# What is the sound quality of iPhone, iPad, iPod (Touch)?



## dlangendorf

I was wondering if Apple improves the sound quality with each iteration of its devices.
   
  In other words, is the 4 or 4S any better than the 3? We'll have to wait and see, but I wonder if the 5 will be any better than the 4s.
   
  Additionally, I have a bunch of older iPhones in the house which I could repurpose as just music players, but if the sound is worse on older devices maybe it's not worth it.
   
  I realize the quality of sound depends on the source and the rip -- I'm doing mostly Apple lossless or FLAC (via FLAC Player on all but the iPod Classic and Nanos) -- but I'm curious to see how the sound quality of the device itself fits into the equation.
   
  Thanks for any input . . .


----------



## Apo0th3karY

I'm curious about the actual specs behind it too.
   
  I know for certain that my iPod Touch (3rd gen) is superior in sound quality when compared to the iPod Classic (4th Gen) and any iPod nano. It's because of the Cirrus DAC chip included in the iPod Touch g3 (as far as I know it's only the 3rd gen), and iPhones and iPads I'm pretty sure have the same chip, if not similar quality.
   
  I was wondering if it'd be worth my while to get portable amp/DAC for my iPod touch myself, considering the Cirrus chip does a good job, and my CKM500s sound great without being amped.
   
  I'm hoping this at least helps, but I'm also wondering the exact DAC chips of iNano vs iClassic vs iTouch vs iPhone vs iPad and if it is worth while to amp the iTouch.


----------



## MLee

This site has ipod and iphone DACs listed:

http://macintoshhowto.com/itunes/which-ipod-has-the-best-audio-quality.html


----------



## bigshot

I have most of the gens of the ipod and the ipad and iphone too. I've done line level matched listening comparisons. They're all as good as a standalone CD player. They all sound perfect. Buy whatever has the features you want. Don't worry about sound quality.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I have most of the gens of the ipod and the ipad and iphone too. I've done line level matched listening comparisons. They're all as good as a standalone CD player. They all sound perfect. Buy whatever has the features you want. Don't worry about sound quality.


 
   
  Here's John Atkinson's summary of the measurements he made on a third generation iPod back in 2003:
   
_*The iPod's measured behavior is better than many CD players—ironic, considering that most of the time it will be used to play MP3 and AAC files, which will not immediately benefit from such good performance. But if you're willing to trade off maximum playing time against the ability to play uncompressed AIFF or WAV files, the iPod will do an excellent job of decoding them. Excellent, cost-effective audio engineering from an unexpected source.*_
   
  And the actual measurements here:
   
  http://www.stereophile.com/content/apple-ipod-portable-music-player-measurements
   
  se


----------



## dlangendorf

Thanks everybody for the links. Got some reading to do.


----------



## bowei006

Like Steve posted, yes they are, they generally if not always improve every generation with better measurements and subjective praise with every generation. DAC and amp measurements from 4 to 4S were improved and what not. So yes, even now Apple still subtly holds to their root claims or device usage where they put in a custom "high end" Cirrus Logic Chip on their computers and portable devices with good intergration. This doesnt mean anything until you realize that everyone has an iPod and that these come standard. 
   
  Of course the amp is the largest limiting part of their sound in terms of the two DAC and amp. That's why we use LOD's and what not. The new iPhone 5 and new players may get problems though now with the Lightning adapter port as it's full digital out with a DAC in the adapter itself and as some have pointed out, yes a DAC is not expensive but with what most charge for accessories, being Apple and what not, for $29 it is unwieldadly to believe that the DAC and implementation inside is even "good" as it's just "there". However this should mean that new B and W and Bose speakers that support Docks will now have to use their own DAC's in their also....which if you actually think about it, leaves MORE room for error as they can just whip whatever DAC they want into there


----------



## rikardoliepa

I have tested for long period 2nd touch and 6th classic. Classic was better, but still nothing special, compared to cowon, teclast x19gd and mostly to rocoo ba.


----------



## bowei006

They arne't "sepcial" but compared to many other mainstream consumer ones..it's a option


----------



## bigshot

From the very beginning, iPods had stone flat response, no audible distortion at all, and a noise floor in the basement. Any improvements, if there really have been any improvements, are on paper only.


----------



## poikkeus

My experience mirrors bigshot's. I didn't care for the sound of the 1-3g iPod - but that was years ago, of course. Starting at around 4g, sound was quite strong, and has remained solid since then. 
   
  I sense that major improvements/variances in sound may come from the ear-gear you use, but that's another discussion. Blogs have been written on the differences between the various IEMs and earbuds.


----------



## bowei006

And now this year we get Earpods, from initial reviews, they aren't fully special and may or may not be worth $30 but as standard earbuds that are now included on their products, they are said to be someof the best stock included mass company sold earubds now.


----------



## proton007

I've never used the stock apple earbuds, ever.
  The new ones supposedly 'direct sound into the listener's ears'. I wonder where other earphones/headphones direct their sound to.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





proton007 said:


> I've never used the stock apple earbuds, ever.
> The new ones supposedly 'direct sound into the listener's ears'. I wonder where other earphones/headphones direct their sound to. Talk about marketing...


----------



## grokit

Agreed that the iPod 5g sounds best, straight out of the headphone jack. Noticeable difference over the Classic and iPhone 4s. The 4g is next for me, followed by an old iPod Mini.


----------



## dlangendorf

Just out of curiosity, how are you measuring the quality of the iPhones, iPods? You listen to each with a few types of headphones and see which device produces the best sound? As is well documented on the site, the headphones make a big difference. I'm testing each of my iPods/iPhones and  have many to choose from, although the really old ones will not make the cut simply due to lack of storage. All those 8 gb first edition Nanos (even an iPod Mini) . . . Anyway, thanks, all . . .


----------



## yuriv

Quote: 





grokit said:


> Agreed that the iPod 5g sounds best, straight out of the headphone jack. Noticeable difference over the Classic and iPhone 4s. The 4g is next for me, followed by an old iPod Mini.


 

 Not everyone agrees that the iPod Video sounds the best out of the headphone jack. I prefer the output of the iPhone 4/4S and any model of iPad. Here are some observations I've collected over the years.
   

 The iPod Video (Gen 5/5.5) headphone out has a capacitor-coupled output. On lower-impedance headphones, there is audible bass rolloff. On 16-ohm 'phones, it's down a few dB by 40 Hz--just like on most Cowon DAPs. Older iPods have the same problem, and it's actually worse on the iPod Mini, especially the first model that came out. Newer iPods and iPhones don't have this problem.
 The iPod Gen. 3/4/5/5.5, Mini, and Classic models have at least a 5 ohm output impedance on their headphone amplifiers. That means that they don't deliver a uniform frequency response to low-impedance headphones that have impedance that varies with frequency. On something like a PX-100 or an HD238, the midbass response goes up a little bit--and it's already excessive on those cans. On SE530/SE535 there's a hole at 5 kHz. TF10 and XBA-4 have even worse deviation. In contrast, the output impedance is under 2 ohms on the iPod Nano (6th generation), iPhone 4/4S and iPad. These all deliver a more linear response, especially the iPhone 4 and the new iPad, which have 0.9 ohms and 0.8 ohms source impedances, respectively.
 The iPads and newer iPhones also have lower distortion when driving lower-impedance loads, sometimes an order of magnitude lower than the iPod Video. Combined with the lower output impedance, they are stiffer voltage sources and thus, behave much more like ideal voltage amplifiers.
 At maximum volume, the old iPods clip their output. And this happens _even without a load attached_. Hook up the headphone output of an iPod Video to an oscilloscope and you will see the flat tops of the waveforms. Sometimes, it sounds really bad. This doesn't happen on new iDevices until the load goes down to 16 ohms. And even then, you can dial the volume back and the maximum undistorted output is still a good 0.55-0.6V rms for a full-scale sine wave, which is still higher than what a Sansa Clip/+/Zip can deliver, let alone an iPod Video.
 Old iPods get around 0.9 Vrms undistorted output with no load, which is under maximum volume. It's closer to 1V--maximum volume--with the iPads and new iPhones, even with a 32 ohm load. With some quiet tracks, insensitive headphones like the HD600 need more than 1 V. But with some kinds of music, the HD600 can get loud enough near maximum volume. In this case, the HD600 draws so little current, and therefore, is an easy load to drive. It's really a walk in the park for the iPad--the noise and distortion figures stay very low as if it were nothing--i.e., an open circuit. Here, the iPad headphone output sounds very close to dedicated amps in a level-matched comparison. The same can be said for the old iPods as long as you don't have the volume too high.
 On newer iDevices, the headphone output is pretty much a transparent unity-gain buffer at maximum volume. It's cleaner than the line outs of many CD and DVD players. In some cases, the low output impedance makes the headphone output work better than the line out on the 30-pin connector. For example, a passive volume control can become a relatively low-impedance load for the line out, and the effects of loading might be audible. But the same passive volume control is practically an open circuit for the headphone out. Do a blind, level-matched comparison between the line out and the headphone out going to the same amp. It's very, very close. The new iPhone 5 isn't really missing a thing by not having an analog line out.
 The reconstruction filter is different on the new models... But that's another story, along with the Wolfson-is-better myth. For most practical purposes, it's no big deal.


----------



## bowei006

Im not agreeing with your post in the sense of agreeing as I dont have nearly as many iPods or iDevices as you have mentioned but I do applaud the effort you put into an excellent self post on what you have personally measured and observed.

*slow clap* commencing

I have owned and "heard" many iPods but none with the train of thought of analyzing the differences and also i wasnt aware of audio back then as well.

Good work


----------



## Ditti

Yuriv. Thanks for the detailed analysis in your real world testing. Will be fun to try it myself.


----------



## Redcarmoose

I have had and still have
   
                     
   1st generation Shuffle 500mb
                                                                       1st generation Touch 8 gig
                                                                                                
   
 1st generation Ipod Video 30 gig
   
                                          1st genreration Ipod Mini 4 gig
   
                 Ipad2 16 gig
   
   
   
   They all sound very different from one another. Sometimes I like the sound of one better than the other. 
   
  I did try a pair of Sennheiser 300CX Iems yesterday and I have to say I fell in love with the combo. Why I have not found out about these headphones before I really don't know? Defiantly the best way to get a sound improvement out of Apple products regardless of DAC inside.


----------



## bigshot

Through line out, all iPods sound the same- perfect. The only thing that differs is how the iPod works with various impedence cans throgh the headphone out.


----------



## Eisenhower

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Through line out, all iPods sound the same- perfect. The only thing that differs is how the iPod works with various impedence cans throgh the headphone out.


 
   
   
  This is my experience as well (from the few I've owned).
   
  I am highly suspicious of anyone who claims otherwise, or claims that ipods have bad sound quality (quite a cliched thing to do amongst "audiophiles").


----------



## bowei006

That? It depends on if you compare an iPod to something else but yeah however i am more disturbed by people that come in and say to give them suggestions but no Apple products and then they name something that fits an iPod.......


----------



## bigshot

Impedence issues are more a function of the cans than they are the player. The iPod is designed to be a portable player, so it's optimized for portable headphones. You can plug in big honkin' home cans, but it was never intended to be used that way.

If you really want to use big headphones, all you have to do is get a line out dock and a nice little cmoy amp. Bingo. It doesn't matter if you have the first gen or the most recent Touch. Now you've got sound to rival your home stereo system.


----------



## bowei006

Yep, the Dacs are plenty good enough considering an iPod is everywhere, everyonr has one regardless of price. An iPod is somewhat of an American right these days rather than a beg and get thing... Not that I am saying a parent should lay out $300 for one, just that so many have it.

Here I am in class listening to a beautiful Opera/pop piece with some IEMs while I go online to check on business updates and RSs news and can also do some gaming. An iPhone is a friend to an Apple friendly audiophile


----------



## yuriv

Some iPhone 5 notes:
  I got a chance to play with one for a but only for a very short time. I actually hope I got some of the measurements wrong. We'll see if Sonove or GE or anyone else can confirm these.

 Maximum volume is a little higher on the iPhone 5: 0.37 dB over the iPhone 4S. This puts it a little over 1 Vrms for a full-scale sine wave.
 iPhone 5 playing a pure tone going to a spectrum analyzer shows a skirt at the bottom of the spike. It's not present on the iPhone 4S. Could it suggest that one of them has more  random ______ than the other? The level is very low, but I'm sure a few will imagine hearing a difference and attribute it to this. Maybe some of the guys over at the Portable Source Gear forum who were crying about not getting a Wolfson this time. Airplane mode didn't make a difference. I wish I could have taken a picture.
 This, however, will sometimes have a much bigger effect (paste it into Wolfram Alpha):
            0.482*15.4/(R+15.4)=0.397
                 or
            0.320*15.4/(R+15.4)=0.264

 If you're using the Earpods, which are pretty much  40+ ohm resistors, then it won't matter. BTW, you can even use them, a splitter, a test tone, and quick and dirty measurements with a DMM to verify if my numbers are in the right ballpark.


----------



## Audio-Omega

May be I should replace my Sony SCD-XA3000ES cd player with the latest iPod Classic.


----------



## olear

I'm waiting for reviews and measurements on the iTouch 5g, especially compared to prior generation Touches.


----------



## bigshot

They are all good. Just go to an Apple store with your headphones and try it.


----------



## Currawong

I tried plugging my iPods into my main amp using the line out some time ago and was impressed how good they were. Driving headphones, a good amp will benefit. One of my favourite rigs at the last show in Tokyo was my iPhone connected to an ALO Continental and I've had a few amps pass through here, including an O2 I just built which are pretty good too.
   
  I reckon that, if I was listening to the same music I did when I joined Head-Fi years ago, all I'd need over my iPhone would be just a decent amp. Since I use my computer though for listening, I still reckon a DAC and amp is good for best results, but now there are so many good, inexpensive units available that one doesn't have to spend much to get "good" sound.


----------



## Apo0th3karY

http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/02/iphone-vs-rivals-audio-tests/
   
  Just FYI
   
  Seems like the 4S comes out pretty strong.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





apo0th3kary said:


> http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/02/iphone-vs-rivals-audio-tests/


 
   
  Those THD measurements do not look right. -25 dB (more than 5%) for the FiiO E17 ?


----------



## mikeaj

Quote: 





stv014 said:


> Those THD measurements do not look right. -25 dB (more than 5%) for the FiiO E17 ?


 
   
  To be honest, -40 dB to -55 dB THD @ 1 kHz for all of the phones is already suspicious enough.


----------



## bowei006

They didn't describe or even mention the differnt loads they are putting on the devices, and many other factors. Decent report, but they are trying to hard and are trying (or somewhat) trying to make it look formal by making it long.


----------



## stv014

Quote: 





bowei006 said:


> They didn't describe or even mention the differnt loads they are putting on the devices, and many other factors.


 
   
  That is true, but even with a 15 Ω load the distortion should not be so high. The shape of the THD vs. frequency graphs (flat up to about 1 kHz and then rolls off) is also unusual for typical op amp based headphone amplifiers, and looks like some artifact in the analysis.


----------



## bowei006

Quote: 





stv014 said:


> That is true, but even with a 15 Ω load the distortion should not be so high. The shape of the THD vs. frequency graphs (flat up to about 1 kHz and then rolls off) is also unusual for typical op amp based headphone amplifiers, and looks like some artifact in the analysis.


 
  I was also wondering what they measured the E17 as, as an amp with iPhone LOD and regular 3.5mm cable or as a DAC unit measurement?


----------



## proton007

Tbh, I've stopped reading Engadget reviews. They come off as biased (fanboy), non-technical. I mean, you could ask any of the tech savvy crowd to write what their "editors" write.
  This is one of the examples I found online: It seems some of their "reviewers" have no technical know-how
  I still visit the site though, just for news.


----------



## bigshot

Everything on the web is either clueless or indeciferably technical. No one seems to review based on what matters to users of the product.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Everything on the web is either clueless or indeciferably technical. No one seems to review based on what matters to users of the product.


 
   
  This one is good. The Engadget review guide, taken from here:
   
   

```
1. Is it an Apple product? 2. If yes, randomly choose a score between 8 and 10 3. If no, randomly choose a score between 5 and 7 4. Is it a non-Apple product that competes with an Apple product ? 5. If yes, lower the score with 3 points 6. Does the device have geek-appeal? 7. If yes, randomly add 1-3 to the score 8. Was the device created by a company whose CEO said not-so-nice things about our master Steve? 9. Then lower the score with 2 points. 10. Is it an Microsoft product? 11. Then lower the score by 2
```


----------



## gidgiddonihah

Not to hijack the thread... Anyone get their hands on the 5th gen iPod Touch or iPhone 5?  Just wondering what the Cirrus chip sounds like in there. Thinking about grabbing a 64GB Touch as my AT&T Galaxy SII sounds like crap.


----------



## audiophylactery

Digital Age peoples...
  The biggest difference between sound signatures within any company's product line won't come directly from newer hardware iterations. Rather, it's the drivers and software that drive the hardware, and subsequent changes that occur from driver updates, that will impact the audio output & sound signature of the playback device in question. With MOST mp3 players, especially those bereft of the ability to download apps, these newer & updated drivers/OS iterations will only be utilized in the next hardware release, unless the developer releases a firmware update, not unlike the ones TV's and various HD players can recieve through USB/Network connects. These updates generally speed up general operation or add new features to the device or even fix bugs. Such is not the case for Apple iOS devices, for Apple designs their hardware around the software. Even though it sounds backwards, and it is kinda, at least in respect to overall product improvement & performance progression year to year/model to model, it DOES make wondrous sense for ultimate Backwards Compatibility...
   
  FOR INSTANCE...i own a 3rd gen iPod Touch, until recently rarely used, but when my old beloved Creative mp3 player took a proverbial ****, i had to USE my gifted apple product. god forbid....anyways... I had to update from iOS 3.x to 4.x a month or two into use, in order to download some newer apps; specifically-Audio Playback Apps with intrinsically customizable EQ's (imagine...). After that update was installed, the old Equalizer settings sounded completely altered; immediately noticeable.* Even the OFF and Flat settings sounded a little modified, even though these shouldn't change, theoretically at least, especially since my hardware didn't change at all. 
   
  Regardless, once you understand that the audio signature and amplification environment you're subjected to is driven by digital software(drivers) like, say, the "Music" app...it's a simple matter of finding NEW apps that have customizable and tweakable playback environments for your music....so you hear what you WANT to hear.
   
  Because ALL music is personal. 
   
  *google it. iOS 4.0 equalizer
  hope this wasn't too long winded. ....Definitely a rambler


----------



## bowei006

Quote: 





audiophylactery said:


> Digital Age peoples...
> The biggest difference between sound signatures within any company's product line won't come directly from newer hardware iterations. *Rather, it's the drivers and software that drive the hardware, and subsequent changes that occur from driver updates, that will impact the audio output & sound signature of the playback device in question*. With MOST mp3 players, especially those bereft of the ability to download apps, these newer & updated drivers/OS iterations will only be utilized in the next hardware release, unless the developer releases a firmware update, not unlike the ones TV's and various HD players can recieve through USB/Network connects. These updates generally speed up general operation or add new features to the device or even fix bugs. Such is not the case for Apple iOS devices, for Apple designs their hardware around the software. Even though it sounds backwards, and it is kinda, at least in respect to overall product improvement & performance progression year to year/model to model, it DOES make wondrous sense for ultimate Backwards Compatibility...


 




   
   
  I get what you are saying but your implying that this happens with every product when in fact its more with consumer pmp's with a large company behind them. Most people with their Source Components would laugh at you saying that the driver and software needed to run them(of which usually they are Class 1 drivers or S/PDIF) are usually not as big as you may think. Granted yes, a faulty S/PDIF driver and software issues with the SouthBridge or the default  pre installed sound chip that does do some light handling of S/PDIF if you use that or the SouthBridge if you use USB can have and call issues to the product.
   
  This is more of a consumer PMP thing. Not a whole issue to many other units. Not to mention, you are talking about using applications that are 3rd party from the app store as well which further defeats the point of you saying that a good software or driver update will tremendously increase sound quality or performance.
   
  Next, if you are using a 3rd party apps EQ, they could have just changed the settings with the update. Or if you are using iTunes pre made EQ along with a 3rd party, that again means that you are EQing a EQ from iTunes.
  Yes, they "changed" the EQ settings in the new update but so? That is one product with one update, where Apple didn't fix it. They CHANGED it so that they sounded different and with "better" settings. 
   
  If my TV got an update that fixed weird colors or screen tearing, can I thus claim that all TV's performances aren't based off their hardware but by that single software update for that single TV series to fix/change that one thing that they haven't updated in a few years?
   
  And you have also stated that you used a Creative MP3 meaning that you probably didn't have hundreds of hours upon that iPod 3G actually intensley listening to it.


----------



## bigshot

All ipods sound the same- perfect. Through line out at least.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> All ipods sound the same- perfect. Through line out at least.


 
   
  I used to think the same, till i tried the Clip Zip. Maybe its the impedance matching, lower impedance IEMs seem to sound better on the clip.


----------



## bowei006

Quote: 





proton007 said:


> I used to think the same, till i tried the Clip Zip. Maybe its the impedance matching, lower impedance IEMs seem to sound better on the clip.


 
  Most people would say that the Clip Zip is just a budget alternative.
   
  It may be that you liked the sound signature better? More fun, more colorful etc?
   
  I never crticially listened to the Clip Zip or at all. I just played with the interface at Best Buy
   
  Quote: 





bigshot said:


> All ipods sound the same- perfect. Through line out at least.


 
  It depends on what you mean by perfect. They do have a very high quality line out though. But of course I would still prefer a better DAC and other units. But the important thing is that most people already have an iPod and thus it makes it great.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





bowei006 said:


> Most people would say that the Clip Zip is just a budget alternative.
> 
> It may be that you liked the sound signature better? More fun, more colorful etc?
> 
> I never crticially listened to the Clip Zip or at all. I just played with the interface at Best Buy


 
   
  Not colored, I found it clearer and had a better sound stage. Tried with the same earphones, same music. The instrument placement was much better than what I could achieve with the iPod Nano.
   
  About it being budget oriented, I'm sure thats how its was intended to be. No one takes it seriously from the looks of it.
  But it seems Sandisk hit gold here. Given the cheap earbuds they give with it, I'm sure they didn't think it sounded this well.


----------



## bigshot

Sound stage is in the recording, not the player.


----------



## bowei006

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Sound stage is in the recording, not the player.


 
  The player could also have an adverse effect on soundstage. Of course, many things can. Be it software options you are using, the player, the headphone/IEM you are using, some say the cables, etc etc.


----------



## bigshot

bowei006 said:


> It depends on what you mean by perfect. They do have a very high quality line out though. But of course I would still prefer a better DAC and other units.




The iPods have DACs that compare to good standalone home CD players. Every one of them has stone flat frequency response, no distortion to speak of, and a noise floor WAY below audibility. If you're hearing differences, you're eiher comparing the iPod to something that has inferior sound, or you're hearing placebo.


----------



## bigshot

bowei006 said:


> The player could also have an adverse effect on soundstage.




Unless you're adding some sort of effect to the sound that is blending channels or splitting off to rear speakers, the soundstage is what it is. The only thing that could affect it is channel separation/crosstalk, and I haven't seen any home audio component since the LP era that had problems with that.

Soundstage is a function of miking and mixing. The only thing that can affect it in playback is room acoustics and speaker placement. Headphones have little or no soundstage. They simply have two separate and discrete channels that put the sound through the middle of your head across a single plane. Soundstage is by definition in front of you, not drilled through your noggin.


----------



## bowei006

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Unless you're adding some sort of effect to the sound that is blending channels or splitting off to rear speakers, the soundstage is what it is. The only thing that could affect it is channel separation/crosstalk, and I haven't seen any home audio component since the LP era that had problems with that.
> Soundstage is a function of miking and mixing. The only thing that can affect it in playback is room acoustics and speaker placement. Headphones have little or no soundstage. They simply have two separate and discrete channels that put the sound through the middle of your head across a single plane. Soundstage is by definition in front of you, not drilled through your noggin.


 
  I see. So the Apple Earbuds have the same soundstage as an HD800 with the same song playing because they aren't doing anything different than giving you sound that has been mixed and recorded.
   
  Let me see how many will agree with that.
   
  Quote: 





bigshot said:


> The iPods have DACs that compare to good standalone home CD players. Every one of them has stone flat frequency response, no distortion to speak of, and a noise floor WAY below audibility. If you're hearing differences, you're eiher comparing the iPod to something that has inferior sound, or you're hearing placebo.


 
  The word perfect is a still bit. Big


----------



## joeyjojo

Quote: 





bowei006 said:


> I see. So the Apple Earbuds have the same soundstage as an HD800 with the same song playing because they aren't doing anything different than giving you sound that has been mixed and recorded.
> 
> Let me see how many will agree with that.


 
   
  The above is a point of view held by me, bigshot and a few others around here. Music is almost exclusively mixed and mastered for a set of stereo loudspeakers (see Dr Cheskys stuff for music for headphones). The physical separation of the speakers, the phase information, and the dispersion of each channel through your skull can give the illusion of precise positioning of instruments in the 3D space in front of the listener - the "sound stage".
   
  For some reason the term has been appropriated by the head-fi community and applied to headphones. However as bigshot says, playing unaltered loudspeaker-mixed music through headphones results in no "stage", but rather a line through the ears ("headstage"). I think what people mean in this context is more synonymous with detail or instrument resolution, but who knows, head-fiers have some weird ideas.


----------



## bigshot

Apple earbuds add no soundstage to the music that isn't there in the recording. That's true of anything you shove in your ears. In order for there to be soundstage, there needs to be a distance between your ears and the transducers. A headphone transducer sits a half inch off your ear. It adds a tiny, insignificant amount of soundstage- barely audible if it's audible at all. A set of speakers that are 15 feet in front of you and are 8 feet apart present a lot of very clearly audible soundstage. The directionality of the drivers and design of the cabinets can enhance that even more by throwing the sound out into the room. The shape and acoustic properties of the room can affect it further.

Soundstage is a realistic spread of instruments laid out in front of you. You don't get that at all by shoving the drivers in your ears. All you get is a left right spread that goes straight through the middle of your skull.

Oh! One more thing.... Yes, all those people talking about the soundstage of their heaphones on HeadFi don't really know what the term means. They're using it to describe placebo.


----------



## bowei006

We are talking about completely different things here. I am talking about the headphone soundstage that is most commonly used on Head-Fi where the headphone and the tuning and effects of its drivers, casing and everything will produce a more realistic almost open air effect like you are there. Not the real soundstage that the speaker people generally use.


----------



## bigshot

"Open" is a function of whether headphones form a seal around your ears or not. It as nothing to do with soundstage. It has to do with sound pressure and environmental isolation.


----------



## bowei006

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> "Open" is a function of whether headphones form a seal around your ears or not. It as nothing to do with soundstage. It has to do with sound pressure and environmental isolation.


 
  And again, I was not referring to open and closed headphones but the word open in general to describe the sensation that a more soundstage prone headphone will produce as opposed to say Apple Earbuds


----------



## audiophylactery

Thanks for the reply bowiexxxx. But it is a much more foundational theory to my argument, and one you seemed to hedge by focusing on an analogous similarity i drew between iOS updates and a TV firmware update, as well as my preference for using non-apple approved apps.
   
  Still doesn't explain the monumental shift in sound signatures afforded by my iPod following a mere iOS update developed back in 2009...same chip, same speakers, same songs...WAY different response signatures.
   
  Here's why! 
   
  Digital Hardware doesnt take crap ONE without a programming language of SOME sort(drivers/codecs/software/etc...). It just sits there on the toilet, constipated, if you will. Furthurmore, crap-ified programming can turn the most advanced hardware, in any sector of the electronics market, into sluggishly unintuitive and generally undesirable pieces of junk. Believing that a first party App/program is better than any and all like third party Apps out of hand, and as whimsically as you did is, well, kind of ignorant. Basically means you think that the guys who CODED the Music App on the iPod know how to reproduce sound better on any medium with any equipment than anyone, ever. Dreadfully unenlightened. But i'm not going to dwell on it. I'll keep my 3rd party app and play my tunes the way I want. Keep myself deaf to criticism right? 
   
  Saying that the iPod's, or ANY system's digital processing of sound is perfect is also just plain wrong. Simply listening to Sound ITSELF is an analog experience. And i don't care WHAT the situation...given a transmitted signal of ANY type (video/audio/wtfever), and having to convert that signal/waveform in any capacity whatsoever between digital/analog, always yields distortion and/or loss of frequency response.
   
  The ipod is still what i use day to day as well...and have been for well over a year now. And will continue to do so. It's not that i DON'T like Apple products. Rather, compared to most companies in related markets, i PREFER them. But i'm not about to worship them as gods, discount other developers' offerings or close my mind to progression and improvement from an external source. Thats the HEIGHT of stupidity.


----------



## bigshot

"Soundstage prone" just means better overall sound, or it can be a vague term used to describe placebo. Headphones do not have soundstage. The people who describe heaphone soundstage at great length are usually the same ones who claim certain headphones are more "musical" or use terms like PRaT. They are making stuff up.


----------



## bowei006

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> "Soundstage prone" just means better overall sound, or it can be a vague term used to describe placebo. Headphones do not have soundstage. The people who describe heaphone soundstage at great length are usually the same ones who claim certain headphones are more "musical" or use terms like PRaT. They are making stuff up.


 
  Now we are back to the definition of soundstage. What it is to you or me is different. Basically like you said, different headphones depending on many factors of that headphones tuning, casing, distance of driver from ear and other things can basically make the song or track feel realistic up to the amount of "real" spacial soundstage the track or song actually has if we are just talking about close to realisitc soundstage(for example, Monster Inspiration has a very large spacial effect and thus makes it feel like the headphone felt soundstage is really big). 
   
  That is definately a quality that headphones have. On how spatial they can make a recording sound. And as it is a quality and a quality that many want. We needed a word for it. And guess what word we used? Soundstage. There are many differnt interpretations of it. But as we are in a headphone forum and soundstage has been given the clear set implication of what I said above, we needen't go into speakers and their types of soundstage for the definitoin of the word. It'd be like debating whether X words origins came from Greece or Rome while on a forum that is talking about Roman politics. Its just out of nowhere 
   
   
  @Audio dude
  sorry, got some work to do, will try to reply later


----------



## bigshot

audiophylactery said:


> given a transmitted signal of ANY type (video/audio/wtfever), and having to convert that signal/waveform in any capacity whatsoever between digital/analog, always yields distortion and/or loss of frequency response.




The iPod has total harmonic distortion of .06%
The frequency response is 20Hz to 20 kHz +/- at most .5dB, usually much less

That is stone flat with inaudible levels of distortion no matter how golden ones' ears are.

If I had an iOS update that changed the sound of my iPod in an audible way, I would take my iPod to the Apple Store and tell them to put it back in spec for me. I don't have a Touch. I have classics and iPhones. My iPhones have never audibly changed. If they did, I would be hopping mad about it.

When I get a new iPhone or iPod, I set up a line level matched A/B comparison of the mobile device against my home CD player. I've never detected any difference.


----------



## bigshot

bowei006 said:


> That is definately a quality that headphones have. On how spatial they can make a recording sound.




There are several ways to create "space" in a recording... Psychoacoustic cues created through miking techniques, phase and delay shifts added in mixing, and physical distance/directionality between your ears and the transducer. Since headphones are pressed up against your ears, there is no room for them to create any kind of meaningful soundstage.

The term soundstage as it is used outside of sound science in headfi is meaningless. It can mean isolation, frequency response, dynamics, distortion, or purely subjective things like how comfortable the cans are on your head or what you had for dinner.

Soundstage is the presentation of an aural image in front of you, as if te performers were sitting in front of you arrayed left to right. Headphones can't present that kind of sound any more than an ink jet printer can print out pictures in 3D.


----------



## bowei006

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> There are several ways to create "space" in a recording... Psychoacoustic cues created through miking techniques, phase and delay shifts added in mixing, and physical distance/directionality between your ears and the transducer. Since headphones are pressed up against your ears, there is no room for them to create any kind of meaningful soundstage.
> The term soundstage as it is used outside of sound science in headfi is meaningless. It can mean isolation, frequency response, dynamics, distortion, or purely subjective things like how comfortable the cans are on your head or what you had for dinner.
> Soundstage is the presentation of an aural image in front of you, as if te performers were sitting in front of you arrayed left to right. Headphones can't present that kind of sound any more than an ink jet printer can print out pictures in 3D.


 
  Of which again makes no sense. I am fine if you argue that soundstage in whatever term you define it as is so and so. But saying that there is no way a headphone can present a different aural image different from one another is a large claim


----------



## audiophylactery

Not to point out the obvious...but wouldn't line level A/B comparisons be limited to mere relativity, rather than say, objectivity/controlled variable experimentation(i.e. your REFERENCE)? As in...a comparison with your home CD player is only as good as the CD player, and consequently, all the aforementioned hardware/firmware, actually is, which is STILL going to yield subjective results as far as determining faithful reproduction. I could do a line lvl A/B comparison of my iPod to, say, a portable cd player made by Dynex. It would most likely meet the performance of the player, if not surpass it.  Same comparison on a McIntosh Home Theatre SACD/DVD player? WHOA...big difference.


----------



## audiophylactery

I feel overly critical, but i feel the need to point out more logically obvious stuff. When a studio-reference response signature is achieved, through whatever means, be it a post-amplification system, Source based Equalizer, etc...there is an UNDENIABLE increase in spatial reproduction, no matter what kind of or where the cones/speakers are located, or if they are closed air systems (IEM). I'll have an experiment for some of you guys in a few if you have the time.
  And just an aside....when you are IN the studio, NOT behind the glass...or if you're ON stage...the music comes from ALL AROUND you
  (the artist/creator of your digitally compressed reproduction)... So what the artist intended to record in a 2 dimensional soundscape is a lie, or 'massaged truth'. Anyone who's heard truly amazingly accurate sound will ALWAYS mention that the "Sound came from somewhere other than the speakers/Outside my headphones"....sounds like spatial construction to me.


----------



## audiophylactery

Hope i'm not boring anyone or being overly repetitive. Wordy, for sure. My apologies for the impending flood of seemingly spontaneous and self-effacingly immodest techspeak. There is a point i'll eventually be making, but i feel like there's alot of crucial information regarding Digital Playback that may've been overlooked, or simply outside the realm of individual knowledge, yet when once understood, gives a solid foundation to successfully achieving reference level sound reproduction on iOS and other devices. And i specifically mean, achieving as close to as possible, the sound signature of a studio live performance at the original time of track recording. So, maybe not what the artist intended for you to hear,...but the sounds he/she actually made. Not quite the same, but semantics really.
  Anyways...i may be staking my dubiously placental reputation out on the line here...but whatevs.
  Here goes...
   
          The Flat Line. Reference? Logic WOULD say yes, initially, but upon deeper mental digging & profuse headaches, something doesn't click. If sound moves in waves, there's not a single logical way in which a flat, or linear approach to reproducing sound will EVER work. Just like the exponential rise and fall of the Hertz slope, a truly organic and acoustically accurate Sound signature will look like a layered sin/cos formula, with parabolic rises and falls. Just like *gasp* a soundwave or frequency.
           But the flat line DOES matter. Inconcieveably so. If the audio encoding team knows their ****, they would know that when sound is recorded correctly and accurately, that AT FLAT (+/- 0db gain to ANY frequency), there is no more PHYSICAL data that can be added. This means that the maximum amount of musical tone RECORDED is within the entire bottom half of any equalizer you use. What is usually left off of Visual EQ representations is a TRUE flow chart, which shows not only gain(db) applied to each selected frequency, but the amount of bandwidth applied as well, meaning how many adjacent frequencies are affected, and at what rate(exponent), and the crossovers where adjacent reduced frequencies create double Helix formations.
  Trust me,...the most correct and truely flat reference waveforms look like DNA strands on the flowcharts. Organic, Musical, DNA. Makes a calming sort of sense. the waveforms are usually parabolically symmetrical but never EXCEED the flat line. 
   
   And any time you attempt to digitally ADD or enhance detail of ANY recorded source, you distort the original and lose reference. FOR EXAMPLE...jacking the color response of any digital image. The desired effect is achieved, the color is enhanced. Keep going and the reds will start to bleed outside the edges. This reduces, tremendously, the variation between colors, and your overall contrast, and hence, the detail and resolution of your image. THE EXACT SAME THING HAPPENS TO SOUND. This includes the EQ used in the music player utilized in any Apple OS device. Both the music App, and the Itunes Equalizer employ the use of a digital preamp. But it's not a real pre-amp. It's software driven. and horribly so. Digital enhancements have NO place in a controlled reference experiment. Real problem is...you can't reduce or affect the built-in pre-amp on the music app. 
          The REASON a digital preamp sucks> at 'flat' response, you are still adding amplitude(gain) to all points across the 10 band EQ to achieve flat response, without more hardware(more real/physical & CLEAN power/current), or increasing the volume, thereby utterly destroying accurate sound signatures.  For that reason alone...itunes & the music app, while having above average sound signatures for the average listener, will logically never achieve reference sound...
   
  wheew...that felt ... like too much.


----------



## proton007

Quote: 





bowei006 said:


> Of which again makes no sense. I am fine if you argue that soundstage in whatever term you define it as is so and so. But saying that there is no way a headphone can present a different aural image different from one another is a large claim


 
   
  Yeah thats what I also agree with. Of course speakers are going to have a better imaging, but headphones have their own imaging, so do IEMs, however flat it may be. I noticed this can change depending on the source. Analog transients can be tuned, and the better they are, the better time delay/phase difference it will create. Beyond a certian point, of course not much of a difference.


----------



## audiophylactery

Just so everyone knows i'm not COMPLETELY full of crap, here's a quick test you can do. On a laptop, open iTunes. Start some tunes. Click View-Show equalizer. Change to flat. Turn EQ off.....notice how everything greys out...even the digital pre-amp, as if it's not applied, yes?
   
  Now, tell me straight, Is there one iota of difference between what you hear after turning OFF the EQ and preamp? .....strange...
   
  Moving on...
  Test #2. 
   
  Same on an iOS device. Flat>OFF, no change. figures...So, change to treble booster. Wait, where'd the bass go?, now hit treble reducer.....more bass than flat...hmmm.
   
  Test #3
  For this one, have some decent quality headphones/speakers on hand, or multiple, if you want more reference. On a pc/mac with itunes, open the equalizer again. before you start playback, click Bass Booster. slide the preamp down to nil. Save the EQ/Make Preset... call it... bassnoamp, idk. Now choose Bass Reducer. Repeat process. no preamp,...save as bassreducednoamp. do the same with flat> flatnoamp. 
   
  Now, reduce the volume of the computer's line out to 0 & Increase volume in Itunes to 100%. choose an Apple preset, say Bass Reducer. hit play. increase volume on line out of device to comfortable level. switch to another Apple Preset, Bass Booster or Flat. switch a few times back and forth. get a good feel for both the soundstage produced and tonal accuracy and depth, and in particular, pay attention to the amount of relative audible change in TONE....NOT overall volume, but frequency range and so forth.
   
  Next, switch to one of the made presets. flatnoamp...output will be much lower. Increase volume on pc line out to roughly the same level as when using the apple preset. Now, start switchin to bassnoamp & bassreducednoamp. The difference in the sound signatures and overall clarity/balance on ANY set of speakers is kinda staggering. More importantly still, is the AMOUNT of change that occurs when switching between these EQ's. Much more Immediately noticeable, with more frequencies, and across a wider range, than switching between the apple presets with a preamp engaged and lower device volume output. Also, notice how the frequencies in the higher register don't become anymore noticeable between any of the non amp'd EQs, as none of them had any modification. NOT SO when switching between Apple's presets. Bass Booster quite noticeable changes the response of the higher frequencies when the preamp is on. 
   
   
   
  Soooooo...software. It's a bitch.


----------



## bigshot

bowei006 said:


> Of which again makes no sense. I am fine if you argue that soundstage in whatever term you define it as is so and so. But saying that there is no way a headphone can present a different aural image different from one another is a large claim




The amount of soundstage headphones create is directly related to the drivers' angle and distance from the ear. In general you get about a quarter inch of soundstage compared to 15 to 20 feet distance with speakers. Speakers have clear soundstage. Headphones have a drop in the bucket.

Headphones can have better response, less distortion, better dynamics, etc. that make the sound better, but that isn't soundstage.


----------



## bigshot

audiophylactery said:


> Not to point out the obvious...but wouldn't line level A/B comparisons be limited to mere relativity,




Assuming that all published specs aren't complete hooey, if multiple components measure as being transparent, simply comparing them will let you know if one is out of spec. All I really look for is if I got a defective unit. If it matches everything else, it's doing its job. The odds that different components would all be off in the exact same direction is mighty small.

Other folks can feel free to bust out the test equipment though. I just don't see the need for my purposes.


----------



## bowei006

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> The amount of soundstage headphones create is directly related to the drivers' angle and distance from the ear. In general you get about a quarter inch of soundstage compared to 15 to 20 feet distance with speakers. Speakers have clear soundstage. Headphones have a drop in the bucket.
> Headphones can have better response, less distortion, better dynamics, etc. that make the sound better, but that isn't soundstage.


