Here is some Carol Sloane playing through my Mojo Audio Mystique X-24AM.
Best wishes,
Don
Six DAC Comparison
I am in the middle of comparing the sound of six different DACs in my system. I own them all (I know weird) but one of them is still within a trial/return timeframe.
Not to share specific comparisons today, but a couple of observations so far are that first, they all definitely sound different from each other. On one hand, they all sound pretty good and play what is fed to them without significant flaws but on the other hand there are definite sonic differences that make it easy to understand how a person might like the sound of some of them while not liking others.
Second, raises the observation that most of them must be doing something to shape the sound in the manner the designer intended since one of the DACs, a Benchmark DAC3 HGA, was described by John Atkinson of Stereophile as providing "state-of-the-art measured performance." In the review, JA closed the measurements section by writing, "All I can say is "Wow!" I have also owned the Tambaqui (not in my current comparison), which also measured well ("The Mola Mola Tambaqui offers state-of-the-digital-art measured performance." - JA). The Benchmark reminds me sonically of the Tambaqui, both of which are excellent sounding DACs.
My point is that if the Benchmark is providing "state-of-the-art measured performance," then one could reasonably presume that the other five DACs, which sound different from the Benchmark, do not share similar ’state-of-the-art" measurements and are doing something to subtly or not so subtly alter the sound. Whether a person likes what they hear is a different issue.
- ...
- 443 posts total
And finally some Liszt piano music playing through my Mojo Audio Mystique X-24AM dac. I hope that these samplings will be a little bit helpful to you. I almost hesitate to share these videos, because although they may give you a little taste, they don't sound nearly as dynamic and full as when listening in my music room. Best wishes, Don |
@ no_regrets Hey Don,Thank you for posting links of your system! Your system sounds pretty musical and clean. With W60 speakers, I hear only slight veil which is very good. Your system has no irritating sound and that helps me to listen your system for longer time. I like W60 speakers’ sound better. I guess I am used to smaller speakers. Your system is a good sound system. And I bet it sounds lot better in real life and especially at night. I wish your system sounds bit more focused. A good vibration control device under the transport will clean up veils further and organize soundstage. Below is more focused sounding my tube amp system. Alex/Wavetouch audio |
We've been asked "why TOSLINK optical instead of AES/EBU balanced?" I think some people are confused as to what AES is and the difference between a balanced and a single-ended digital input. AES stands for "Audio Engineering Society" and they have a standard for data transmission of digital music through a twisted pair of wires. In other words: single-ended with RCA or BNC connectors. AES also has a pro audio standard for the same music data transmission with differential + and - through balanced cables and XLR connectors. The signal is identical...the only difference is the shielding around the cable and the connector. Since digital has an extremely high tolerance to noise, in a home audio system there are really no sonic benefits to the additional shielding and dual differential common-mode noise rejection balanced provides. Sure...you can run a differential + and - with the same data transmission. But most companies, including Mojo Audio, use the same single-ended input receiver circuit for balanced and single-ended...the only actual difference is the connector. We all use the + and ground from the XLR connector vs +, -, and ground required for true balanced. Theoretically balanced is better, but of the customers and reviewers who compared the balanced and single-ended inputs on our DACs, none of them reported hearing any difference. Going 1 meter in a home audio system is not the same as going long distances in a recording studio or on a stage for a live performance. And even then, there is a huge difference between the effect common mode noise has on a digital vs an analog signal. That's the technology...here's the marketing. We wanted to appeal to the greatest number of our customers. Over 80% of our customers only use USB and only have one digital source. Of the remaining 20% most of them want to use their audio system as part of their AV home entertainment system. Less than 5% of our customers own a CD transport. Historically TVs had coaxial outputs but modern HDTVs only have ARC and TOSLINK optical. So we felt that we would appeal to a larger percentage of our customers if we switched from AES balanced to TOSLINK optical. The last factor was our new active dual-stage buffered input: a notable upgrade but not compatible with balanced AES. We felt that the sonic improvement of our new active dual-stage buffered coaxial and optical inputs was more important than the convenience and psychological benefits of having an AES balanced input. Besides: the less than 1% of our customer who only have a balanced digital source could always use our coaxial input with an adapter or an XLR to RCA conversion cable. Since internally we were only using the + and ground wires of the XLR sonically it would be identical. I hope this answers your question. |
I have a question that’s been bugging me for a long time, and I would love to hear your perspective as a manufacturer of well-regarded, high-end digital components. Input choices on 99% of DACs out there boil down to AES/EBU, coax, TOSLink, I2s, and of course USB. - Coax and TOSLink are based on a deprecated, bandwidth-limiting, early-1980s protocol (S/PDIF) - I2s is a serial bus protocol intended for IC-to-IC communications over distances less than 10 cm (4") and inside components. Therefore, what audiophiles think of as I2s, running over 2-meter cables, well, it isn’t. - Nothing wrong with AES/EBU of course, though it is intended as a balanced input yet, as you explained, it is often implemented single-ended. - USB was developed to connect keyboards, mice, printers and such to PCs back in the day, and for charging small electronics with wall warts. Unlike S/PDIF it was never intended for audio duty. Making these motley interfaces work in the context of high-end audio is, obviously, fraught. Manufacturers offer several input types on a product but only have resources to optimize one. Audiophiles spend untold thousands on cables, DDS, master clocks (as if they’re going to record Celine Dion and 50 musicians), oven clocks (as though they expect extreme weather inside their listening room). I2s "borrows" HDMI cabling but no one agrees on pinouts so they’re all over the place and components are not compatible. It’s kind of a mess. Meanwhile, TCP is bit-perfect, uber-reliable, ultra-fast - it can carry multiple DSD1024 streams without even breaking a sweat, does not need a clock, and, when used over SFP, is galvanically isolating and impervious to noise. In other words, the perfect interface. Reliable, high-performing AOIP (audio over IP) protocols (Dante, AES67/Ravenna) have been around for years. Which high-end audio manufacturers support AOIP? As far as I know, none. Why? Many audiophiles don’t understand digital. It would seem that eliminating the existing cluster would make digital audio easier to understand, more approachable, and therefore an easier sell.
|
- 443 posts total