action which allow to cut costs.

For example, it is not said in description but likely BTR13 is made of plastic and has plastic transparent display panel (correct me if I am wrong, just my raw assumption). Plastic is the most cheap material. You spend more on production of the mold but then get cheap, always uniform stamping of housings with very low bad count during the production. So, overall cost is low if it is a mass product.

If I take DAC V1 as example, although BTR13 is completely unrelated to DAC V1, then DAC V1 has aluminum alloy anodized rounded enclosure which is difficult to produce because it involves manual/man's work - polishing of edges and it involves increased % of defects. In return, as consumer, you get solid enclosure which is nice to keep in hands, has great look and feel. It also acts as a radiator for heat dissipation from PCB. On top you get Gorilla Glass 3 glass panel which is also polished and is fully rounded on all edges. It is scratch resistant, unlike any plastic material and very durable. These are premium materials which increase cost considerably.

Therefore if you want cheap mass market device then go forward for it. If you are looking for exceptional properties in terms of performance, materials, long-term support from producer and etc, then you have alternatives but they, of course, will cost more for the producer and thus for consumer.

Could we be happy if all producers would produce only mass market devices? I guess not.

You mean FiiO BTR15 ? (https://www.fiio.com/btr15)

 

[Rednaxela]

You mean FiiO BTR15 ? (https://www.fiio.com/btr15)

No, he means the BTR13.

Fiio just released a new BTR13 at $70.

 

[LoFiAudiophile]

NConfigurator on Android is on radar, there was also a solution proposed by @LoFiAudiophile to implement communication via audio input/output on iOS devices. Will be implemented with time.

Neutron HiFi DAC was an impulse buy for me. As you can tell from the previous sentence, I do own a bunch of dongle and desktop DAC and Amps, including Fiio BTR7, Earstudio ES100 (the dongle that came before Qudelix 5K), JDS Labs Element II, Topping DX3 Pro+. I do happen to use EQ extensively and use crossfeed for nearly all my headphones all the way from Truthear Zero Red to my Edition XS, and Sony MDRZ7M2.

Neutron DAC just gets out of the way – it's no more than a bump-in-the-wire due to its size and frankly, once I set it, I can basically forget about it. All my other devices are basically sitting unused since I got this one. I have a license for fairly expensive software Eqs, but you know what - I don't use them anymore because I prefer the "bump in the wire" device to do it all – invisibly!

Now the downside – The configurator software is clunky and not available on my mobile device. It just rubs me wrong. I have devices far cheaper than this one that have an available configurator software. I can't adjust parameters from my phone (and yes I use Music on my phone LOT more than from any other device). Even on Mac and Linux, the software can't reliably work with the DAC – I have to try couple of times to connect and I'm never sure if my setting will survive an "unplug and plug" – I have to double-check every time.

Given that I'm really thankful that software exists at all for Linux and Mac. It speaks to me about the engineers and quality of the team behind and gives me confidence that given time, they will get it right!

Sorry, Apple/Android need to make way for USB device access possible, but that argument is very weak – it wasn't exactly a secret that they don't and yet the device has no BLE HW on board or another way (eg. Audio stream that I suggested earlier) to configure the hardware from a mobile device. It makes it very hard for a customer to buy this device vs Qudelix 5K (just an example). Dmitry, we're trying to help you – please prioritize a way to make this device configurable on a mobile device.

If you have an Audio stream to configure the device, you can probably even just get away with a web configurator that can work right from the browser on any platform. Qudelix 5K now has WebUSB support and a web configurator and I hope Neutron will one day make that move given it's just one USB descriptor and opens up a LOT of possibilities with WebAudio. Devices that support it can have filters designed right on a web page, how cool is that!

 

[dmitrykos]

@LoFiAudiophile I appreciate your comment and really glad that you are enjoying your DAC V1.

I have to try couple of times to connect and I'm never sure if my setting will survive an "unplug and plug" – I have to double-check every time.

Maybe you forget sometimes to click Save button when adjusting EQ preset? Saving of EQ settings involves writing to the Flash of the MCU. This operation is time consuming and thus to give user possibility to adjust EQ smoothly and without any interruptions in audio stream (otherwise it is simply really inconvenient to tine EQ) saving to the Flash is a separate operation. When you drag EQ slider a new value is sent to the DAC V1 immediately and it involves a lot of transfers, therefore clicking Save is required. Once Save is clicked DAC V1 stores all your changes in the Flash and your changes will - definitely survive power off/on cycle.