 
  Again, you are arguing for a term unrelated to a term I am discussing.
   
  Headphones have a spatial quality to them. That spatial quality that makes things seem life like takes advantage of the tuning of the drivers, the angle, the casing, how it rebounds off your ear, the headphone itself and your ear itself and also how it will use open air backing or closed back to create that spatial quality. This is a trait that many like and is a very important trait to many. And thus as it is so important to many, it needs a name! So what do people name it that also coincides with another term... Soundstage.


----------



## bigshot

You're talking about extremely small things. Whether or not a driver is at the correct angle depends on the shape of your ear canal. Ideally, the sound goes straight in your ears and doesn't bounce around a lot. But that isn't soundstage. Soundstage is the spread of sound right to left in front of you. Speakers have soundstage. Headphones don't. All headphones put the sound inside your head. The spatial cues are all in the recording. The headphones can't create space because there is no space.

Open, closed... These terms just describe the feel of sound pressure in your ears. Sound pressure isn't space. Space takes distance from the drivers.

Saying headphones have soundstage is like saying you have surround sound with just two stereo speakers.


----------



## bowei006

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> You're talking about extremely small things. Whether or not a driver is at the correct angle depends on the shape of your ear canal. Ideally, the sound goes straight in your ears and doesn't bounce around a lot. But that isn't soundstage. Soundstage is the spread of sound right to left in front of you. Speakers have soundstage. Headphones don't. All headphones put the sound inside your head. The spatial cues are all in the recording. The headphones can't create space because there is no space.
> Open, closed... These terms just describe the feel of sound pressure in your ears. Sound pressure isn't space. Space takes distance from the drivers.
> Saying headphones have soundstage is like saying you have surround sound with just two stereo speakers.


 
  I am not talking about real space. I am talking about how a headphone and its tuning and all the other factors above give the impression of space. And thus a word had to be created and thus that is headphone soundstage.
   
  You are completely ignoring the fact that a headphone such as an Q701 does not produce the same impressed soundstage as an apple earbud. This is in itself artifical if we must use this word. In that by your definnition, there is no real "soundstage" because there is no real space between the driver and ears. I am not talking about that. I am talking about headphones and their own "soundstage" which is a word that is different from yours. This term of soundstage is how a headphone can replay the "stuff" in the media to sound "realistic".
   
  Let's go and tell everyone that headphones don't have the type of soundstage I am talking about(which is a word that is different from yours that is meant for headphones) and see how many will start to go and buy an Apple Earbud instead of whatever they want.


----------



## bigshot

You aren't hearing soundstage. You're hearing better frequency response or lower distortion and you are subjectively describing that to yourself as "space". The cues that create the illusion of depth are slight reverberation or echoes caught by the mikes during recording, or phase filtering done during mixing. Those aural cues are in the recording, not the headphones. Better headphones just reproduce the sound more faithfully, and those subtle aural cues can be heard better. That isn't soundstage, it's clarity.

I know a lot of audiophile people use vague, inaccurate ways of describing sound. Soundstage, however has a specific meaning, and that meaning is applicable to speakers, not headphones.

The difference between good headphones and apple earbuds is clarity (low distortion, flat response) not soundstage.


----------



## bowei006

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> You aren't hearing soundstage. You're hearing better frequency response or lower distortion and you are subjectively describing that to yourself as "space". The cues that create the illusion of depth are slight reverberation or echoes caught by the mikes during recording, or phase filtering done during mixing. Those aural cues are in the recording, not the headphones. Better headphones just reproduce the sound more faithfully, and those subtle aural cues can be heard better. That isn't soundstage, it's clarity.
> I know a lot of audiophile people use vague, inaccurate ways of describing sound. Soundstage, however has a specific meaning, and that meaning is applicable to speakers, not headphones.
> The difference between good headphones and apple earbuds is clarity (low distortion, flat response) not soundstage.


 
   
   


> You aren't hearing soundstage. You're hearing better frequency response or lower distortion and you are subjectively describing that to yourself as "space".


 
  The Monster Inspirations have a very large headphone soundstage. However, it is very artificial, sounds spacey and purely sucks. It does not have good Freqeuency responce and or good distortion handling.
   
   
   


> Better headphones just reproduce the sound more faithfully, and those subtle aural cues can be heard better. That isn't soundstage, it's clarity.


 
  My twist on it is that through tuning and all the things I mentioned before, because a headphone can reproduce it more faithfully and sometimes also add the quality of space to it, it has a spatial quality to it. That spatial quality needs a name as it is a quality and thus the word soundstage came out of it. There are plenty of headphone better than my Q701's in reproducing sound but don't have the 'headphone' soundstage of it.
   
   
   


> Soundstage, however has a specific meaning, and that meaning is applicable to speakers, not headphones.


 
  Soundstage in the audio realm does not have a specific meaning. According to Meriam Webster and most other sources, in terms of audio reproduction, soundstage does not have a specific meaning and is not specifc. It has not entered formal dictionary yet so therefore, what you call it and what we in headphone call it can be whatever we want it to be. I have already described a plethora of times what we call it.
   
   
   


> The difference between good headphones and apple earbuds is clarity (low distortion, flat response) not soundstage.


 
  Monster Inspiration has a much larger stage that my Ultrasones and most headphones that have a better responce.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





bowei006 said:


> Soundstage in the audio realm does not have a specific meaning.


 
   
  Of course it does. It's just often misused to the point where people think the incorrect usage is the true one.


----------



## bowei006

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Of course it does. It's just often misused to the point where people think the incorrect usage is the true one.


 
  Sorry, I mis typped that part.
   
  Sound stage does not have an actual defined specific meaning that is officially recognized in terms of audio products and devices as we are speaking of it now. And thus that leaves the term up for consideration. You have your own speaker defintion or a more universal one while we on "regular-Fi" use the common quality one to describe the spatial sound of it and how realisitc it sounds up to the quality achievable.


----------



## Currawong

Bigshot: People don't just use the line out of their iPods or iPhones. Secondly, perceived soundstage (that's how I refer to it) with headphones will be connected with the level of stereo crosstalk and distortion with different headphones. Some people have already done measurements of various iDevices with and without headphones plugged in and correlated it with their listening impressions. Plug a pair of HD-600s into an iPod and listen to a piece of music that was recorded in, say, a concert hall and note down your perception of the image then try the same again using the iPod connected to a good headphone amp as an example.
   
  Now with the new Lightning connector, there isn't the possibility of a line-out connection unless the headphone socket is used, so the OP's question is a valid one from a variety of different aspects, so rather than arguing about whether we misuse words such as "soundstage", how about addressing the question asked?


----------



## bowei006

On that subject:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/02/iphone-vs-rivals-audio-tests/
   
  Flawed article but I guess you could read it and take what you will out of it. The various loads other devices were put on weren't shown and some of the graphs look wrong.


----------



## bowei006

Quote: 





audiophylactery said:


> Just so everyone knows i'm not COMPLETELY full of crap, here's a quick test you can do. On a laptop, open iTunes. Start some tunes. Click View-Show equalizer. Change to flat. Turn EQ off.....notice how everything greys out...even the digital pre-amp, as if it's not applied, yes?
> 
> Now, tell me straight, Is there one iota of difference between what you hear after turning OFF the EQ and preamp? .....strange...
> 
> ...


 
  Test #1
  I can't believe I even did this test. I did it and nothing happened. Of course not. I don't use EQ with iTunes or very often if at all. So of course opening Equalizer and turning it to flat, and then turning EQ on and off changed nothing. As I am not EQ anything.
   
   
  Test #3
  I don't follow what you are trying to get me to do. Your terms are very confusing.
   
   
  But either way, I don't exactly agree with your software views. But hey, its head-fi. We can all do whatever.


----------



## bigshot

Let me help you out. Here is a definition of what soundstage in audio is...

Soundstage is the meshing of the output of two channels to create one even sound field spread out left to right in front of the listener like performers on a stage. Most classical recordings are miked to have clear, realistic soundstage that stays in a fixed position.

Speaker placement within a room can affect how well the aural illusion of natural soundstage is reproduced. If the speakers are too close together, stereo separation is compromised. If they are too far apart, there can be a dip in the middle, preventing the soundstage from meshing. Speakers too close to the wall can cause the sound to couple with the wall, cancelling out soundstage. And placement of furniture in the room and the direction the drivers point can make a difference too.

A lot of rock music has synthetic soundstage created in the mix. This kind of soundstage uses left/right placement in the mix and phase or delay effects to create sound fields that might not exist in the real world.

5:1 takes soundstage into the third dimension, creating soundfields that not only extend left and right, but forward and backward as well. In order for this to work properly, all six speakers must mesh. Modern A/V 5:1 receivers sometimes have synthetic sound fields which use phase between channels and digital reverberation delays to create virtual soundstages that emulate the sound of clubs, auditoriums or concert halls.

If you google the term "speaker placement" you'll find lots of tutorials on how to create proper soundstage, and "sound field" will bring up info on artificial and virtual soundstages.


----------



## bigshot

currawong said:


> perceived soundstage (that's how I refer to it) with headphones will be connected with the level of stereo crosstalk and distortion with different headphones.




The drivers in headphones are wired completely separately. How can crosstalk be an issue with headphones?

I agree about distortion. The thing that most people generally incorrectly refer to in headphones as "soundstage" is actually *clarity*, which is the result of low distortion and balanced response.


----------



## bowei006

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Let me help you out. Here is *a* definition of what soundstage in audio is...
> Soundstage is the meshing of the output of two channels to create one even sound field spread out left to right in front of the listener like performers on a stage. Most classical recordings are miked to have clear, realistic soundstage that stays in a fixed position.
> Speaker placement within a room can affect how well the aural illusion of natural soundstage is reproduced. If the speakers are too close together, stereo separation is compromised. If they are too far apart, there can be a dip in the middle, preventing the soundstage from meshing. Speakers too close to the wall can cause the sound to couple with the wall, cancelling out soundstage. And placement of furniture in the room and the direction the drivers point can make a difference too.
> A lot of rock music has synthetic soundstage created in the mix. This kind of soundstage uses left/right placement in the mix and phase or delay effects to create sound fields that might not exist in the real world.
> ...


 
  Yes. IT is A definition.
   
  We are Head-Fi. We are headphone Fi. We also deal with speakers but their own terminology and definitions like the ones you have don't exactly apply to us. 
   
  Go tell a car mechanic to crank it up, and he most likely won't be cranking up the music. 
   
  Clip is another one. Clip in different fields can mean to both shorten the length of and to cut or release. You wouldn't want to tell the guy on the boat to clip your cable while parasailing without using their own preset definition of what "clip" meant now would you? If the parasailing agency defined clip to be to cut the cable(hypothetically in a crazy world) and that was their own communities set word, you wouldn't go into that community and keep yelling to clip it because it is what the definition in another community is now would you?


----------



## bigshot

Clipping in audio means overdriving to the point of distortion.


----------



## bowei006

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Clipping in audio means overdriving to the point of distortion.


 
  It was a comparison. But here you see 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 you are getting what I mean. Clipping in audio means that. Does it mean to shorten or cut?


----------



## arande2

Here I see an argument about word intensions (not intentions). Psychoacoustics. I guess this is why I must try to banish ambiguity from my writing in certain contexts. Ultimately, we are the ones to give these terms meaning and I find it odd that some don't consider the common usage of a word (over a period of time) to be THE intension of the word, regardless of its etymology.
   
  Personally, I'd prefer the word _soundstage_ to represent primarily *where* I perceive different components of the sound to originatefrom,  the nature of the components of the sound (apparent size and distance of an upright bass), and the space the sound takes place in (maybe an anechoic chamber). These *qualities* (what I'd associate with the term sound quality, which the idea of a soundstage could also be a function of) can be distorted, so the bass component of a voice might sound too big or in the wrong spot when compared with the upper frequency range. A produced recording with many manipulations might give the impression that the vocalist has multiple clones at different spatial locations singing along while there (somehow) is a plethora of other instruments in a variety of environments (and they seem to be rapidly moving around within them! - tremolo, reverb), all at once!
   
  Sound science poses a difficulty with (sort of) objectively mapping all of the subjective qualities to a name and formula so that we can achieve some goal with it (realistic sound reproduction, for example, of a live source), given compromises (two channels, an electrical storage medium, lossy compression).
   
  I could go on and on, but my post is already falling apart and I'm not sure what you're gaining from it.
   
  Blah-dee-blah.


----------



## proton007

@Bowei and Bigshot:
   
  I think the term is stereo imaging.


----------



## bigshot

Yep! That's another term for it.


----------



## Ian Minton

Please guys, this information is unbelievable and helpful to me- I'm brand new to the world of sound
   
  My question is, will I get this kind of experience from Sennheiser HD25-1 II headphones? I'm thinking about getting a pair and would like to experience this kind of sound using an iPhone 5... 
   
  Thanks gang...


----------



## luisdent

All right.  I am going to give my review of the iPod touch 5th generation if anyone is interested...
   
  A quick background first.  I have been playing piano since I was five, recording and mixing multi track audio since probably 10.  I have a very discerning ear.  People are always surprised at things I hear that they can't.  I had an audiologist exam within the last year, and he was literally impressed that I heard such faint sounds during the test with 100% accuracy.  He said it was one of the best he's seen.  I don't mean to sound boastful, but I just want you to know where I'm coming from, because audio opinions can very greatly even among audiophiles.  Basically, I'm super incredibly ridiculously picky about everything audio.
   
  With that said, the new iPod touch is greatly frustrating me.  The audio quality is absolutely not the same as four other iPods I have.  I had a classic 160GB which died, but I've compared that to other devices, so I know where that stands.  I have a 16GB nano g6, and also a 4GB nano g2.  Right now I have the two nanos and my new touch.
   
  For reference, I have an apogee duet interface.  I'm familiar with a variety of sound systems.  I've had a harman kardon av-r325 with a digital input and now am using a denon avr-990 with infinity alpha speaker system (the larger sizes).  I have a Pioneer/JBL audio system in my car and an array of in ear and studio quality headphones.  I have alesis m1 mk2 biamp studio monitors as well.  The point being that I am always comparing and contrasting different audio systems and very often using the differences of each system to determine mixing decisions with my own recordings.
   
  So, with that background, I've compared the new ipod touch to the older ipods and the duet.  The results are frustrating.  I don't want to come out and say the quality is worse, however it is definitely different.  I don't want to over stress the difference, because to some they may not exist, to others they may be night and day.  However, I noticed there was a difference without even comparing devices.  I was listening to a recording by the band secret garden, which contains violins and strings, and I thought "something isn't right here".  There was a slight lack of clarity, and an almost boominess to certain low/mid frequencies.  My first thought was that I actually had an EQ set accidentally (I never use EQ), but after checking there are absolutely no audio settings enabled.  The sound is as flat and unaltered as possible on the device.  So, I decided to compare it to the nano 2g first, because that was the closest to my classic, which I'm very familiar with.  The difference was sort of surprising.  The 2g nano is old and still extremely thin and small.  The old nano had more clarity.  I don't want to call it detail, and I'll explain in a second.
   
  I compared a few different songs of different genres from david benoit jazz to david gates soft rock to secret garden new age, etc. etc.  The difference was noticeable in each situation.  The more I listen the more difficult it is to determine how this is affecting the 'quality'.  I'm thinking the difference might be more of a frequency equalization difference.  Further comparing showed that although every device sounds a very slight bit different, they all sound extremely close to the duet (reference) while the new touch was the most far away from the duet in sound.  So my first thought is that if all the other devices are similar to the duet, which is a renowned audio interface for it's sound quality, then the touch is the failure here.  However, upon intensive listening, I believe the root "quality" is the same or similar, but the frequencies are of a different response curve.  You may argue that this is in fact a difference in quality (i would) but not in the same way as what I would consider "sound quality" in the truest sense.
   
  For instance, you can have a smaller stereo separation or less depth to the sound or simply a lack of frequencies (can't be reproduced by the device).  As far as I can tell most of these aspects are similar across devices.  The differences in songs varied.  Sometimes the guitars in a song stood out more on the touch and sometimes drums stood out more clearly on the nano.  I believe the reason for this is because the touch has what I'll call a "boost" in the mid/low frequencies and a "reduction" in high frequencies (or possibly the illusion of this because of the added lows).  Therefore certain guitars with mid/low range would seem to stand out more on the touch, and crisp drums would on the nano.  Both can reveal all of the details of said instruments, and the nuances and atmosphere of the song are similar.  The real differences (so far as i can tell) are between the frequency adjustment.
   
  If I had to guess based on experience, I would say the ipod touch 5g has a 1db boost from about 100hz to 350hz and a -.5 to -1db reduction in 15k to 20k both with a smooth rolloff.  At least that is what it "sounds" like.  It can be very hard to tell if there are other factors in play and the differences may be smaller than that.  Sometimes the other devices sound like they exhibit small distortion.  I'm referring to the minimal distortion from the amplification system, not clipping from bad recording or mastering...  This is almost undetectable, but then listening to the touch seems smoother.  This could be a cleaner amplification system, or an illusion from the difference in high eq.  The fact that details sound similar makes me think possibly that the audio is cleaner, but it's impossible for me to tell for sure.
   
  I think the main difference is the overal tonality of the eq.  I'm on the fence as to whether I should return it or if i may end up liking it.  My logical experience part of my brain says it's not good.  Everything else is similar to reference, which is the truest the sound should be.  Therefore the touch is not being true to the source material.  However, being primarily an eq difference, it may not be that bad.  There is an enormous eq difference between every pair of headphones and speakers, while this is in the smallest magnitude different from the other devices.
   
  I'm going WAY too long with this, but hopefully it will help someone.  I don't want to disuade anyone from getting a new touch.  The device is amazing in every single way.  Including the audio in such a feature packed device so freaking thin.  I may even find that a lot of the difference I hear are exaggerated because I "think" they are.  But I have a lot of experience in ruling out placebo type audio differences.  I've spent a lot of time training my ears 'and' my brain to detect differences including doing double blind testing on occasion.
   
  I'll end it there for now and update if i find anything new or come to any different conclusion.  Keep in mind even though my comparison has been painstaking, relatively speaking it is a new device and i haven't had a 'lot' of time with it.  I'd love to hear other opinions of the 5g for those who have one.  And i'm glad to answer any specific questions...


----------



## autumnholy

Hey, sorry if I am repeating a repeatedly repeated question.
   
  Does iPod LOD really bypass the internal amp of IPod itself or just the potentiometer, where the value of the iPod amp is set to maximum and then it relies on the external amp for volume control?


----------



## bigshot

It bypasses the amp. It's a true line level output.


----------



## luisdent

I have to follow up m previous review with some new information.  As embarrassing as this is, I was doing comparisons for the last day.  Too much comparison for my own good.  I realized something stupid.  I had recently switched to 256 AAC before my classic died, just to test the quality and save space to fit all my music on the classic.  Plus 320 requires me to maintain a copy of every lossless song, because 256 is the highest on-the-fly conversion quality itunes allows.  Anyhow, I could detect the difference, but after agonizing over space vs. quality, I determined it was best to have all my music on me (i listen to a lot of different music all the time and never know what i'll want to hear next).  Needless to say, I hadn't done very much actual real music listening (for enjoyment not comparison) with the 256 yet, but it seemed sufficient enough.
   
  I guess I was wrong.  After comparing the devices, I remembered something unfortunate.  I had put 320aac files on my wife and father's ipods, so the comparison I was doing wasn't fair.  So, I copied 320 files to the new ipod touch and lo and behold, the quality was either identical or so close as to be undetectable easily.  Therefore, the ipod audio quality is in fact very good, so I'm guessing it's the same DAC as the classic?  256aac however is not very good.
   
  I was so sure there was something wrong with the ipod quality that I was about to return it (literally tomorrow), when I realized my mistake and compared 320 files.  My wife and I both couldn't tell the difference.  My wife even surprised me when she (not an audiophile) could tell the difference between 320 and 256 aac on every test blind.  I tried to fool her, but she could tell everytime and even explained how it sounded different without me ever telling her or her having any background in audio terms.
   
  Needless to say, I'm sad to sacrifice space, but 320 is going back on my iPod.  If only we have ipod touch's big enough for lossless or at least larger 320 libraries... ugh...  I have tested 320 vs. lossless, and with my friend doing a double blind test I can tell the difference 80% of the time.  The irony is that sometime I don't even know 'why' I can tell the difference, but I know 'something' just doesn't sound right, and I can tell which is better.  Like it's missing some small amount of space or depth.  However, lossless just won't cut it on an ipod touch unfortunately.  Not enough gig-age there. ;-P


----------



## stv014

When doing this type of comparison, make sure that the levels are matched accurately. Lossy codecs often attenuate the signal slightly to avoid/reduce clipping. The effect of a few tenths of a dB difference in volume is in fact of the _"don't even know 'why' I can tell the difference, but I know 'something' just doesn't sound right"_ type. I have seen level matching issues in more than one MP3 vs. lossless ABX test posted or linked on this forum.


----------



## luisdent

Quote: 





stv014 said:


> When doing this type of comparison, make sure that the levels are matched accurately. Lossy codecs often attenuate the signal slightly to avoid/reduce clipping. The effect of a few tenths of a dB difference in volume is in fact of the _"don't even know 'why' I can tell the difference, but I know 'something' just doesn't sound right"_ type. I have seen level matching issues in more than one MP3 vs. lossless ABX test posted or linked on this forum.


 
  Yes, I've noticed this before.  It is indeed critical to match levels.  I was doing the tests at maximum output, which I believe is the same on each device.  I'm going to try to record the devices into my duet and compare data.  Is there a good piece of software for this that is free?  Or should I just compared data with logic pro/audacity, that sort of thing?


----------



## luisdent

O.K.  I decided to do some actual data analyses.  I was going to post it here, but it's sort of long and image heavy, and I can't figure out if I can put images here.  I get an error.  Anyhow, if you'd like to read my audio quality comparison it is on my blog. 
   
  http://handtokey.blogspot.com/
   
  Please let me know what you think of the things I noticed...


----------



## rechtkid

autumnholy said:


> Hey, sorry if I am repeating a repeatedly repeated question.
> 
> Does iPod LOD really bypass the internal amp of IPod itself or just the potentiometer, where the value of the iPod amp is set to maximum and then it relies on the external amp for volume control?



Is there any different sound quality with LOD on ipod /iphone/ipad in all generation.


----------



## rechtkid




----------



## customNuts

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Sound stage is in the recording, not the player.


 
  So many of your statements lack validity & in some case simply are wrong. 
  Especially regarding every ipod/iphone sounding 'the same' & also sounding 'perfect'.
  There is a little more to it than that.


----------



## bigshot

It's swell to be contrary. But I've gone the extra mile to actually do controlled tests to find out what I know. That's better than just spouting the general consensus from audiophile groups over and over, even if it isn't true.


----------



## bigshot

Quote: 





rechtkid said:


> Is there any different sound quality with LOD on ipod /iphone/ipad in all generation.


 
  No. It's calibrated to sound the same.


----------



## customNuts

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> It's swell to be contrary. But I've gone the extra mile to actually do controlled tests to find out what I know. That's better than just spouting the general consensus from audiophile groups over and over, even if it isn't true.


 
  I certainly don't agree with "spouting the general consensus from audiophile groups over & over, even if it isn't true" either, & I do respect controlled tests.
  However, all ipods & iphones simply don't "sound the same" and they don't all sound "perfect." 
  But if that's what you hear then power to you.


----------



## bigshot

How did you determine that all ipods sound different? I'm betting it wasn't a line level matched comparison.


----------



## bixby

Quote: 





luisdent said:


> All right.  I am going to give my review of the iPod touch 5th generation if anyone is interested...
> 
> A quick background first.  I have been playing piano since I was five, recording and mixing multi track audio since probably 10.  I have a very discerning ear.  People are always surprised at things I hear that they can't.  I had an audiologist exam within the last year, and he was literally impressed that I heard such faint sounds during the test with 100% accuracy.  He said it was one of the best he's seen.  I don't mean to sound boastful, but I just want you to know where I'm coming from, because audio opinions can very greatly even among audiophiles.  Basically, I'm super incredibly ridiculously picky about everything audio.
> 
> ...


 

 May need some more burn in before things clear up.  Some of my older ipods did improve within about 50 hours or so of use.  And all the ipods, nanos, and touches all do sound just a slight bit different as well to me.


----------



## luisdent

Quote: 





bixby said:


> May need some more burn in before things clear up.  Some of my older ipods did improve within about 50 hours or so of use.  And all the ipods, nanos, and touches all do sound just a slight bit different as well to me.


 
  There were a lot of variables going on in there, but I tried to be scientific as much as possible with my testing.  I can't say with 100% certainty what caused my initial disappointment, but I can say now it is completely gone.  The details are all there, the body, the frequencies.  Comparing it to my duet is a lot close now.  It simply doesn't have the same quality as the duet, but then no ipod does.  I'm very happy now.  I can't stand only having 64GB.  Everyone thinks it is so large, but when you actually buy cds and use reasonable lossy files it goes fast!!!  I would be relatively happy with a 128 right about now. haha.


----------



## chewy4

Wait a second, people are saying iPods need burn-in now???
   
   
  *flips desk*


----------



## luisdent

Haha.  No, absolutely not.  And I don't believe headphones need it either.  At least not in-ear, based on the supposed reasoning for burn in in the first place...  I think in my case it was the variables of connection type, lossy format, etc. etc.


----------



## bixby

Quote: 





chewy4 said:


> Wait a second, people are saying iPods need burn-in now???
> 
> 
> *flips desk*


 
  might, have you tried it?  Why are all the folks with Bursons saying they do?  Might be very small difference though if any!


----------



## audiophylactery

I believe the real reason your ipods sound different would be the difference in coding inherent in subsequent releases of the iOS software that actually plays your music. The program/executable that is playing your tunes (apple music APP) is going to have a HUGE impact on audio reproduction. You should try downloading a different playback app, perhaps EQu or Capriccio. I personally use the latter, and the sound signature is literally exactly the same on any iOS device i've been able to install and test it with. This has included iPod Touch 3rd-5th gen, iPhone 3/3s/4 & iPad 1/2.
  I may be flamed for advocating the use of 3rd party playback applications, but the converse of this would imply that windows media player would be a better reference medium on a PC than, say, itunes or winamp...1st party developers may have the jump on the competition, since they usually are financially involved in the development of the device in question, but once EVERYONE gets their filthy hands on the goodies, we start talking to each other and improving upon the foundation laid by the developers/builders.
  Communication is key.
  Also, wouldn't it make sense, even if it is conspiratorial, that Apple would screw with the sound so THEIR headphones would sound tuned and accurate?.... and with the heavily marketed armature based IEM headphones now sold with the newest gen iPods/iPhones, this seems to be a bit more than coincidence.
  I don't mean to belittle apple overmuch, just giving observations. When you consider this company engages in monopolistic control over app development and marketing, not to mention the knee deep price gauging they've practiced for years, it no longer becomes a question of relative line comparisons and specifications on paper. It comes down to you trusting that Apple knows more about sound than anyone, and that they will faithfully deliver an uncompromised or unadulterated product. Which is kind of the opposite of everything they do, in a business/marketing sense. Even the Mac OS is designed for people who have no care for intricate system level control...a computer for someone who HATES computers. Take away the ability from the consumer to affect or control the system, and the consumer assumes there is no need for control, while inherently being controlled.
   
  Sorry to sound like a paranoid skeptic, but i trust what i hear, not what someone else tells me i should be hearing. :/


----------



## gidgiddonihah

Does anyone know what the USB DAC/amp capabilities the iPod Touch 5G has?  I am hesitant to get one due to the new connection and there is no information online about external DAC capabilities.  Was going to get the Nexus 7 and get a DAC for it after rooting but if I can snag an iPod Touch I think I would rather have a small device. I already have a Toshiba Thrive tablet (no support for DAC's 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





) and a laptop.


----------



## bigshot

Why do you want to use an external DAC?


----------



## Achmedisdead

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Why do you want to use an external DAC?


 
  +1. No need for an external DAC.


----------



## gidgiddonihah

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Why do you want to use an external DAC?


 
   
  It's just every device I own (my XPS laptop almost being an exception) doesn't do my HD25-II's justice.  I hate that I spent all of that money on good headphones and I don't have a decent source to drive them. Theoretically (to put me at ease
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) could I use a USB DAC with it if I wanted to in the future?


----------



## bigshot

There really isn't much point because the DAC built into the iPod is as good as ones in external DACs. All you really need is a line out dock and amp for the best sound.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Maybe it is just the volume level differences tricking my ears, but it really sounds different to me when I use my iPod Touch (4th gen) or iPad (3rd gen) with a line out vs. my HRT iStreamer DAC.  They sound different to me with my O2 amp or Asgard and I seem to prefer the iStreamer, but i don't really have any way to test this in a fair way.  I'm usually just streaming MOG or Spotify tracks at their highest available quality.  I'll have to give this another go, as a simple dock with a line out is a much cheaper option.


----------



## bigshot

Sounds like one or more of your DACs might be colored. They shouldn't sound different. I bet the touch and ipad sound the same.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> Sounds like one or more of your DACs might be colored. They shouldn't sound different. I bet the touch and ipad sound the same.


 
   
  I'm only using the device DACs or the iStreamer.
   
  1) iPod or iPad -> bypass internal device DAC and amp with digital output to HRT iStreamer DAC -> O2 or Asgard amp
   
  2) iPod or iPad -> bypass internal device amp only with LOD -> O2 or Asgard amp
   
  The iStreamer sends a 2.1Vrms (*EDIT:* 2.25 Vrms according to the specifications) signal to my amps, while both the iPod and iPad are significantly lower, so the volume level is different to be sure.  I'd prefer to use a lower Vrms, as this gives me finer detail range in my amps volume settings.  I have plenty of power to spare with my Denon D5000 or AT M50 headphones with either of these amps.
   
  This kind of bums me out, as I honestly thought my iStreamer DAC made a significant and noticeable improvement in my overall sound quality.  Now, I'm not so sure, and the science does not support my initial gut feeling.  All this time I could have simply turned up the volume a bit to get similar results while using my cheap LOD cable or dock.


----------



## Redcarmoose

I have to say this has become a really interesting thread to read. This being our hobby all of us are into it and have deep seated opinions that we believe. I have spent the last hour reading the posts here. _*Such a great read so far!*_
   
   
  My 2cents..................................................
   
   
  As I posted before as an answer to the OP's question. _*Yes, every Apple product sounds a little different.*_ I ask people to understand this in simple terms due to each Ipod having it's very own special DAC.
   
  Pulled from Steve Hoffman Forums...
   
  http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/ipad-sounds-great.277362/
   
  You can clearly see on the list of products that they have different chips affecting the signal.
   
   
  I am a very consistent Ipod Touch user and greatly enjoy the intimacy resulting from not using a secondary amp but just use the Ipod out listening process with no EQ. My favorite Apple DAP has actually been the 1st generation Ipod Shuffle. Those things being low in music capacity as well as simple in user interface lack many features which we have become used to with the Touch.
   
   
   
  Part of the 1st generation Shuffle sound must have been the result of the Wolfson DAC they implemented then. Interestingly even today here at Head-Fi you have a small cult following for the sound of the 1st generation Shuffle. In my history using and experimenting with Apple DAPs the sound break-through as upon discovering the boost that a Rockbox software improvement could due to an Ipod mini. The new fact that the Apple Ipod mini can now have user replaceable batteries and upgraded  bigger memories as well as Rockbox makes them amazing. I do have to say that still my admiration of the sound of a Rockboxed Apple mini could only be from the increase in volume production. I truly just don't know? Loudness is really funny as a SQ placebo that way.
   
  Finally getting and falling in love with the Cirrus Logic C42L63 direct out-put on an Apple Ipad 2 let me know that Wolfson was not the only Apple DAC I could get into the sound of. The Ipad2s get really loud. Louder than the Touch ever could! pure power there. To reiterate the concepts posted in this thread, all Apple produts do come close to CD quality and yes have a very close to perfect un-colored flat signal out-put. They all sound great! _*Still each one has it's own tone.*_
   
   
  I do have some personal ideas and have a new DAP plan for 2013. No............ an 5G Touch is not in the cards. I agree they maybe sound as good as some of the other Ipods and have a list of features that make them very special in the marketplace. Still for listening to digital I have doubts about the jitter coming from USB computer audio and feel a stand alone 16 bit CD player still slays all other forms of digital playback. The main reason that we are seeing a big uptake in 24/96 vinyl recording played back on the computer is that_* they do *_help some systems to sound better. Still a good old fashion high quality 16bit /44.1 DAC signal coming out a a nice CD player sounds way more natural to my ears. Every year I feel more and more that this is a true fact and the downfall in USB interfaces. Optical could maybe fix that but I have not played around with it enough to say for sure. USB is USB, it is what it is.
   
   
  This all leads to my next personal audio chapter. I purchased a Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 7.0 tablet. This was mainly due to the ability to play a range of high rez digital audio files. I can play FLAC as well as big vinyl rip files on a portable. The European Samsung Tab 2 7.0 tablets are a phone model _*GT-P3100 and have the fabulous WM1811 DAC made by Wolfson.*_ I will be attempting to test different playback software as well as different headphones to find out where the best sound is at. There is also a small handful of Galaxy Tab users getting ICS (Ice Cream Sandwich) and the new Android Jelly Bean 4.2 operating system to send USB digital signals out to outboard DACs._* LOL, back to USB hell?*_
   
   
_*Still direct out is what I'm after. Just the DAP and some headphones.*_
   
   
  With the news of 7 carriers offering Samsung's new phones at the end of April you can see the starting of bigtime success for Samsung. The only sad part for any of us changing off away from Apple ends up in the simple powerful use of I-Tunes as a great organizer of music and file transfer. Still with the added benefits of simple things like replaceable Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 7.0 batteries makes you wonder if a long term commitment to a new file transfer scheme could be worthwhile in the end.


----------



## bigshot

I have iPods going all the way back to gen 2, iPhones back to the first and iPads back to the first. I've had Macs with onboard digital sound all the way back to the 8500 AV and all the way forward to the current iMac.
   
  They all sound the same. 20-20 flat is 20-20 flat.


----------



## Iron-Buddha

So it seems the line-out on an iPhone is well regarded, as is its internal DAC, minus some debate as to whether or not the chips sound a bit different from one to another.   So my question in all this is: given that the iPhone 5 line-out through a lightning to 30 pin adapter uses the DAC in the adapter and not the onboard DAC, is the line-out through the adapter of the same quality (minus minor chip differences)?
   
  I used to use the iPhone 4 --> line-out --> RSA Tomahawk.   Now I have iPhone 5 --> adapter --> line-out --> RSA Tomahawk and am debating to get a Sony PHA-1 or a Verza to offload the DAC and AMP entirely from the iPhone but have read mixed feedback on these devises in the iPhone context.  It seems clear that a netbook with a crappy DAC and crappy amp will benefit enormously from either of these products but one review said you would be hard pressed to hear any difference from the iPhone.  Both these devices seem rather expensive just to cut down on some excess cabling and may not even match the RSA as an amp.  Desktop use would also be limited as I have an M-Audio firewire interface that does a decent job as a DAC and it can feed my RSA via line-out.
   
  Any guidance would be appreciated.


----------



## bigshot

With an iPhone, the only thing you need to get the best sound is a standard Apple line out dock and a simple headphone amp. That shouldn't cost more than $100. Even that is overkill, because a lot of headphones sound fine plugged straight into the headphone out with no dock or amp at all. Try plugging direct with your headphones. If you can get them loud, you don't need an amp at all.


----------



## Iron-Buddha

Bigshot, with the iPhone 5, the line-out uses a separate DAC in the adapter, hence my question if that adapter sustains the sound quality normally attributed to an iPhone line-out.   If not, the adapter line-out + AMP may be inferior to a better off-board DAC + amp.  Without being able to hear any of these devices first, and almost every review being "NIGHT AND DAY!", I thought I would ask on this sub-forum as people seem a bit more....fact driven.  As for loudness of the headphone out, I do find on some of the bigger headphones to sound "better" through the Tomahawk.


----------



## bigshot

I just looked at that lightning adaptor. It looks like it just outputs to HDMI or USB. Both of those would require an external DAC. The difference in sound quality is going to be negligible. If I had an iPhone 5, I would just use the headphone out and amp it if my headphones required it. If the volume got high enough without an amp, I'd just plug in direct. Audiophiles who value complexity might think differently than me.


----------



## araragikoyomi

IMO, the sound from amping from the DAC (wolfson wm8533) in the lightning adapter sounds better than amping from the headphone out. I could hear an improvement in soundstage and instrument separation. The sound also sounded more natural (that from the iphone 5 sounded "digital" to me).


----------



## jaycee1

I'm likely upgrading to either an iphone 5 or 5S (depending upon when it's available). I have a fiio E6 already. Will the E6 pair well with the iphone 5?


----------



## poikkeus

Quote: 





bigshot said:


> I just looked at that lightning adaptor. It looks like it just outputs to HDMI or USB. Both of those would require an external DAC. The difference in sound quality is going to be negligible. If I had an iPhone 5, I would just use the headphone out and amp it if my headphones required it. If the volume got high enough without an amp, I'd just plug in direct. Audiophiles who value complexity might think differently than me.


 
  I didn't notice any change in sound due to the lightning adapter. 
   
  But the lightning adapter is still a really good idea. It's somewhat smaller and thinner than the previous adapter, and it makes for slimmer devices like the Shuffle, Nano, and Touch. I'd like to think there's an improvement in sync times, but who knows?


----------



## gidgiddonihah

Quote: 





poikkeus said:


> I didn't notice any change in sound due to the lightning adapter.
> 
> But the lightning adapter is still a really good idea. It's somewhat smaller and thinner than the previous adapter, and it makes for slimmer devices like the Shuffle, Nano, and Touch. I'd like to think there's an improvement in sync times, but who knows?


 
   
  Except the cable has a tendency to break.  Read reviews after buying my iPad 4 64GB a couple of weeks ago and apparently lots of people are having problems with it breaking on them.  Even before I read the reviews I was a bit nervous as the setup seems a little fragile.


----------



## White Lotus

I'm having a really tough time trying to figure out exactly how a portable USB-DAC could be such an improvement over the iPods original sound. Might be placebo, but I've tried one out, and couldn't hear much of an audible difference, other than some colouration to the sound. Is there any RMAA results that can prove this wrong?


----------



## yuriv

This iPhone 5s data might be of interest to some of you. This is for a Sprint model, A1453 (ME356LL/A).
  

 a. Impulse response
  
  

 b. Maximum volume 0 dBFS sine
  
  

 c. Maximum volume, one channel with 16.2 ohm load
  
  

 d. Maximum volume, both channels with 16.2-ohm load
  
  

 e. Volume control one click down from maximum
  
  

 f. Volume control one click down from maximum, both channels with 16.2-ohm load
  
  

 g. Onset of clipping, both channels with 16.2-ohm load
  
  
 What else can we guess from this info?
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=693*16.2%2F%28R%2B16.2%29%3D597
  
 Volume control at two clicks down, into 15.1 ohms, both channels:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=491*15.1%2F%28R%2B15.1%29%3D421
  
  
 Edit: Corrected the model number, changed the captions


----------



## xnor

You have two times "with 16.2 ohm load". A typo?


----------



## yuriv

xnor said:


> You have two times "with 16.2 ohm load". A typo?


 
  
 I edited the post. I hope it's clearer now.


----------



## stv014

> Originally Posted by *yuriv* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> a. Impulse response


 
   
 Cirrus Logic DAC 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Perhaps similar to other recent iDevices, and the MacBook Air reviewed at a certain blog.
  
 Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yuriv* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> d. Maximum volume, both channels with 16.2-ohm load


 
  
 There is some interesting "fuzz" on the clipping. Could it indicate a stability problem (the MacBook Air mentioned above was prone to oscillation in the test), or does it come from the power supply rails (e.g. the negative one is created with a charge pump) ?


----------



## 11235813

Up. Very relevant to my case conversation.
  
 How aboutAudio-Technica ATH-W5000 with Ipod classic 7gen or Iphone? Would it be sufficient for these headphones? Would I need additional amp? 
  
 I enjoyed My ipod with HD595 but the sound was a bit low. If I need amp I would like to listen to music with phone to avoid having player in my pockets.


----------



## Copperears

stv014 said:


> > Originally Posted by *yuriv* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> >
> > a. Impulse response
> 
> ...




Looks pretty linear for such a device to me; introduces a small bit of distortion when driven to levels that would make a cow's head explode.

At least, that's my interpretation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## mdelaney1986

I am a hard-core audio enthusiast and have been through a lot of equipment both high end and consumer average.  I service smartphones full time and study electrical engineering and audio processing.  Unlike most Audio experts, I understand voltage, current, and impedance. I have not thoroughly tested the audio performance of all the Apple devices therefore I cannot speak for most iDevices.
  