Also there is Status area which logs your actions and if message says - Configured then device was configured with option you toggled. It was made intentionally to avoid Connect/Disconnect operation.

See attached screenshot:

Besides DSP, all other triggered options are automatically saved to the Flash. I have not yet had any report of the opposite, nor experienced it by myself. If you noticed any misbehavior you can report it by e-mail or the contact form and it will be fixed immediately.

WebUSB support

WebUSB is not widely supported by browsers and with security flaws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebUSB). Taking into account modern trends of strengthening security of the apps it can potentially be removed from web browsers one day. Chrome extension looks like a good idea and easy to use for the end-user but these flaws, to my personal view, does not make Chrome extension development feasible.

The configurator software is clunky and not available on my mobile device.

Neutron Player/Recorder development is biased very much by users, the same goes for NConfigurator. If you have proposal how to improve this or that feature/functionality of it you can always get in touch by e-mail or forum. Your proposals are always welcome. So, if you noticed some clunkiness and have proposal how to improve it please get in touch.

Mobile version of NConfigurator will be released, I have mentioned it earlier.

 

[LoFiAudiophile]

@LoFiAudiophile I appreciate your comment and really glad that you are enjoying your DAC V1.



Maybe you forget sometimes to click Save button when adjusting EQ preset? Saving of EQ settings involves writing to the Flash of the MCU. This operation is time consuming and thus to give user possibility to adjust EQ smoothly and without any interruptions in audio stream (otherwise it is simply really inconvenient to tine EQ) saving to the Flash is a separate operation.

Thanks, yes I understand why part, the wear leveling on MCU flash isn't great irrespective of supplier - but, please, you do need to understand that this is non-intuitive and non-friendly to a user who is just trying to enjoy music and "switch off" for a bit.

WebUSB is not widely supported by browsers and with security flaws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebUSB). Taking into account modern trends of strengthening security of the apps it can potentially be removed from web browsers one day. Chrome extension looks like a good idea and easy to use for the end-user but these flaws, to my personal view, does not make Chrome extension development feasible.

Dmitry, how do you plan to convince a user of Neutron DAC that the reason they shouldn't have a cool configurator that works everywhere is that your (personal) opinion is that WebUSB standard is potentially insecure?

The user-friendliness should come first. You have a very capable hardware that is bogged down by software limitations. It's unfortunate that those software limitations are not technological but rather philosophical in nature.

 

[dmitrykos]

I understand why part, the wear leveling on MCU flash isn't great irrespective of supplier - but, please, you do need to understand that this is non-intuitive and non-friendly to a user who is just trying to enjoy music and "switch off" for a bit

To make it more intuitive I can propose adding Autosave DSP option which would trigger autosave after N seconds after you toggled DSP option. It would be the best compromise. You could post your other proposals or inconveniences you faced by the way on Neutron Forum in NConfigurator's thread.

how do you plan to convince a user of Neutron DAC that the reason they shouldn't have a cool configurator that works everywhere is that your (personal) opinion is that WebUSB standard is potentially insecure?

It is not true, WebUSB doesn't work everywhere. It requires modern OS and is not supported by all browsers (it is not supported by iOS devices at all). Therefore web app based on WebUSB simply can't compete with native app using OS-native GUI and device access framework in terms of compatibility. It is a bad app design idea to impose DAC V1 user to install some specific web browser and use some latest OS just to configure the device. You can easily find that usage scenario (inability to use web app due to incompatible browser) in user reviews of the mentioned Chrome extension. Currently, NConfigurator is compatible with fairly any OS for general use installed on computers in the world, except Windows XP, therefore you do not need to buy a new PC and install a new OS to be able to configure DAC V1

The user-friendliness should come first. You have a very capable hardware that is bogged down by software limitations.

Which software limitations do you mean? NConfigurator is based on OS-native GUI, therefore it works and looks as Windows-native app on Windows, Linux-native app on Linux, macOS-native app on macOS. It does its job as intended and has no bugs. If you do not like OS-native GUI and prefer Material design of the web app then it is a bit different story and a matter of personal perception of UI. Button of different size and color does not affect the primary function of the app to my view. Mobile version of NConfigurator will likely use design common to mobile apps, so I am sure you will be happy.