 I have had a new iPhone 5s for about 4 months now and I am very impressed with it's audio performance.  I have a collection of headphones, dac's, and a few CD players and I must say what comes out of the 3.5mm phone jack on my 5s is not the BEST I have ever heard in my life, but pretty damn close.  I have tested it on numerous headphones with familiar recordings along with some oscilloscopic tests and am thrilled with the results.  I have to say it's the most musically accurate smartphone to date.
  
 I have 56GB of my cd collection ripped to ALAC on the device and originally planned to use it for on-the-go only, however, I find myself using it in my living room as well.
  
 The output is 1VRMS and has an impedance of 4ish ohms.  It only drops about 7% with a 16ohm load connected (power hungry headphones) and can drive almost all of my headphones to tectonic levels with minimal distortion.  My Sennheiser HD-600's are high impedance (based on higher voltage) and require more than 1VRMS to get them to a "rocking out" level.  The iPhone 5s (based on low impedance headphones drawing more current) outputs enough voltage to drive them to a decent level with most music, which blows away almost every smartphone (and quite a few portable audio players) I have tested (except the HTC One M7 and M8) which are louder, but have higher distortion levels and a questionable frequency response.
  
 The iPhone does down-sample and up-sample to 88200/24.  Contrary to popular belief, the deficiencies of this reproduction is far from audible to the human ear.  The dac chip in the device IS capable of 192000/24 and obviously 192000/24 is better, however the conversion to this requires more cpu usage in order to avoid conversion distortion than 44100/16 to 88200/24 since 88200/24 is exactly double 44100/16.  This can be done with minimal buffers and calculations per second while still maintaining optimal sound and avoiding the deficiencies of 44100/16 being doubly present.  The benefits of anything above this is pretty much inaudible.
  
 In my opinion, the various deficiencies in analogue performance of different headphones and amplifiers, even those of high end ratings, should be questioned long before the listener should consider anything above 88200/24.
  
 CD audio is a lot better than people think it is.  It has an extremely low noise floor and spectacular frequency response.  When played from a good CD player, the sound is audibly flawless. 
  
 Ripping a CD to ALAC (Apple Lossless) or FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) is just like ripping to .WAV except uses the same compression technology as a ZIP file therefore has the same advantage of smaller file size at deeper digital compression level that does not affect the audio stream.  Instead of us "extracting" or "un-ziping" these files and then playing them, the decoder/dac can "unzip" these files as it plays them resulting in the same PCM CD- Audio file we started with but a smaller file size as if it were a zip file.  iPhone 5s 64GB with a **** load of CD-Audio anyone??  ..I'm smiling 
  
 The iDevice's DAC takes this PCM format  and decodes it using twice the resolution (88200) and twice the bitrate (24 bit) This results in a transparent 44100/16 reproduction.
  
 The problem we have in cases where Vinyl sounds better than CD (even though technically Vinyl had a wider frequency response) is where the CD version has been re-mastered.  Most re-mastering is not done correctly and uses compression and dynamic range limitation to flatten out the response of the recording which results in a ridiculously loud reproduction and poor dynamic range and audible clipping.  I believe this is to blame for the misconception of the quality of CD audio and why "music doesn't sound as good as it used to"
  
  
 If I had 3 wishes, I would want $1,000,000 (duh), the best headphones of the year 2050 and a copy of "Night Visions" by Imagine Dragons - Mastered properly without the loudness war.
  
 Ok, back on topic now........My conclusion is that there are portable audio devices out there that are superior to the iPhone/iPod.  However, if you need a portable audio player with superb sound AND a built-in phone, the new iPhone 5s (and without a doubt, the 5 and 4s as well) are definitely the way to go!


----------



## bigshot

Why mess with perfection?


----------



## blades

Near perfection at any rate.  To me spending money on outboard DAC's is pretty silly.  There isn't a bit of difference in sound quality between one DAC and another.  Hearing bias will work against your wallet to be sure.   Spend your money on transducers (speakers, headphones etc.)


----------



## krismusic

mdelaney1986 said:


> My Sennheiser HD-600's are high impedance (based on higher voltage) and require more than 1VRMS to get them to a "rocking out" level.



I use the O2 with my 5S and HD600's. As far as I can tell it simply increases the available volume. The presentation is so good that I am not interested in spending hundreds trying to improve it. I took on board the recommendation that I have read in Sound Science several times and sank all available cash into a pair of headphones. JH13's. With the 5S I don't think I am going any further.


----------



## bigshot

I had a set of HD590s and I read that they were on the edge of needing amping. So I bought an amp. No sound quality difference. It just made them louder. My current headphones (Oppo PM1) don't benefit at all from amping either. I just plug them directly into my iMac. Simplicity itself.


----------



## cjl

To give a counterexample to the last two points, I genuinely did need an amp and a DAC for my Denon D5000s at work. How did I know? The (pitiful) headphone output from my work computer had a very audible hiss when not playing anything, and even at 100% volume, it didn't get nearly loud enough. An O2/ODAC solved both of these problems. Aside from the volume and noise though, the sound isn't any different.


----------



## krismusic

Although you say it's a counter example, you seem to have arrived at the same conclusion. No fundamental difference in SQ or soundstage, if I understand you correctly. Interesting that this is the case with the ODAC. How are you using the ODAC with the phone? I didn't think it would be Apple enabled.


----------



## cjl

krismusic said:


> Although you say it's a counter example, you seem to have arrived at the same conclusion. No fundamental difference in SQ or soundstage, if I understand you correctly. Interesting that this is the case with the ODAC. How are you using the ODAC with the phone? I didn't think it would be Apple enabled.


 
 It's a counterexample because I did genuinely need an ODAC/O2 for my computer due to poor sound quality. It's obvious when it is needed though (and based on my understanding, the iDevices should not need an external dac ever, and should only need an amp with fairly challenging loads like an HE-6).
  
 As for my ODAC, I use it with my PC at work. Sorry if that was at all unclear...


----------



## krismusic

cjl said:


> As for my ODAC, I use it with my PC at work. Sorry if that was at all unclear...



Not unclear. I just need to read more carefully!
It's just that you say the sound did not change. I'm suprised you would be able to identify the sound quality through the noise and lack of volume.


----------



## meurglys0

My girlfirrend is considering getting an Iphone 5s or an Ipod Touch 5G. I would like to ask a few questions...
  
1) Is there any noticable difference between the two in means of sound alone?
  
 2) How do they compare with Cowon (I believe the Cowon sound is pretty much the same on all models)?
  
 3) My girlfriend is planning to buy portable headphones (not IEMs or buds) to be used without an amp or any other external device, so will buying an Iphone 5S or a Touch 5G limit her options with headphones due to an impedance issue? Will these players be able to drive most portable headphones? I don't know anything about this impedance issue, so will you please enlighten me about the matter?
  
 Thanks in advance for your valuable replies...


----------



## SilverEars

meurglys0 said:


> My girlfirrend is considering getting an Iphone 5s or an Ipod Touch 5G. I would like to ask a few questions...
> 
> 1) Is there any noticable difference between the two in means of sound alone?
> 
> ...


 
 I've heard Cowon D2 has capacitive coupled headphone out which rolls off sub bass.  Somebody at DIY section has replaced caps to flaten the response.
  

  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/638056/cowon-d2-hardware-mod-zning-mod
  
 As far as output impedance affecting the iem has to do with the FR changes, dynamic driver iems are approximately flat impedance so it should not be affect by output impedance.  BA driver iems has skewy impedance characteristic.  With BA, the output of the DAP with skew if the output impedance is comparable to the impedance characteristic as in the case with SE846 with dip in the 5k which causes an EQ like drop of -2dB in that impedance dip(shown below) when matched with AK240 of 3.24ohm output impedance.


----------



## bigshot

meurglys0 said:


> My girlfirrend is considering getting an Iphone 5s or an Ipod Touch 5G. I would like to ask a few questions...
> 1) Is there any noticable difference between the two in means of sound alone?


 
  
 None. All Apple products are audibly transparent. They don't have a sound. They present the music as it is. You need to make sure your headphones work with it well though, or you might need an amp.


----------



## SilverEars

bigshot said:


> None. All Apple products are audibly transparent. They don't have a sound. They present the music as it is. You need to make sure your headphones work with it well though, or you might need an amp.


 
 Not exactly.  Some earlier ipods had bass rolloff also.  Ken Rockwells graph of iphone is only resistive load or high impedance ultrasone 8.  Predictively flat since resistors or high impedance output are approximately flat.  No surprise there.


----------



## bigshot

I have the second generation iPod. No bass rolloff. Flat as a pancake. All of my Apple products are audibility transparent, going all the way back to the Mac 8500AV. Line out is what counts. Impedance depends on the headphones, not the iPod.


----------



## meurglys0

silverears said:


> Not exactly.  Some earlier ipods had bass rolloff also.  Ken Rockwells graph of iphone is only resistive load or high impedance ultrasone 8.  Predictively flat since resistors or high impedance output are approximately flat.  No surprise there.


 
  
  


bigshot said:


> I have the second generation iPod. No bass rolloff. Flat as a pancake. All of my Apple products are audibility transparent, going all the way back to the Mac 8500AV. Line out is what counts. Impedance depends on the headphones, not the iPod.


 
  
 Thanks for the answers. She's considering getting portable headphones (cans), so what is the impedance value that the cans should have at minimum and maximum so that she will not need an amp to use it with Iphone 5s (and the same question for Ipod touch, also) ?


----------



## elfary

yuriv's graphs depicting the iPhone 5s clipping behaviour have been really useful. Thanks a bunch from Spain.


----------



## mdelaney1986

blades said:


> Near perfection at any rate.  To me spending money on outboard DAC's is pretty silly.  There isn't a bit of difference in sound quality between one DAC and another.  Hearing bias will work against your wallet to be sure.   Spend your money on transducers (speakers, headphones etc.)


----------



## esldude

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/wilson-sophia-ces-demo-apple-ipod-source-18443/
  
 The iPod some years ago was good enough Wilson demo'd them with a hidden iPod to some acclaim.  I have heard a few Wilson speakers.  They might be somewhat overpriced, but all have been awfully darn good.  My guess is current iPhones sound better than the iPod used by Wilson.


----------



## elfary

esldude said:


> http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/wilson-sophia-ces-demo-apple-ipod-source-18443/
> 
> The iPod some years ago was good enough Wilson demo'd them with a hidden iPod to some acclaim.  I have heard a few Wilson speakers.  They might be somewhat overpriced, but all have been awfully darn good.  My guess is current iPhones sound better than the iPod used by Wilson.


 
  
 iPod Touch 5 or iPhone 5s are freakin good sounding. Main room for improvement would be output power but with 1 volt it's enough for almost any iem.
  
 Quality wise the electrical signal coming off the headphone jack is as good as it gets: very clean, clear and open.


----------



## RRod

I've been using a 6th gen. Ipod classic + ER-4P as my mobile setup for a while now. Sounds great and does everything I need, including movies.


----------



## krismusic

elfary said:


> iPod Touch 5 or iPhone 5s are freakin good sounding. Main room for improvement would be output power but with 1 volt it's enough for almost any iem.
> 
> Quality wise the electrical signal coming off the headphone jack is as good as it gets: very clean, clear and open.



For once this forum has saved me money! By convincing me that the 5S is a very good source straight out of the headphone jack. Portability is brilliant, not having to carry external kit and wiring. Win!


----------



## elfary

This week i was doing direct comparisons between my iPhone 5s and iPod Classic+iBasso t3 and 5s drove my westone um3x as good as the amped iPod. Not bad for a phone!


Running seems like a great idea until you actually start running


----------



## SilentFrequency

iPhone 6 Plus with my momentums are fantastic sound quality, highly recommended and great for a portable music source


----------



## bigshot

I've had Apple products going back to the 8500 AV over fifteen years ago, and every one of them is perfectly transparent.


----------



## Jon Sonne

These facts by bigshot is actually something *most head-fi'ers should be aware of, *but unfortunately, too many on this forum waste their time and money on exotic mp3 players, expensive DACs ect (EDIT: this includes myself 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





).


bigshot said:


> The iPods have DACs that compare to good standalone home CD players. Every one of them has stone flat frequency response, no distortion to speak of, and a noise floor WAY below audibility. If you're hearing differences, you're eiher comparing the iPod to something that has inferior sound, or you're hearing placebo.


 
  
 I have tested this myself. I own several iPods, from different generation. If you ABX them against one another or against a CD player, you will most likely not be able to tell them apart!  
  
 Another good fact:
  
 Quote:


bigshot said:


> You aren't hearing soundstage. You're hearing better frequency response or lower distortion and you are subjectively describing that to yourself as "space". The cues that create the illusion of depth are slight reverberation or echoes caught by the mikes during recording, or phase filtering done during mixing. Those aural cues are in the recording, not the headphones. Better headphones just reproduce the sound more faithfully, and those subtle aural cues can be heard better. That isn't soundstage, it's clarity.
> 
> The difference between good headphones and apple earbuds is clarity (low distortion, flat response) not soundstage.


 
  
 What people usually term "soundstage" for headphones is often just clarity. Though, some headphones have angled transducers (sennheiser HD800 come to mind), which might affect the way the sound is perceived.    
  
 The headphone "soundstage" can be dramatically improved if equalization is used to obtain an audible flat response. If you try this yourself, you will realize that "soundstage" in headphones is actually just clarity; eg. low distortion and audible flat response.


----------



## elfary

jon sonne said:


> These facts by bigshot is actually something *most head-fi'ers should be aware of, *but unfortunately, too many on this forum waste their time and money on exotic mp3 players, expensive DACs ect (EDIT: this includes myself
> 
> 
> 
> ...




+1


Running seems like a great idea until you actually start running


----------



## sonitus mirus

jon sonne said:


> What people usually term "soundstage" for headphones is often just clarity. Though, some headphones have angled transducers (sennheiser HD800 come to mind), which might affect the way the sound is perceived.
> 
> The headphone "soundstage" can be dramatically improved if equalization is used to obtain an audible flat response. If you try this yourself, you will realize that "soundstage" in headphones is actually just clarity; eg. low distortion and audible flat response.


 
  
 While I agree, it seems that "soundstage" is a quality of extreme significance when reviewing headphones.
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/686489/mrspeakers-alpha-dog-review-and-comparison-with-hd600-and-k701/15#post_9901235
  
 Maybe I don't understand what "soundstage" means to the people reviewing headphones?
  
 These are examples of space and positioning that I consider to be related to "soundstage":
  
 http://scienceuncovered.tumblr.com/post/58690998370/5-awesome-examples-of-3d-sound-for-stereo


----------



## Jon Sonne

sonitus mirus said:


> While I agree, it seems that "soundstage" is a quality of extreme significance when reviewing headphones.
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/686489/mrspeakers-alpha-dog-review-and-comparison-with-hd600-and-k701/15#post_9901235
> 
> Maybe I don't understand what "soundstage" means to the people reviewing headphones?


 
  
  
 I think what people want to describe when they say "soundstage" is often just how clearly you can hear reverberation and instrument separation. 
  
 In the link you provided we stumble upon a classical example of open design headphones having "better" or "bigger" "soundstage" than closed design headphones by default. It has always been easier to design a great sounding open design headphone than a closed one. So, what people often hear when they compare open versus closed design is that the open headphones perform better -> bigger "soundstage", which is actually just better clarity. What people really obsess about when they speak of "good soundstage" in a closed can is just a very well sounding can, considering it is a closed design. Albeit, most people don't realize this, and thus still call it "soundstage" and not "clarity" or another term that is more fitting.


----------



## derbigpr

Don't know about others, but I always said that iPhones were worth the money for their sound quality and headphone driving ability alone. I think they sound excellent, damn good in fact, especially when paired with high quality low impedance cans, like higher end Denons for example.
  
 In fact, when my old 4S is connected into one input on the Musical Fidelity M1HPAP headphone amp, and a Musical Fidelity M1DAC is connected into other input, volume matched and playing the exact same song, I can barely tell the difference between them using Beyerdynamic T1's as I switch between the inputs on the amp, that's how close they are. We're talking about an almost 1000 dollar DAC an a phone.


----------



## RRod

jon sonne said:


> I think what people want to describe when they say "soundstage" is often just how clearly you can hear reverberation and instrument separation.
> 
> In the link you provided we stumble upon a classical example of open design headphones having "better" or "bigger" "soundstage" than closed design headphones by default. It has always been easier to design a great sounding open design headphone than a closed one. So, what people often hear when they compare open versus closed design is that the open headphones perform better -> bigger "soundstage", which is actually just better clarity. What people really obsess about when they speak of "good soundstage" in a closed can is just a very well sounding can, considering it is a closed design. Albeit, most people don't realize this, and thus still call it "soundstage" and not "clarity" or another term that is more fitting.


 
  
 People focus on the "sound" part and ignore the "stage" part. If I sat someone down on a couch and had them listen to two speakers, then replaced those speakers with two other speakers in the exact same position, I don't think they would say the staging changed, but the sound most definitely could. For some reason when you move the speakers onto the ears, the concepts get mushed together. Certainly things like angled drivers can modify the perceived positioning of the L/R signals, but the variation among headphones just isn't that huge compared to other factors. Whatever staging differences might exist between my HD598s, 700s, and 800s, it's insignificant compared to what even a simple crossfeed plugin does.


----------



## SilverEars

rrod said:


> People focus on the "sound" part and ignore the "stage" part. If I sat someone down on a couch and had them listen to two speakers, then replaced those speakers with two other speakers in the exact same position, I don't think they would say the staging changed, but the sound most definitely could. For some reason when you move the speakers onto the ears, the concepts get mushed together. Certainly things like angled drivers can modify the perceived positioning of the L/R signals, but the variation among headphones just isn't that huge compared to other factors. Whatever staging differences might exist between my HD598s, 700s, and 800s, it's insignificant compared to what even a simple crossfeed plugin does.


 
 Any recommendations of good cross-feeds to try on Foobar that creates a good environment affect for headphones?


----------



## sonitus mirus

silverears said:


> Any recommendations of good cross-feeds to try on Foobar that creates a good environment affect for headphones?


 
  
 There aren't too many available when searching around for them.  From what I have read, many of the older versions that were created are no longer in development and these can crash with the latest version of Foobar.
  
 Some that may be worth trying:
  
 http://www.naivesoftware.com/software.html
  
 http://www.hydrogenaud.io/forums/index.php?showtopic=90761
  
 This one looks interesting and is fairly new (Meier Crossfeed): http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_dsp_meiercf
  
 Jan Meier has posted about this crossfeed over here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/671596/samples-of-various-crossfeed-versions#post_9598735
  
  
 I have a little HeadRoom Micro Amp in my office at work that has a crossfeed toggle enabled for as long as I've owned the amp.  It offers a subtle change in sound, but it seems to be about perfect to me.  I almost exclusively listen to music via Google Play (Chrome browser version) now, and crossfeed is not an available option at this time via software.


----------



## davidsh

I think clarity is a lacking and vague descriptor of soundstage in headphones.

Anyway, I really like my iPhone 6 because of the fact that I can actually estimate how loud I listen with my hd800 with a peak cap at 102 dB at max volume and knowing the whole volume range is available to me without clipping.

Does anyone know how the volume control/voltage relationship is?
I have heard the relation is the fraction of max output squared times 1 volt. Not sure it's true, though.


----------



## RRod

sonitus mirus said:


> I have a little HeadRoom Micro Amp in my office at work that has a crossfeed toggle enabled for as long as I've owned the amp.  It offers a subtle change in sound, but it seems to be about perfect to me.  I almost exclusively listen to music via Google Play (Chrome browser version) now, and crossfeed is not an available option at this time via software.


 
  
 Yeah, the crossfeed on my Total Bithead also sounds about right to me, better at least subjectively to the bs2b LADSPA plugin I tried for my Linux box.


----------



## davidsh

davidsh said:


> Does anyone know how the volume control/voltage relationship is?
> I have heard the relation is the fraction of max output squared times 1 volt. Not sure it's true, though.


 
 Too lazy, so I measured myself. Clearly, it's an exponential relationship, which in my opinion is the best way to do volume control anyway.
  

  
 For some reason my multimeter measured half the expected voltage (ac). I used a sinegen app, 500 Hz sinewave.


----------



## cjl

davidsh said:


> Too lazy, so I measured myself. Clearly, it's an exponential relationship, which in my opinion is the best way to do volume control anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> For some reason my multimeter measured half the expected voltage (ac). I used a sinegen app, 500 Hz sinewave.


 
 You could try a 60Hz sine too - a lot of multimeters aren't great at frequencies far from power transmission frequencies since that's what they expect the ac function to be used for. Also, is that RMS, peak, or P-P?


----------



## davidsh

Take it for what it is.. My multimeter is a minitec26 - quite cheap.


----------



## elfary

That's the voltage that i would expect from an EU capped iPhone. Is your iPhone european?


Running seems like a great idea until you actually start running


----------



## davidsh

elfary said:


> That's the voltage that i would expect from an EU capped iPhone. Is your iPhone european?
> 
> 
> Running seems like a great idea until you actually start running



It is eauropean and is volume limited by default (to EU standards) but that can easily be turned off afaik.
EDIT: Nope it seems that there is a volume limiter that can't be turned off.. Bummer


----------



## elfary

davidsh said:


> elfary said:
> 
> 
> > That's the voltage that i would expect from an EU capped iPhone. Is your iPhone european?
> ...




Bingo!

The EU puts two limits (85 & 100db with bundled headphones) and on the volume limit menu you can disable the 85db one but not the 100db.
Non capped iPhones output 1 volt which is a lot more (6db more).

Since last year when i had on my table an US iPhone 5s and an EU 5s i guessed that the EU one should output 0'5 or 0'6 and now your measurement has nailed it down
.

Such a shame what our politicians have ruled. I wish iPhones would not sell with bundled earpods so that they could not be capped (ala iPads).


Running seems like a great idea until you actually start running


----------



## castleofargh

elfary said:


> davidsh said:
> 
> 
> > elfary said:
> ...


 

 the limit came out of a good intention to prevent youngsters from blowing their ears out. it's a very noble reason. but as anything done in politic, they voted something without really understanding much of anything


----------



## RRod

castleofargh said:


> the limit came out of a good intention to prevent youngsters from blowing their ears out. it's a very noble reason. but as anything done in politic, they voted something without really understanding much of anything


 
  
 Back in my day we called this "your parents shouting 'turn that s#@& down!'"


----------



## davidsh

Then I can reach 96 dB or so with the hd800 at peaks. Guess I'm not that much of a loud listener after all as the iPhone got plenty of volume for me with just about any music. Oth I don't listen to much classical


----------



## elfary

My main gripe is that within Europe we are being given a watered down version of a product because of a flawed and fascist implementation of a volume cap.

1 volt gives headroom for any iem and any album. With half about it's not the case hence i just purchase US iPhones, felt ripped off when i paid for an european iPhone 5 and iPhone 5s. Tried an US 5s and vowed to myself that i would never ever purchase another EU iPhone. Even if i managed to get the volt back by jailbreaking my EU 5s.


Running seems like a great idea until you actually start running


----------



## stv014

elfary said:


> The EU puts two limits (85 & 100db with bundled headphones) and on the volume limit menu you can disable the 85db one but not the 100db.
> Non capped iPhones output 1 volt which is a lot more (6db more).


 
   
6 dB is not even that much of a difference, but it is enough to be a problem with headphones that have a low sensitivity. There are IEMs that are capable of 120 dB SPL peaks even from 0.5 Vrms input voltage. And those who have issues with the insufficient output level could end up buying a portable headphone amplifier, which is likely capable of higher voltage than the iPhone would be without the limit.


----------



## elfary

If i have to add an amp the whole beauty of just plugging my iems into my phone is ruined.

Never felt the need to amp when using 1 volt iPhones. Felt the need when using capped iPhones.

With a genuine iPhone (not crippled by politicians) and good iems i have never felt anything but aural bliss.

Right now i have the chance to swap my US iPhone 6 64Gb for an EU iPhone 6 128Gb for a ridiculous amount of money but the capped amplifier is holding me back. 

Is it better to carry around 500 albums with a 1volt amp or 1000 albums with a 0'5 amp? Macbethian question i'm asking myself...


Success is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm


----------



## djmuzi

Good to know than even switched off in settings there is still this stupid EU limitation... Not many know this. :mad:
I noticed that my iPad Air goes louder than my iPhone 6.

Is it a good idea of connecting a Topping NX1 to the iPhone 6 or will it destroy the perfect sound output of the iPhone (if we put the slight volume increase aside) ? 
I'm not sure if I can hear any differences (I use the NX1 with the HD558)


----------



## elfary

djmuzi said:


> Good to know than even switched off in settings there is still this stupid EU limitation... Not many know this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Not much people know because nobody has tracked down the actual regulation that enforces capping. Once you've read it you understand it all (The colored volume squares, the diminished output and that there are 2 volume limits in place but user is only allowed to turn off one of them -the 85db one-).
  
 Non european iPhones sound exactly as loud as iPads (which are not sold capped because...the sell with no bundled earphones hence no way to stick to CENELEC nonsenses).
  
 If you don't have volume problems iPhone sound output is excellent and suited for critical listening.


----------



## yuriv

These iPhone 6S measurements might be interesting to some of you. This is for model MKTG2LL/A with iOS version 9.0.2 (13A452).
  
  

 Open-circuit voltage, right channel, maximum volume
  
  
 It's exactly 1V, a little lower than the maximum volume of the 5S. The volume control is very coarse: -3 dB and -4 dB steps:
  

 Voltage, mV
Attenuation from max, dB10000709-2.99450-6.94320-9.90204-13.81146-16.7191.7-20.7558.8-24.6138.8-28.2224.3-32.2916.6-35.6010.1-39.917.-43.10
  
 It goes from maximum volume to mute with 16 presses of the volume down button. 8 down has the volume level indicator halfway through the scale, 38.8 mV or roughly 28 dB down.
  
  
 Here's what happens with 16 ohms across each channel:
  

 Right Channel Voltage, 16-ohm load on right channel only
  
  

 Right Channel Voltage, 16-ohm load on each channel
  
  

 Left Channel Voltage, 16-ohm load on each channel
  
  
 The impulse response and some square waves: 
  

 Impulse response
  
  

 1 kHz square wave
  
  

 Rising edge of 60 Hz square wave
  
  
  
 Here's what happens to at lower voltage levels, which is where you usually have it when listening to earphones:
  

 Right channel, open circuit voltage, 5 clicks down from maximum.
  
  

 The same, but with a 16-ohm load on each channel
  
 Let Wolfram Alpha do the work: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=201*16.2%2F%28R%2B16.2%29+%3D+156
  
 It should be ok with the usual dynamic-driver IEMs, low-impedance dynamic-driver headphones with relatively flat impedance vs. frequency graphs, e.g., ATH-M50x, and BA IEMs that sound better with added serial resistance, e.g., ER4P, UE600 with foam tips, Apple ME186LL/A. 
  
 With really sensitive IEMs that have crazy impedance vs. frequency curves, I guess you could build the following circuit to make them work better with the iPhone 6S (or for that matter, those "premium" portable music players that have it much worse).

 The iPhone 6S will see a near-constant 16-ohm load, the IEM will see slightly less than 1 ohm source impedance, the frequency response going to the IEM will be much flatter, and the signal-to-noise ratio will be improved.
  
  
 I'll see if I can take measurements to show what happens to the noise level when scrolling, switching apps, etc.


----------



## elfary

yuriv said:


> These iPhone 6S measurements might be interesting to some of you. This is for model MKTG2LL/A with iOS version 9.0.2 (13A452).
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Very interesting! Thanks

It'd be great if you can assess the background emi noises both objectively and subjectively...


If the tonality it's not right, then nothing else really matters.


----------



## yuriv

According to the data sheets at InnerFidelity.com the UE600 is one of the most sensitive headphones or earphones they have measured. So I used that one. With some older players, I can definitely hear some hiss on the UE600 even when there's nothing playing on the player. On the iPhone 6S, I can barely hear the noise... until I start doing other things on the phone. Then, it's very noticeable. It's clearly audible even when no app is making a sound. I was hoping that the phone would be quieter once the music started playing, but nope, no luck there, especially in music with quiet passages. Ask Apple Music to play any recording of the _Goldberg Variations_, and the noise will be audible during the aria unless you stop messing with the phone. With the likes of Minaj and Bieber, it's not that much of a problem.
  
 The Etymotic ER4PT and Apple ME186LL/A aren't nearly as sensitive, so the noise isn't that noticeable with them; much less so with added series resistance. IEMs that are close to the UE600 in sensitivity usually have crazy impedance vs. frequency curves, and most of the time, added series resistance will make their acoustic response worse. It's probably best to avoid such IEMs when using the 6S. The voltage divider I described in my previous post should take care of both problems somewhat.
  
 I don't have my measurement gear with me this weekend, so I cranked the gain on a Focusrite Saffire USB 6 and looked at the output in Room EQ Wizard. We're only interested in the relative noise levels, so these uncalibrated charts should be ok for now. What I'm hearing sounds much worse than the 3+ dB of noise level increase shown below. The crude measurement system's self noise is probably obscuring what's really going on.
  
  

 Screen off, file playing: -56.4 dB FS on the Focusrite with the gain knobs turned to the maximum.
  
  

 Screen on, not busy, user not messing with the UI: -56.0 dB FS
  
  

 Playing file, left at app switcher screen: -53.3 dB FS
  
  

 Playing file or not. It's very noisy on the UE600 when the 6S is charging: -43.3 dB FS
  
  

 Slightly quieter when no file is playing and user isn't interacting with the UI: -57.6 dB FS
  
  

 No file playing, but left at the app switcher screen: -53.8 dB FS
  
  
 The graphs look pretty much the same when I removed the UE600 and the iPhone 6S was playing straight into the recorder, which has a very high input Z. 
  
 BTW, this phone is model N71AP (Samsung A9 chipset, instead of TSMC, model N71MAP).


----------



## elfary

Pretty ugly stuff for an Apple iPhone headphone out. I have owned iPhone 3Gs, iPhone 4s, iPhone 5s and iPhone 6 and never ever did i hear any emi noise even with Shure se530/5 or Westone UM3x that are as sensitive as an iem can get.

So seriously bummed by that Apple headphone port in the 6s. And a symptom that this company is slowly departing from excellence not only in the software area but now in the hardware front as well.


If the tonality it's not right, then nothing else really matters.


----------



## a_recording

yuriv said:


> The crude measurement system's self noise is probably obscuring what's really going on.


 
  
 Hey Yuriv, it's Lachlan! Nice work on the measurements, I'm looking forward to seeing more results. We're discussing the EMI noise and your measurements in this thread, so it's nice to get some actual numbers.


----------



## djmuzi

Maybe it will help when somebody writes a bug report to Apple  (or it will only eventually help the next iPhone)


----------



## elfary

Tried an iPhone 6s with my Shure SE535.

There is a distinct buzzing when you mess with the iPhone while listening to the headphone port.

Can't hear a darn thing while performing same actions on my iPhone 6.

This is bad shielding all the way.

An unthinkable regression for Apple. More even so on the 's' iteration of the perfectly shielded iPhone 6.

On the bright side my wallet is smiling this year.


If you don't get tonality right, nothing else matters.


----------



## S W Dunlevy

Hi,
    I have E-mailed the 3 addresses on the Vorbis Opus site. I simply asked them how much power a custom CPU would need in core-mark or dhrystone, I mean, it goes up to 504/bps. Has someone already run a test and I've not found it?
  
 I know that the iPod used 2x90MHz ARM7TDMI which got modified until a 75MHz dual-core CPU with shared cache did the trick. They started with 3 32K banks and upped it to 4 i.e. 129K.
 Then they added stuff that needed lots of power and so custom 312MHz dual-core CPU.
  
  
 Have people compared floating-point with fixed point audio quality?
  
 It just seems that this codec has NOT been fully tested?
  
 I'm thinking that while Apple can have 2 (or more) CPUs with a common cache, I'm looking for a low-energy CPU for a pocket audio player - for charity.


----------



## SergeSE

Here is the objective measurements of the following models:
  

iPhone 3G
iPhone 4
iPhone 4S
iPhone 5
iPhone 5S
iPhone 6
iPod classic (2009)
iPod shuffle 2G
iPod shuffle 4G
  
http://soundexpert.org/portable-players


----------



## RRod

sergese said:


> Here is the objective measurements of the following models:
> 
> http://soundexpert.org/portable-players


 
  
 Any plans to measure the Pono?


----------



## SergeSE

rrod said:


> Any plans to measure the Pono?


 
 Actually I have plans to measure everything 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 including Pono and other top quality players; the only problem - how to get them, I can't buy them all. So, at the moment I measure devices that I can ask from people around me. Most of these devices are well known and popular which helps to verify the new metrics. But in order to measure new models I need to cooperate with somebody else; thinking about that ...


----------



## davidsh

I like that you actually do a test with real music (eg. DSoTM). Might have a look at your testing methodology.. Some of the measurements shows surprisingly big differences.


----------



## SergeSE

davidsh said:


> I like that you actually do a test with real music (eg. DSoTM). Might have a look at your testing methodology.. Some of the measurements shows surprisingly big differences.


 
 http://soundexpert.org/news/-/blogs/visualization-of-distortion
 http://soundexpert.org/documents/10179/11017/DiffLevel_AES118.pdf


----------



## hogger129

I don't think they sound bad out of the dock connector.  The headphone out sucks imo.


----------



## yuriv

a_recording said:


> Hey Yuriv, it's Lachlan! Nice work on the measurements, I'm looking forward to seeing more results. We're discussing the EMI noise and your measurements in this thread, so it's nice to get some actual numbers.


 
  
 Hi Lachlan and everyone else. I tried to measure the iPhone 6S noise on an analyzer with a lower noise floor than the Focusrite, but I didn't get anything conclusive yet. The noise is definitely there, but the voltages involved are very low. I'm currently evaluating a QA400 analyzer, and here's what it gets:
  

  
  
 If I hadn't read about the the iPhone 6S's noise problem, I probably wouldn't have noticed it with my usual headphones and IEMs, and I wouldn't have dug up my UE600vi. In fact, I had to look up which IEMs on Inner Fidelity had the highest measured sensitivity to figure out which one to use. Their headphone measurement data sheets list how much voltage it took to produce 90 dB SPL. As far as I can tell, none of their headphones got a measurement lower than 11 mV rms, which is what Tyll got for the UE600 and a few others models. I suspect it takes even less than that because 11 mV could be getting close to the limits of their measuring system, the way it is set up. My scope can see a fuzzy waveform for a clearly audible 1 kHz tone that is in the hundreds of microvolts range. When I increase the volume, it's still well under 11 mV before it gets pretty loud on the UE600vi.
  
 When I measured the noise on the Focusrite Saffire 6 USB last week, I boosted the instrument input gain to amplify the iPhone 6s's noise as much as possible to make it easier to measure. The 6S is very quiet when it's almost idle and the screen is off. If you short the inputs on the Focusrite, it gets the same measured noise as the iPhone. So the Saffire 6's noise covers up the true noise level of the iPhone 6S. Not so when it's on the app switcher.

 Uncalibrated measurements on the Focusrite Saffire 6 + level meter readout
  
 I included the Sandisk Sansa Clip Zip for comparison. On the UE600vi, I can hear noise from the Clip Zip, but it's a soft, constant background hiss, which is not as objectionable. Also, notice on the graph that the higher noise on the Clip Zip happens at lower frequencies, where human hearing is less sensitive. On the iPhone 6S's app switcher, the noise increase is where our hearing is much more sensitive.
  
 Maybe I'll try a better preamp next time. Or I'll leave it to folks with more sensitive equipment to show how big the noise increase really is.
  
  
  
*Band aids for those pesky IEMs*
  

 The humble voltage divider
  
  
 I built the voltage divider I wrote about in a previous post and put it between the iPhone and the UE600vi. As expected, the frequency response going to the UE600vi is now much flatter, and the voltage going to it is down by at least 23 dB. The noise at the app switcher screen is all but gone. The down side is that you have to crank up the volume on the iPhone. But the UE600vi is so sensitive that I can get a satisfying level even without going to maximum volume. Maybe for another IEM, a 22+2 split works better than 15+1: less attenuation, but higher (2 instead of 1 ohm) effective output impedance. The humble voltage divider is a useful tool. It can even make a Pono or an AK100 sound good, but that's a subject for another thread.

 About five years ago, when we had the iPhone 4 and Antennagate, Apple gave us free bumper cases so that we could get away with "you're holding it wrong." This time, I don't think they're going to give free voltage dividers to a tiny percentage of their customers. Such an adapter can be small, like the P-to-S adapter for the ER4PT. It would be nice if some outfit like Monoprice or Fiio would build one with four conductors so that the headset still works.
  
 Another band aid is to use a headphone amp like a FiiO E5 or E6 for the attenuator instead of a voltage divider. Increase the headphone output volume to maximum on the iPhone 6S to maximize the signal-to-noise ratio (essentially using it as a line output) then cut the level on the amp. Here, the amp really isn't amplifying the signal voltage, but rather attenuating it. In the case of the FiiO E6, the UE600vi picks up a little hiss but it's not nearly as bad as the one on the app switcher. It's quieter if you use the not-so-portable O2. This will sound strange to some, but an HD600 makes the iPhone behave at its best, while you need an amp to make an SE535 sing.  
  

 6S, E6, UE600


----------



## elfary

Thanks for your thorough assessment Yuriv.

As i don't believe in voltage dividers since they skew the intended fr of the balanced armatures i use (Shure SE535 and Westone UM Pro 50), i'll stick to the last year iPhones which are pitch black without the need for band aids. Hope that Apple clean their act up next year.

And they take out the status bar off the art-work 


If the tonality it's not right, then nothing else really matters.


----------



## davidsh

elfary said:


> Thanks for your thorough assessment Yuriv.
> 
> As i don't believe in voltage dividers since they *skew the intended fr of the balanced armatures *i use (Shure SE535 and Westone UM Pro 50), i'll stick to the last year iPhones which are pitch black without the need for band aids. Hope that Apple clean their act up next year.
> 
> ...



No it won't. Rather the opposite


----------



## elfary

davidsh said:


> elfary said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for your thorough assessment Yuriv.
> ...




Yes it will. And it does.

Believe it or not in ear monitors are not meant to have a flat fr. They are engineered to provide exactly the fr that they show when driven by zero ohm output impedance. That you might rather other tone it's another thing. But engineers do not design the fr thinking that end user will add a 30 ohm resistor. Actually Westone even bundled Fiio E6s for a while along with their iems.

I'll look into my email for the exchange about that matter that i had with a Westone engineer in 2011.


If the tonality it's not right, then nothing else really matters.


----------



## davidsh

The effective output impedance as seen by the headphone is significantly lowered in the configuration shown earlier (voltage divider) from what I hear.


----------



## yuriv

elfary said:


> Yes it will. And it does.
> 
> Believe it or not in ear monitors are not meant to have a flat fr. They are engineered to provide exactly the fr that they show when driven by zero ohm output impedance. That you might rather other tone it's another thing. But engineers do not design the fr thinking that end user will add a 30 ohm resistor. Actually Westone even bundled Fiio E6s for a while along with their iems.
> 
> ...


 

 davidsh is right. The voltage divider that was shown earlier is not the same as adding a 30-ohm resistor in series. Here's what happens when you omit R2:
  


 The 15-ohm resistor is now in series with the IEM, increasing the effective output impedance by 15 ohms. If we do this, the frequency response at VOut will, indeed, be skewed. But if we keep R2, the iPhone 6S will see a nearly constant 16-ohm load, and the IEM will see 1 ohm in parallel with (15 ohms + the iPhone 6S's output impedance), which comes out to slightly less than a 1-ohm effective output impedance.
  
 I recorded the voltage at the UE600vi's terminals while an iPhone played an impulse. Then I imported the recorded impulse into Room EQ Wizard to derive the frequency response:
  

 Magnitude response from Room EQ Wizard's import of impulse response, normalized, 1/6 octave smoothed
  
 It'll look a lot worse if these were a Pono or an AK100. A voltage divider might help them deliver a flatter response and lower noise. The disadvantage, as noted in a previous post, is that the volume must be set higher on the player.


----------



## elfary

So i got your trick wrong. I thought your idea was just a resistor. Where do a regular guy get a 1 ohm voltage divider?



If the tonality it's not right, then nothing else really matters.


----------



## castleofargh

yuriv said:


> I recorded the voltage at the UE600vi's terminals while an iPhone played an impulse. Then I imported the recorded impulse into Room EQ Wizard to derive the frequency response:


 
  now I feel stupid for not thinking about it before. I worked around the problem by recording the IEM with a microphone and adding resistors in series, but still thanks for the idea of importing impulse responses from outside. it opens up a lot of possibilities I'll have to try. the obvious one being that I could use my 2I2 instead of the crap usb stuff I need to make my little mic work, and get a cleaner ADC in the process for stuff more demanding than FR.
 so thank you for turning my brain ON ^_^
   
 

@elfary as mentioned, the main problem is that in yuriv example, he ends up 23db lower, with a starting point of 1V max that's a max of about 0.07V.
 with the UE600 http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/UltimateEarsUE600.pdf  0.011Vrms seems to get us 90db loud(at 1khz).  so 0.07Vrms would go 90+16=106db. more than enough for my use as I never listen loudly, but add to that something like replaygain/soundcheck, or the use of EQ, and power might become a problem. we tend to clear a source for power when it can do 110 or 115db. not the case here with the voltage divider.
 and the UE600 is mighty efficient, it would be quieter on almost any other IEM. so yuriv's warning about other values being more beneficial to other IEMs is very rational and important. it's not worth it getting 1 ohm, if the power becomes an issue.
 so it might be a good idea to compromise on the resistors values, or just get an external amp with low impedance. that could solve all problems at once(except that you have to carry it and it costs a good deal more than 2 resistors :'(  ).
  
 (as always, I hope I didn't mess up with the numbers)


----------



## elfary

Double amping would not the degrade quality?

I own a Fiio E6 and an iBasso T3. But always amp via line out dock.


If the tonality it's not right, then nothing else really matters.


----------



## castleofargh

well ideally an external DAC/amp would be best, but then we don't care about the phone's audio performance at all ^_^.
 double amping is not audiophile, but when used with the phone volume pretty high for better SNR, the output into a few thousand ohm of another amp should be pretty nice I would guess, perhaps not line-out nice, but still. I doubt we would get much audible reason to complain. I used an amp plugged into a laptop or on the move into the HO of a DAP for a long time when I started my audiophool adventure. it was a great way to remove the hissing on the laptop and I was very happy about that.
 only later on did I learn that I was doing something evil ^_^.


----------



## yuriv

Quote:


castleofargh said:


> now I feel stupid for not thinking about it before. I worked around the problem by recording the IEM with a microphone and adding resistors in series, but still thanks for the idea of importing impulse responses from outside. it opens up a lot of possibilities I'll have to try. the obvious one being that I could use my 2I2 instead of the crap usb stuff I need to make my little mic work, and get a cleaner ADC in the process for stuff more demanding than FR.
> so thank you for turning my brain ON ^_^
> 
> ...


 
  
 Last night was the first time I tried doing this with REW. What you see in the graph are the results of one impulse. I recorded  a 1 Hz impulse train in Audacity, then I selected the region surrounding one impulse and exported it into a .wav file to be imported into REW. It gets better resolution if you leave a lot of time after the impulse and you record at the highest level possible without clipping. REW can also average the results; you might get something more reliable if you have many recorded impulses for averaging.

 I also tried to import a whole train of 60 recorded impulses, spaced 1s apart. This will start to look like a periodic 1 Hz signal to the FFT, with components at 1 Hz, 2 Hz, ..., but I'm lazy and I don't want to average things by hand. The results seem to be fine as long as you don't look at really low frequencies.

 About the voltage divider: I described in a previous post my experience measuring signals going to the UE600vi while listening to it. I gave my reasons for suspecting that it actually takes less than 11 mV rms to produce 90 dB SPL. So I might be getting close to 110 dB SPL at the maximum volume even with the 15Ω/1Ω voltage divider. In any case, the noise is gone and it gets loud enough for me without going to the maximum volume on the iPhone.
  
  
  
 Quote:


elfary said:


> Double amping would not the degrade quality?
> 
> I own a Fiio E6 and an iBasso T3. But always amp via line out dock.
> 
> ...


 
  
 The objections to "double amping" usually include the following:
  

The line ins of many amplifiers will clip with a signal that's only a little higher than 2V. So if you amplify the signal before feeding it into the second amplifier, it might clip.
The second amplifier will amplify the noise of the first one.
 
 First, the headphone output of the iPhone is only 1V rms with a full-scale sine wave at maximum volume. It's not going to overload the input of the headphone amplifier. Second, if we set the iPhone at maximum volume, then the signal reaching the amplifier will have the maximum signal-to-noise ratio possible. If the headphone amp's load is a sensitive IEM, then we don't want to further amplify the voltage coming from the iPhone; we want to attenuate it. So everything coming from the iPhone is attenuated by the amp, including the noise.

 Head-fiers usually complain when see iPod and iPhone headphone output measurements with no load attached. The numbers are simply too good compared to what happens in real-world use--with actual headphones attached. But those unloaded measurements are exactly what's going on here. The iPhone headphone output has very good numbers when it's not driving a headphone, but rather the line in of an amplifier, with impedance in tens of kilohms, if not more. It's a very easy load for a Phone.

 iDevices, despite having only 1V available at he headphone output, have better noise and distortion performance than the line outs of many consumer devices. If you're using a FiiO E6, then _it_, instead of the iPhone headphone output, is the one limiting the sound quality, as it is the one that has to drive the difficult load.

 Of course, if you max the gain on the FiiO E6 and keep the iPhone's volume low, then you're not just amplifying the iPhone's noise; you're adding the FiiO's noise on top. But if you keep the iPhone volume at maximum, then it will be way too loud for an IEM if the FiiO keeps it at that level. The FiiO must attenuate the signal from the iPhone, incoming noise included.

 Essentially, you're trading the iPhone's noise and output impedance for the FiiO E6's.

 As for the voltage divider, I don't know of any that you can buy already built. It would be nice if an outfit like, say, Monoprice built 15Ω/1Ω or 15Ω/2Ω voltage divider adapters, especially ones with four conductors: TRRS. But they don't, so you pretty much have to build one yourself. Experiment with the resistor values to find the ones that work best for the IEM at hand.


----------



## castleofargh

I never got to know exactly what this was, but I suppose it might be a voltage divider http://www.head-fi.org/t/695086/ifi-nano-ican-name-that-attenuator-competition-winner-no-1-winner-of-ican-nano-is
  
  


yuriv said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> castleofargh said:
> ...


 
  thanks, I'll try a few sizes for the impulse and see how it goes.
 and about my warning for max voltage with the divider, it was of course a warning in general for others, to say that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
 I'm not against the idea of a voltage divider. someone did that on a sony A15 recently that is about 4ohm, then I was against the idea because the A15 is maxed out at 0.4v(even less on my euro version), so losing any more voltage would really limit the possible usage of the DAP.  but I'm sure there are many instances where it is very useful, and not just for impedance purpose.


----------



## elfary

Thanks a lot Yuriv for such a detailed explanation about double ampling. Which is the route i might go if at some point i feel the urge to ditch my iPhone 6 to get a 6s.
  
 anyway too bad that Apple took such a step back. Never ever heard a noise off my iPhone 6 or 5s headphone out. No matter the headphones, screen, wifi, bluetooth or modem.


----------



## yuriv

castleofargh said:


> I never got to know exactly what this was, but I suppose it might be a voltage divider http://www.head-fi.org/t/695086/ifi-nano-ican-name-that-attenuator-competition-winner-no-1-winner-of-ican-nano-is
> 
> ...


 
  
 Well, well, well. I bet they are. 1Ω output impedance for their -24 dB attenuator very much sounds like a 15Ω/1Ω voltage divider. 3Ω output impedance for their -12 dB attenuator sounds like 3Ω + 9Ω. If you use that one, the iPhone will see a 12Ω load, which is low enough to make the phone send a clipped signal if you have the volume high enough. So we have to be careful if we're using that one with portables. Heck, the 5S went into clipping with a 16Ω load at maximum volume. More sensible would have been 4Ω + 12Ω for -12 dB and 4Ω output impedance, or even 3Ω + 21Ω (-18 dB). 
  

  
 The pic comes from this post: http://www.head-fi.org/t/695086/ifi-nano-ican-name-that-attenuator-competition-winner-no-1-winner-of-ican-nano-is/450#post_11667445


----------



## SilverEars

yuriv said:


> The objections to "double amping" usually include the following:
> 
> 
> The line ins of many amplifiers will clip with a signal that's only a little higher than 2V. So if you amplify the signal before feeding it into the second amplifier, it might clip.
> ...


 
 That's a good explanation.  I can see the reason why the voltage divider is not used is because it lowers the output voltage for headphones that require it.  That's 1/16 the voltage output.
  
 The voltage divider is clever, and it does indeed change the output impedance to 1ohms as David pointed as the output impedance is what the headphone's sees.  This could be a popular mod for those that are using the AK100MK1 with iems.  
  
 I think you hit everything that people should know when it comes to double amping.  Like the amp used for iems are not really for ampling, but it's actually attenuating the signal, and also it lowers the output impedance.  Kinda acts like a buffer and noise attenuate rather than what it's called, an amp.


----------



## dakanao

Hi guys, is there any system equalizer program that I can download from the appstore on the ipad? An equalizer that works with safari and youtube and the regular music playlist, so an equalizer that eq's everything on the ipad.

Your help would be greatly appreciated


----------



## poikkeus

If you're listening on your iMac, your best option is to use Apple's iTunes, with Sound Enhancer. The software is free with the OS.
  
 If you're listening on an iPad, Boom is maybe your most versatile option. Not as good as an amp, but there are lots of options for EQ. They update on a regular basis
  
 You might want to consider what kind of earpiece/earphone you're using with the iPad. Also, EQ might not be necessary; iOS already has about twenty EQ presets that might give you exactly what you want, sound wise.


----------



## davidsh

IMO the presets seem pretty poor.


----------



## Spyro

Most of the presets ARE pretty worthless, but with my Pro50's I use "treble booster" setting and it's fantastic!
  
 It's all about finding the right setting and synergy with your personal set up.


----------



## Arunabha Lahiri

Please help. I currently use iPod nano 7th gen and klipsch s4i rugged. I am now going to buy my first headphones. I am thinking of ath m50x or something similar. I want to upgrade my iPod too. Which one should I go after, iPod touch 6 gen or iPhone 6?


----------



## krismusic

.


----------



## Arunabha Lahiri

krismusic said:


> .




I mainly listen to post rock. Bands like sigur ros, explosions in the sky, mogwai, god is an astronaut.. I also listen to Radiohead. I also listen to rock, metal,some classical, some acoustic, pop. I kinda listen to a wide variety of music. 

I want to upgrade my gear. In India the new models of Sony walkman are not available. And I wouldn't want something dedicated to music only. So I bet apple is a safe choice. But is the sound from iPod touch 6g and iPhone 6 different? Also my headphone budget is 200$. Initially I have thought of m50x. Do they sound good with iPod? Are there better alternative? I am also following Sony mdr100aap but there aren't any review available yet. But few bought it and the response is positive..


----------



## krismusic

arunabha lahiri said:


> I mainly listen to post rock. Bands like sigur ros, explosions in the sky, mogwai, god is an astronaut.. I also listen to Radiohead. I also listen to rock, metal,some classical, some acoustic, pop. I kinda listen to a wide variety of music.
> 
> I want to upgrade my gear. In India the new models of Sony walkman are not available. And I wouldn't want something dedicated to music only. So I bet apple is a safe choice. But is the sound from iPod touch 6g and iPhone 6 different? Also my headphone budget is 200$. Initially I have thought of m50x. Do they sound good with iPod? Are there better alternative? I am also following Sony mdr100aap but there aren't any review available yet. But few bought it and the response is positive..



Hi Arunabha and welcome to the forum. 
The reason that I deleted my post was that I realised that I was not really qualified to help you. 
I have a little more experience with in ears than full size headphones and have not heard the Touch. 
I can only really suggest using the search function here to do a bit of research and if at all possible have a listen to stuff before you buy. 
With full size headphones it should be easy to buy mail order and return if you make a mistake. 
The iPhone 6 is highly regarded around here as a music source. 
The 6S seems to have issues with the audio which affect some people and not others. 
As I say I have not heard the Touch. 
Do you want a portable set up for listening on the move or is this for home use?
Hopefully someone else with more knowledge will come along and give you better advice. 
Quality music choices BTW.


----------



## Arunabha Lahiri

krismusic said:


> Hi Arunabha and welcome to the forum.
> The reason that I deleted my post was that I realised that I was not really qualified to help you.
> I have a little more experience with in ears than full size headphones and have not heard the Touch.
> I can only really suggest using the search function here to do a bit of research and if at all possible have a listen to stuff before you buy.
> ...




Thank you sir for replying. IPod touch 6g is really cheap when compared to an iPhone 6s or 6. I do not need a phone as my current phone is working really well. In iPod 6g related thread it is mentioned that iPod 6g sound quality is also a serious improvement over the already impressive 5g. But there's no one comparing it to an iPhone 6. 

IPods and iphones uses seperate DACs. So there's bound to be some change, right.. 

But then again iPods are more leaned towards music, so apple will never do a half ass work here..


----------



## Roly1650

arunabha lahiri said:


> Thank you sir for replying. IPod touch 6g is really cheap when compared to an iPhone 6s or 6. I do not need a phone as my current phone is working really well. In iPod 6g related thread it is mentioned that iPod 6g sound quality is also a serious improvement over the already impressive 5g. But there's no one comparing it to an iPhone 6.
> 
> IPods and iphones uses seperate DACs. So there's bound to be some change, right..
> 
> But then again iPods are more leaned towards music, so apple will never do a half ass work here..



The idevices, iphone/ipod/ipad have been audibly transparent devices for several generations, (not withstanding the noise issue with the iphone 6s, task switching, which would appear to be an internal shielding issue). I seriously doubt there is any audible difference between an iphone/ipod 5 and iphone/ipod 6 when tested properly, ie: level matched and blind. People only ever manage to differentiate differences when, 1) they know what they're listening to and 2) they don't level match, so normal audiophile delusion.

I can't help you with the headphones, this is such a personal, subjective matter, all I can advise, is go listen.


----------



## Arunabha Lahiri

roly1650 said:


> The idevices, iphone/ipod/ipad have been audibly transparent devices for several generations, (not withstanding the noise issue with the iphone 6s, task switching, which would appear to be an internal shielding issue). I seriously doubt there is any audible difference between an iphone/ipod 5 and iphone/ipod 6 when tested properly, ie: level matched and blind. People only ever manage to differentiate differences when, 1) they know what they're listening to and 2) they don't level match, so normal audiophile delusion.
> 
> I can't help you with the headphones, this is such a personal, subjective matter, all I can advise, is go listen.




Thank you sir. I guess I will just go with iPod touch. It will be better choice for me as I don't need a phone. 

Well as for trying the headphones. I live in a quite obscure place in India and so I only have to rely on online shopping. I was hoping for an overall good quality headphones. It is going to be my first. So some suggestions is fine. I listen to kinda all kinds of music. My budget is 200$...


----------



## krismusic

arunabha lahiri said:


> Thank you sir. I guess I will just go with iPod touch. It will be better choice for me as I don't need a phone.
> 
> Well as for trying the headphones. I live in a quite obscure place in India and so I only have to rely on online shopping. I was hoping for an overall good quality headphones. It is going to be my first. So some suggestions is fine. I listen to kinda all kinds of music. My budget is 200$...



Regarding the player, I would definitely go with what works for you budget wise and not worry about small differences. 
The headphones are much more problematic IMHO. Comfort plays a part. 
If you go for full size you may well need an amp. Depends on the sensitivity of the phones. 
You haven't said whether you are looking for portable or home use.


----------



## Arunabha Lahiri

krismusic said:


> Regarding the player, I would definitely go with what works for you budget wise and not worry about small differences.
> The headphones are much more problematic IMHO. Comfort plays a part.
> If you go for full size you may well need an amp. Depends on the sensitivity of the phones.
> You haven't said whether you are looking for portable or home use.




Choosing the correct headphones is really problematic. I mainly looking for home as I have a quite decent earphones. But I would appreciate light weight headphones and comfort really matters. A member here is recommending me ath m40x. According to him it is balanced and actually sounds better than m50x. The review do says it sounds balanced. I have seen the fr curve. It is kinda the same as m50x but shifted a bit down so the peaks aren't as prominent as the m50x. As I mostly listen to post rock, what would be my good choice of headphones. Will m40x be good?


----------



## krismusic

arunabha lahiri said:


> Choosing the correct headphones is really problematic. I mainly looking for home as I have a quite decent earphones. But I would appreciate light weight headphones and comfort really matters. A member here is recommending me ath m40x. According to him it is balanced and actually sounds better than m50x. The review do says it sounds balanced. I have seen the fr curve. It is kinda the same as m50x but shifted a bit down so the peaks aren't as prominent as the m50x. As I mostly listen to post rock, what would be my good choice of headphones. Will m40x be good?



I reckon take a deep breath and order both the ATH from Amazon and send back the one you do not like. 
As I said, I have only a little experience of full size. 
I went for the Sennheisser HD 600 and reckon it would be hard to beat. It's outside your budget and open so leaks sound badly. Not suited for outdoor use but lovely indoors. They are also a bit bass shy and really need an amp to shine. 
I have heard various models from Beyerdynamic and liked them very much. They do a low impedance closed back DT770 80 ohm which I think will run off an iPod. 
All parts on the Sennys and the Beyers are replaceable. 
I hope that helps. Good luck and keep us posted.


----------



## Arunabha Lahiri

Thank you sir. I don't have that much budget right now to be able to order both. But that would have been ideal. I too consider the beyerdynamic dt770 pro. But they are not available for shipping to my area. A bit sad really. I was seriously considering the hd598. But I guess it will require an amp and not ideal to be driven by iPod. I will get aa decent setup and a very good headphone when I will get a decent job. As my first pair I just want an upgrade from klipsch s4i rugged. And I guess that is not a tough thing considering s4i rugged has a very v shaped response. Thank you sir for your valuable time.


----------



## Arunabha Lahiri

I am now seriously considering the m40x and will most probably order it. I will wait for 2 days, because some says these require burn in. If after that I do not like these I will just return.


----------



## krismusic

arunabha lahiri said:


> I am now seriously considering the m40x and will most probably order it. I will wait for 2 days, because some says these require burn in. If after that I do not like these I will just return.



Sounds like a plan. Regarding burn in. Definitely do not keep a headphone beyond the time for returns hoping that it will "improve". 
IME any changes will be subtle and do not alter the basic sound.


----------



## Arunabha Lahiri

krismusic said:


> Sounds like a plan. Regarding burn in. Definitely do not keep a headphone beyond the time for returns hoping that it will "improve".
> IME any changes will be subtle and do not alter the basic sound.




Thank you sir.


----------



## krismusic

arunabha lahiri said:


> Thank you sir.



BTW. You don't have to call me Sir. We are very informal on this forum.


----------



## milosingh

You'll be fine with a HD 598 with an iPod.


----------



## Arunabha Lahiri

milosingh said:


> You'll be fine with a HD 598 with an iPod.




Yes.. My hd 598se sounds amazing with my ipod nano... Got a very good deal on the black Friday. I consider myself lucky... 

Next year I'll invest in an ipod touch 64 gb or 128 gb..


----------



## JWolf

arunabha lahiri said:


> Yes.. My hd 598se sounds amazing with my ipod nano... Got a very good deal on the black Friday. I consider myself lucky...
> 
> Next year I'll invest in an ipod touch 64 gb or 128 gb..


 
  
 Waste of money to get a new iPod Touch. They sound awful. I have an iPhone 6s and a Fiio X3II and the X3II blows away the 6s. Plus the iPod Touch will cost more for less performance.


----------



## krismusic

jwolf said:


> Waste of money to get a new iPod Touch. They sound awful. I have an iPhone 6s and a Fiio X3II and the X3II blows away the 6s. Plus the iPod Touch will cost more for less performance.



I think Arunabha intends to use a streaming service. I'm right in thinking that is not possible with the Fiio?


----------



## JWolf

krismusic said:


> I think Arunabha intends to use a streaming service. I'm right in thinking that is not possible with the Fiio?


 
  
 It is possible with the Fiio X7, but not other models.


----------



## r00t61

jwolf said:


> Waste of money to get a new iPod Touch. They sound awful. I have an iPhone 6s and a Fiio X3II and the X3II blows away the 6s. Plus the iPod Touch will cost more for less performance.


 
 For me, no native FLAC support on ipod was a dealbreaker.


----------



## JWolf

r00t61 said:


> For me, no native FLAC support on ipod was a dealbreaker.


 
  
 Just download an app that plays FLAC. Problem solved.


----------



## krismusic

jwolf said:


> It is possible with the Fiio X7, but not other models.



Nice. 128 Gb card slot and modular amp. I would be very interested to hear it.


----------



## JWolf

krismusic said:


> Nice. 128 Gb card slot and modular amp. I would be very interested to hear it.


 
  
 Given that the X3II is noticeably better than my iPhone 6s, I would say forget any current Apple product for sound compared to the X7.


----------



## krismusic

jwolf said:


> Given that the X3II is noticeably better than my iPhone 6s, I would say forget any current Apple product for sound compared to the X7.



I've been very happy with the 6s. It's easy to get carried away with gear and lose sight of the fact that the iPhone is in fact a modern miracle. Not to say it can't be bettered I guess but I grew up with a cassette Walkman!


----------



## JWolf

krismusic said:


> I've been very happy with the 6s. It's easy to get carried away with gear and lose sight of the fact that the iPhone is in fact a modern miracle. Not to say it can't be bettered I guess but I grew up with a cassette Walkman!


 
  
 I'm happy with my 6s overall. But when it comes to music, it's so-so.


----------



## Arunabha Lahiri

Well I have heard that hd 598 sounds better through iPhone than through fiio.. An odd thing but many claims it..


----------



## Roly1650

​


arunabha lahiri said:


> Well I have heard that hd 598 sounds better through iPhone than through fiio.. An odd thing but many claims it..



In a roundabout way, that's telling you that if you tested properly, ie: level matched and blind, there'd be precious little dfference between them, which is pretty much what you'd expect. It isn't difficult to produce audibly transparent devices in the 21st. century, even modestly priced ones.
If you don't level match and you know what you're listening to, you'll always hear differences, louder will always sound better, the human brain is extremely sensitive to level changes, without necessarily being aware they are level changes and sighted biases are well known and understood.


----------



## Arunabha Lahiri

Actually I haven't tested it myself. I only own an ipod nano and a pair of hd598se. I also own a klipsch s4i which is my companion for 4 years. I generally listen to music in a moderate volume. So 50% volume in my ipod with hd 598se is ok for me with most tracks. In a bit louder volume the Soundstage, minute details become more apparent. Say at 75% volume. But that way I can only listen to say about 10 minutes. So I stick with the 50% for long time pleasant listening.. And you are true about the louder sounds better. I too sometimes felt that my hp laptop is better sounding as it is so loud with iem. But with hd 598se it sounds bad though.. A kinda harsher and hollow sound.


----------



## Roly1650

arunabha lahiri said:


> Actually I haven't tested it myself. I only own an ipod nano and a pair of hd598se. I also own a klipsch s4i which is my companion for 4 years. I generally listen to music in a moderate volume. So 50% volume in my ipod with hd 598se is ok for me with most tracks. In a bit louder volume the Soundstage, minute details become more apparent. Say at 75% volume. But that way I can only listen to say about 10 minutes. So I stick with the 50% for long time pleasant listening.. And you are true about the louder sounds better. I too sometimes felt that my hp laptop is better sounding as it is so loud with iem. But with hd 598se it sounds bad though.. A kinda harsher and hollow sound.



Without knowing the laptop, it's hard to tell why SQ is worse, could be a dsp effect in the OS, could be an impedance mismatch, it could just be a lousy sound card........


----------



## milosingh

Will an O2 + ODAC just be louder than an IPhone 5s headphone out with an HD 650 or will the difference be more than that?

Is the iPhone 5s line out and headphone out the same if I use an external amp like O2? Will that be as good as O2 plus ODAC besides the volume?

Is O2 + ODAC really as good as Benchmark?


----------



## Arunabha Lahiri

roly1650 said:


> Without knowing the laptop, it's hard to tell why SQ is worse, could be a dsp effect in the OS, could be an impedance mismatch, it could just be a lousy sound card........




It's a hp Pavillion g6, a 5 year old budget laptop. I bet it's a lousy sound card..


----------



## davidsh

milosingh said:


> *Will an O2 + ODAC just be louder than an IPhone 5s headphone out with an HD 650 or will the difference be more than that?*
> 
> Is the iPhone 5s line out and headphone out the same if I use an external amp like O2? Will that be as good as O2 plus ODAC besides the volume?
> 
> Is O2 + ODAC really as good as Benchmark?


 
 That'd be what I would expect from experience with my iPhones and the amps I have owned.


----------



## krismusic

milosingh said:


> Will an O2 + ODAC just be louder than an IPhone 5s headphone out with an HD 650 or will the difference be more than that?
> 
> Is the iPhone 5s line out and headphone out the same if I use an external amp like O2? Will that be as good as O2 plus ODAC besides the volume?
> 
> Is O2 + ODAC really as good as Benchmark?



I don't have the ODAC. Just the O2. That simply increases volume. Nothing more. 
IMHO that is what an amp is for. For anything else, DSP is the way forward.


----------



## milosingh

Have you compared HD 600 to HD 650? Is the difference significant?


----------



## krismusic

milosingh said:


> Have you compared HD 600 to HD 650? Is the difference significant?



I have heard both and much preferred the natural, open sound of the 600. 
I found the 650 too dark and woolly. YMM definitely V! It seems to be something that you have to hear for yourself. 
Some people even claim that there is very little difference. Which I really do not understand TBH. 
IMO the 600's are glorious except I could wish for a weightier bottom end. 
Even so, they are an all time audio Billy bargain.
(IMO again )


----------



## canali

here is a question;
  
 I'd love to get one of the newer allegedly better sounding daps (ak jr, etc)
 but most don't have the plethora of features that the user friendly ipod touch 6 does.
 ...nor do they have wifi (and my main music source is streaming).
 ....sure the fiio x7 does but look at the cost...and in a yr it'll come down of course.
  
 has anyone listened to the ak jr, or fiio x7 or sony players and compared it with souynd of the ipod touch 6 gen?
 is it that significant a diff when using the same cans/iems etc
 (heard the mojo can run off of this device which would no doubt help the sound quality).
  
 thinking of going this route until more daps/mp3 players offer good wifi and sound quality and come down in price.


----------



## watchnerd

Latest gen iPhones and iPads are good enough to do live recording if you attach an interface to the Lightning port.


----------



## milosingh

canali said:


> here is a question;
> 
> I'd love to get one of the newer allegedly better sounding daps (ak jr, etc)
> but most don't have the plethora of features that the user friendly ipod touch 6 does.
> ...




Most DAPs including anything by FiiO will likely be audibly coloured compared to any Apple product. Regardless of price. 

Expensive DAPs may go louder than the iPhone though.


----------



## JWolf

milosingh said:


> Most DAPs including anything by FiiO will likely be audibly coloured compared to any Apple product. Regardless of price.
> 
> Expensive DAPs may go louder than the iPhone though.


 
  
 I think you have it incorrect. I have an iPhone 6s and an X3II. The X3II is not colored vs. the 6s. The 6s is not in the same league as the X3II. The 6s can be a bit tizzy at times where the X3II is smooth. The X3II has better imaging, smoother top end, more realistic mids, and deeper bass. I don't know of any cell phone that beats a good DAP on sound and if there is, it's not made by Apple.


----------



## Arunabha Lahiri

I believe sound quality depends on the headphone or iem and what type of source it is comfortable with. I have an HD 598. It is quite sensitive pair of headphones and my ipod nano 7th gen drives it quite well. At 70% volume I get a decent loudness, impressive sound stage and the bass is just the right amount.


----------



## JWolf

arunabha lahiri said:


> I believe sound quality depends on the headphone or iem and what type of source it is comfortable with. I have an HD 598. It is quite sensitive pair of headphones and my ipod nano 7th gen drives it quite well. At 70% volume I get a decent loudness, impressive sound stage and the bass is just the right amount.


 
  
 With a high-end that can not always be smooth enough.


----------



## Arunabha Lahiri

The high frequencies of HD 598 is kinda rolled off.. So it is not at all harsh.


----------



## milosingh

It isn't rolled off. That is how human ears perceive natural neutral sound.


----------



## Arunabha Lahiri

milosingh said:


> It isn't rolled off. That is how human ears perceive natural neutral sound.




Thanks for clarification.. I really like my HD 598. And it pairs really well with my ipod.


----------



## dakanao

Hey guys, do any of you know a system equalizer on the Ipad? One equalizer that EQs EVERYTHING on the Ipad, like sounds from Safari, youtube and the regular music player. 
  
 Someone in this thread suggested a few months ago that I need to use Boom, and I've tried that but that doesn't work at all, because I need a Mac for it to work and I don't have a Mac.
  
 Your help would be greatly appreciated, since the bass of my current IEMs is just too overpowering on the Ipad (atleast I have a system equalizer on my Windows laptop)


----------



## canali

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUE5O3ZDYk0&ab_channel=Hi-FiInsider
  
 anyone try this, and to what result?
  
 this is my 'poor man's chord' version until i get a chord...or a better dap with qualiy wif
 or the samsung s7
  
 here is another option, using the HRT idsp adaptor....
 anyone done a comparison?
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czdma16wGV4&ab_channel=Hi-FiInsider


----------



## watchnerd

canali said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUE5O3ZDYk0&ab_channel=Hi-FiInsider
> 
> anyone try this, and to what result?
> 
> ...


 
  
 It seems pointless to me.
  
 Portable audio is not for serious listening...too many environmental factors that get in the way.  Just get headphones that are easy to drive, even if they're not as good as your best cans.
  
 Esoteric cans need more grunt power than this can put out, hack or not.


----------



## canali

watchnerd said:


> It seems pointless to me.
> 
> Portable audio is not for serious listening...too many environmental factors that get in the way.  Just get headphones that are easy to drive, even if they're not as good as your best cans.
> 
> Esoteric cans need more grunt power than this can put out, hack or not.


 
 what of those who buy those AK 320 daps @ $3k, then partnered with some noble 10 or such (esp customs)?
 I'm sure they're very much into serious listening with their portable setups.
  
 but for me it is not so much about serious listening (whatever that means)
 i'm no hardcore audiophile who has the chops to critique, say, a recording, or such: i just want enjoy good quality sound
 where ever and whenever I am.
  
 however, this all said, i hear you on the environmental factors, of course,  which pollute any 'quality' sound.
 I get it.


----------



## watchnerd

canali said:


> what of those who buy those AK 320 daps @ $3k, then partnered with some noble 10 or such (esp customs)?
> I'm sure they're very much into serious listening with their portable setups.
> 
> i hear you on the environmental factors, of course...i get it.
> ...


 
  
 My daily commute includes a train ride that averages 70dB, and a heck of a lot more than that when it's screechy or braking.  And then there is the ambient noise on airplanes.
  
 A $3k DAP can't solve those problems.
  
 As for cars, well, can't wear headphones while driving.
  
 And I'm not going to wear big ass headphones in the gym attached to a $3k DAP.
  
 So what mobile situation does this leave? Sitting quietly on a park bench?
  
 You can't enjoy top tier sound in noisy environments unless you're wearing airport-runway-grade noise blockers.


----------



## canali

watchnerd said:


> My daily commute includes a train ride that averages 70dB, and a heck of a lot more than that when it's screechy or braking.  And then there is the ambient noise on airplanes.
> 
> A $3k DAP can't solve those problems.
> 
> ...


 
 lol...that is where often i'll do my listening  quite often:
 on a park bench...or along a nice walk (ambleside in west van, or in the forest)
 ...nice and quiet.
  
 and yet with a good seal, you can block out alot of noise.


----------



## watchnerd

canali said:


> lol...that is where often i'll do my listening  quite often: on a park bench...or along a nice walk (ambleside in west van, or in the forest)
> ...nice and quiet.
> 
> and yet with a good seal, you can block out alot of noise.


 
  
 Every time I'm in those situation I either have my dog or a woman with me. Either way, the bitches don't let me listen.


----------



## canali

watchnerd said:


> Every time I'm in those situation I either have my dog or a woman with me. Either way, the bitches don't let listen.


 
 touche!
  
 then get the pooch some cans

  
  
 one thing taken care of


----------



## krismusic

I listen mostly on public transport. Put my CIEM's in and all external noise disappears. Perfect environment for "serious" listening IMHO.


----------



## Sulbh

Why do my black ipod touch 5th gen and yellow touch 5th gen sound a bit different to me?Both are running on similar ios version.


----------



## krismusic

sulbh said:


> Why do my black ipod touch 5th gen and yellow touch 5th gen sound a bit different to me?Both are running on similar ios version.



Not being snotty but maybe imagination? Try getting a friend to swap headphones you are wearing between the two devices to blind test. Make sure the volume levels are as similar as possible.


----------



## castleofargh

production difference? one has suffered more over the years? one has a component that would need changing? one was made in europe and doesn't have the same loudness? placebo? 42? black is the color of hifi?


----------



## HiFiChris

sulbh said:


> Why do my black ipod touch 5th gen and yellow touch 5th gen sound a bit different to me?Both are running on similar ios version.


 
  
 Exactly the same sound files played back at the exactly same volume level with the same headphone/in-ear?


----------



## JWolf

Could be the 5th gen iPod and 5th gen iPod Touch are made differently. Best sounding music player from Apple is the 4th gen iPod. All goes downhill from there.


----------



## davidsh

Might be slight volume difference despite same setting


----------



## Ruben123

I use portable music devices whenever, wherever. In the library, garden, public transport or plugged into my stereo system. Why should one have a home system and a portable system?


----------



## elfary

ruben123 said:


> I use portable music devices whenever, wherever. In the library, garden, public transport or plugged into my stereo system. Why should one have a home system and a portable system?


 
  
 Having a home system is nice... if you happen to be at home sometimes. Which is not my case


----------



## Ruben123

Well I do have a CD player, turntable and notebook with 2tb external hdd with behringer USB sound card, though playing something from the portable via aux is so much quicker and easier. Sq differences? I don't hear any.


----------



## simonecosta75

Hello at all
 Let me ask you one info
 Now i using ipad o s7 edge whit dragonfly red  for drive one hd600 senneihser 
 the quest is , if i buy one ipod touch 6th and use whit DFR and Hd600 improve the sound ?
 i use Tidal for streaming audio in hifi quality 
  
 thx


----------



## krismusic

I'm looking to smooth the top end of the iPhone. Do Dragonfly Red owners think this is the effect of the Dragonfly?


----------



## brent75

krismusic said:


> I'm looking to smooth the top end of the iPhone. Do Dragonfly Red owners think this is the effect of the Dragonfly?


 
  
 I can do some specific listening with Red/without (paying attention to top end) if you want. Any specific songs or genres to try out?


----------



## krismusic

brent75 said:


> I can do some specific listening with Red/without (paying attention to top end) if you want. Any specific songs or genres to try out?



That would have been really helpful and much appreciated. 
I've just ordered one from Amazon though. On the basis that I can return it if it doesn't do what I hope. 
I've ordered the HRT iDSP as well. 
I would still be very interested to know what you reckon but after I've had a listen. I'll be struggling to get past placebo and expectation bias as it is!
A track I use to evaluate stuff is Saving Grace by Tom Petty from the album Highway Companion. 
A damn fine album IMHO. 
There are handclaps on there and I always think that they are difficult to reproduce. 
Anyway. I'll shoot you a PM when I'm Dragonflied up if that's OK?


----------



## JWolf

krismusic said:


> I'm looking to smooth the top end of the iPhone. Do Dragonfly Red owners think this is the effect of the Dragonfly?




The Dragonfly should work as you would not be using the audio from the iDevice but the Red instead.


----------



## krismusic

jwolf said:


> The Dragonfly should work as you would not be using the audio from the iDevice but the Red instead.



Thanks JWolf.


----------



## brent75

Word of advice -- be sure to keep it hooked up/let it play for about a day or two before you really form opinions. IMO it sounds very nice out of the box, but it truly settles in and catches it's groove after a few days. When I got mine I just let it play overnight and while I was at work.


----------



## krismusic

brent75 said:


> Word of advice -- be sure to keep it hooked up/let it play for about a day or two before you really form opinions. IMO it sounds very nice out of the box, but it truly settles in and catches it's groove after a few days. When I got mine I just let it play overnight and while I was at work.



Personally I am very sceptical about burn in of electronics. (Let's not go there!) Thanks for the advice though and if I don't rate it "straight out of the box" I'll give burn in a whirl before giving up. After all, it doesn't cost anything!


----------



## nick_charles

krismusic said:


> After all, it doesn't cost anything!


 
  
  
 Only your sanity


----------



## krismusic

nick_charles said:


> Only your sanity



Agreed! After a few years on here, there's not much of that left!


----------



## krismusic

Well I got the Dragonfly. I like the results plugging it into the 6S except for the clicks and pops of interference even in airplane mode. Strangely, I don't like the sound as much from the 5S. No interference but the sound is not as rich IMO. Either placebo or an electrical mid match?


----------



## krismusic

Has anyone found an inline DAC/amp that the 6S does not cause interference with?


----------



## thewatcher101

I found the dragonfly black do very little in terms of sq on the iphone 6s, and mines did not have any clicks or pops. The only thing I notice was the bass rolled off earlier in the dragonfly black.


----------



## krismusic

thewatcher101 said:


> I found the dragonfly black do very little in terms of sq on the iphone 6s, and mines did not have any clicks or pops. The only thing I notice was the bass rolled off earlier in the dragonfly black.



I quite liked the Dragonfly Red with the 6S except for horrendous clicks and pops.


----------



## yuriv

*Apple's Lightning to Headphone Jack adapter, aka The Dongle.*
  

 It's $9. So how bad could it possibly be?
  
  

 2nd column: Apple Lightning to Headphone Jack adapter, attached to iPhone 6S
 4th column: Apple Lightning to Headphone Jack adapter, attached to iPad Pro 9.7"
 All measurements at maximum volume, no load, and with iOS 10.
 More accurate distortion measurements appear below.
  
  

 The frequency response from the same set of measurements. They remain flat for all devices with a 16-ohm load on each channel, measured when the volume is lowered.
  
  

 Apple Lightning to Headphone Jack adapter playing 1 kHz sine wave from iPhone 6S, no load.
  
  

 Apple Lightning to Headphone Jack adapter playing 1 kHz sine wave from iPad Pro 9.7", no load.
  
  

  
 Compare that to the iPhone 6S headphone out on the left and the iPad Pro 9.7" headphone out on the right.
  
  
  
  

 Apple Lightning to Headphone Jack adapter playing 1 kHz sine wave from iPhone 6S, maximum volume, 16 ohm load on both channels
  
  
  

 Volume one click down: Apple Lightning to Headphone Jack adapter playing 1 kHz sine wave from iPhone 6S, one click down from maximum volume, 16 ohm load on both channels
  
  
  
  

 Apple Lightning to Headphone Jack adapter playing 1 kHz sine wave from iPhone 6S, 16 ohm load on both channels, onset of clipping. I used the volume control slider to get the distortion just under 1% on the left channel. It's not easy to be really precise, but it's at a level between maximum volume and one click down.
  
  
  

 SMPTE IMD, no load
  
  

 CCIF IMD, no load
  
  
  

 Playback of 16-bit, 44.1 kHz J-test file
  
  

 Playback of 24-bit, 48 kHz J-test file
  
  

 Impulse response, 1 kHz square wave, rising edge of 60 Hz square wave "fake step response"
  
  
  
  
 So far, the performance seems to be in the same ballpark as the iPhone and the iPad. Here's some good news for those of you who like those crazy multi-driver balanced armature IEMs:
  
  
 1.
  

  
 Left: Apple Lighting to Headphone Jack adapter, 1 kHz sine, 4 clicks down from maximum volume, no load.
 Right: Apple Lighting to Headphone Jack adapter, 1 kHz sine, 4 clicks down from maximum volume, measured 16.6-ohm load on each channels.
  
  
 Therefore, http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=200+*+16.6+%2F+(R%2B16.6)+%3D+196
  
 Which is lower than that of any other device running any version of iOS. It's almost an order of magnitude better than on the iPhone 6S.
  
  
 2.
  
 Subjective take on the noise level: I used the Ultimate Ears UE600 IEM to evaluate the noise level because it is very sensitive to hiss.
  
 The iPhone 6S had a good bit of audible electronic noise when it first came out. It was very noticeable on the task switcher screen and worse still when Siri was listening. This was a problem with IEMs like the UE600, Shure SE535, etc., but not for headphones, dynamic-driver IEMs, and less sensitive balanced armature IEMs like the Etymotic ER4P. With each update to IOS, the situation seemed to get better. Using IOS 10, I can still hear the noise on the iPhone 6S, but it's not nearly as bad as it was before. It's still there, but it's hard to notice when the phone isn't doing anything but playing music. The iPad Pro doesn't have this problem. It has more of a steady background hiss and it's quieter too.
  
 The Lightning to Headphone Jack adapter is more like the iPad. If you listen closely on a sensitive IEM, you'll hear it. It's also louder when the phone is on the task switcher or when Siri is listening. But it's much softer than the noise on the iPhone 6S headphone jack; it's also a soft, steady background hiss like on the iPad, not the irregular-sounding electronic noise on the iPhone 6S.
  
 This adapter can come in handy if you want to use a very sensitive IEM that has impedance that changes much with frequency. On the iPad it's not as useful because the Lightning connector is in a more inconvenient spot.
  
  
 EDIT 9/19: Added IMD graphs, cleaned up THD pics, corrected typos
 EDIT 9/24: Changed CCIF IMD graphs to show up to 30 kHz, added J-test results, recalculated output impedance with measurements on new setup.