 

[Hifihedgehog]

Hey @dmitrykos! Is it normal and expected that if I enable crossfeed that I am sample rate limited to 192 KHz? I'm mildly disappointed that this is the case and am hoping you could support a full 384 KHz.

 

[dmitrykos]

Hey @dmitrykos! Is it normal and expected that if I enable crossfeed that I am sample rate limited to 192 KHz? I'm mildly disappointed that this is the case and am hoping you could support a full 384 KHz.

DSP is a heavy task for MCU, therefore PCM is limited to 192 kHz. It is specified in User Manual on page 2 (Description) and 10 (DSP Features). 2 DSP effects of 20-band PEQ limits PCM to 96 kHz. So it is as per design.

But! Particularly Crossfeed DSP is not very heavy, therefore after your question checked whether Crossfeed DSP can be handled at 352.8/384 kHz frequency. And result is Positive. CPU still have enough processing time.

Please PM me and I will provide a beta firmware.

 

[Hifihedgehog]

DSP is a heavy task for MCU, therefore PCM is limited to 192 kHz. It is specified in User Manual on page 2 (Description) and 10 (DSP Features). 2 DSP effects of 20-band PEQ limits PCM to 96 kHz. So it is as per design.

But! Particularly Crossfeed DSP is not very heavy, therefore after your question checked whether Crossfeed DSP can be handled at 352.8/384 kHz frequency. And result is Positive. CPU still have enough processing time.

Please PM me and I will provide a beta firmware.

Wow! Thank you! Glad I asked!

 

[dmitrykos]

Wow! Thank you! Glad I asked!

Released Firmware 46 for all other DAC V1 users which enables Crossfeed DSP at 352.8/384 kHz frequency:

Firmware 46 - Neutron Forum

 

[rlw6534]

Released Firmware 46 for all other DAC V1 users which enables Crossfeed DSP at 352.8/384 kHz frequency:

Firmware 46 - Neutron Forum

This is why you pay a bit more... excellent support.

 

[dmitrykos]

In addition to firmware update, NConfigurator 1.6.4 was released today:

NConfigurator 1.6.4 - Neutron Forum

It addresses earlier discussion in this thread by added Autosave option. If switched on all changes made to DSP settings are committed/saved on DAC V1 automatically (no need to press Save button manually anymore) after 3 seconds of delay:

Additionally, Save button becomes enabled only if changes to DSP settings are made, thus it makes GUI more responsive.

It will make NConfigurator on PC more user friendly. New proposals, wishes are always welcome.

 

[LoFiAudiophile]

In addition to firmware update, NConfigurator 1.6.4 was released today:

NConfigurator 1.6.4 - Neutron Forum

It addresses earlier discussion in this thread by added Autosave option. If switched on all changes made to DSP settings are committed/saved on DAC V1 automatically (no need to press Save button manually anymore) after 3 seconds of delay:
View attachment 391442
Additionally, Save button becomes enabled only if changes to DSP settings are made, thus it makes GUI more responsive.

It will make NConfigurator on PC more user friendly. New proposals, wishes are always welcome.

Thank you Dmitry. Your commitment to customers is above bar. We may differ in opinions but I admire your customer focus and shall always recommend your products for that one single reason.

 

[TRDK]

Your commitment to customers is above bar. We may differ in opinions but I admire your customer focus and shall always recommend your products for that one single reason.

YES! Great customer service

Torben

 

[migo77]

Another V1 DAC arrived today well packaged. It is unbelievable tiny device!

 

[migo77]

@dmitrykos Using a V1 as DAC for RPi based streamer is problematic as we have no option to deal with onboard DSP. RPi is headless endpoint for UPnP or other casting services connected to amplifier. Would it be possible for Linux app to have web based configurator that can be accesed remotely to configure V1 DAC? Thank you!

 

[LoFiAudiophile]

@dmitrykos Using a V1 as DAC for RPi based streamer is problematic as we have no option to deal with onboard DSP. RPi is headless endpoint for UPnP or other casting services connected to amplifier. Would it be possible for Linux app to have web based configurator that can be accesed remotely to configure V1 DAC? Thank you!

If you’re comfortable with the shell, NConfigurator now (since last month) has full command line support for changing nearly all options including the Eq.

 

[migo77]

If you’re comfortable with the shell, NConfigurator now (since last month) has full command line support for changing nearly all options including the Eq.

thank you, just now there are only x64 binaries of NConfigurator, can we get arm build too?