----------



## elfary

@yuriv

Awesome report that matches my subjective impressiones with SE846 attached.

Could you post this valuable info on the headfi thread about iPhone 7 in the portable source gear subforum ?


Alcohol is never the answer... But it certainly helps you forget the question.


----------



## Double-A

@yuriv

Just to confirm since I am not knowledgeable enough to read and understand the measurement portion of your post (sorry): did you find that the adapter has less than 1 ohm of ouput impedance?


----------



## HiFiChris

double-a said:


> @yuriv
> 
> Just to confirm since I am not knowledgeable enough to read and understand the measurement portion of your post (sorry): did you find that the adapter has less than 1 ohm of ouput impedance?


 
  
 It was measured by a German tech site (less than 0.5 Ohms).
  
  
  
  
 @yuriv
  
 Can you tell me whether the adapter works with the iPod Nano 7G or not?


----------



## Double-A

Yes, but I wanted to wait until that <1 ohm measurement was corroborated by a second source before I bought an adapter. Is that what "R" is supposed to represent in your link yuriv? Output impedance?

I want to buy a pair of Shure SE215s, but I wanted to wait until I could afford a DAC/amp that has a lower output impedance than my iPhone 6. I don't know when that is realistically going to happen though because I earn minimum wage. If this adapter really does have less than one ohm of output impedance however, I could end my wait for the 215s.


----------



## elfary

double-a said:


> Yes, but I wanted to wait until that <1 ohm measurement was corroborated by a second source before I bought an adapter. Is that what "R" is supposed to represent in your link yuriv? Output impedance?




As per Yuriv testing the output impedance of the dongle is 0'5 ohms that is why he commends the dongle for balanced armature setups.


Alcohol is never the answer... But it certainly helps you forget the question.


----------



## yuriv

elfary, Double-A,
 Yes, that is the output impedance. It might even be lower and I have to be careful that the test leads' resistance isn't contributing to the figure. If there's any doubt, check this out:
  

 Frequency Response into UE600 (uncoupled)
  
 Some headphones have a voice coil inductance that can have a significant effect on the frequency response at high frequencies, especially on an amplifier with a high output impedance. On the UE600, the difference in frequency response between the iPhone 6S and the Lightning to Headphone Jack adapter is audible. It just so happens that I like the effect of the added resistance on this particular IEM. But I know that what's really going on isn't the behavior of an ideal voltage amplifier. There are many other IEMs that won't benefit from this so-called synergy. Because of the impedance interaction with their headphones, some people might conclude that the iPhone 6S headphone output is the better performer: "improved clarity!", ""tighter bass", "refinement!" Or maybe they'll just describe the Lightning audio adapter as slightly dull, uninvolving, and muddy. Lol.
  
 The SE215 won't be affected by this at all. Its impedance is typical of a dynamic-driver IEM--it looks like an 18-ohm resistor. So it doesn't matter if you plug it straight into an iPhone or the Lightning adapter. The frequency response (magnitude and phase) will be the same. If anything, the noise on the iPhone 6S will be first to have an audible effect, although I doubt even that will be a factor. So just plug it into the phone and enjoy!
  
  
 HiFiChris,
 I don't have a 7th generation iPod Nano, so I can't test it. Maybe the next time I visit an Apple Store I'll bring the adapter. Maybe it needs IOS 10, maybe not? Your guess is as good as mine. Another interesting question is if it will work with a PC. Is it a class-compliant USB audio device with its own DAC? Many notebook computers have really awful audio; it would be a nice surprise if this dirt cheap Lightning adapter could be made to work with them.


----------



## elfary

yuriv said:


> elfary, Double-A,
> Yes, that is the output impedance. It might even be lower and I have to be careful that the test leads' resistance isn't contributing to the figure. If there's any doubt, check this out:
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Thanks a lot for all the objective information you share with the community. Much appreciated and useful to avoid snakoil.
  
 I would be curious about an RMAA of the dongle driving a real earphone vs the iPhone 6s hpo driving that same headphone to catch a glimpse of THD, IMD and crosstalk in a real world scenario. It would be amazing if Cirrus Logic had been able squeeze a good crosstalk performance in such a tiny enclosure.
  
 In the added graph i noticed that the SMPTE IMD was noticeably higher in the dongle. What would be the impact of this in subjective listening versus iPad Pro or iPhone 6s ?
  
 Today I have done more listening with the Shure SE846 and the Westone W30 plugged to the combo dongle-iPhone 6s Plus and the sound is pretty darn good to these ears: clean and linear to boot. The dongle feels like an engineering statement from Apple.
  
 FTR in a quiet room i have been utterly unable of hearing any emi noise bleeding into the dongle (attached to the iPhone 6s Plus).
  
 last but not least: the dongle will only work in iOS 10 running devices. So not suitable for any iPod other than the latest Touch.


----------



## krismusic

elfary said:


> Thanks a lot for all the objective information you share with the community. Much appreciated and useful to avoid snakoil.
> 
> I would be curious about an RMAA of the dongle driving a real earphone vs the iPhone 6s hpo driving that same headphone to catch a glimpse of THD, IMD and crosstalk in a real world scenario. It would be amazing if Cirrus Logic had been able squeeze a good crosstalk performance in such a tiny enclosure.
> 
> ...



I happened to be in an Apple Store today and bought the dongle. Two members of staff confirmed that it would work with the 6S. Nope. "This accessory is not supported by this device.".


----------



## HiFiChris

Can anybody check whether the "adapter" works with an iPod Nano 7G?


----------



## exiton

krismusic said:


> I happened to be in an Apple Store today and bought the dongle. Two members of staff confirmed that it would work with the 6S. Nope. "This accessory is not supported by this device.".


 
 You've got to be on iOS 10


----------



## elfary

No iOS 10 no dice.


----------



## krismusic

exiton said:


> You've got to be on iOS 10



Ah! Nice one. Thanks for that.


----------



## sikki-six

krismusic said:


> I happened to be in an Apple Store today and bought the dongle. Two members of staff confirmed that it would work with the 6S. Nope. "This accessory is not supported by this device.".




Have you updated to iOS10? The text you quoted pointed out it's not gonna work if not.

Daymn, too late


----------



## krismusic

Yep. Updated and now working. Sounds nice. Probably placebo! So I don't understand. I didn't think there was an audio pathway out of lighting. So is the amp routed but not the DAC? I don't suppose anyone knows if the DAC in the dongle is the same as the old 30 pin to Lightning cable?


----------



## elfary

I'd call placebo to the Dragonfly LOL.


If the tonality it's not right, then nothing else really matters.


----------



## krismusic

elfary said:


> I'd call placebo to the Dragonfly LOL.
> 
> If the tonality it's not right, then nothing else really matters.



If that's directed at me, I'm not using a Dragonfly. Or did you mean dongle? If so I would tend to agree. Although I'm using the K10 multi BA. Maybe the difference in impedance between HO and dongle suits them better?
I'm liking IOS10 on my 6S though.


----------



## elfary

I was just kidding. My comment was aimed at no one i particular. Just a way to express how much i am liking the dongle.




If the tonality it's not right, then nothing else really matters.


----------



## krismusic

elfary said:


> I was just kidding. My comment was aimed at no one i particular. Just a way to express how much i am liking the dongle.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You reckon it really is an improvement?


----------



## elfary

krismusic said:


> elfary said:
> 
> 
> > I was just kidding. My comment was aimed at no one i particular. Just a way to express how much i am liking the dongle.
> ...




For crazy balanced armatures yes. The dongle Zout is a Godsend and something never attained while the audio circuitry was inside the phone.

On the other hand i would not tout the dongle as built to last.

I am having the..err courage to keep my iphone 6 on iOS 9.3.5 so i am doing the trials on borrowed iPhones but i am liking more and more what i hear so at any moment i will give in and put iOS 10 in my japanese iPhone 6.



If the tonality it's not right, then nothing else really matters.


----------



## krismusic

elfary said:


> For crazy balanced armatures yes. The dongle Zout is a Godsend and something never attained while the audio circuitry was inside the phone.
> 
> On the other hand i would not tout the dongle as built to last.
> 
> ...



There are some nice bells and whistles in 10.


----------



## yuriv

elfary said:


> Thanks a lot for all the objective information you share with the community. Much appreciated and useful to avoid snakoil.
> 
> I would be curious about an RMAA of the dongle driving a real earphone vs the iPhone 6s hpo driving that same headphone to catch a glimpse of THD, IMD and crosstalk in a real world scenario. It would be amazing if Cirrus Logic had been able squeeze a good crosstalk performance in such a tiny enclosure.
> 
> ...


 
  
 When I have time later on, maybe I'll test it with some real earphones. But that's what the 16 ohm load is supposed to simulate. The typical dynamic-driver IEM looks like a 16-ohm resistor with maybe a wrinkle around 2 kHz. iOS devices usually run into clipping with these low-impedance loads at maximum volume. But at 1 click below that, the distortion is pretty low. That's more than enough power for almost all of these kinds of earphones--even the Etymotic ER4S, which has a 75-ohm series resistor already built in. For higher impedance loads (like that Ety 4S), you can go to maximum volume on these things and they won't distort. The only limitation is the voltage, which tops out at 1V. On measurements with something like an HD600 attached, the numbers look like the ones for no load.
  
 I'll have to double check that SMPTE IMD test. I created the test file myself in Audacity then imported it to a .wav file. For some reason, the dongle doesn't handle it as well as the headphone out on the iPhone 6S or the iPad Pro. The same test in RMAA didn't reveal that much worse performance:
  

 SMPTE IMD
  
 I suspected increased jitter, so I zoomed in at 7 kHz:
  

 Detail at 7 kHz
  
 Aha! Even RMAA on a MacBook Pro is sensitive enough to reveal it. The base of the spike starts widening at -100 dB down for the dongle. The iPad and the iPhone don't have it. This can be caused by random jitter. But at around 100 dB below the level of the signal, I doubt it would have any audible effect. I'll have to find where I put that J-test file. Also, keep in mind that this is at maximum volume. At the typical listening level, these artifacts are probably buried under the noise floor. But I can just hear now it from the crowd: "Oooh, what I heard was definitely jitter!". Lol.
  
 The "skirt" at the base of the spike can also be seen in the 1kHz THD+N graph from the same RMAA measurement set:
  

 Left: 1 kHz sine at maximum volume
 Right: detail
  
  
 In any case, these small things didn't prevent you from enjoying the music. I hope you don't let them psych you into hearing phantom jitter artifacts. Lol. Anyway, it's a give and take as far the performance goes, but the improvements in the Lightning adapter are where they are most audible: the less noticeable noise (vs the iPhone 6S), and the guaranteed flat frequency response thanks to the near-zero output impedance.
  
 I'll give an update in a later post if anything interesting comes up.


----------



## elfary

yuriv said:


> When I have time later on, maybe I'll test it with some real earphones. But that's what the 16 ohm load is supposed to simulate. The typical dynamic-driver IEM looks like a 16-ohm resistor with maybe a wrinkle around 2 kHz. iOS devices usually run into clipping with these low-impedance loads at maximum volume. But at 1 click below that, the distortion is pretty low. That's more than enough power for almost all of these kinds of earphones--even the Etymotic ER4S, which has a 75-ohm series resistor already built in. For higher impedance loads (like that Ety 4S), you can go to maximum volume on these things and they won't distort. The only limitation is the voltage, which tops out at 1V. On measurements with something like an HD600 attached, the numbers look like the ones for no load.
> 
> I'll have to double check that SMPTE IMD test. I created the test file myself in Audacity then imported it to a .wav file. For some reason, the dongle doesn't handle it as well as the headphone out on the iPhone 6S or the iPad Pro. The same test in RMAA didn't reveal that much worse performance:
> 
> ...


 
  
 Thanks a lot for the time and your very solid input Yuriv.
  
 If you do compare the SMPTE IMD which an iPod Touch 3rd gen (at NwAvGuy blog) you'll see that the dongle is in the same ballpark which NwAvGuy dubbed -as you- utterly inaudible. I have not heard any hint of jitter or fuzziness really.

 Actually, i enjoy a lot the perfect linearity of the dongle's output with my two balanced armature earphones. But i am always trying to learn and correlate numbers with sound.


----------



## PetZoundz

yuriv said:


> When I have time later on, maybe I'll test it with some real earphones. But that's what the 16 ohm load is supposed to simulate. The typical dynamic-driver IEM looks like a 16-ohm resistor with maybe a wrinkle around 2 kHz. iOS devices usually run into clipping with these low-impedance loads at maximum volume. But at 1 click below that, the distortion is pretty low. That's more than enough power for almost all of these kinds of earphones--even the Etymotic ER4S, which has a 75-ohm series resistor already built in. For higher impedance loads (like that Ety 4S), you can go to maximum volume on these things and they won't distort. The only limitation is the voltage, which tops out at 1V. On measurements with something like an HD600 attached, the numbers look like the ones for no load.
> 
> I'll have to double check that SMPTE IMD test. I created the test file myself in Audacity then imported it to a .wav file. For some reason, the dongle doesn't handle it as well as the headphone out on the iPhone 6S or the iPad Pro. The same test in RMAA didn't reveal that much worse performance:
> 
> ...


 

 Very nicely written. Quick question for you, when attaching a 3.5mm cable to the dongle to plug into, say, a car's AUX input, would you leave the phone volume on max, or a click below?


----------



## yuriv

petzoundz said:


> Very nicely written. Quick question for you, when attaching a 3.5mm cable to the dongle to plug into, say, a car's AUX input, would you leave the phone volume on max, or a click below?


 
  
 Sorry for the late reply. Maximum volume should be fine because the car's aux input should have a higher impedance than 16 ohms. The output of the Lightning adapter will not clip. Ten years ago, you couldn't do this on an iPod because the output went into clipping at maximum volume, even with a high-impedance load, but no iOS device has had this problem since the iPod Classic.
  
 BTW, I updated my original report of the adapter (post 292 of this thread) with clearer CCIF IMD graphs, J-test results, and a more carefully calculated output impedance:
  
http://www.head-fi.org/t/627111/what-is-the-sound-quality-of-iphone-ipad-ipod-touch/285#post_12872457


----------



## PetZoundz

yuriv said:


> Sorry for the late reply. Maximum volume should be fine because the car's aux input should have a higher impedance than 16 ohms. The output of the Lightning adapter will not clip. Ten years ago, you couldn't do this on an iPod because the output went into clipping at maximum volume, even with a high-impedance load, but no iOS device has had this problem since the iPod Classic.
> 
> BTW, I updated my original report of the adapter (post 292 of this thread) with clearer CCIF IMD graphs, J-test results, and a more carefully calculated output impedance:
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/627111/what-is-the-sound-quality-of-iphone-ipad-ipod-touch/285#post_12872457




Thanks. I kind of figured that out anyway, as the iPhone is technically being fed into the DAC of the dongle, so it's much like feeding it into my Oppo HA-2. And Oppo suggests to set the phone output at maximum volume.


----------



## elfary

What a great set of data about the dongle Yuriv!
  
 I think that the dongle is going to give 3rd party Lightning cable makers a run for our money.


----------



## yantidote

Hi guys, a newbie here. Planning to get an apple device just for listening to music through Spotify. Which has the better audio quality between the iPhone 5s, Ipod touch 5th or 6th gen. Thanks in advance for the help!


----------



## JWolf

yantidote said:


> Hi guys, a newbie here. Planning to get an apple device just for listening to music through Spotify. Which has the better audio quality between the iPhone 5s, Ipod touch 5th or 6th gen. Thanks in advance for the help!


 
  
 The iPod 4th Gen is the best Apple device for sound. The iPhone for music is OK at best. It's not great. But to be honest, I would not go near a current iPod.


----------



## watchnerd

yantidote said:


> Hi guys, a newbie here. Planning to get an apple device just for listening to music through Spotify. Which has the better audio quality between the iPhone 5s, Ipod touch 5th or 6th gen. Thanks in advance for the help!


 
  
 It all depends on the headphones you're using.  They all measure similarly.
  
 If you're using good quality headphones designed for mobile use, the sound quality can be perfectly acceptable.
  
 But use something that's hard to drive, it's going to suck.  The built-in amps just aren't that powerful.


----------



## Headzone

Stack any of them with a FiiO A1/A3 and you're good to go.


----------



## ThomasHK

Stuck New Year's Day at my parents in laws place with nothing but my wife's iPad mini 4 and my Shure SE846... wow. Compared to my Samsung S7 (snapdragon version) this sounds awesome. Well impressed by the sound quality. Anyone know of any measurements online?


----------



## FiGuY1017

The new ipod touch 6 is amazing imo. I've compared it to a hidizs ap100,fiio x1 ,gs3&4&,iPhone 5s,c,iPhone 6,ischitt mimmby(modimb). Maybe my hearing is bad.. lucky me!


----------



## JWolf

figuy1017 said:


> The new ipod touch 6 is amazing imo. I've compared it to a hidizs ap100,fiio x1 ,gs3&4&,iPhone 5s,c,iPhone 6,ischitt mimmby(modimb). Maybe my hearing is bad.. lucky me!




I have an iPhone 6s and it is not all that good. I can blow away any iPod Touch/iPhone in terms of sound with a Fiio X3II that costs less than $200. So yes, your iPod Touch 6 is nothing special.


----------



## watchnerd

jwolf said:


> I have an iPhone 6s and it is not all that good. I can blow away any iPod Touch/iPhone in terms of sound with a Fiio X3II that costs less than $200. So yes, your iPod Touch 6 is nothing special.


 
  
 Yours must be defective because my iPhone 6s blows away both TotalDAC and Auralic.  Just completely shames them into running home to their sugar daddies.


----------



## sonitus mirus

watchnerd said:


> Yours must be defective because my iPhone 6s blows away both TotalDAC and Auralic.  Just completely shames them into running home to their sugar daddies.


 
  
 Same with my 7 Plus.  In fact, I have to limit my listening sessions or I overdose on audio bliss.  Simply fantastic.


----------



## watchnerd

sonitus mirus said:


> Same with my 7 Plus.  In fact, I have to limit my listening sessions or I overdose on audio bliss.  Simply fantastic.


 
  
 So much more clarity, it's like:


----------



## JWolf

If you actually listen to what good audio is,you'd not be saying your Apple device is wonderful. It's really not. The best Apple device for audio is the iPod 4. The iPod Touches & iPhones are rubbish.


----------



## sonitus mirus

jwolf said:


> If you actually listen to what good audio is,you'd not be saying your Apple device is wonderful. It's really not. The best Apple device for audio is the iPod 4. The iPod Touches & iPhones are rubbish.


 
  
 The iPod 4 is an iPod Touch, I thought.  I have that, too.  Sounds yucky compared to my iPhone 7 Plus, and my hearing is outrageous.


----------



## SparkOnShore

jwolf said:


> If you actually listen to what good audio is,you'd not be saying your Apple device is wonderful. It's really not. The best Apple device for audio is the iPod 4. The iPod Touches & iPhones are rubbish.




Apple, best audio quality ever, on each and every Apple device, wired and now anymore wireless as well!! All rest companies will close soon enough!! Apple beat them all!!


----------



## JWolf

sonitus mirus said:


> The iPod 4 is an iPod Touch, I thought.  I have that, too.  Sounds yucky compared to my iPhone 7 Plus, and my hearing is outrageous.


 
  
 The iPod 4 is the 4th generation iPod. of the original iPods. No touch at all. Just the wheel.


----------



## JWolf

watchnerd said:


> Yours must be defective because my iPhone 6s blows away both TotalDAC and Auralic.  Just completely shames them into running home to their sugar daddies.


 
  
 I have a Fiio X3II and it blows away the iPhone 6s and there is nothing wrong with with my iPhone.


----------



## castleofargh

and there is the problem with sarcasm, not everybody will read it for what it is.

  
  
 now please remember that little thing called TOS, and how to talk to someone else.


----------



## sonitus mirus

jwolf said:


> The iPod 4 is the 4th generation iPod. of the original iPods. No touch at all. Just the wheel.


 
  
 Oh.  Gee, that changes everything.  I was clearly wrong about so many things.  I'm not even sure if I enjoy music anymore.


----------



## JWolf

castleofargh said:


> and there is the problem with sarcasm, not everybody will read it for what it is.


 
  
 Sarcasm doesn't always come over well on a forum. When you post something like that, you should read it over because it doesn't always work or is not quite worded so it comes across.


----------



## sonitus mirus

jwolf said:


> Sarcasm doesn't always come over well on a forum. When you post something like that, you should read it over because it doesn't always work or is not quite worded so it comes across.


 
  
 I think you got it just fine.


----------



## watchnerd

jwolf said:


> If you actually listen to what good audio is,you'd not be saying your Apple device is wonderful. It's really not. The best Apple device for audio is the iPod 4. The iPod Touches & iPhones are rubbish.


 
  
 Blown. A-W-A-Y.  Everything else scattered like leaves before a hurricane.
  
 Whooosh.


----------



## FiGuY1017

jwolf said:


> I have an iPhone 6s and it is not all that good. I can blow away any iPod Touch/iPhone in terms of sound with a Fiio X3II that costs less than $200. So yes, your iPod Touch 6 is nothing special.


 That was in my opinion. Your free to yours as well. Maybe my ears are low maintenance ..lucky (wallet) right..


----------



## JWolf

figuy1017 said:


> That was in my opinion. Your free to yours as well. Maybe my ears are low maintenance ..lucky (wallet) right..


 
  
 How is your wallet lucky? You can get a music player that's less than $200 that sounds better than the iPod Touch.


----------



## gregorio

jwolf said:


> If you actually listen to what good audio is,you'd not be saying your Apple device is wonderful. It's really not.


 
  
 I'm unclear now, is this quote sarcasm? If not, I "actually listen to what good audio is" for a living AND I'm saying my Apple device is wonderful. It really is! With the caveat of course, of what I'm using my device to drive, as others have mentioned. My opinion here is relatively worthless though, this is the science forum and measurements dictate that Apple devices are wonderful, very linear even compared to devices many times more expensive.
  
 G


----------



## FiGuY1017

jwolf said:


> How is your wallet lucky? You can get a music player that's less than $200 that sounds better than the iPod Touch.


 I own a ap100 (x5 level according to many')it's very good as well and a fiio x1. I use ipod mainly as transport for the modi multi bit to ican se for tidal. I just happen to after comparing them to be impressed with ipod since I was previously anti apple..


----------



## Ruben123

gregorio said:


> I'm unclear now, is this quote sarcasm? If not, I "actually listen to what good audio is" for a living AND I'm saying my Apple device is wonderful. It really is! With the caveat of course, of what I'm using my device to drive, as others have mentioned. My opinion here is relatively worthless though, this is the science forum and measurements dictate that Apple devices are wonderful, very linear even compared to devices many times more expensive.
> 
> G


 

 They cant sound better because theyre not dedicated audio devices!! (sarcasm)  I dont get why people keep on looking for things that are right there up to their noses. Having a good audio player in your pocket and even then looking for something... worse.....?


----------



## FiGuY1017

L


----------



## watchnerd

gregorio said:


> I'm unclear now, is this quote sarcasm? If not, I "actually listen to what good audio is" for a living AND I'm saying my Apple device is wonderful. It really is! With the caveat of course, of what I'm using my device to drive, as others have mentioned. My opinion here is relatively worthless though, this is the science forum and measurements dictate that Apple devices are wonderful, very linear even compared to devices many times more expensive.
> 
> G


 
  
 Here are some measurements on the iPhone 4 and 6.


----------



## castleofargh

personal taste is our own and there is no need to force it onto others as an objective truth because it's not. hearing an improvement is not evidence of  objective superiority, it's evidence of personal preferences. a taste thing. 
 while objective fidelity is verified only with objective measurements. and both will be conditional to how we use a device that has an amp section and what we plug in it.
  
 going to say device X is better than device Y because I hear it better, while not even mentioning the IEM/headphone used, that's a double no of very little help or significance.


----------



## gregorio

ruben123 said:


> I dont get why people keep on looking for things that are right there up to their noses.


 
  
 Because that's what they're deliberately manipulated to do, that's what marketing is for! It's what all the manufacturers of competing products desperately need you to believe, what all those who rely on income from marketing budgets need you to believe and what all those who've bought those products would like you to believe, to validate/support their own marketing driven opinions.
  
 G


----------



## JWolf

gregorio said:


> Because that's what they're deliberately manipulated to do, that's what marketing is for! It's what all the manufacturers of competing products desperately need you to believe, what all those who rely on income from marketing budgets need you to believe and what all those who've bought those products would like you to believe, to validate/support their own marketing driven opinions.
> 
> G


 
  
 It's not always marketing. It's sometimes what is. Yes, my Fiio X3II does sound better than my iPhone 6s. This is not because I want my X3II to be better. It's because my X3II IS better.


----------



## daulagiri

Well, my AK100ii miles better than my iphone 6s. But I have listening time for both anyways. I can't discover new music if I only use my AK to play my favorite songs . That task was given to my phone & streaming services i subd.

But come on guys, iDevices SQ is a acceptable. Even on newer iPod touch.


----------



## gregorio

jwolf said:


> It's not always marketing.


 
  
 Of course it is, or are you saying that Fiio don't market the X3II? Or are you saying that you, unlike other human beings, are somehow immune to marketing?
  
 The iPhone is flat/linear within the limits of audibility. For the X3 to actually produce some audible difference in sound (regardless of whether that difference is subjectively better or worse), it must therefore NOT be flat/linear within the limits of audibility. In which case the X3 is not better, it's worse!! Although of course some audiophiles actually have a preference for "worse" (audible distortion) and therefore might confuse their personal subjective preference for "better". As previously, there's the caveat of what is being driven by the dap, which might mean it's more suitable (rather that intrinsically "better") for your particular cans. There's also the potential caveat of some functionality difference (rather than a performance difference), which could make it more (or less) suitable in certain circumstances (say a music collection in some rare/esoteric format unsupported by the iPhone).
  
 G


----------



## FiGuY1017

For me and my ears my ipod touch 6 through my cayin c5 & ican se (ho)put up a good fight against my hidizs ap100. So maybe I'm workin with some untrained ears or the ipod is really not bad. Doesn't really matter I guess does it? I mean I like it ..someone else hates it..who cares lol


----------



## watchnerd

figuy1017 said:


> For me and my ears my ipod touch 6 through my cayin c5 & ican se (ho)put up a good fight against my hidizs ap100. So maybe I'm workin with some untrained ears or the ipod is really not bad. Doesn't really matter I guess does it? I mean I like it ..someone else hates it..who cares lol


 
  
 Just look the graphs and see the awesomeness:
  
 http://archimago.blogspot.com/2014/10/measurements-apple-iphone-4-iphone-6.html


----------



## FiGuY1017

watchnerd said:


> Just look the graphs and see the awesomeness: Hmm maybe I'm not tone deaf afterall!!16 bit is about all I do.. sounds about perfect.
> 
> http://archimago.blogspot.com/2014/10/measurements-apple-iphone-4-iphone-6.html


----------



## JWolf

watchnerd said:


> Just look the graphs and see the awesomeness:
> 
> http://archimago.blogspot.com/2014/10/measurements-apple-iphone-4-iphone-6.html


 
  
 I'll go one better. Here are graphs for the Fiio X3II. http://headphoniaks.com/blog/fiio-x3-ii-x3ii-x3k-analisis-review-1/2/


----------



## Ruben123

jwolf said:


> I'll go one better. Here are graphs for the Fiio X3II. http://headphoniaks.com/blog/fiio-x3-ii-x3ii-x3k-analisis-review-1/2/


 are they loaded or unloaded measurements?


----------



## watchnerd

jwolf said:


> I'll go one better. Here are graphs for the Fiio X3II. http://headphoniaks.com/blog/fiio-x3-ii-x3ii-x3k-analisis-review-1/2/


 
  
 not enough color, not so awesome


----------



## JWolf

ruben123 said:


> are they loaded or unloaded measurements?


 
  
 http://www.fiio.net/en/products/39/parameters
  
 There are better graphs that do say if loaded or not.


----------



## JWolf

watchnerd said:


> not enough color, not so awesome


 
  
 Look at the link in my previous message for better looking graphs at higher resolution.


----------



## castleofargh

headphoniaks measurements are actually pretty well done in general. sometimes you get the wrong unit written in the little grid trying to summarize all the values, but with a little attention between power and voltages makes it fairly obvious when it happens.
 I really like them for looking at more than just unloaded stuff like most websites(also in the last 2 years the only times I could justify learning Spanish was reading their reviews and watching the Escobar tv show
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





).
  
 they measured an iphone6 too for more directly comparable values. basically the X3II is a good deal better objectively except for the background noise.  but anybody who had a few Istuff devices knows that they tend to have a low background noise and are valued for that. they picked the fiio X1 as a closer comparison and even it doesn't have to be ashamed overall, so yeah fiio does well in the objective department. that too isn't a secret.
 I'm an apple hater, at an almost religious level because what I think about closing systems on purpose to trap the consumers would need a vocabulary not allowed on this website. but if I was just to judge on background noise that is my number one problem with my sensitive IEMs, and 95% of why I buy or don't buy a device, I would have to admit that out of the DAPs and cellphones I have owned and tried, apple stuff are still on top with the good kids of what I would count as transparent to my hear in most practical uses.


----------



## nrvenice

Generally appreciate this guys detailed measurements: http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/iphone-6s-plus-audio-quality.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/

Should put to rest many concerns.


----------



## Orestes1984

gregorio said:


> Of course it is, or are you saying that Fiio don't market the X3II? Or are you saying that you, unlike other human beings, are somehow immune to marketing?
> 
> The iPhone is flat/linear within the limits of audibility. For the X3 to actually produce some audible difference in sound (regardless of whether that difference is subjectively better or worse), it must therefore NOT be flat/linear within the limits of audibility. In which case the X3 is not better, it's worse!! Although of course some audiophiles actually have a preference for "worse" (audible distortion) and therefore might confuse their personal subjective preference for "better". As previously, there's the caveat of what is being driven by the dap, which might mean it's more suitable (rather that intrinsically "better") for your particular cans. There's also the potential caveat of some functionality difference (rather than a performance difference), which could make it more (or less) suitable in certain circumstances (say a music collection in some rare/esoteric format unsupported by the iPhone).
> 
> G



This, some people like some kind of distortion, actually the frequency response curve on an iphone is ruler flat. We don't really need to go round in circles deliberating this.


----------



## bigshot

It's a lot better to add coloration with an equalizer, rather than having a response imbalance hard wired into a player. You can adjust an equalizer to the way you want it. But a colored player is stuck at that coloration. Ruler flat is what people should want their players to be. Then they can add salt and pepper to taste.


----------



## Orestes1984 (Jul 10, 2017)

Of course, but we should keep in mind at the same time that the equaliser should have some kind of spectrum analyser so that we can see what the changes we are doing are actually doing and learn from it at the same time and actually see when we're getting clipping you might not even be hearing.


----------



## bigshot

Or just use your ears and experience to know what effect your EQ will make on the music.


----------



## Orestes1984

Either way is fine by me if you want to do it like that.


----------



## Sound Eq

can i ask which is the best dac/amp adapter cable for iphone xs, anything great in a cable like form factor


----------



## bfreedma

Sound Eq said:


> can i ask which is the best dac/amp adapter cable for iphone xs, anything great in a cable like form factor




Is the goal to connect to an external amp, or are you looking to use an external DAC and not the DAC in the phone?


----------



## Sound Eq

bfreedma said:


> Is the goal to connect to an external amp, or are you looking to use an external DAC and not the DAC in the phone?



no just something low profile like the fiio i1 but shorter, or something that is just small profile, or max the size of a fiio btr1k


----------



## bfreedma (Dec 14, 2018)

Sound Eq said:


> no just something low profile like the fiio i1 but shorter, or something that is just small profile, or max the size of a fiio btr1k



Can you be more specific?  Do you want to use the device as an amp while using the phone’s internal DAC, or do you want to use the device as a DAC and not have the phone DAC performing the digital to analog conversion?

Edit - I think I understand - you want a DAC/AMP in the form of a cable.  Is that correct?


----------



## Sound Eq

bfreedma said:


> Can you be more specific?  Do you want to use the device as an amp while using the phone’s internal DAC, or do you want to use the device as a DAC and not have the phone DAC performing the digital to analog conversion?
> 
> Edit - I think I understand - you want a DAC/AMP in the form of a cable.  Is that correct?



cable in dac/amp format but shorter than fiio i1


----------



## krismusic

Sound Eq said:


> cable in dac/amp format but shorter than fiio i1


Be warned that the difference that an external dac/amp can make are small and subtle.


----------



## bigshot

Or most likely non existent


----------



## Sterling2

When the iPhone is wired to anything it kind of precludes mobility. I instead use Airport Express for wireless enjoyment of music on my iPhone. The Airport Express is wired to prepro via S/PDIF connection so my prepro's DAC does the heavy lifting.


----------



## krismusic

I asked this in a new thread but did not receive any replies. This might be a good place to ask.  Apple dropped the HO jack socket and made it necessary to use dongle to run third party headphones. As the dongle contains a DAC, does that mean that there is no difference in sound between models after the 7?


----------



## SparkOnShore

krismusic said:


> I asked this in a new thread but did not receive any replies. This might be a good place to ask.  Apple dropped the HO jack socket and made it necessary to use dongle to run third party headphones. As the dongle contains a DAC, does that mean that there is no difference in sound between models after the 7?



Logically yes, there is no difference anymore in sound between models if you use the Apple dongle as headphone out.


----------



## krismusic

Logic would suggest that the DAC in the Apple dongle is very basic and cheap. Is an external dedicated DAC demonstrably better or is the DAC in the dongle all that is necessary?


----------



## SparkOnShore

krismusic said:


> Logic would suggest that the DAC in the Apple dongle is very basic and cheap. Is an external dedicated DAC demonstrably better or is the DAC in the dongle all that is necessary?



There is another thread dedicated to Apple dongle's audio quality, where actual measuring proves dongle to be rather capable, "good enough" so to say. I can't find the link though but I guess you can track it down easily yourself. 

Even though, I do not have personal experience since I've stopped using wired for a while now. I think Bluetooth audio is anymore good enough for me, as well as So convenient!!


----------



## krismusic

SparkOnShore said:


> There is another thread dedicated to Apple dongle's audio quality, where actual measuring proves dongle to be rather capable, "good enough" so to say. I can't find the link though but I guess you can track it down easily yourself.
> 
> Even though, I do not have personal experience since I've stopped using wired for a while now. I think Bluetooth audio is anymore good enough for me, as well as So convenient!!


I found Keen Rockwell's measurements. According to him external Dac's are a waste of time. I'd better retire my Chord Mojo then!


----------



## bigshot (Dec 24, 2018)

I have 9 iPods and have owned 3 iPhones, not to mention numerous Mac computers going back to the first one capable of CD quality sound, the 8500AV. Every one of them is audibly perfect to human ears. I've checked them against professional equipment and a high end DAC and they sound identical. If the Mac products meet your needs feature-wise, there is no reason for an outboard DAC. Unless the line out requires one. I haven't tried the dongle DAC yet, but based on my previous experience with dozens of Apple products, I would bet it is audibly perfect too. You can't judge fidelity by size or price any more. I think the reports of Apple products not sounding good are due to impedance mismatches from using the headphone out with headphones that weren't intended to be used that way. Through line out with proper amping, Apple products sound perfect.


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> I have 9 iPods and have owned 3 iPhones, not to mention numerous Mac computers going back to the first one capable of CD quality sound, the 8500AV. Every one of them is audibly perfect to human ears. I've checked them against professional equipment and a high end DAC and they sound identical. If the Mac products meet your needs feature-wise, there is no reason for an outboard DAC. Unless the line out requires one. I haven't tried the dongle DAC yet, but based on my previous experience with dozens of Apple products, I would bet it is audibly perfect too. You can't judge fidelity by size or price any more. I think the reports of Apple products not sounding good are due to impedance mismatches from using the headphone out with headphones that weren't intended to be used that way. Through line out with proper amping, Apple products sound perfect.


I know this is your take on the matter Bigshot. You have saved me from going down many a rabbit hole. However, for the longest time I heeded what you say about idevices. I could never settle and enjoy my music. I bought the Mojo. I have used it almost every day for two years now.  With it, I do enjoy my music. It seems to convey emotion rather than just sound. Maybe placebo but works for me.


----------



## bigshot (Dec 24, 2018)

Find out for sure if it's placebo. Test your Mojo. We have a group of people who will help you if you're interested.

By the way, electronics doesn't convey emotion. It conveys signals. MUSICIANS are the ones who convey emotion. You may just be listening to better music, which is the most economical way of all to improve your listening experience.

Better music doesn't cost more than lousy music. Why should equipment be any different?


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> Find out for sure if it's placebo. Test your Mojo. We have a group of people who will help you if you're interested.
> 
> By the way, electronics doesn't convey emotion. It conveys signals. MUSICIANS are the ones who convey emotion. You may just be listening to better music, which is the most economical way of all to improve your listening experience.
> 
> Better music doesn't cost more than lousy music. Why should equipment be any different?


I have always liked your take on audio matters. Audiophoole and otherwise. I enjoyed the rigour of disbelieving improvements via electronics were possible. From you I have learned that placebo and expectation bias are incredibly powerful. However years of listening with and without Mojo point to otherwise. I would be very interested and happy to carry out any tests you like. One caveat. One of the major components of any test may be unreliable. My ears!


----------



## sonitus mirus

krismusic said:


> I have always liked your take on audio matters. Audiophoole and otherwise. I enjoyed the rigour of disbelieving improvements via electronics were possible. From you I have learned that placebo and expectation bias are incredibly powerful. However years of listening with and without Mojo point to otherwise. I would be very interested and happy to carry out any tests you like. One caveat. One of the major components of any test may be unreliable. My ears!


The Chord Mojo is an outstanding DAC and headphone amp.  You seem to get it when it comes to specifications and audible differences, no need to try and confirm anything unless you are simply curious.  It doesn't always have to be about finding the most economical solution.  There is something about having a device that is highly lauded as being spectacular and that was specifically designed to do one task particularly well.  It probably doesn't perform better than a modern smartphone in most situations that matter with regards to audio playback, but nobody can account for the intangibles that personally appeal to you.


----------



## krismusic

sonitus mirus said:


> The Chord Mojo is an outstanding DAC and headphone amp.  You seem to get it when it comes to specifications and audible differences, no need to try and confirm anything unless you are simply curious.  It doesn't always have to be about finding the most economical solution.  There is something about having a device that is highly lauded as being spectacular and that was specifically designed to do one task particularly well.  It probably doesn't perform better than a modern smartphone in most situations that matter with regards to audio playback, but nobody can account for the intangibles that personally appeal to you.


Wise words and exactly how I feel about it. Happy Christmas!


----------



## bigshot

I totally understand loving a machine for no reason except for the fact that it works. Back in 1995, I got the first Mac with video and audio inputs. I promptly racked it up in the recording studio in the studio I was working at and started testing it, running CDs in through the RCA jacks and capturing them and then comparing the capture to the original CD. The results blew me away... I couldn't tell any difference at all. I did the same capturing laserdiscs through the S Video port and was just as impressed. I remember how liberating that felt. Finally, I could copy things and play them back perfectly. I did a million analogue rips on that machine and I still have them. That was the computer that first showed me the direction the future of my audio system was heading. Now I buy CDs and DVDs and promptly rip them to AAC and MKV files. I know someday I'll do that with my blu-rays too. I still look back on that computer with fondness. I still have it and it still runs. It has some long gone declickers and noise reduction software that I really love. I still have it here on a desk, even though I haven't fired it up in over ten years. I know someday I will and go back and rip some more records for old time's sake.

...but I REALLY want that new iMac Pro!


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> I totally understand loving a machine for no reason except for the fact that it works. Back in 1995, I got the first Mac with video and audio inputs. I promptly racked it up in the recording studio in the studio I was working at and started testing it, running CDs in through the RCA jacks and capturing them and then comparing the capture to the original CD. The results blew me away... I couldn't tell any difference at all. I did the same capturing laserdiscs through the S Video port and was just as impressed. I remember how liberating that felt. Finally, I could copy things and play them back perfectly. I did a million analogue rips on that machine and I still have them. That was the computer that first showed me the direction the future of my audio system was heading. Now I buy CDs and DVDs and promptly rip them to AAC and MKV files. I know someday I'll do that with my blu-rays too. I still look back on that computer with fondness. I still have it and it still runs. It has some long gone declickers and noise reduction software that I really love. I still have it here on a desk, even though I haven't fired it up in over ten years. I know someday I will and go back and rip some more records for old time's sake.
> 
> ...but I REALLY want that new iMac Pro!


I would be interested in any definitive test I could run to evaluate Mojo Vs iPhone. Much as I like Mojo, if I didn't need to carry it around that would be a plus. I also like to be aware if I am fooling myself.


----------



## gregorio

krismusic said:


> Logic would suggest that the DAC in the Apple dongle is very basic and cheap. Is an external dedicated DAC demonstrably better or is the DAC in the dongle all that is necessary?



Yes, the DAC in the Apple dongle is very cheap but then all DAC chips are very cheap. In the quantities that Apple buys them, they probably only cost about $1 but even the most expensive DAC chips are only about $5 and that's not because they intrinsically perform better but because they have added functionality; for example, a number of different, switchable programmable filters instead of just one. Even the $1 chips are audibly perfect/transparent these days (and have been for quite a few years).

Like others have said; If you like your DAC, enjoy it's visual design, it's feel, the pleasure of owning an expensive bit of kit and/or brand name, that's perfectly fine, it's your money, your choice and your pleasure. Actually achieving a higher fidelity audible improvement in performance though, that's a different kettle of fish!

G


----------



## krismusic

gregorio said:


> Yes, the DAC in the Apple dongle is very cheap but then all DAC chips are very cheap. In the quantities that Apple buys them, they probably only cost about $1 but even the most expensive DAC chips are only about $5 and that's not because they intrinsically perform better but because they have added functionality; for example, a number of different, switchable programmable filters instead of just one. Even the $1 chips are audibly perfect/transparent these days (and have been for quite a few years).
> 
> Like others have said; If you like your DAC, enjoy it's visual design, it's feel, the pleasure of owning an expensive bit of kit and/or brand name, that's perfectly fine, it's your money, your choice and your pleasure. Actually achieving a higher fidelity audible improvement in performance though, that's a different kettle of fish!
> 
> G


Thanks for the input Gregorio. I make you right. Happy Christmas.


----------



## stonesfan129

I have an iPod Touch 6th Gen 128gb and the sound quality on it is fine.  The only reason why I retired it is because I hate managing all my music through iTunes and iTunes would consistently fail to sync songs I had ticked to sync.  I use a 1st Gen FiiO X1 or 1st Gen FiiO X3 through MusicBee and never have any problems.  I like the "Wolfson" sound on the X3 also.  I just think that player is harder to use than the X1 so I mainly only use it at home and take the X1 when I'm out of the house.


----------



## Chivbrguy

stonesfan129 said:


> I have an iPod Touch 6th Gen 128gb and the sound quality on it is fine. The only reason why I retired it is because I hate managing all my music through iTunes and iTunes would consistently fail to sync songs I had ticked to sync. I use a 1st Gen FiiO X1 or 1st Gen FiiO X3 through MusicBee and never have any problems. I like the "Wolfson" sound on the X3 also. I just think that player is harder to use than the X1 so I mainly only use it at home and take the X1 when I'm out of the house.



I have the exact same ipod touch, but instead of using itunes, I found using Copytrans more simpler and intuitive. And with the ipod touch, I use a combination of FiiO's L9 (LOD) cable and an older version of Apple's lightning to 30 pin dock connector, which has the dac that gives that Wolfson like sound. So don't completely retire your ipod touch. What you have there is a gem of a device.


----------



## Redcarmoose (Dec 30, 2018)

I have 2 32gig IPod Touch Generation 6 iPods, use them all the time. I also have a 16gig IPod Touch 5th Generation. I have the original 1st gen Touch from 2005 still as well as have purchased most of the IPods over the years.

What can I say, I love them. They are easy to carry and easy to use. Though most of the time now I use Bluetooth IEMs. But out of curiosity I tested the new dongle by Apple and found it sounded exactly like the output of the iPod Touch. I couldn’t find a difference listening with my best and most resolving IEMs.

That said the Sony 1A and 1Z DAPs will wipe the floor with the Touch. It’s simply no comparison and much like the increase in sound quality you get by plugging into a top level home desktop system. Added the extra power by going balanced and it’s a whole new world, along with way more storage too. Obviously they cost way more too. 

Still I think the IPod Touch is the best form factor and size. I surf online with em all the time. Simply the most pleasant way to go on Head-Fi. IMO


----------



## stonesfan129

Chivbrguy said:


> I have the exact same ipod touch, but instead of using itunes, I found using Copytrans more simpler and intuitive. And with the ipod touch, I use a combination of FiiO's L9 (LOD) cable and an older version of Apple's lightning to 30 pin dock connector, which has the dac that gives that Wolfson like sound. So don't completely retire your ipod touch. What you have there is a gem of a device.



I have still had songs randomly fail sync even with CopyTrans so possibly the memory on this iPod is starting to fail.  I do like that program better than iTunes.  But I just find the FiiO players easier to use.  I'm actually thinking about selling this iPod Touch, but might way to see if Apple discontinues it soon and the value will go up like the iPod Classic did.


----------



## Chivbrguy

Redcarmoose said:


> I have 2 32gig IPod Touch Generation 6 iPods, use them all the time. I also have a 16gig IPod Touch 5th Generation. I have the original 1st gen Touch from 2005 still as well as have purchased most of the IPods over the years.
> 
> What can I say, I love them. They are easy to carry and easy to use. Though most of the time now I use Bluetooth IEMs. But out of curiosity I tested the new dongle by Apple and found it sounded exactly like the output of the iPod Touch. I couldn’t find a difference listening with my best and most resolving IEMs.
> 
> ...



I hear ya. I love mine too. It's been very reliable these past years. And the iPod feature I like most is the ability to wirelessly airplay my music to my home audio system, which to my ears sounds better than bluetooth. But I too may soon go the IEM/bluetooth route. When I tried out a few low cost bluetooth IEMs, I was quite surprised how not bad they sounded. They definitely can't compare to the best wired IEMs. But they would do for when I want to travel light, do a few quick errands, or be in hot climates. But for active and serious listening, I'll always remain a hard wired IEM traditionalist. 

And I'm going to have to try out the new Apple dongle with my setup and see whether or not if I can hear difference. If I don't, that would be great. Then I could just use one cable between the iPod and amplifier instead a combination of two.


----------



## Redcarmoose (Dec 31, 2018)

Chivbrguy said:


> I hear ya. I love mine too. It's been very reliable these past years. And the iPod feature I like most is the ability to wirelessly airplay my music to my home audio system, which to my ears sounds better than bluetooth. But I too may soon go the IEM/bluetooth route. When I tried out a few low cost bluetooth IEMs, I was quite surprised how not bad they sounded. They definitely can't compare to the best wired IEMs. But they would do for when I want to travel light, do a few quick errands, or be in hot climates. But for active and serious listening, I'll always remain a hard wired IEM traditionalist.
> 
> And I'm going to have to try out the new Apple dongle with my setup and see whether or not if I can hear difference. If I don't, that would be great. Then I could just use one cable between the iPod and amplifier instead a combination of two.



Honestly, I went and found a pair of special $600 IEMs which stuck way into my ears and blocked out most of the outside noise. The IEMs even came with a sound occlusion factor rating.

 After using them for two weeks I decided I could deal with the drop in quality from BT. I just do not like not having wires, plus you still get to use the Touch. But on the positive side, Bluetooth is getting better all the time. It’s just that walking around outside it does not matter if I use better equipment due to not being able to appreciate the sound.

I like these, about $40.
https://www.amazon.com/1MORE-Earphones-Headphones-Bluetooth-Waterproof/dp/B01H7KQ1Q2


----------



## Chivbrguy

Redcarmoose said:


> Honestly, I went and found a pair of special $600 IEMs which stuck way into my ears and blocked out most of the outside noise. The IEMs even came with a sound occlusion factor rating.
> 
> After using them for two weeks I decided I could deal with the drop in quality from BT. I just like not having wires, plus you still get to use the Touch. But on the positive side, Bluetooth is getting better all the time. It’s just that walking around outside it does not matter if I use better equipment due to not being able to appreciate the sound.
> 
> ...




Those BT earphones almost looks like one of the ones I tried out. This one below is one of the BT IEM's I heard.

https://www.amazon.com/iClever-Head...ing/dp/B06Y5GH1GN?ref_=bl_dp_s_web_8895353011

For that very cheap price, I was surprised how not bad it sounded. I was actually expecting it to sound like junk, but was impressed. On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate them about a 6 or 7. Next I'm going to have to check out the higher priced BT IEM's and see if there's a difference in the BT sound quality. But I can definitely see why most people choose the convenience of BT headphones over wired ones. Just like when most people preferred lossy audio files over lossless audio files. If it's cheaper and more convenient, most people will choose it.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Chivbrguy said:


> Those BT earphones almost looks like one of the ones I tried out. This one below is one of the BT IEM's I heard.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/iClever-Head...ing/dp/B06Y5GH1GN?ref_=bl_dp_s_web_8895353011
> 
> For that very cheap price, I was surprised how not bad it sounded. I was actually expecting it to sound like junk, but was impressed. On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate them about a 6 or 7. Next I'm going to have to check out the higher priced BT IEM's and see if there's a difference in the BT sound quality. But I can definitely see why most people choose the convenience of BT headphones over wired ones. Just like when most people preferred lossy audio files over lossless audio files. If it's cheaper and more convenient, most people will choose it.



Well, the ones I posted have pretty good reviews here on Head-Fi. And while they are not perfect they are good for me. The quality is all over the road. But 1More are responsible for a whole range of famous headphones and IEMs here. 

Piston
Piston 2
Piston 3 
1More Quad Driver 
1More Triple Driver

That’s off the top of my head, there is a bunch famous and loved here by them.


----------



## Sterling2 (Dec 31, 2018)

Redcarmoose said:


> I have 2 32gig IPod Touch Generation 6 iPods, use them all the time. I also have a 16gig IPod Touch 5th Generation. I have the original 1st gen Touch from 2005 still as well as have purchased most of the IPods over the years.
> 
> What can I say, I love them. They are easy to carry and easy to use. Though most of the time now I use Bluetooth IEMs. But out of curiosity I tested the new dongle by Apple and found it sounded exactly like the output of the iPod Touch. I couldn’t find a difference listening with my best and most resolving IEMs.
> 
> ...


 I only have experience with my iPhone 7+, no other portable digital music players. I listen to iTunes from my iPhone via Airport Express using S/PDIF connection to prepro, a circa 1999 Sony TA-E9000ES. My other means to iTunes Library is usb out from laptop to OPPO UDP-205 usb DAC up sampling to 24/192 with analog output going to TA-9000ES. My discovery is either method of iTunes delivery, the wired one or wireless one, seem to get almost indistinguishable results. It's definitely not in my case a whole new level even with AIFF 24/192 material played to the OPPO DAC. Only divergence noticed between players is AAC downloads played to OPPO DAC present more tail end details. In fact I can hear tape splice edits on some 50's and 60's DOO WOP, which I do not hear when playing from iPhone to HT. So, the only higher level performance I can discern seems to exist only when listening to the lowest quality recordings digitized at the lowest bit and bite rates. Interesting.


----------



## Redcarmoose

Sterling2 said:


> I only have experience with my iPhone 7+, no other portable digital music players. I listen to iTunes from my iPhone via Airport Express using S/PDIF connection to prepro, a circa 1999 Sony TA-E9000ES. My other means to iTunes Library is usb out from laptop to OPPO UDP-205 usb DAC up sampling to 24/192 with analog output going to TA-9000ES. My discovery is either method of iTunes delivery, the wired one or wireless one, seem to get almost indistinguishable results. It's definitely not in my case a whole new level even with AIFF 24/192 material played to the OPPO DAC. Only divergence noticed between players is AAC downloads played to OPPO DAC present more tail end details. In fact I can hear tape splice edits on some 50's and 60's DOO WOP, which I do not hear when playing from iPhone to HT. So, the only higher level performance I can discern seems to exist only when listening to the lowest quality recordings digitized at the lowest bit and bite rates. Interesting.



Well it’s maybe very subjective and personal. But remember too, your not listening to the analog output of an iPhone or iPod; that’s the question that this thread is addressing. Thus your getting an enhancement by-passing any analog output. 

The title of the thread is questioning the sound quality of the IPhone, IPod, and IPad. So it is probably changing in time. In 2009 more iPods were used by audiophiles. I still really like the output though I now have other choices. Funny too as I have defended the regular outputs for years, probibly in this very thread! The IPod sounds better straight out of the 3.5mm than numerous audiophile DAPs today even now. Though it may be just my opinion after 13 years of listening to Apple devices? 

Still my advice to anyone looking to buy a $300 IPod Touch for strictly listening would be; find $400 more and get a used Sony WM 1A. The difference of what they can do is night and day.


----------



## bigshot

I have a pile of iPods of all generations, two different iPads, Macs going back to the first AV mac, and three different iPhones from the first to the 6. They all sound exactly the same... they're all audibly transparent.


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> I have a pile of iPods of all generations, two different iPads, Macs going back to the first AV mac, and three different iPhones from the first to the 6. They all sound exactly the same... they're all audibly transparent.


I still say that there is a sterility to the sound of the iPhone. Maybe Mojo is simply introducing distortion of some kind. Whatever, IME it makes listening to my music most enjoyable. Happy New Year Bigshot.


----------



## Sterling2

Redcarmoose said:


> Well it’s maybe very subjective and personal. But remember too, your not listening to the analog output of an iPhone or iPod; that’s the question that this thread is addressing. Thus your getting an enhancement by-passing any analog output.
> 
> The title of the thread is questioning the sound quality of the IPhone, IPod, and IPad. So it is probably changing in time. In 2009 more iPods were used by audiophiles. I still really like the output though I now have other choices. Funny too as I have defended the regular outputs for years, probibly in this very thread! The IPod sounds better straight out of the 3.5mm than numerous audiophile DAPs today even now. Though it may be just my opinion after 13 years of listening to Apple devices?
> 
> Still my advice to anyone looking to buy a $300 IPod Touch for strictly listening would be; find $400 more and get a used Sony WM 1A. The difference of what they can do is night and day.


"after 13 years", yes, I believe you could come to enjoy the sound as being what the sound should sound like. Some folks do not like digital images because  they don't look  like what a picture is supposed to look like. They perceive images from film are what pictures are supposed to look like. At any rate, I should have identified my post as a side bar to this topic, since I have almost no experience with Apple DACS other than the rare occasion when my wife makes me use earbuds when listening to music she does not appreciate, like shuffle dance music.


----------



## Chivbrguy

Redcarmoose said:


> Well, the ones I posted have pretty good reviews here on Head-Fi. And while they are not perfect they are good for me. The quality is all over the road. But 1More are responsible for a whole range of famous headphones and IEMs here.
> 
> Piston
> Piston 2
> ...





Thanks for the recommendations! I'm going to research more about them. I kind of have my eyes on the 1More Quad Driver as a possible upgrade from my Atrios. 
And I've been reading rave reviews about them. The only concern I have is there might be some reliability issues. But I'm going to definitely put them on my list as a potential upgrade.


----------



## bigshot

Sterling2 said:


> Some folks do not like digital images because  they don't look  like what a picture is supposed to look like. They perceive images from film are what pictures are supposed to look like.



It's a lot easier to make digital look like film than to make film look like perfectly clean digital. Likewise, it's easier to make digital audio sound like analog than vice versa.


----------



## Redcarmoose (Jan 2, 2019)

Chivbrguy said:


> Thanks for the recommendations! I'm going to research more about them. I kind of have my eyes on the 1More Quad Driver as a possible upgrade from my Atrios.
> And I've been reading rave reviews about them. The only concern I have is there might be some reliability issues. But I'm going to definitely put them on my list as a potential upgrade.



I enjoyed the Triple Drivers but wore them out in the rain and they subsequently failed soon after. I still have two sets of the original Piston 3 IEMs and they have held up.

The only edition available today for sale that I know of is called the Piston 3 Fresh Edition. The Fresh edition is a cheaper style build of the Piston 3 which sells for about $9. The Fresh Edition is nice, but really nothing as fantastic as the Piston 3 original was.

 But the original Piston 3 has been sold out for ages. They are built so well I would actually consider getting a used pair. Buying someone’s used $30 IEM is normally an edgy venture, but the Piston 3 IEMs are made well.

 After owning the Triple Drivers I would still think they are a deal for today’s regular price of $59. Though you are right some folks do have reliability issues. That is the reason I maybe would not buy the Quad Drivers for $199? The iBfree is about $40 and a great deal too, though it being Bluetooth can’t exactly complete with the Piston 3 for sound quality; though it’s enjoyable.

I have never heard the 1More Quad Drivers, but if I was going to spend $199, I would buy the BGVP DM6. Hands down the DM6 is the best $199 headphone or IEM I have ever owned.


Sorry for being off topic.


----------



## gregorio

Redcarmoose said:


> Still my advice to anyone looking to buy a $300 IPod Touch for strictly listening would be; find $400 more and get a used Sony WM 1A. The difference of what they can do is night and day.



This being the Sound Science forum, you need to back that up with some evidence as it appears to contradict the facts! The facts are: AFAIK, the output of an iPod Touch is flat throughout the spectrum to about +/-  0.2dB, so even if a WM1A does have better performance, it wouldn't be an audibly better performance and certainly not "night and day" better. Finding an extra $400 for an inaudible improvement (assuming there is even an improvement in the first place) would therefore appear to be particularly poor advice. However, the performance of any amp (including the amp section of the iPod output) is determined by the load (HPs), so it is possible the WM 1A might provide an audible improvement with certain HPs, assuming it has higher output voltage and/or lower impedance. If it hasn't, then your advice is incorrect and if it has, then your advice should be conditional (on the individual's load) and NOT aimed at "anyone looking to buy an iPod".



Sterling2 said:


> Some folks do not like digital images because they don't look like what a picture is supposed to look like. They perceive images from film are what pictures are supposed to look like



I'm not sure if that analogy is applicable. I don't know the fine details of exactly how digital image capture works but with digital audio we don't really have the equivalent of digital image capture. "Image capture" in digital audio is still analogue, microphone capsules output analogue signals (an electric current), digital audio then just stores that analogue electrical current as digital data. As far as I understand digital image capture, a more accurate analogy would therefore arguably be an image captured on film and then digitised. In which case there is no reason (beyond expectation bias or deliberate artistic intent by the creators) why the pictures would not be perceived how they "are supposed to look like". 

G


----------



## Sterling2 (Jan 2, 2019)

The analogy is quite applicable, the preference for a "look" characteristic  from a picture being analogous to a preference for a "sound" characteristic  from music, both based on beliefs about what things should look or sound like.


----------



## Redcarmoose (Jan 2, 2019)

gregorio said:


> This being the Sound Science forum, you need to back that up with some evidence as it appears to contradict the facts! The facts are: AFAIK, the output of an iPod Touch is flat throughout the spectrum to about +/-  0.2dB, so even if a WM1A does have better performance, it wouldn't be an audibly better performance and certainly not "night and day" better. Finding an extra $400 for an inaudible improvement (assuming there is even an improvement in the first place) would therefore appear to be particularly poor advice. However, the performance of any amp (including the amp section of the iPod output) is determined by the load (HPs), so it is possible the WM 1A might provide an audible improvement with certain HPs, assuming it has higher output voltage and/or lower impedance. If it hasn't, then your advice is incorrect and if it has, then your advice should be conditional (on the individual's load) and NOT aimed at "anyone looking to buy an iPod".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Of course, so sorry, I actually didn’t realize this was even SS. I’m not a scientist in any way. All my opinions are my own subjective listening tests. Just my own experiences recorded.

But, you’ll also find a post just a couple posts back where a member confessed an epiphany concerning recorded and measured sound quality as opposed to learning that devices such as DAPs can sound better than a phone. He himself posted a revelation concerning finding different choices made his listening experiences better. If anything posts like we are reading the last couple pages simply induce speculation. Subjective speculation where folks can find out by simply trying out other choices than being relaxed hopping their iPod is getting them the best entertainment experience for their investment.

Truly in any forum in Head-Fi other than SS your going to get a pretty big smile from readers reading that there is an argument that phones sound equivalent to high end DAPs. The group consensus pretty much validated that DAPs are better than an iPhone or iPod. If it can be proven that there are other qualities brought to the table other than amp power it would be of value. There has to be a scientific, provable and factual set of test results which to verify why DAPs are popular for some over simply using a phone or iPod?

In contrast to the iPod Touch the Sony 1Z is probably adding a V signature “color” which is in direct contrast to the great flat response graphs we have for the Touch. The Touch does measure well, but I have to guess these popular DAPs are bringing other qualities to the table to further their popularity.


You have to remember too, I was the guy using iPods and defending iPod sound quality measurements for so long at Head-Fi. The last thing I would want is to convince new readers that they need an expensive unreasonably priced DAP, when all they need is a phone.

It’s maybe true in many cases with volume levels needed and individual  transducer requirements noted; that a phone IS the best choice.


Still in my personal subjective history my DAPs offer higher resolution sounding playback. The soundstage seems bigger and there seems to better imaging and a blacker background. How much of this is the simple improvement from a balanced source I can’t say.

But in the end I do have to agree my perception of better musicality could be the result of color and finding a tone along with output power which goes along with the sound I’m after.


----------



## bigshot

Sterling2 said:


> The analogy is quite applicable, the preference for a "look" characteristic  from a picture being analogous to a preference for a "sound" characteristic  from music, both based on beliefs about what things should look or sound like.



If there's a particular coloration that you like, it's easier and precise to apply that in a DSP over the top of something that is perfectly clean than it is to roll the dice and apply coloration through analogue error. There's nothing wrong with coloration. It's just better to have total control over it. If you want euphonic distortion or response deviation, there are lots of DSPs that can do that for you with complete control so you can fine tune it however you'd like.


----------



## bigshot

Redcarmoose said:


> Still in my personal subjective history my DAPs offer higher resolution sounding playback. The soundstage seems bigger and there seems to better imaging and a blacker background. How much of this is the simple improvement from a balanced source I can’t say.



All of those things you describe are textbook examples of how people describe improvements in sound which turn out to be expectation bias. People rarely describe differences in distortion or response or things that actually might be different. They describe vague things that have more to do with the way they are perceiving the music than the way the music is being reproduced.


----------



## gregorio

Redcarmoose said:


> [1] Truly in any forum in Head-Fi other than SS your going to get a pretty big smile from readers reading that there is an argument that phones sound equivalent to high end DAPs.
> [2] The group consensus pretty much validated that DAPs are better than an iPhone or iPod.
> [3] If it can be proven that there are other qualities brought to the table other than amp power it would be of value.
> [4] There has to be a scientific, provable and factual set of test results which to verify why DAPs are popular for some over simply using a phone or iPod?
> [5] In contrast to the iPod Touch the Sony 1Z is probably adding a V signature “color” which is in direct contrast to the great flat response graphs we have for the Touch. The Touch does measure well, but I have to guess these popular DAPs are bringing other qualities to the table to further their popularity.



1. That unfortunately says a lot about "any forum in Head-fi other than SS"!

2. That's why this forum in needed, especially as that "group consensus" is so manipulated by marketing interests.

3. It would be of passing interest but wouldn't really change the basic issue, because even if a DAP had better DAC performance than an iPhone/iPod it would be inaudible. Audibly perfect DAC chips cost about $1.50, probably less than $1 in the quantities Apple buy.

4. There has to be some reliable evidence, something more than just "my impression" or "I strongly believe". It's trivially easy to measure performance, a null test takes just a few minutes and you just compare the null test results of the DAP with null test results of the iPod. However, that's if we're talking about actual audio performance, there maybe functionality reasons why a DAP might be preferable to an iPod or maybe some fashion or status symbol reason.

5. I've personally got no problem with someone preferring a coloured (and therefore lower fidelity) playback device. My problem comes when they describe their coloured playback device as being higher fidelity, when in fact it's actually lower fidelity, and state that it's "better", when in fact it's actually "worse"!  What they really mean (apparently without realising it) by "better" is really: "Technically worse, but closer to my personal preferences". The problem is that those to whom the advice is being given typically (and unsurprisingly) assume that "better" actually means "better", "higher fidelity" actually means "higher fidelity" and that a "night and day difference" means that they must be ignorant if they don't hear it!

G


----------



## bigshot

General consensus on internet forums is usually a product of people who really don't know what they're talking about.


----------



## Chivbrguy

Redcarmoose said:


> I enjoyed the Triple Drivers but wore them out in the rain and they subsequently failed soon after. I still have two sets of the original Piston 3 IEMs and they have held up.
> 
> The only edition available today for sale that I know of is called the Piston 3 Fresh Edition. The Fresh edition is a cheaper style build of the Piston 3 which sells for about $9. The Fresh Edition is nice, but really nothing as fantastic as the Piston 3 original was.
> 
> ...





Ok, I'm going to explore my options. Thanks again for the recommendations!


----------



## gregorio

Sterling2 said:


> The analogy is quite applicable, the preference for a "look" characteristic from a picture being analogous to a preference for a "sound" characteristic from music, both based on beliefs about what things should look or sound like.



Yes but your assertion was that some people don't like the "look" of digital images because they are captured digitally and instead prefer the "look" of analogue capture (film). This analogy doesn't work with sound because all capture of sound is analogue and therefore, whether people prefer a "characteristic look" of analogue is meaningless because they only ever get the "characteristic look" of analogue and there is no equivalent of "digital sound capture" to compare it to..

G


----------



## Sterling2

gregorio said:


> Yes but your assertion was that some people don't like the "look" of digital images because they are captured digitally and instead prefer the "look" of analogue capture (film). This analogy doesn't work with sound because all capture of sound is analogue and therefore, whether people prefer a "characteristic look" of analogue is meaningless because they only ever get the "characteristic look" of analogue and there is no equivalent of "digital sound capture" to compare it to..
> 
> G


Ah gee, ya might want to re-read my post. The analogy is about people having a preference for how they believe  something should be: what something should sound like, taste like, feel like, smell like, or look like from their pleasant or unpleasant experiences with things that are appraised on their  taste, feel, and so forth.  The analogy does indeed work, the point of it is that we all have preferences about most anything we consume and these preferences are developed from the earliest exposures with what ever it is we are consuming.  That's it. I used the photographic example of preference since it is understandable, that's to say, everyone knows that images from film do not look like images produced digitally; and, some folks, having developed a belief  that a picture from film is what pictures are supposed to look like, reject digital images because to them, the pictures do not look like what a picture is supposed to look like.


----------



## gregorio

Sterling2 said:


> The analogy is about people having a preference for how they believe something should be: what something should sound like, taste like, feel like, smell like, or look like from their pleasant or unpleasant experiences with things that are appraised on their taste, feel, and so forth.



How can someone have a preference for something that they've never experienced and doesn't exist? There is no equivalent of digital image capture with sound, there is ONLY analogue sound capture.

G


----------



## Sterling2 (Jan 3, 2019)

gregorio said:


> How can someone have a preference for something that they've never experienced and doesn't exist? There is no equivalent of digital image capture with sound, there is ONLY analogue sound capture.
> 
> G


I don't know how anyone could have a preference for anything that stimulates the senses without exposures to several examples within the genre; but, that's moot, as well as  an analogy requiring equivalency, did you make that up. It only requires partial similarity, and my comment satisfies that requirement: folks preferring an image making process for the Look believed to be the way it ought to be is similar to preferring a music reproduction process for the Sound believed to be the way it ought to be. In this analogy it does not matter that the  processes or recipe used to bake the compared products are similar processes, only that a process may produce a preference.


----------



## gregorio

Sterling2 said:


> In this analogy it does not matter that the processes or recipe used to bake the compared products are similar processes, only that a process may produce a preference.



But that's my point, there are no "similar" or any other sort of "processes", there is only one process, there has been only one process for at least 80 years or so (a musician performs in a room and an (analogue) mic + mic pre-amp is used to capture that performance). So, how can YOUR statement: "_only that a process may produce a preference_" ever be satisfied? How can you have a "preference" for a particular process if there is only ONE process to choose from ... what are you going to prefer it to?

G


----------



## Sterling2 (Jan 4, 2019)

gregorio said:


> But that's my point, there are no "similar" or any other sort of "processes", there is only one process, there has been only one process for at least 80 years or so (a musician performs in a room and an (analogue) mic + mic pre-amp is used to capture that performance). So, how can YOUR statement: "_only that a process may produce a preference_" ever be satisfied? How can you have a "preference" for a particular process if there is only ONE process to choose from ... what are you going to prefer it to?
> 
> G


A process is a chain of events; therefore, when a  result  is possible from a chain which is divergent from another, a preference for one chain can be made if the result from one chain is more desirable. Today there are many chains to deliver recorded music, some where music is stored digitally, some not, so, a preference is possible merely from perception, or impression of the delivered products quality. A gross example is LPs may present distracting snap, crackle, and pop, while CDs are pop free. This singular divergence could cause someone to have a preference for CDs.


----------



## gregorio

Sterling2 said:


> A process is a chain of events; therefore, when a result is possible from a chain which is divergent from another, a preference for one chain can be made if the result from one chain is more desirable.



Again, that's my point. The "chain of events" of image capture IS divergent, one can capture an image using analogue technology (say with film) or capture a digital image. But with sound we can't, there is no divergent "chain of events", there is only one "chain of events", analogue sound capture. Therefore a result is NOT "possible from a chain which is divergent from another" and there can be no "preference" or "desirability" for one "chain of events" over another, because there are no other "chain of events"! This discussion is becoming surreal!

G


----------



## Sterling2 (Jan 5, 2019)

gregorio said:


> Again, that's my point. The "chain of events" of image capture IS divergent, one can capture an image using analogue technology (say with film) or capture a digital image. But with sound we can't, there is no divergent "chain of events", there is only one "chain of events", analogue sound capture. Therefore a result is NOT "possible from a chain which is divergent from another" and there can be no "preference" or "desirability" for one "chain of events" over another, because there are no other "chain of events"! This discussion is becoming surreal!
> 
> G


I'll give you possible:
film>digital scan>digital edit>digital post / film>print
magnetic tape>digital conversion>digital edit>digital post / magnetic tape> analog edit> analog post 
End of conversation.


----------



## bigshot

Let me know when we start talking about sound reproduction again.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Jan 8, 2019)

I have in my bedroom a(unbeknownst to me 100W per ch!!) Pioneer receiver with 7 band graphic EQ that I use for a headphone amp.  It's an early one, pseudo-surround, even before Pro Logic.  I know, I know - It's like using a 5 megaton-tipped 1960s Titan to dynamite a boulder under the street(!), but what I do is plug my device into that, headphone into the receiver, set the receiver volume to 12 o'clock, and adjust my listening volume on the iPod or other device itself. (Of course I remember to fully CCW the Pioneer volume before disconnecting everything)  That receiver is not part of any system: stereo, home theatre or otherwise.  Just HP amp overkill  !

Seven bands is sufficient to iron out any obvious exaggeration depending upon which headphone I've attached, otherwise I leave the EQ flat. (EQ is of course off/flat on any device I'm using)  Some times I add some 80Hz with the Pio with it if I'm listening at a low volume,  IE nodding off.

My middle-aged ears can't really tell the difference between plugged into that receiver or plugged directly into, IE, my iPod Touch, but I'm guessing, as I am running things above, that the Pioneer will not run out of steam as readily as the iPod would when driving higher impedance cans, especially in the bottom region, below 100Hz.


----------



## SergeSE

Audio quality of Apple Lightning to 3.5mm adapter (A1749) is almost as good as in-built mobile audio solutions by Apple, though it has slightly worse df-measurements. Mostly due to the higher jitter. But if you listen music you will not hear the difference; it is too subtle to be perceived. Df-slide with standard SE measurements:


----------



## elfary (Jan 17, 2019)

SergeSE said:


> Audio quality of Apple Lightning to 3.5mm adapter (A1749) is almost as good as in-built mobile audio solutions by Apple, though it has slightly worse df-measurements. Mostly due to the higher jitter. But if you listen music you will not hear the difference; it is too subtle to be perceived. Df-slide with standard SE measurements:



Who has devised and certified this objective appraisal?

Audio source performance used to be very well explained by: Output impedance, noise floor, IMD, THD and crosstalk while driving a load.

Specifically, what does this weird procedure tells about the output impedance of the source which is the most critical parameter for balanced armature earphones? High Zout, no linear signal, skewed tonal balance.

This method leaves me perplexed enough to be curious about its foundation.

For what it's worth the Lightning to 3.5 dongle has no noise, almost 0 Zout, and very low THD, IMD and crosstalk. Actually it's better than Apple built in jacks b/c it's better at the most critical parameters: Zout, noise floor and clipping performance.

2009 iPod Classic has 5 ohms of Zout which makes it worse than the dongle by a long shot.Specially with low impedance/balanced armature earphones.

It seems to me that this appraisal is flawed by neglecting Zout.


----------



## Redcarmoose (Jan 17, 2019)

elfary said:


> Who has devised and certified this objective appraisal?
> 
> Audio source appraisals used to be very well explained by: Output impedance, noise floor, IMD, THD and crosstalk while driving a load.
> 
> ...



Using the Noble Encore IEMs I could not differentiate between the Apple Lighting Dongle and the IPod Touch 6th Generation output. The tone, power and personality were subjectively exactly the same. In a way it’s amazing they were able to replicate the quality to a T.


----------



## elfary

Redcarmoose said:


> Using the Noble Encore IEMs I could not differentiate between the Apple Lighting Dongle and the IPod Touch 6th Generation output. The tone, power and personality were subjectively exactly the same. In a way it’s amazing they were able to replicate the quality to a T.



Have no tried Tocuh 6G but dongle is pinch better than any 'jacked' iPhone i have tried (all) for driving low impedance/balanced armature iems.

What i can assure you is that you would prefer your Touch to an iPod Classic 2009 (its 5 ohms of Zout are really discernible).


----------



## Redcarmoose (Jan 17, 2019)

elfary said:


> Have no tried Tocuh 6G but dongle is pinch better than any 'jacked' iPhone i have tried (all) for driving low impedance/balanced armature iems.
> 
> What i can assure you is that you would prefer your Touch to an iPod Classic 2009 (its 5 ohms of Zout are really discernible).



I have had most of the IPods. The Classic I had was called the IPod Video or something probably around 2006? I had the 1/2 gigabyte Shuffle, the Mini, the first Touch, a 5th generation Touch and two 6th generation Touch players.

But the Shuffle sounded the best. Though I still think the 5th Generation sounds slightly warmer than the 6th Generations? But yes, the Classic is maybe not the best sounding? Funny too as they became really expensive once they were discontinued.

But the IPod Touch is a great interface. I use IPods all day long out of the house.


----------



## elfary

Redcarmoose said:


> I have had most of the IPods. The Classic I had was called the IPod Video or something probably around 2006? I had the 1/2 gigabyte Shuffle, the Mini, the first Touch, a 5th generation Touch and two 6th generation Touch players.
> 
> But the Shuffle sounded the best. Though I still think the 5th Generation sounds slightly warmer than the 6th Generations? But yes, the Classic is maybe not the best sounding? Funny too as they became really expensive once they were discontinued.
> 
> But the IPod Touch is a great interface. I use IPods all day long out of the house.



I loved the 2009 iPod Classic in spite of its Achilles heel (5ohms of Zout),

Actually i started a thread commending it back in 2009 when bashing iPods sound quality was the norm to abide to in order to appear cool 

The click wheel was an amazing piece of UI. And size was great. And the huge aftermarket...aww miss those days when Apple was just about music.


----------



## SergeSE

elfary said:


> It seems to me that this appraisal is flawed by neglecting Zout.


I would say it is not complete as only 32 Ohm load was used. But within this restriction the "appraisal" just confirms conclusions of other researchers. While using different approach to audio measurements


----------



## bigshot

SergeSE said:


> Audio quality of Apple Lightning to 3.5mm adapter (A1749) is almost as good as in-built mobile audio solutions by Apple, though it has slightly worse df-measurements. Mostly due to the higher jitter.



That looks very similar to the Airports. I have several of those and they are all fine. Those jitter ratings are well beneath the threshold of audibility with normal use.


----------



## elfary

SergeSE said:


> I would say it is not complete as only 32 Ohm load was used. But within this restriction the "appraisal" just confirms conclusions of other researchers. While using different approach to audio measurements



Output impedance is the impedance of the amplifier. The lower the better.


----------



## SergeSE

elfary said:


> Output impedance is the impedance of the amplifier. The lower the better.


And in order to measure it you need to use at least one more load (or no-load). I agree, it's important parameter. When I have accurate enough V-meter the parameter will be added to df-slide.


----------



## krismusic

I still say that my experience is that iPhones make noise. Mojo DAC makes music. I would love to think that the iPhone is the be all and end all but that is simply not my experience.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

SergeSE said:


> Audio quality of Apple Lightning to 3.5mm adapter (A1749) is almost as good as in-built mobile audio solutions by Apple, though it has slightly worse df-measurements. Mostly due to the higher jitter. But if you listen music you will not hear the difference; it is too subtle to be perceived. Df-slide with standard SE measurements:



So what exactly does that graph mean, that the average noise floor is -26dB full scale?


----------



## bigshot (Jan 18, 2019)

krismusic said:


> I still say that my experience is that iPhones make noise. Mojo DAC makes music.



That's odd because I played a Beethoven symphony on my iPhone last night and it sure sounded like music to me. I think you might be a teenie weenie bit mistaken there.



TheSonicTruth said:


> So what exactly does that graph mean, that the average noise floor is -26dB full scale?



This is distortion (or differences in the signal), not noise. Looks to me like it says that it reproduces music audibly perfect. It doesn't do quite as well with waveforms that don't exist in real life, like square waves and triangle waves. That's to be expected. Those are considered illegal signals in digital audio. They put them on the chart so it looks like something. Otherwise it would be a perfect straight line.


----------



## krismusic (Jan 18, 2019)

bigshot said:


> That's odd because I played a Beethoven symphony on my iPhone last night and it sure sounded like music to me. I think you might be a teenie weenie bit mistaken there.


I would love to be content with the phone alone. Carrying the Mojo around is a PITA. I tried for years to get comfortable with the phone. In fact only today I tried it again. I ended up using the Mojo. There is a definite improvement in realism.


----------



## bigshot

I would bet the improvement  has to do with the impedance of your headphones, not the iPod or the DAC. A small Altoids Cmoy amp would probably produce the same realism and you wouldn't need the DAC.


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> I would bet the improvement  has to do with the impedance of your headphones, not the iPod or the DAC. A small Altoids Cmoy amp would probably produce the same realism and you wouldn't need the DAC.


I did try a few amps along the way...


----------



## bigshot

Were you keeping tabs on the impedance? Which ones worked the best and what kind of headphones do you use? This stuff makes a difference. The DAC usually doesn't. I think if you found the right amp for your iPhone, it would sound as good as your expensive DAC. Mine does.

Also, describing the difference as "realism" sounds a lot like expectation bias. Did you do blind comparisons that were level matched?


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> Were you keeping tabs on the impedance? Which ones worked the best and what kind of headphones do you use? This stuff makes a difference. The DAC usually doesn't. I think if you found the right amp for your iPhone, it would sound as good as your expensive DAC. Mine does.
> 
> Also, describing the difference as "realism" sounds a lot like expectation bias. Did you do blind comparisons that were level matched?


I am unfortunately not remotely technically minded. I tried various amps. Probably the best was a Headstage Arrow. Best in that it didn't colour the sound the way, for example, the Teac that I tried did. The headphones are Noble K10 Ciem's. The cost of the Mojo is long forgotten. I have come to the conclusion that blind tests are not useful due to my inability to pick out minute differences that are non the less important. The only true test is how much I enjoy listening to my music over an extended period of time. I agree that my nebulous terminology for the improvements that I am claiming sound like classic expectation bias. All I can say is that bias has held good for me for about three years now. I used to enjoy the purity of rejecting extravagant claims for esoteric gear. I would far rather be on your side of the fence but my experience simply does not back that position.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> Were you keeping tabs on the impedance? Which ones worked the best and what kind of headphones do you use? This stuff makes a difference. The DAC usually doesn't. I think if you found the right amp for your iPhone, it would sound as good as your expensive DAC. Mine does.
> 
> Also, describing the difference as "realism" sounds a lot like expectation bias. Did you do blind comparisons that were level matched?





krismusic said:


> I am unfortunately not remotely technically minded. I tried various amps. Probably the best was a Headstage Arrow. Best in that it didn't colour the sound the way, for example, the Teac that I tried did. The headphones are Noble K10 Ciem's. The cost of the Mojo is long forgotten. I have come to the conclusion that blind tests are not useful due to my inability to pick out minute differences that are non the less important. The only true test is how much I enjoy listening to my music over an extended period of time. I agree that my nebulous terminology for the improvements that I am claiming sound like classic expectation bias. All I can say is that bias has held good for me for about three years now. I used to enjoy the purity of rejecting extravagant claims for esoteric gear. I would far rather be on your side of the fence but my experience simply does not back that position.




Bigshot: You must understand that with audiophiles, just spending a lot of money can make something sound different. 

LOL!


----------



## krismusic

TheSonicTruth said:


> Bigshot: You must understand that with audiophiles, just spending a lot of money can make something sound different.
> 
> LOL!


I'm obviously not going to convince anyone here and don't really need to. I don't appreciate being patronised though.


----------



## stonesfan129 (Jan 19, 2019)

My main reason for stepping away from my iPod Touch as my music player is that every time I put music on it, iTunes fails to sync some of my songs.  I verified that they are AAC files encoded by the same encoder iTunes uses to encode them.  Sometimes they will sync, sometimes they will fail to sync.  I also tried using CopyTrans instead of iTunes, but get the same issue.  With my FiiO X1, FiiO X3 and MusicBee, songs never fail syncing.  I like the way the FiiO players sound compared to the iPod even with the same files.  I guess if the sound is colored in some way then that's what I find preferable.  All three players have no problems driving my Sennheiser HD598SE headphones.  Maybe the amplification is different between the three, I'm not entirely sure.  I could probably carry an amp with the iPod but why do that when I can get the FiiO, have it sound good and not have to carry some monstrosity rubber-banded together?  The battery also drained very quickly on it.  I would get maybe 6 hrs listening to music before the battery would die.  This was even faster when I had the wifi turned on.  With that off, battery still dead in about 6 hrs.  FiiO X1 I can go two weeks back and forth to work before I have to put it on the charger.


----------



## gregorio

krismusic said:


> [1] I have come to the conclusion that blind tests are not useful due to my inability to pick out minute differences that are non the less important.
> [2] The only true test is how much I enjoy listening to my music over an extended period of time.



1. Firstly, how can minute differences that you can't "pick out" be "nonetheless important", if you can't hear them, how can they make any difference at all, let alone be "important"? Secondly, you seem to have it completely backwards: If you cannot "pick out" a difference in a blind test, that's specifically why a blind test IS useful! It's telling you that you can't actually hear what you think or expect you should hear and therefore that what you think/expect is flawed.

2. Again that's pretty much backwards, a blind/double blind test is a "true test", while an uncontrolled test over a short or extended period of time is just about the very worse test. Science has known this for over a century and there's absolutely overwhelming evidence for it, which is why blind/double blind tests are required by science and why uncontrolled tests are unacceptable and automatically rejected. Of course, it's your perogative to believe the exact opposite of what science has conclusively demonstrated but you're posting your views in the wrong forum, this is the Sound SCIENCE forum!

G


----------



## krismusic

gregorio said:


> 1. Firstly, how can minute differences that you can't "pick out" be "nonetheless important", if you can't hear them, how can they make any difference at all, let alone be "important"? Secondly, you seem to have it completely backwards: If you cannot "pick out" a difference in a blind test, that's specifically why a blind test IS useful! It's telling you that you can't actually hear what you think or expect you should hear and therefore that what you think/expect is flawed.
> 
> 2. Again that's pretty much backwards, a blind/double blind test is a "true test", while an uncontrolled test over a short or extended period of time is just about the very worse test. Science has known this for over a century and there's absolutely overwhelming evidence for it, which is why blind/double blind tests are required by science and why uncontrolled tests are unacceptable and automatically rejected. Of course, it's your perogative to believe the exact opposite of what science has conclusively demonstrated but you're posting your views in the wrong forum, this is the Sound SCIENCE forum!
> 
> G


Yes. I have strayed onto the wrong side of the fence here. Where I remain. I'll leave you to it.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 19, 2019)

krismusic said:


> I'm obviously not going to convince anyone here and don't really need to. I don't appreciate being patronised though.



I'm not patronizing and you don't have to convince me. I'm just trying to point you in the right direction. A few google searches on "impedance mismatch headphones" will give you the answer. The iPhone puts out a flat balanced response. But that doesn't mean that you will hear that if you plug the wrong cans into the wrong component. Some headphones require very specific amps to work properly, and the iPhone is designed to be used with small portable headphones. A line out from the iPhone and a simple headphone amp designed to match the impedance of your headphones would probably make the iPhone sound just as good as an expensive external DAC. Impedance can be very complicated if you want to make it complicated, but just getting a good match isn't rocket science. It just takes a little research on your part. It's a lot easier than randomly swapping expensive equipment in and out until you find something that works, that's for sure!

If you will tell us the model of headphones you were using with the iPhone, we can probably suggest an inexpensive amp that would do the trick for you.


----------



## castleofargh

krismusic said:


> I am unfortunately not remotely technically minded. I tried various amps. Probably the best was a Headstage Arrow. Best in that it didn't colour the sound the way, for example, the Teac that I tried did. The headphones are Noble K10 Ciem's. The cost of the Mojo is long forgotten. I have come to the conclusion that blind tests are not useful due to my inability to pick out minute differences that are non the less important. The only true test is how much I enjoy listening to my music over an extended period of time. I agree that my nebulous terminology for the improvements that I am claiming sound like classic expectation bias. All I can say is that bias has held good for me for about three years now. I used to enjoy the purity of rejecting extravagant claims for esoteric gear. I would far rather be on your side of the fence but my experience simply does not back that position.


don't let them get to you. they're not much into portable audiophile stuff so they won't necessarily experience all the weirdness you and I have encountered over the years. but some of the suggestions do make sense.
the Mojo has crazy low impedance, so just that is going to have some impact (audible or not) compared to the iphone. which version do you have and do you know the impedance output of whatever passes as the audio output if it doesn't have a jack out?  looking up rapidly, it seems like iphones have had various impedance values depending on the models, some going in the 3 to 5ohm, which would clearly be significant compared to the mojo on many IEMs. as for the K10 specifically, I don't know if someone has published its impedance per frequency curve. it would certainly help predict the frequency response changes at least. more measurements of the iphone into specific loads would be needed to tell more than basic FR.

and for the others, I can confirm that various portable amps do not sound all the same. the reasons are multiple(impedance being an obvious one), but those stuff come in many sizes and power outputs, some are in fact very current limited and don't handle low impedance stuff all too well. also portable sources come in all voltages, I own 2 DAPs with about 20dB difference in line output, so stuff like those depending on the amplifier gain can really bring up some noises. etc. so technically speaking, crap happens and it's hard to make generalizations without testing the specific gears and IEM/headphone used with them by our fellow Headfiers.


----------



## Sterling2

I wonder how many folks just listen to iTunes via Bluetooth, or Wi-Fi? Seems more in concert to the essence of iPhones and iPads used as music players, which is mobility. I really like listening to iTunes via my Bluetooth JBL Charge 3.


----------



## bigshot

I use Airports to stream my music all over the house over wifi. It's very convenient. I don't use headphones often enough for listening to music to use bluetooth, but I use bluetooth at work to monitor the video files I'm working on.


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> I'm not patronizing and you don't have to convince me. I'm just trying to point you in the right direction. A few google searches on "impedance mismatch headphones" will give you the answer. The iPhone puts out a flat balanced response. But that doesn't mean that you will hear that if you plug the wrong cans into the wrong component. Some headphones require very specific amps to work properly, and the iPhone is designed to be used with small portable headphones. A line out from the iPhone and a simple headphone amp designed to match the impedance of your headphones would probably make the iPhone sound just as good as an expensive external DAC. Impedance can be very complicated if you want to make it complicated, but just getting a good match isn't rocket science. It just takes a little research on your part. It's a lot easier than randomly swapping expensive equipment in and out until you find something that works, that's for sure!
> 
> If you will tell us the model of headphones you were using with the iPhone, we can probably suggest an inexpensive amp that would do the trick for you.





castleofargh said:


> don't let them get to you. they're not much into portable audiophile stuff so they won't necessarily experience all the weirdness you and I have encountered over the years. but some of the suggestions do make sense.
> the Mojo has crazy low impedance, so just that is going to have some impact (audible or not) compared to the iphone. which version do you have and do you know the impedance output of whatever passes as the audio output if it doesn't have a jack out?  looking up rapidly, it seems like iphones have had various impedance values depending on the models, some going in the 3 to 5ohm, which would clearly be significant compared to the mojo on many IEMs. as for the K10 specifically, I don't know if someone has published its impedance per frequency curve. it would certainly help predict the frequency response changes at least. more measurements of the iphone into specific loads would be needed to tell more than basic FR.
> 
> and for the others, I can confirm that various portable amps do not sound all the same. the reasons are multiple(impedance being an obvious one), but those stuff come in many sizes and power outputs, some are in fact very current limited and don't handle low impedance stuff all too well. also portable sources come in all voltages, I own 2 DAPs with about 20dB difference in line output, so stuff like those depending on the amplifier gain can really bring up some noises. etc. so technically speaking, **** happens and it's hard to make generalizations without testing the specific gears and IEM/headphone used with them by our fellow Headfiers.


Very kind both. I do accept that Sound Science is not the place to come throwing subjective thoughts around. To be perfectly honest I had forgotten that this thread was in SS!!
Anyway. The headphones are the Noble K10 CIEM's. Annoyingly, Noble don't publish specs. All they say is "less than 35 Ohm". 
As to blind test and small differences. I do think my position has some validity. Tiny differences in sound obviously make a difference to the listening experience. How transients and the"edges" of notes are reproduced perhaps. My inability to detect the tiny differences in a blind test do not mean they are not there. It just means part of the test equipment is faulty. My hearing! Over many years of trying to find an enjoyable sound, the Mojo provides it for me. I would love an in line dongle that would correct any mismatch between the K10's and my XS Max. Producing the same effect as the rather bulky Mojo.  So if you have suggestions, I'm all ears. Defective as they may be! Thanks again for your indulgence guys. Appreciated. K


----------



## SparkOnShore

krismusic said:


> Very kind both. I do accept that Sound Science is not the place to come throwing subjective thoughts around. To be perfectly honest I had forgotten that this thread was in SS!!
> Anyway. The headphones are the Noble K10 CIEM's. Annoyingly, Noble don't publish specs. All they say is "less than 35 Ohm".
> As to blind test and small differences. I do think my position has some validity. Tiny differences in sound obviously make a difference to the listening experience. How transients and the"edges" of notes are reproduced perhaps. My inability to detect the tiny differences in a blind test do not mean they are not there. It just means part of the test equipment is faulty. My hearing! Over many years of trying to find an enjoyable sound, the Mojo provides it for me. I would love an in line dongle that would correct any mismatch between the K10's and my XS Max. Producing the same effect as the rather bulky Mojo.  So if you have suggestions, I'm all ears. Defective as they may be! Thanks again for your indulgence guys. Appreciated. K



What they are trying to say to you is rather logical and I think you can understand it; you say that your ears are unable to detect the differences in a blind test, for one reason or the other. Reason of inability is not important. What is important is that when you are not aware which source you’re listening to, you cannot detect any differences between Mojo and the iPhone. But when you are aware that you listen on Mojo, then suddenly all these differences come to the fore! This is the absolute definition of bias! If you cannot detect the differences in a blind test, then these differences are not real to your particular ears. It means that you cannot hear them! And if you cannot hear them, they are not there for you! It means that even though your ears do not detect any difference, your psychology is in a deep need to like the Mojo more than the perfectly balanced output of the iPhone!! Please do yourself a favor and find a matching pair of good quality earphones or headphones or even some recent Bluetooth headphones which have excellent sound and really enjoy your awesome XS max with its mobility...I repeat once again, when you cannot hear it in a blind test, it’s not there really, you just think it’s there cause our minds are tricking us, but it’s not!! As simple as that...


----------



## SparkOnShore

Of course tiny differences in sound obviously make a difference to the whole listening experience! But if you cannot hear them in a blind test, how can you possibly know they are there??!! You just don’t know! You just believe they are there only when your eyes see the Mojo logo on your player!!  Bias, in love with Mojo!! Please forget about this brick and enjoy mobility and high quality of your Max!


----------



## SonyFan121

I must say, i've had an iphone X for nearly a year now and I think the sound quality is nothing short of amazing. So good in fact that I never bought a portable dac/amp for it, I just use a standard usb to 6.3mm adapter to use my headphones with it. Before I got the iphone X I had an iphone 4S and the difference in sound quality between the 2 is silly good. So impressed with the iphone X.


----------



## bigshot

Less than 35 ohm shouldn’t need amping. I use 32 ohm cans with my iPhone. The trick may be the time between samples and volume matching. Times longer than a couple of seconds between samples can mess up a comparison. It’s best to have both alongside each other with a switch to go back and forth. Matching the volume is important too. Even with identical samples, a little louder will be perceived as sounding better. The equipment to do level matched, direct A/B switched blind tests is cheap. It’s a good investment because if you can save money by not buying equipment you don’t need, it will pay for itself many times over.


----------



## castleofargh

the issue here is not a need of power, but the fact that the IEM is a multi BA(10 of them). so the risk of serious impedance swings over frequencies caused by the crossovers is pretty big. and again we cannot disregard how low the impedance of the mojo is compared to another device.
I really wouldn't assume to know that the signature change isn't audible without impedance data for the iphone and the K10. and I think you guys are wrong for making that assumption and conclude that it must all be in his head without any relevant measurements.
I'm the first one to assume that uncontrolled impressions are worth close to nothing for small variations because of how easy it is to be biased, but we're supposed to be the fact based people, not the jump to conclusion people.

with that said,  I would be curious to know how many times we could make up most of the audible changes between devices just with some specific EQ?


----------



## krismusic

SonyFan121 said:


> I must say, i've had an iphone X for nearly a year now and I think the sound quality is nothing short of amazing. So good in fact that I never bought a portable dac/amp for it, I just use a standard usb to 6.3mm adapter to use my headphones with it. Before I got the iphone X I had an iphone 4S and the difference in sound quality between the 2 is silly good. So impressed with the iphone X.


I presume that the 4S would sound the same of you used the headphone adaptor?


----------



## SergeSE

TheSonicTruth said:


> So what exactly does that graph mean, that the average noise floor is -26dB full scale?


No, this is the level of waveform degradation of the initial/input/reference signal. The input signals can be of any kind - sine, white noise, music, voice, etc. Df-slide shows such levels of degradation (or difference levels, Df) with some basic technical signals and real-life audio material (the histogram). A set of resulting Df values is in fact an objective representation of so called _sound signature_ or, to be more correct, _artifact signature_ of a device.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

krismusic said:


> I presume that the 4S would sound the same of you used the headphone adaptor?



4s has a headphone jack.


----------



## krismusic

I know. Nothing to prevent use of the adaptor with it though.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

krismusic said:


> I know. Nothing to prevent use of the adaptor with it though.



Oh, I see what you mean.  

Of course, I probably would not hear the difference between TRS-out and dongle-out.


----------



## krismusic

TheSonicTruth said:


> Oh, I see what you mean.
> 
> Of course, I probably would not hear the difference between TRS-out and dongle-out.


Sorry if I am labouring a point but this is a subject that interests me. It seems to me that Apple have effectively closed off improvement in the sound of iPhones. Unless they are going to upgrade the dongle at some future point. From the release of the dongle on, in principle all iPhones will sound the same. Including previous models if used with the dongle. So to say that the X is silly good is a mistake. It is the dongle that is silly good? Again apologies if I am being obtuse.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

SergeSE said:


> No, this is the level of waveform degradation of the initial/input/reference signal. The input signals can be of any kind - sine, white noise, music, voice, etc. Df-slide shows such levels of degradation (or difference levels, Df) with some basic technical signals and real-life audio material (the histogram). A set of resulting Df values is in fact an objective representation of so called _sound signature_ or, to be more correct, _artifact signature_ of a device.



So the average difference level is 26dB?  Sorry  - that graph is Chinese takeout to me!


----------



## bigshot (Jan 20, 2019)

TheSonicTruth said:


> So the average difference level is 26dB?  Sorry  - that graph is Chinese takeout to me!



It's distortion. When you pump a square wave through it, the distortion is down at -26dB. That's to be expected because no digital audio equipment is designed to reproduce square waves well. Distortion is quantified either as a percentage or as an attenuation below the signal. -26dB distortion would be about 5%, which would be clearly audible... that is if you could know what square waves were supposed to sound like. In a nutshell, all of that distortion charted there is purely theoretical. If you played music, it would sound perfect with no distortion.



krismusic said:


> Sorry if I am labouring a point but this is a subject that interests me. It seems to me that Apple have effectively closed off improvement in the sound of iPhones. Unless they are going to upgrade the dongle at some future point. From the release of the dongle on, in principle all iPhones will sound the same. Including previous models if used with the dongle. So to say that the X is silly good is a mistake. It is the dongle that is silly good? Again apologies if I am being obtuse.



I've used Apple audio since the Power Mac 8500AV was released back in 1995... various generations of iPhones, iMacs, iPods... they all have "silly good sound" and they all sound exactly the same. The reason they all sound the same is because they are clean and balanced to specs far beyond the human ear's ability to hear. That's called "audible transparency". You can improve the numbers to "insanely silly good" if you want, but your ears won't hear the difference. Apple audio has always been audibly transparent. You really don't need better than that unless you are working in a studio, and even then, Apple sound quality is still pretty good for many professional purposes.



castleofargh said:


> the issue here is not a need of power, but the fact that the IEM is a multi BA(10 of them)



I thought we were talking about headphones, not IEMs. They are a wild card always. The problem is the transducers then, not the iPhone. If they make things that require very specific impedances, they should sell them with a converter or specific amp so you don't have to guess what you can and can't plug them into. I remember back in the day when people looked forward to compatibility between components. Sometimes I wonder if stuff like this isn't designed to specifically mess with the consumers and keep them confused.

In any case, the IEMs probably aren't designed to work with an iPhone. That isn't the iPhone's fault. Use the proper headphones with it and it will sound perfect.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> It's distortion. When you pump a square wave through it, the distortion is down at -26dB. That's to be expected because no digital audio equipment is designed to reproduce square waves well. Distortion is quantified either as a percentage or as an attenuation below the signal. -26dB distortion would be about 5%, which would be clearly audible... that is if you could know what square waves were supposed to sound like. In a nutshell, all of that distortion charted there is purely theoretical. If you played music, it would sound perfect with no distortion.



I guess a good way to know for sure is to generate a silence track and export it as a lossless file.  Played back over an iPhone, or a Droid device for that matter, and in theory one should hear nothing over bud or headphones, at any volume setting.


----------



## SergeSE

TheSonicTruth said:


> So the average difference level is 26dB? Sorry - that graph is Chinese takeout to me!


It's normal. These measurements are a bit different and seam unusual. But right you are - the difference level -26.1dB is an average distortion over two hours of music material, played back through A1749 adapter.


----------



## bigshot

SergeSE said:


> It's normal. These measurements are a bit different and seam unusual. But right you are - the difference level -26.1dB is an average distortion over two hours of music material, played back through A1749 adapter.



If you notice the color key, it tells you what kind of signal produced what level of distortion. That big peak is square waves. The lesser stuff to the side appears to be triangle waves and some other weird kind of artificial signal. I think the flat stuff is music.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

SergeSE said:


> It's normal. These measurements are a bit different and seam unusual. But right you are - the difference level -26.1dB is an average distortion over two hours of music material, played back through A1749 adapter.




Just call it Apple "dongle" so at least half the planet will know what you're referring to!


----------



## SergeSE

bigshot said:


> If you notice the color key, it tells you what kind of signal produced what level of distortion. That big peak is square waves. The lesser stuff to the side appears to be triangle waves and some other weird kind of artificial signal. I think the flat stuff is music.


Hmmm, sorry, why do you think that peaks of the histogram relate to square waves? On the df-slide the square wave signal is distorted to -19.5dB ...


----------



## SonyFan121

krismusic said:


> I presume that the 4S would sound the same of you used the headphone adaptor?


I said silly good because that is what the difference in sound quality between my iphone 4S and iphone X seems to me.You cannot use the same adapter that comes with iphone X with the iphone 4S. Perhaps there is little to no difference in sound quality between the iphone 6 and 7 and the X (haven't owned the 6 and 7 so I wouldn't know), but for years I was used to the sound quality of iphone 4S, so when I bought the X the difference seemed so good it was silly. It's kinda like the difference in sound quality between a £50 headphone and £150 headphone.


----------



## Yuurei

SonyFan121 said:


> I must say, i've had an iphone X for nearly a year now and I think the sound quality is nothing short of amazing. .



Same here. I use Hiby R6 daily but I bought Apple's lightning to jack adapter to see if I'm going to hear any differences. I heard none and it was such a pleasent surprise. The only thing that changed was that I had to set much higher volume on XR that on R6 but I was expecting that. I'm back with R6 because I'm kind of scare that Apple's dongle is going to break in my pocket (XR is pretty big) but I'm seriously considering buying iPod Touch just for music and interface experience


----------



## bigshot

SergeSE said:


>



They tried to pack too much info into a single chart so maybe I'm reading it wrong. but if you look at the brown square, it says square 1kHz. I'm reading that as being a square wave and the lighter green says triangle. That peak of distortion is all in that range. This chart was not made by a graphic designer, that much is clear!


----------



## sonitus mirus

bigshot said:


> They tried to pack too much info into a single chart so maybe I'm reading it wrong. but if you look at the brown square, it says square 1kHz. I'm reading that as being a square wave and the lighter green says triangle. That peak of distortion is all in that range. This chart was not made by a graphic designer, that much is clear!



I believe you are communicating directly with the audio research engineer that created these.

http://soundexpert.org/authors


----------



## krismusic

SonyFan121 said:


> I said silly good because that is what the difference in sound quality between my iphone 4S and iphone X seems to me.You cannot use the same adapter that comes with iphone X with the iphone 4S. Perhaps there is little to no difference in sound quality between the iphone 6 and 7 and the X (haven't owned the 6 and 7 so I wouldn't know), but for years I was used to the sound quality of iphone 4S, so when I bought the X the difference seemed so good it was silly. It's kinda like the difference in sound quality between a £50 headphone and £150 headphone.


Ah. Didn't realise you couldn't use the dongle with the 4S. I've got the XS Max and am underwhelmed. Different ears. Different folks. All good. I have my Mojo. It makes me happy. No harm done.


----------



## SonyFan121

krismusic said:


> Ah. Didn't realise you couldn't use the dongle with the 4S. I've got the XS Max and am underwhelmed. Different ears. Different folks. All good. I have my Mojo. It makes me happy. No harm done.


Yes indeed. I'm sure the Chord Mojo offers a higher level of sound quality  
I for one am very impressed by the sound quality of my iphone X. If I had bought a cheaper phone I would've probably additionally bought a Sony Walkman for music listening, however, even though Sony are my favourite electronics company, i'm convinced it would be a downgrade.


----------



## krismusic

SonyFan121 said:


> Yes indeed. I'm sure the Chord Mojo offers a higher level of sound quality
> I for one am very impressed by the sound quality of my iphone X. If I had bought a cheaper phone I would've probably additionally bought a Sony Walkman for music listening, however, even though Sony are my favourite electronics company, i'm convinced it would be a downgrade.


Cool. As it happens I have never liked Sony products! I would never encourage anyone to spend money on anything, particularly if they are happy with what they have. I respect Bigshots knowledge enormously. I can only go by my own experience and continue to lug the flaming Mojo around! Enjoy your music.


----------



## SonyFan121

krismusic said:


> Cool. As it happens I have never liked Sony products! I would never encourage anyone to spend money on anything, particularly if they are happy with what they have. I respect *Bigshots knowledge enormously*. I can only go by my own experience and continue to lug the flaming Mojo around! Enjoy your music.



His knowledge?! about what?!

Okay then.


----------



## SonyFan121

I wonder what company made the Dac inside the earlier iphones. Cirrus Logic are the company that make the Dac in the current usb to 3.5mm adapters for iphone X. Cirrus Logic are the same company that Marantz used for the Dac of the headphone output of their PM5005 CD player. Interesting. It would be great to know the exact model/chip name/number of the Dac inside apples usb to 3.5mm adapter to see if it's the same one as the one found in the Marantz CD player. i doubt Apple will ever release that information though.


----------



## SergeSE

bigshot said:


> They tried to pack too much info into a single chart so maybe I'm reading it wrong. but if you look at the brown square, it says square 1kHz. I'm reading that as being a square wave and the lighter green says triangle. That peak of distortion is all in that range. This chart was not made by a graphic designer, that much is clear!


Ok, I got your logic. The idea was to show different df-measurements located on df-scale. As I'm not sure I did it the best possible way, your feedback is helpful, thanks. Here is a single picture guide “How to read df-slides”:


----------



## bfreedma

SonyFan121 said:


> I wonder what company made the Dac inside the earlier iphones. Cirrus Logic are the company that make the Dac in the current usb to 3.5mm adapters for iphone X. Cirrus Logic are the same company that Marantz used for the Dac of the headphone output of their PM5005 CD player. Interesting. It would be great to know the exact model/chip name/number of the Dac inside apples usb to 3.5mm adapter to see if it's the same one as the one found in the Marantz CD player. i doubt Apple will ever release that information though.



Google “iPhone vvv teardown” where vvv is the iPhone version and you should find the info.

For example, the IPhone 5 uses a 338S1077 Cirrus Logic DAC chip

https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+5+Teardown/10525


----------



## krismusic

SonyFan121 said:


> His knowledge?! about what?!
> 
> Okay then.


I have known Bigshot on here for many years now. He always talks sense and backs it up with
facts and measurements.


----------



## SonyFan121

bfreedma said:


> Google “iPhone vvv teardown” where vvv is the iPhone version and you should find the info.
> 
> For example, the IPhone 5 uses a 338S1077 Cirrus Logic DAC chip
> 
> https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+5+Teardown/10525



Thanks allot for telling me this and providing a link to that website. I'm currently searching to find out what one they use in the usb to 3.55 adapter that comes with iphone X. I have a Marantz HD-CD1 and that has a Cirrus Logic CS4398 Dac chip. I suspect the chip in the apple adapter is of lower spec but I will keep searching to find out.


----------



## bfreedma

SonyFan121 said:


> Thanks allot for telling me this and providing a link to that website. I'm currently searching to find out what one they use in the usb to 3.55 adapter that comes with iphone X. I have a Marantz HD-CD1 and that has a Cirrus Logic CS4398 Dac chip. I suspect the chip in the apple adapter is of lower spec but I will keep searching to find out.




That’s going to be difficult - the chip in the adapter only has an Apple part number.

https://ifixit.org/blog/8448/apple-audio-adapter-teardown/

It’s measurements are very good.

https://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/lightning-adapter-audio-quality.htm


----------



## SparkOnShore

krismusic said:


> Cool. As it happens I have never liked Sony products! I would never encourage anyone to spend money on anything, particularly if they are happy with what they have. I respect Bigshots knowledge enormously. I can only go by my own experience and continue to lug the flaming Mojo around! Enjoy your music.



I believe that when you take part in such a forum, you should be able to logically back up your opinion as well as justify your arguments. This is the basis of dialogue among logical human beings. So, after you initially said that you cannot hear any difference between Mojo and iPhone during a blind test and thus your point of choosing Mojo however proves to be unjustified, and based on some imaginary higher quality and “musicality”, you are now ending up saying that you just “go by your own experience, different ears, different folks, all good etc etc”, basically without offering any logical argument and of course contributing nothing to what we call logic and common sense. Sorry but this seems more like some children light talk rather than some productive approach to a serious forum like this one...


----------



## SparkOnShore (Jan 21, 2019)

Basically what krismusic says is that he is not able to hear any difference between iPhone and Mojo in a blind test, but no problem, difference is there for sure, since Mojo or some obscure audiophile says so...And when you push for logical proof and facts you get the answer “different folks, different ears, all good”!! Then what’s the reason to write here at first place?? Leave it all on the advertisement leaflet of Mojo...


----------



## SonyFan121

Thanks again for the info/links.  I was just curious to know the differences between the Dac in the Apple adapter and the one in my Marantz cd player because they are made by the same company. I thought maybe there wasn't much in it regarding technical performance. I've been switching between tabs on google comparing both and it's very interesting.
Apple really know there stuff! Genius employees indeed.


----------



## SparkOnShore

Taken from kenrockwell.com:

“For enjoying music, you will probably get poorer performance if you waste your time and money with outboard DACs or headphone amplifiers; the iPhone and this adapter already has the best there is.

Why do commercial audio magazines tout external DACs and amplifiers? Because that what their advertisers are trying to sell!

The only reason to get an outboard headphone amplifier for use with your iPhone 7 Plus is if you have high-impedance (100Ω or greater) headphones like the 600 Ω beyerdynamic DT880 which often require more voltage than the 1V RMS maximum from iOS devices and this adapter. In this case, you still don't need a DAC; the analog output from this adapter will probably be better than what you'd get from an expensive outboard DAC!”

Ken always says things as they are and he is up to the point! A good read for krismusic!


----------



## castleofargh

SparkOnShore said:


> I believe that when you take part in such a forum, you should be able to logically back up your opinion as well as justify your arguments. This is the basis of dialogue among logical human beings. So, after you initially said that you cannot hear any difference between Mojo and iPhone during a blind test and thus your point of choosing Mojo however proves to be unjustified, and based on some imaginary higher quality and “musicality”, you are now ending up saying that you just “go by your own experience, different ears, different folks, all good etc etc”, basically without offering any logical argument and of course contributing nothing to what we call logic and common sense. Sorry but this seems more like some children light talk rather than some productive approach to a serious forum like this one...


he shares his opinion that it subjectively seems to sound better for him with his IEM and the mojo. you don't have to take it as a claim of anything but him having some subjective impression(and we don't have any rule against that in here, unlike Hydrogen). he has not been putting much efforts into trying to aggressively force us to agree on anything objective, so I'm not sure what the problem is here? 
yes he could probably run some controlled tests or measurements to try and confirm or disprove his impressions and learn more about what and maybe even why. we'd all then know more. and no we don't have to put much trust into anything he or anybody on the forums says without supporting evidence, even Kris didn't asked that of you.

and for a more objective discussion, we don't know so far the impedance curve of his IEM and to me that's a pretty important part of the puzzle. so I can't rule out a FR change of audible amplitude, and I also don't know if Rockwell's measurements encompass the load that is his IEM. it's not that rare for a cellphone to be perfectly fine at 30ohm and above, but suck bad into a very low impedance load. I've seen it many time, so I'd like to know more before once again drawing conclusion that the devices sound the same into that IEM so Kris is fooling himself(which of course is also a possibility).


----------



## SparkOnShore

castleofargh said:


> he shares his opinion that it subjectively seems to sound better for him with his IEM and the mojo. you don't have to take it as a claim of anything but him having some subjective impression(and we don't have any rule against that in here, unlike Hydrogen). he has not been putting much efforts into trying to aggressively force us to agree on anything objective, so I'm not sure what the problem is here?
> yes he could probably run some controlled tests or measurements to try and confirm or disprove his impressions and learn more about what and maybe even why. we'd all then know more. and no we don't have to put much trust into anything he or anybody on the forums says without supporting evidence, even Kris didn't asked that of you.
> 
> and for a more objective discussion, we don't know so far the impedance curve of his IEM and to me that's a pretty important part of the puzzle. so I can't rule out a FR change of audible amplitude, and I also don't know if Rockwell's measurements encompass the load that is his IEM. it's not that rare for a cellphone to be perfectly fine at 30ohm and above, but suck bad into a very low impedance load. I've seen it many time, so I'd like to know more before once again drawing conclusion that the devices sound the same into that IEM so Kris is fooling himself(which of course is also a possibility).



Kris said clearly that during all blind tests he could not hear any difference between the two devices, blaming his ears in particular. Those very ears that can only hear those differences when they know they listen on Mojo for an extended period of time! Sorry but this does not sound so logical to me. We all gather that during those blind tests he was using his own iems, since what would be the reason to do a blind test checking possible differences between 2 devices if you use different headphones than the ones you use in your everyday life? So if he could not hear the differences with his 10 driver BA, then iems are not to blame here. He didn’t say I don’t like iPhone with my iems, he said that even though in blind test both devices sound same he is sure Mojo is better! This part sounds quite unjustified to me...If on the other hand he used normal iems or headphones during blind tests and in that case the 2 devices sounded same, then what’s the reason to carry an extra brick, since he also mentioned that his dream is always to just get his phone and go around as light as possible? Then just use some more matching iems or headphones and go on with just your XS Max! 

So at the bottom line, what I am emphasizing on is that in all Kris talking there is a certain lack of logical and justified argument. That’s why I felt the need to write...


----------



## SonyFan121 (Jan 21, 2019)

SparkOnShore said:


> Taken from kenrockwell.com:
> 
> “For enjoying music, you will probably get poorer performance if you waste your time and money with outboard DACs or headphone amplifiers; the iPhone and this adapter already has the best there is.
> 
> ...



Being a purist with some knowledge in electronic engineering, I think that sometimes adding certain additional amplifiers to an audio component that already has a DAC/Amp, can be detrimental to the sound quality. Furthermore; if the source device already has a high performance Dac/amp, then why should we need to add additional amplification?! it makes no sense in my opinion - except for when we have no choice! Connecting a portable amp to a phone might introduce distortion and jitter to an otherwise perfect signal.
Of course, sometimes an additional amp is required for the reason that Ken Rockwell stated (high impedance headphones that require more power) but one more thing I will say is that standalone/portable headphone amps/ DAC's color the sound of an audio signal in a pleasant way (just think of Tube Amps as an example) that makes music more enjoyable to listen to.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 22, 2019)

If you have to add an amp to an amp, you probably bought the wrong amp in the first place. When I amp my iPhone, I do it from the line out, not the headphone jack. The iPhone has a high quality DAC. It just has headphone amplification optimized for portable smaller cans. By the way, jitter isn't from amping. It's only in digital connections. And it's highly unlikely jitter would ever reach audible levels with even the cheapest audio equipment. DACs and amps if designed and manufactured properly are audibly transparent and add nothing to color the sound.


----------



## SonyFan121 (Jan 22, 2019)

Been searching this thread in desperate hope of finding someone with a bit of an electronic engineering background whom clearly has a perfect understanding of an audio signal and found this guy. I think it's important to understand what he was trying to tell us..


audiophylactery said:


> Digital Age peoples...
> * The biggest difference between sound signatures within any company's product line won't come directly from newer hardware iterations. Rather, it's the drivers and software that drive the hardware, and subsequent changes that occur from driver updates, that will impact the audio output & sound signature of the playback device in question. With MOST mp3 players, especially those bereft of the ability to download apps, these newer & updated drivers/OS iterations will only be utilized in the next hardware release, unless the developer releases a firmware update, not unlike the ones TV's and various HD players can recieve through USB/Network connects. These updates generally speed up general operation or add new features to the device or even fix bugs. Such is not the case for Apple iOS devices, for Apple designs their hardware around the software*. Even though it sounds backwards, and it is kinda, at least in respect to overall product improvement & performance progression year to year/model to model, it DOES make wondrous sense for ultimate Backwards Compatibility...
> 
> FOR INSTANCE...i own a 3rd gen iPod Touch, until recently rarely used, but when my old beloved Creative mp3 player took a proverbial ****, i had to USE my gifted apple product. god forbid....anyways... I had to update from iOS 3.x to 4.x a month or two into use, in order to download some newer apps; specifically-Audio Playback Apps with intrinsically customizable EQ's (imagine...). After that update was installed, the old Equalizer settings sounded completely altered; immediately noticeable.* Even the OFF and Flat settings sounded a little modified, even though these shouldn't change, theoretically at least, especially since my hardware didn't change at all.
> ...





audiophylactery said:


> Hope i'm not boring anyone or being overly repetitive. Wordy, for sure. My apologies for the impending flood of seemingly spontaneous and self-effacingly immodest techspeak. There is a point i'll eventually be making, but* i feel like there's alot of crucial information regarding Digital Playback that may've been overlooked, or simply outside the realm of individual knowledge, yet when once understood, gives a solid foundation to successfully achieving reference level sound reproduction on iOS and other devices. And i specifically mean, achieving as close to as possible, the sound signature of a studio live performance at the original time of track recording. So, maybe not what the artist intended for you to hear,...but the sounds he/she actually made. *Not quite the same, but semantics really.
> Anyways...i may be staking my dubiously placental reputation out on the line here...but whatevs.
> Here goes...
> 
> ...


He tried his best to explain it all in layman's terms in just 9 posts.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> When I amp my iPhone, I do it from the line out, not the headphone jack.



You mean from the lightning charger connection?  I thought you said there should be no audible difference between the hedphone and that charger port.


----------



## gregorio (Jan 22, 2019)

castleofargh said:


> ... you don't have to take it as a claim of anything but him having some subjective impression(and we don't have any rule against that in here, unlike Hydrogen). he has not been putting much efforts into trying to aggressively force us to agree on anything objective, so I'm not sure what the problem is here?



I agree that his approach has been far better than many of the extremist audiophiles who sometimes post here. He's not been aggressive, patronising or overtly confrontational, so compared to what we often see here he should be commended on his approach ... Or should he? We've become so used to the truly deplorable approaches of many audiophiles that what krismusic is doing doesn't seem so objectionable in comparison. However, take away that comparison, judge it purely on it's merits and there is still a big problem here. In answer to your question, "the problem here" is that what he's stating is illogical, false and anti-scientific. It's the opposite of why this forum exists and an affront to it! This quote epitomises the issue:


krismusic said:


> I can only go by my own experience and continue to lug the flaming Mojo around!



Clearly this statement is false. It's false for two reasons: Firstly, "your own experience" has demonstrated that you could NOT identify an audible difference. So in actual fact you are NOT "going by" your own experience, you are ignoring "your own experience" and instead "going by" a subjective belief. Secondly and more importantly, even if you were going by your own experience, it is completely untrue that you "can only go by your own experience". There IS an alternative to your own (or other people's) experience, it's called "Science"! That's what science is, it's why science was invented and the whole point of science (and the "scientific method" which underpins it) is to ELIMINATE experience, to eliminate all the biases and subjective opinions that go along with experience, eliminate all the superstitions and myths which arise from it, and leave us with the actual facts uncontaminated by experience! So, not only have you CHOSEN to ignore science but you have done so in an actual science forum?!!

Clearly your statement is false, you do NOT "only have your own experience to go by", in your particular case you actually had 3 three options to choose from:

A. Your subjective belief.
B. Your own experience.
C. The Science/facts.

Only "C" is acceptable here! Not withstanding that fact, what's particularly baffling/irrational is that in this instance "B" and "C" agree with each other, yet you still ignore both of them and instead choose "A", while stating your only option is "B"??! It's like a surreal Monty Python sketch! 

G


----------



## krismusic

SparkOnShore said:


> Kris said clearly that during all blind tests he could not hear any difference between the two devices, blaming his ears in particular. Those very ears that can only hear those differences when they know they listen on Mojo for an extended period of time! Sorry but this does not sound so logical to me. We all gather that during those blind tests he was using his own iems, since what would be the reason to do a blind test checking possible differences between 2 devices if you use different headphones than the ones you use in your everyday life? So if he could not hear the differences with his 10 driver BA, then iems are not to blame here. He didn’t say I don’t like iPhone with my iems, he said that even though in blind test both devices sound same he is sure Mojo is better! This part sounds quite unjustified to me...If on the other hand he used normal iems or headphones during blind tests and in that case the 2 devices sounded same, then what’s the reason to carry an extra brick, since he also mentioned that his dream is always to just get his phone and go around as light as possible? Then just use some more matching iems or headphones and go on with just your XS Max!
> 
> So at the bottom line, what I am emphasizing on is that in all Kris talking there is a certain lack of logical and justified argument. That’s why I felt the need to write...





gregorio said:


> I agree that his approach has been far better than many of the extremist audiophiles who sometimes post here. He's not been aggressive, patronising or overtly confrontational, so compared to what we often see here he should be commended on his approach ... Or should he? We've become so used to the truly deplorable approaches of many audiophiles that what krismusic is doing doesn't seem so objectionable in comparison. However, take away that comparison, judge it purely on it's merits and there is still a big problem here. In answer to your question, "the problem here" is that what he's stating is illogical, false and anti-scientific. It's the opposite of why this forum exists and an affront to it! This quote epitomises the issue:
> 
> 
> Clearly this statement is false. It's false for two reasons: Firstly, "your own experience" has demonstrated that you could NOT identify an audible difference. So in actual fact you are NOT "going by" your own experience, you are ignoring "your own experience" and instead "going by" a subjective belief. Secondly and more importantly, even if you were going by your own experience, it is completely untrue that you "can only go by your own experience". There IS an alternative to your own (or other people's) experience, it's called "Science"! That's what science is, it's why science was invented and the whole point of science (and the "scientific method" which underpins it) is to ELIMINATE experience, to eliminate all the biases and subjective opinions that go along with experience, eliminate all the superstitions and myths which arise from it, and leave us with the actual facts uncontaminated by experience! So, not only have you CHOSEN to ignore science but you have done so in an actual science forum?!!
> ...


If my posts are irritating anyone please scroll past. Subjective opinions contained within.
I try not to be dogmatic and respectful of other people on the internet and IRL. So I am very pleased if that comes across. I also recognise that I should expect to be challenged on woolly thinking here of all places. As I said, initially I didn't realise I was paying in SS. The only reason I continue this is that it seems to have created some interest. Maybe respectfully letting a little air into the room? I still say that it is valid to mistrust a fundamental piece of test equipment in blind test. My ears. It is the same for me with EQ. I cannot detect the tiny incremental adjustments that create a sound signature. I know when I like a sound signature and when I don't however. It occurs to me that this is similar to someone saying that they don't know anything about Art but they know what they like. Guaranteed to get me grinding my teeth. I'm an artist. Anyway. It's a fact that I cannot identify tiny details of sound. I suggest that is not the same as not being able to hear them. I will try and arrange with a friend to do a blind test and report back how I get on.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 22, 2019)

Ears are the best thing for listening to music, but they aren't the best for discerning small differences accurately. You need to help them by making comparisons easier. Blind testing, level matching and direct A/B switching are the best ways to help your ears not become confused.

A subjective impression depends on a lot of factors, from how comfortable the temperature in the room is to what you ate for lunch. We're never going to be able to recreate all of those variables, so who knows what the results would be in our listening room with what we had for lunch. If you are talking about a subjective impression, you're talking about something that is only meaningful to you. If you want it to give advice to other people, you need to make an effort to sift out the objective truth.

It isn't hard at all to do controlled listening tests. You just have to want to do it. If you don't care about whether or not your impressions are accurate, then no one else should be required to care either. When we dismiss your purely subjective impressions, we aren't being rude. We've done these tests for ourselves and we've got a good idea what the facts are and how things work. We know better than you what the truth is.

When you find yourself in a group of people who know more about a subject than you do, it's a great opportunity to pick their brains and learn. Feel free to do that. You're not required to understand or agree with everything. But there's no point arguing or repeating yourself when you really don't know a lot about the subject you're discussing. We get people here all the time that do that, and It doesn't help anyone else, and it just makes them look bad.


----------



## SonyFan121

There's always someone who knows even more. And there's also those who claim to know but whom are also biased..


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> Ears are the best thing for listening to music, but they aren't the best for discerning small differences accurately. You need to help them by making comparisons easier. Blind testing, level matching and direct A/B switching are the best ways to help your ears not become confused.
> 
> A subjective impression depends on a lot of factors, from how comfortable the temperature in the room is to what you ate for lunch. We're never going to be able to recreate all of those variables, so who knows what the results would be in our listening room with what we had for lunch. If you are talking about a subjective impression, you're talking about something that is only meaningful to you. If you want it to give advice to other people, you need to make an effort to sift out the objective truth.
> 
> ...


Fair enough Big shot. I will try a blind test and report back.


----------



## taffy2207 (Jan 22, 2019)

krismusic said:


> Fair enough Big shot. I will try a blind test and report back.



Good man. I've got everything I need now so I'll be doing ABX tests this week (hopefully), so you won't be alone 

EDIT there should be 1 dedicated thread on here for ABX tests. How to? resources, results etc.

Anyway back on topic to those I thingies.


----------



## sonitus mirus

krismusic said:


> Fair enough Big shot. I will try a blind test and report back.


If you do not reliably hear any differences, it can still be helpful to anyone reading these forums.  You will most likely continue to prefer the Mojo, even if you can never identify a difference in a blind test, and that is perfectly fine.  Your results certainly will not provide a definitive conclusion about whether a difference exists or if the Mojo is subjectively superior to an iPhone for everyone.  As someone that has personally spent a great deal of time testing for audible differences, while it never stopped me from pursuing gear I should not have spent money on, I feel more confident about the decisions I have made with regards to the purchases I do make.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 22, 2019)

Encouraging people to do tests, understand how things work and apply what they learn to achieving better sound in their home audio systems is what Sound Science is all about. If you need advice on how to level match and where to get a switch box, just ask. Blind isn't enough. You have to eliminate the major perceptual errors too. Level matching and direct switching will solve those.


----------



## SonyFan121 (Jan 22, 2019)

sonitus mirus said:


> If you do not reliably hear any differences, it can still be helpful to anyone reading these forums.  You will most likely continue to prefer the Mojo, even if you can never identify a difference in a blind test, and that is perfectly fine.  Your results certainly will not provide a definitive conclusion about whether a difference exists or if the Mojo is subjectively superior to an iPhone for everyone.  As someone that has personally spent a great deal of time testing for audible differences, while it never stopped me from pursuing gear I should not have spent money on, I feel more confident about the decisions I have made with regards to the purchases I do make.


I have never took the time to calculate the exact combined price of every audio device (amps/DAC's/CD players/Tuners/DAP's/Headphones/speakers/interconnects) I have bought in the last 10 years (it would take too long) but just off the top of my head, I reckon it must be somewhere around $9,000 (£6,500) to $10,000 (£7,700) U.S dollars. Do I regret it? - absolutely not!! there's nothing wrong with it especially if you have a genuine curiosity and have the funds. It has been one massive learning curve for me. A few years ago, for a period of about 4 months, I taught myself about electronic engineering which resulted in me acquiring a fundamental understanding of PCB/circuit boards, transistors/resistors/capacitors and what happens when alternating current passes through these components. Studying electronic engineering allowed me to gain a better understanding of sound quality and how it can be affected and changed, depending on the quality and performance levels of the aforementioned components. I guess I am an audiophile.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 23, 2019)

I've spent MUCH more on music and movies than I have on equipment... thousands every year. I've spent a considerable amount on equipment, but that stuff isn't nearly as much. My speakers were the biggest expense, followed by the installation and design of the theater. Everything else was dribs and drabs. That's where buying smart can save a lot of money without impacting the sound quality. I guess the projector was quite a bit, but that lasts. You put in a new bulb and you have a brand new projector. Someday I'll go to 4K, but the prices are astronomical for that right now.

Most audiophiles never objectively test things. They don't know what matters and what doesn't. They keep spending money to get the best of the best of everything, even when it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever I'd rather create a smart system and have more money for music and movies. That's what gets expensive, not electronics.

For the past couple of months, I've been organizing my DVD collection, putting them in sleeves and trashing the bulky cases. I stashed boxes and stacks of DVDs all over the house. I lost track of how many I had. At this point, I am estimating that I have about 10,000 DVDs. Every week I fill the recycle bin with cases. I have the same amount of records, and another 10,000 CDs. Next up is organizing the blu-rays. I guess I have 5,000 of those. I have over 200 TB of hard drive storage too. I'm doing pretty good at maintaining it all and cataloguing it. Once I tame the DVDs and blu-rays I'll have more room to grow.


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> Encouraging people to do tests, understand how things work and apply what they learn to achieving better sound in their home audio systems is what Sound Science is all about. If you need advice on how to level match and where to get a switch box, just ask. Blind isn't enough. You have to eliminate the major perceptual errors too. Level matching and direct switching will solve those.


I am interested in doing a proper test and happy to buy a switch box. You would have to give me quite a lot of guidance as to what I need to buy and how to connect it to the devices. If you want to spend the time then we could do this by PM unless it is of interest to others on here.


----------



## gregorio

krismusic said:


> [1] If my posts are irritating anyone please scroll past. Subjective opinions contained within.
> [2] I try not to be dogmatic and respectful of other people on the internet and IRL. So I am very pleased if that comes across.
> [3] The only reason I continue this is that it seems to have created some interest.
> [4] Maybe respectfully letting a little air into the room?
> ...



1. That doesn't really work here, especially when (as is so often the case) those subjective opinions conflict with the science. It's a bit like going to an Atheist forum, quoting the gospels as fact and stating it's just your opinion that anyone can scroll past. I bet you'd get a very negative response because your opinion would be in direct conflict with the whole point of the forum.

2. That does come across. However, here we are somewhat dogmatic! Some things science has proven beyond any doubt, such as the existence of gravity, the basic properties and behaviour of electricity, that digital audio theory provides for the perfect recording and reproduction of an analogue signal, etc., so these things we are dogmatic about. Other things haven't been proven beyond any doubt but the variety, reliability and sheer weight of evidence means there's no reasonable doubt and we can be fairly dogmatic about those things (the theory of evolution or climate change being some obvious examples).

3. Two reasons for that: Firstly, the same reason as the atheist forum analogy above. Secondly and more interestingly, you actually appear willing to be open minded and try some proper tests.

4. You assume we don't know that "air", we do, just as extremist audiophiles do. The difference is that we (science) know that "air" is polluted, so letting a little of that "air into the room" is not respectful or appreciated.

5. You shouldn't mistrust your ears, unless you have a hearing impairment there's no problem with your ears, the problem is what's between them! Being human, what you hear is an interpretation by your brain, an interpretation that is easily fooled and certainly should not be trusted, which is why we have blind/double blind testing, to eliminate the interpretation errors and rely only on what we're actually hearing. 

6. You're confusing two quite different things. Spotting that there is a difference is not a difficult task to learn, most people with 30 or so minutes of training can learn to differentiate subtle differences. Identifying what the differences actually are (for example, the EQ variations responsible for a different sound signature), is a completely different kettle of fish, we're talking about years of training rather than minutes! A blind/double blind test only seeks to test if a difference is audible, not to identify what the difference is or even if it's preferable. For you to prefer the sound signature of one thing over another, it's a logical prerequisite that you can actually hear some difference between them in the first place, because you obviously can't have a preference if both things are identical!

G


----------



## krismusic

gregorio said:


> 1. That doesn't really work here, especially when (as is so often the case) those subjective opinions conflict with the science. It's a bit like going to an Atheist forum, quoting the gospels as fact and stating it's just your opinion that anyone can scroll past. I bet you'd get a very negative response because your opinion would be in direct conflict with the whole point of the forum.
> 
> 2. That does come across. However, here we are somewhat dogmatic! Some things science has proven beyond any doubt, such as the existence of gravity, the basic properties and behaviour of electricity, that digital audio theory provides for the perfect recording and reproduction of an analogue signal, etc., so these things we are dogmatic about. Other things haven't been proven beyond any doubt but the variety, reliability and sheer weight of evidence means there's no reasonable doubt and we can be fairly dogmatic about those things (the theory of evolution or climate change being some obvious examples).
> 
> ...


Thank you for taking the time to put that together Gregorio I appreciate that you are trying to keep this forum free of the subjective fantasies that inform a lot of the rest of Headfi. I fully support the objectives of this forum and will only report back when I have some objective facts.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 23, 2019)

krismusic said:


> I am interested in doing a proper test and happy to buy a switch box. You would have to give me quite a lot of guidance as to what I need to buy and how to connect it to the devices. If you want to spend the time then we could do this by PM unless it is of interest to others on here.



I'm sure there are others who would be interested. What kind of plugs do the two sources you'll use have? Probably best to start with listing the equipment you plan to use and what you will be comparing.


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> I'm sure there are others who would be interested. What kind of plugs do the two sources you'll use have? Probably best to start with listing the equipment you plan to use and what you will be comparing.


Ok. So, the iPhone XSMax with the dongle adaptor to 3.5mm Jack. The 5s into the Mojo via a third party work around CCK cable. The Mojo has 3.5mm Jack out.


----------



## bigshot (Jan 23, 2019)

Do what you basically need is a switcher that does 2 x 3.5mm to 1 3.5mm. That should be easy. You can level match at the source. I'm off to the studio right now. I'll see what I can find when I get back. What kind of headphones are you using? Do you have another headphone amp if necessary?


----------



## Sterling2 (Jan 23, 2019)

Here's what inspired today's mobile players. It takes absolutely no knowledge (science) to know this does not sound as good as a modern player, in any manner that good can be discerned. I mention this since some of the bantering here is over minutia between products which are like peas in a pod, meaning the designs are so similar, you would expect they would sound similar and they do, a REAL improvement from the 6 transistor radios with earbuds from the mid 1950's. The point being why belabor the subtleties of the miniscule divergence in these players which might make someone perceive a particular player sounds better when such argument does not influence the folks who design and manufacture this stuff for a  market not at all concerned with such subtleties.


----------



## bigshot

Here's a portable player from 1926


----------



## bfreedma

Sterling2 said:


> Here's what inspired today's mobile players. It takes absolutely no knowledge (science) to know this does not sound as good as a modern player, in any manner that good can be discerned. I mention this since some of the bantering here is over minutia between produces which are like peas in a pod, meaning the designs are so similar, you would expect they would sound similar and they do, a REAL improvement from the 6 transistor radios with earbuds from the mid 1950's. The point being why belabor the subtleties of the miniscule divergence in these players which might make someone perceive a particular player sounds better when such argument does not influence the folks who design and manufacture this stuff for a  market not at all concerned with such subtleties.



Haven’t seen one of those in forever.  Do you know who the manufacturer is?  Can’t quite place the branding.

Perfect fidelity for listening to sports and news...


----------



## Sterling2

bfreedma said:


> Haven’t seen one of those in forever.  Do you know who the manufacturer is?  Can’t quite place the branding.
> 
> Perfect fidelity for listening to sports and news...


Yes, It's a Magnavox, circa 1959. I put a 9 volt battery in it the other day and picked up 840 AM WHAS, Louisville, KY where I live. I was kind of surprised it still works. It's been at least 40 years since I put a new battery in it.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Sterling2 said:


> The point being why belabor the
> subtleties of the miniscule divergence in these players which might make someone perceive
> a particular player sounds better when such argument does not influence the folks who
> design and manufacture this stuff for a market not at all concerned with such subtleties.



Because that's what _audiophiles _do!


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Sterling2 said:


> Yes, It's a Magnavox, circa 1959. I put a 9 volt battery in it the other day and picked up 840 AM WHAS, Louisville, KY where I live. I was kind of surprised it still works. It's been at least 40 years since I put a new battery in it.




Imagine if, one day, being able so such: Snap on a radio, FM or AM band, just to have background music or talk while in the shower or running errands in the car.

Perish the thought!  Terrestrial OTA radio and TV broadcast must NEVER DIE.


----------



## castleofargh

krismusic said:


> Ok. So, the iPhone XSMax with the dongle adaptor to 3.5mm Jack. The 5s into the Mojo via a third party work around CCK cable. The Mojo has 3.5mm Jack out.


you might struggle with that. just volume matching can be really hard(if not impossible at the desired listening level), and having 2 devices with sync music may not be easy(worst thing is how very often, one will start the next song with a lag. you can try to overcome that by playing like a full album converted into a single file, that way you go mad trying to sync the devices only once. 
personally I'd try to record the output, but in this case as the IEM may be a big part in the circuit, you'd need to record with a mic. and that introduces other problems(like ambient noise being hard to control while we record long tracks). but at least if you do that, you end up with files you can volume match correctly if you couldn't do it with the devices, and you can cut the recordings so they start pretty much at the same sample. after that, foobar+abx makes the actual listening test simple and standard. another interesting aspect if you can record the output of the IEM is that you could simple check how much change there is in FR and other stuff. so while we introduce extra gears and go through a second playback loop, I still believe it will often work better than trying to use a switch and have everything setup properly. I've had so many issues trying to compare DAPs and portable amps with a physical switch. it's way better than just casual listening, no ambiguity there, but to achieve a proper listening test(well controlled), it can really become a PITA.


----------



## castleofargh

taffy2207 said:


> Good man. I've got everything I need now so I'll be doing ABX tests this week (hopefully), so you won't be alone
> 
> EDIT there should be 1 dedicated thread on here for ABX tests. How to? resources, results etc.
> 
> Anyway back on topic to those I thingies.


not a bad idea, but the test itself once you have a plug in or an app or if you're rich, an ABX box, is very straightforward. beyond telling people that they must pick a number of trials before starting and stick to it for statistical relevance, the rest is simple. 
what's not simple is to properly prepare the files/gears to abx. but then the best procedure will usually depend on what we're testing and what question we're trying to answer. so I don't know how to make a global guide for that. not sure it's possible.


----------



## krismusic

castleofargh said:


> you might struggle with that. just volume matching can be really hard(if not impossible at the desired listening level), and having 2 devices with sync music may not be easy(worst thing is how very often, one will start the next song with a lag. you can try to overcome that by playing like a full album converted into a single file, that way you go mad trying to sync the devices only once.
> personally I'd try to record the output, but in this case as the IEM may be a big part in the circuit, you'd need to record with a mic. and that introduces other problems(like ambient noise being hard to control while we record long tracks). but at least if you do that, you end up with files you can volume match correctly if you couldn't do it with the devices, and you can cut the recordings so they start pretty much at the same sample. after that, foobar+abx makes the actual listening test simple and standard. another interesting aspect if you can record the output of the IEM is that you could simple check how much change there is in FR and other stuff. so while we introduce extra gears and go through a second playback loop, I still believe it will often work better than trying to use a switch and have everything setup properly. I've had so many issues trying to compare DAPs and portable amps with a physical switch. it's way better than just casual listening, no ambiguity there, but to achieve a proper listening test(well controlled), it can really become a PITA.


Hmmm. Unfortunately a lot of that is beyond my knowledge and capabilities. I really am a bit hopeless with computers and would need a lot of guidance with the procedures that you suggest. These days I listen exclusively to Tidal. I have done listening tests before and I don't remember it being a problem to sync songs on two devices. I could be miss remembering. I volume matched by ear as best I could. Not ideal I know.


----------



## taffy2207 (Jan 24, 2019)

castleofargh said:


> not a bad idea, but the test itself once you have a plug in or an app or if you're rich, an ABX box, is very straightforward. beyond telling people that they must pick a number of trials before starting and stick to it for statistical relevance, the rest is simple.
> what's not simple is to properly prepare the files/gears to abx. but then the best procedure will usually depend on what we're testing and what question we're trying to answer. so I don't know how to make a global guide for that. not sure it's possible.



Fair enough. I just thought it'd be a place to centralise discussion / results (if people want to share results).

We're talking about it in an iphone / ipad thread at the moment. I'm setting up listening tests now and I was clueless about it (Probably still am).

I was searching for that "oh he said to do this" and "He said to do that" scenario and I couldn't the find the relevant posts. I was thinking more of a 'Rough Guide to...." thread than anything to stop threads being derailed like I'm doing at the moment.

Meh, I should be spanked for the derailment thing, I'll have a word with the Wife, It's worth a shot. I live in hope


----------



## Sterling2 (Jan 24, 2019)

TheSonicTruth said:


> Because that's what _audiophiles _do!


 Some audiophiles here need to take a page from your play book, to be as succinct  and brief  with their communication as you are.


----------



## bigshot

krismusic said:


> Hmmm. Unfortunately a lot of that is beyond my knowledge and capabilities.



Castle, can you make a recommendation for how to conduct a decent if not perfect test within his capabilities. The point is to do a test, not to split the atom. It would be good if people in this group could pitch in and help newbies who want to try tests for themselves. If no one else is able to help, I'll jump back in, but it would be good for these sorts of things to involve the community.


----------



## krismusic

It seems to me that a switch box would remove a lot of variables. Can someone recommend one?


----------



## castleofargh

krismusic said:


> It seems to me that a switch box would remove a lot of variables. Can someone recommend one?


I have a bunch of electrical switches to use with a bread board or to solder onto something, the only box I have is a small Sescom A/B switch. they have a bunch with various types of imputs, the one I have it a so called ipod A/B switch with 3.5mn jack inputs. it makes a strong sound and one side is distinctly making a different sound, but if you have no idea what is on each side, that's not to big a problem. 
with that you're going to need male to male cables (maybe some jack to jack LOD cable if you have a few around). 



bigshot said:


> Castle, can you make a recommendation for how to conduct a decent if not perfect test within his capabilities. The point is to do a test, not to split the atom. It would be good if people in this group could pitch in and help newbies who want to try tests for themselves. If no one else is able to help, I'll jump back in, but it would be good for these sorts of things to involve the community.


it really depends on what's available and what issues he'll have. if 2 Iphones aren't hard to sync then that's cool, although his position about that might change once he gets the switch ^_^. as having one even a tiny bit in advance on one really messes up with our mind. at least it does mine.
about matching the levels, I'd avoid doing so by ear, but any free solution will do. like an app that gives a dB reading on a phone, and a test tone to play on both sources(with he same player just in case). so long as neither the phone, nor the IEM move while testing, we should be fine. 
to make this really easy Kris would need 3phones, the 2 as sources and the third just to measure a level with the IEM standing with the nozzle right on the microphone of the phone so that there is no need to go super loud to measure something that isn't ambient noise. but it's probably doable with "only" 2 phones. 
of course while doing all this, it's never a bad idea to first set the listening level on the phones/mojo to something he'll want to use for the listening test ^_^. 
that could already give a nice test. having somebody to do the plugging and Kris only having his finger on the switch while looking away would really improve the test IMO. the "assistant" could just take not of what is plugged were, to tell only after the listening test. and to get a step further we could consider doing so a bunch of times with the "assistant" taking note of both the position of the devices and the subjective impressions of Kris. doing that maybe 15 times to try and see if there is a consistent preference, that could be pretty cool. 

but yes based on my own experience, every little thing helps. meaning that a rigorous test should be a completely blind (even better if double blind) with all variables under control. but also meaning that pretty much anything is more accurate than a sighted impression. just a sighted test with the switch is already removing so many impressions of differences. same for properly matched volume level. IMO even if it's a small step on the right direction and even if 25 other biases go unchecked, that's still science and that's still trying to do better. simply when a test isn't well controlled, we have to take that into account and put a grain of salt on our conclusions. I believe that's very fine too.


----------



## castleofargh

taffy2207 said:


> Fair enough. I just thought it'd be a place to centralise discussion / results (if people want to share results).
> 
> We're talking about it in an iphone / ipad thread at the moment. I'm setting up listening tests now and I was clueless about it (Probably still am).
> 
> ...


if you believe that's something that would be interesting, you're welcome to create a topic. I personally don't use my abx tests as "proof" to convince others, so I'm not the best guy to consult on this. I see abx tests as an amazing tool, one to convince me of what's going on with my ears and my gears and my files that I converted my way. it's a personal tool giving cool anecdotal stats. I see the value for myself, not so much for others. unless they doubt me on something I said related to an abx, then obviously posting my results would serve as substantiating evidence. but you see how that would be within a previous context. I'm not sure I would go to the abx result topic to post it and then link to that in the relevant topic. 
but again that's just me. if you guys are interested in doing something, just do it. it's not Castleofargh's forum. ^_^ (soon... muhahahahahahahaha!!!!!)


----------



## krismusic

castleofargh said:


> I have a bunch of electrical switches to use with a bread board or to solder onto something, the only box I have is a small Sescom A/B switch. they have a bunch with various types of imputs, the one I have it a so called ipod A/B switch with 3.5mn jack inputs. it makes a strong sound and one side is distinctly making a different sound, but if you have no idea what is on each side, that's not to big a problem.
> with that you're going to need male to male cables (maybe some jack to jack LOD cable if you have a few around).
> 
> 
> ...


I don't quite understand how I would ignore the fact that the switch box you mention introduces a different sound of its own if the idea is to ascertain if there is a difference in SQ between two different gears. Syncing two iPhones shouldn't be too much of a problem as pausing Tidal on both will allow that. Volume matching via an IEM nozzle against the phones microphone would be accurate enough?


----------



## castleofargh

krismusic said:


> I don't quite understand how I would ignore the fact that the switch box you mention introduces a different sound of its own if the idea is to ascertain if there is a difference in SQ between two different gears. Syncing two iPhones shouldn't be too much of a problem as pausing Tidal on both will allow that. Volume matching via an IEM nozzle against the phones microphone would be accurate enough?


it's harder than it looks to get a switch that makes no sound or strictly the same one back and forth. at least in the crazy cheap stuff I've got over the years. with that said, I'm talking mechanical sound, not sound getting into the IEM, so with music and the isolation of IEMs, it's not much of a problem. I just mentioned it because it's there. 

about using a phone to measure levels, in this specific case, we're not looking for calibrated anything(not FR, not dB SPL). all we need is a device that can do the same thing twice without deviating for no reason to give us a variation. so in most cases it will be all right, again the most important aspect is probably to make sure that the IEM and the phone doing the reading don't move at all between the 2 takes. going back and forth with the same test tone playing on both sources should help you confirm how stable the readings are and if ambient noise is acting up. 

I'm a contender for the little king of cheapo testing on IEMs, but that's all I know. cheap crap gears and cheap crap methods. well I do own mics, multimeter and stuff like those, but they too are cheap crap. compared to what pro measurements involve, it's like I got everything for free. ^_^


----------



## bigshot

If you can get in the ballpark you'll quickly get a sense if there is a real difference or not. If the difference is very small, it might be slop on your testing procedures, but it probably doesn't matter for the purposes of listening to music in the home.


----------



## krismusic

Would this do the job?
CyberKit 4 Channel input and Out Headphone 3.5mm MP3 Audio Signal Switcher Digital https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07DPV5G95/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_4-gtCbKXPNHSJ


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> If you can get in the ballpark you'll quickly get a sense if there is a real difference or not. If the difference is very small, it might be slop on your testing procedures, but it probably doesn't matter for the purposes of listening to music in the home.



Or whilst mowing the lawn, operating a table saw, or ATBing.


----------



## castleofargh

krismusic said:


> Would this do the job?
> CyberKit 4 Channel input and Out Headphone 3.5mm MP3 Audio Signal Switcher Digital https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07DPV5G95/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_4-gtCbKXPNHSJ


I can answer with a confident: probably. ^_^


----------



## krismusic

Can anyone point me at a switch box that will definitely do the job?


----------



## SonyFan121 (Jan 27, 2019)

@krismusic is this what you are looking for? I use this little analogue switch box to connect my headphones to my Linn power amp and it does the job perfectly. One thing about these little switch boxes is that they have no internal amplifier circuitry of their own..they're just a simple switch box..so perfect for doing AB listening tests between devices.









(I tried to upload a photo of the front of the box but for some reason it wouldn't let me).
https://www.amazon.co.uk/HQ-Sources-Output-Manual-2-Port-Black/dp/B000XT8XHU


----------



## krismusic

SonyFan121 said:


> @krismusic is this what you are looking for? I use this little analogue switch box to connect my headphones to my Linn power amp and it does the job perfectly. One thing about these little switch boxes is that they have no internal amplifier circuitry of their own..they're just a simple switch box..so perfect for doing AB listening tests between devices.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's great and cheap as chips. I'll get it ordered and a couple of adaptor cables.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

SonyFan121 said:


> @krismusic is this what you are looking for? I use this little analogue switch box to connect my headphones to my Linn power amp and it does the job perfectly. One thing about these little switch boxes is that they have no internal amplifier circuitry of their own..they're just a simple switch box..so perfect for doing AB listening tests between devices.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That works fine for a techservative such as I, but what about a USB or other digital version switcher for the tech-savvy on here?


----------



## bigshot (Jan 27, 2019)

He's looking for a 3.5mm jack. And he's looking for advice from people with experience doing controlled listening tests. I'm staying out of this to keep the thread crappers from swooping down on him. I was hoping people would help him do what we always demand of people who come to Sound Science for the first time, but it looks like that isn't happening. It isn't fair for us to demand people do controlled tests if we aren't willing to help them do one if they are interested.

That box you posted with the 3.5mm ins and outs looks like it can do what you're looking for Krismusic. There might be something less expensive that does the same thing, but that one looked nice. If you're confident with handling the level matching you should be set.


----------



## krismusic (Jan 27, 2019)

bigshot said:


> He's looking for a 3.5mm jack. And he's looking for advice from people with experience doing controlled listening tests. I'm staying out of this to keep the thread crappers from swooping down on him. I was hoping people would help him do what we always demand of people who come to Sound Science for the first time, but it looks like that isn't happening. It isn't fair for us to demand people do controlled tests if we aren't willing to help them do one if they are interested.
> 
> That box you posted with the 3.5mm ins and outs looks like it can do what you're looking for Krismusic. There might be something less expensive that does the same thing, but that one looked nice. If you're confident with handling the level matching you should be set.


Thanks Bigshot. I've ordered the box that Sony Fan suggested and two phono to 3.5mm female. If the box I found would be better, I can return what I have ordered. 
 I'll be very interested in the outcome of the test. Just being able to flick between the two sources on my own will be interesting.  I intend to enlist a friend and use his phone to set the levels. Is there any particular app that is best for this purpose?


----------



## SonyFan121

TheSonicTruth said:


> That works fine for a techservative such as I, but what about a USB or other digital version switcher for the tech-savvy on here?


Sorry, can't help you with that as I only have experience with the analogue one's.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

SonyFan121 said:


> Sorry, can't help you with that as I only have experience with the analogue one's.



I was actually thinking others on here who might have graduated on from analog connections long ago, lol!  Remember I'm the techservative - that RCA switcher is fine for me!


----------



## bigshot (Jan 28, 2019)

krismusic said:


> I intend to enlist a friend and use his phone to set the levels. Is there any particular app that is best for this purpose?



You should be able to adjust the output of the two sources to level match. Not terribly precise, but it should work for a first rough comparison. You'll want to use headphones with an impedance that works well with your sources, or you will want to insert a headphone amp after the switch box. Make sure you use the same file in both sources. Best to rip a long CD track to WAV and use that to play. That will make it easier to line the two tracks up and you know you're getting identical lossless files.

You can be sure whatever results you end up with, someone around here will tell you that your test wasn't precise enough. It's good enough for a first test to just get a feeling for the potential degree of difference you're finding, not necessarily that they are definitely different or identical. Determining minute differences requires more stringent testing methods. Just check to see if you hear significant differences... the sort of thing that would have an impact in casual listening.


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> You should be able to adjust the output of the two sources to level match. Not terribly precise, but it should work for a first rough comparison. You'll want to use headphones with an impedance that works well with your sources, or you will want to insert a headphone amp after the switch box. Make sure you use the same file in both sources. Best to rip a long CD track to WAV and use that to play. That will make it easier to line the two tracks up and you know you're getting identical lossless files.
> 
> You can be sure whatever results you end up with, someone around here will tell you that your test wasn't precise enough. It's good enough for a first test to just get a feeling for the potential degree of difference you're finding, not necessarily that they are definitely different or identical. Determining minute differences requires more stringent testing methods. Just check to see if you hear significant differences... the sort of thing that would have an impact in casual listening.


Yep. Baby steps. At least I am testing. Tidal only here as source. I see what Castle meant about two tracks saying at different times. I can get it pretty good between the two devices.


----------



## Sterling2 (Feb 3, 2019)

I'm getting the impression that no matter how anyone here is going about any scientific testing of sound quality/preference/divergence that there is always just one problem to preclude acceptance of results. This makes me think perhaps those here who believe they know how to do it might just do it. Certainly they have the time and interest, as they have spend thousands upon thousands of words here to tell others how it's done.


----------



## krismusic

Anyone like to point me at test tones for volume matching?


----------



## bfreedma

krismusic said:


> Anyone like to point me at test tones for volume matching?



https://www.mediacollege.com/audio/tone/download/


----------



## sonitus mirus

krismusic said:


> Anyone like to point me at test tones for volume matching?



It is probably easier to just use the ones provided above, but you could also create your own test tones with Audacity. 

https://www.audacityteam.org/


----------



## castleofargh

yup I tend to generate them in audacity or in Room Eq Wizard(as I do many measurements on it and have to calibrate it fairly often anyway, so I kill 2 birds with one tone). but really any tone you get online will do the job, what matters is to have the same reference and you'll get that.  just avoid if possible to get a full scale tone(where the signal peaks at 0dB), just in case one use ends up clipping the signal. but the chances of that happening are rather small anyway.


----------



## castleofargh

Sterling2 said:


> I'm getting the impression that no matter how anyone here is going about any scientific testing of sound quality/preference/divergence that there is always just one problem to preclude acceptance of results. This makes me think perhaps those here who believe they know how to do it might just do it. Certainly they have the time and interest, as they have spend thousands upon thousands of words here to tell others how it's done.


a listening tests is like eating, we can do it in your stead but what good is that doing for you? I assume that @krismusic is curious about the answer, and that is why he's bothering with all that annoying stuff. maybe he also wishes to demonstrate to us that there is indeed an audible difference(which again is completely possible), but those are 2 different matters already. proving something to yourself and proving something to others will usually involve different standards and that is fine. to convince yourself, you only have to believe. to convince others, you have to meet their requirements and make them believe. it's obviously going to require more work, and a few may just never be convinced no matter what you do. that's the obvious reality, but how is it different from anything else? we live on a planet where a sadly significant portion of the population believes that vaccines are made to hurt kids, and that the planet isn't round. to only name the most mind breaking stuff that we fail to demonstrate to everybody despite oh so much data to serve as evidence. if your expectation is to present some experiment and have the entire forum go "wow, he's right!", prepare to be disappointed.
and don't get me wrong, it also drives me crazy sometimes.


----------



## krismusic

castleofargh said:


> a listening tests is like eating, we can do it in your stead but what good is that doing for you? I assume that @krismusic is curious about the answer, and that is why he's bothering with all that annoying stuff. maybe he also wishes to demonstrate to us that there is indeed an audible difference(which again is completely possible), but those are 2 different matters already. proving something to yourself and proving something to others will usually involve different standards and that is fine. to convince yourself, you only have to believe. to convince others, you have to meet their requirements and make them believe. it's obviously going to require more work, and a few may just never be convinced no matter what you do. that's the obvious reality, but how is it different from anything else? we live on a planet where a sadly significant portion of the population believes that vaccines are made to hurt kids, and that the planet isn't round. to only name the most mind breaking stuff that we fail to demonstrate to everybody despite oh so much data to serve as evidence. if your expectation is to present some experiment and have the entire forum go "wow, he's right!", prepare to be disappointed.
> and don't get me wrong, it also drives me crazy sometimes.


I'm really interested in finding out if I am correct for myself.I'm not in the business of convincing others. I guess it would also be good to know if there is a solid basis to recommending the Mojo to others.


----------



## SergeSE

krismusic said:


> I'm really interested in finding out if I am correct for myself.I'm not in the business of convincing others. I guess it would also be good to know if there is a solid basis to recommending the Mojo to others.


I'm also interested in results of blind listening tests (BLT) of an iPhone and Mojo as I'm going to perform my music-based measurements of Mojo. It would be great if one-two-three more people repeat this BLT in order to be confident. For me this is the only way to test my measurement methodology - to compare with results of BLT.


----------



## StandsOnFeet

castleofargh said:


> I kill 2 birds with one tone


----------



## castleofargh

krismusic said:


> I'm really interested in finding out if I am correct for myself.I'm not in the business of convincing others. I guess it would also be good to know if there is a solid basis to recommending the Mojo to others.


there are plenty of reasons to have a mojo. it provides a very descent output for those with more demanding headphones than portable ones. it also offers really low impedance in case that's important in some ways. and beyond subjective change in sound, it's a device that apparently measures pretty well. of course if your own only concern is that you're getting audible improvement, then starting by checking that there are audible differences should be more relevant to you.


----------



## bigshot

krismusic said:


> would also be good to know if there is a solid basis to recommending the Mojo to others.



That's a pretty clear bias. You're going to have to make an effort to make sure it doesn't skew your results.

What headphones do you plan to use?


----------



## SonyFan121 (Feb 4, 2019)

bigshot said:


> *That's a pretty clear bias*. You're going to have to make an effort to make sure it doesn't skew your results.
> 
> What headphones do you plan to use?


If someone chooses to be biased when _conducting their own tests_ then that's up to them, who are you to tell them what to do.


----------



## bigshot

SonyFan121 said:


> If someone chooses to be biased when _conducting their own tests_ then that's up to them, who are you to tell them what to do.



The whole point of doing a controlled test is to eliminate the effect of bias so you can determine the truth. If you only want to prove a predetermined conclusion, then it would be best to not bother applying any controls at all and let your bias color your subjective impression. I don't see the point of doing a test if you aren't willing to accept the truth however it falls out. When a test result isn't what you expect, that is the fun part, because that leads to more questions and ultimately better answers.

By the way, didn't you leave this group for good in a huff? Did the huff wear off? You're welcome to participate here if you can get in the spirit of the group. You've seemed to not be able to do that, but if you are willing to make an effort, I'll cut you some slack.


----------



## SonyFan121

bigshot said:


> The whole point of doing a controlled test is to eliminate the effect of bias so you can determine the truth. If you only want to prove a predetermined conclusion, then it would be best to not bother applying any controls at all and let your bias color your subjective impression. I don't see the point of doing a test if you aren't willing to accept the truth however it falls out. When a test result isn't what you expect, that is the fun part, because that leads to more questions and ultimately better answers.
> 
> By the way, didn't you leave this group for good in a huff? Did the huff wear off? You're welcome to participate here if you can get in the spirit of the group. You've seemed to not be able to do that, but if you are willing to make an effort, I'll cut you some slack.


You are good at telling people what to do.


----------



## taffy2207 (Feb 4, 2019)

And it's a shame you're not good at listening.


----------



## bigshot

SonyFan121 said:


> You are good at telling people what to do.



Is this a conversation or are you just heckling? Because if you are heckling, I'll just ignore you and encourage other people to do the same.


----------



## SonyFan121 (Feb 4, 2019)

taffy2207 said:


> And it's a shame you're not good at listening.


Oh how little you would know! Actually, there's absolutely nothing wrong with my hearing - quite the opposite. I'm a musician and was born with the unique ability to identify musical pitch and notation/tones just by hearing them, I don't need to read musical sheets to play musical instruments.
I'ts not me that's not good at listening. I'm also quite smart too, unlike some others around here!


----------



## bigshot

I just put the child prodigy on ignore.


----------



## bfreedma

SonyFan121 said:


> I don't like to boast





SonyFan121 said:


> Oh how little you would know! Actually, there's absolutely nothing wrong with my hearing - quite the opposite. I'm a musician born with the unique ability to identify musical pitch and notation/tones just by hearing them, I don't need to read musical sheets to play musical instruments.
> I'ts not me that's not good at listening. I'm also quite smart too, unlike some others around here!



Not sure how to reconcile these two posts...


----------



## Glmoneydawg

SonyFan121 said:


> You are good at telling people what to do.


He is politely trying to help you avoid another "rage quit" situation....with great restraint.


----------



## SonyFan121 (Feb 4, 2019)

Glmoneydawg said:


> He is politely trying to help you avoid another "rage quit" situation....with great restraint.


Rage quit? With great restraint? lol!
_he's running the show around here_!
If anyone needs restrained....


----------



## taffy2207 (Feb 4, 2019)

SonyFan121 said:


> Oh how little you would know! Actually, there's absolutely nothing wrong with my hearing - quite the opposite. I'm a musician born with the unique ability to identify musical pitch and notation/tones just by hearing them, I don't need to read musical sheets to play musical instruments.
> I'ts not me that's not good at listening. I'm also quite smart too, unlike some others around here!



You've shown no signs of being smart at all, Someone who is smart knows he doesn't know everything. The only thing remotely smart that you posted (that you interpreted incorrectly), you copy and pasted and claimed as your own (and forgot to take the hyperlinks out). Your 'unique ability' didn't aid you when trying to discern the difference between different Audio formats. You failed the test then claimed the test was wrong, deleted your post with your results in, got abusive and left. You claim on the main forum that you mix and master your own music but never mentioned that in your 'discussion' with Gregorio. You made the claim just after that discussion, funny that.

You came back, proved that you don't know the difference between Revenue and Profit (even after being told). Your 'awesome Linn Amp' you've been constantly bragging about isn't so good anymore now you're wanting to buy a new Sony one despite you banging on about it for weeks. Your constant bragging, cries for attention and claiming to be somewhat special are really showing signs of feeling inadequate and insecure.

You may want to learn the meaning of the word 'Humility' and exercise it's meaning.

When I'm wrong I tend to 'like' the post that corrects me  not throw a wobbly because of it. Why? because I'd have learned something.

Some members are here to pass on knowledge, some are here to learn. You only cause drama here. You can change that.



SonyFan121 said:


> The most outspoken one's are the one's who ironically know next to nothing.



Indeed and very ironic.

You're not willing to learn anything because you think you know it all but you're constantly proved wrong, you throw abuse, make a grand statement that gets proved wrong again. You leave, claiming that you will never come back and you won't be reading anything we post, yet you inevitably do return. Rinse and repeat.

If you think I'm wrong, prove me wrong, show some humility. Anything you post I won't be reading it, I've placed you on ignore.



bigshot said:


> I just put the child prodigy on ignore.



Snap!


----------



## bigshot

oh my!


----------



## SonyFan121 (Feb 4, 2019)

taffy2207 said:


> You've shown no signs of being smart at all. The only thing remotely smart that you posted (that you interpreted incorrectly), you copy and pasted and claimed as your own (and forgot to take the hyperlinks out). Your 'unique ability' didn't aid you when trying to discern the difference between different Audio formats. You failed the test then claimed the test was wrong, deleted your post with your results in, got abusive and left. You claim on the main forum that you mix and master your own music but never mentioned that in your 'discussion' with Gregorio. You made the claim just after that discussion, funny that.
> 
> You came back, proved that you don't know the difference between Revenue and Profit (even after being told). Your 'awesome Linn Amp' you've been constantly bragging about isn't so good anymore now you're wanting to buy a new Sony one despite you banging on about it for weeks. Your constant bragging, cries for attention and claiming to be somewhat special are really showing signs of feeling inadequate and insecure.
> 
> ...



I do know about humility, I have plenty of it. However; It only makes sense for someone to show humility when they are wrong and I was not wrong.  I did not proclaim that that post I made of which I quoted from an external website about the Nyquist theory was mine's, I should've written my own interpretation of the Nyquist Theory but didn't have the time. I just forgot to mention that I had quoted it from another website. Actually, as regards Bigshots test; I was convinced I could hear a difference between the audio formats, I did spend a good 45 - 50 minutes on it. Then I realised that his test was flawed because the audio samples where themselves contained within an audio sample (Flac), instead of being separate files. It's almost like he tried to cheat me. That lead me to believe that he doesn't really know as much as he has everyone here believe he does. I did not get abusive, but it is just not in my nature to let someone treat me disrespectfully. And also you have to understand that potentially there are some people here with huge Ego's and blatant bias who are spreading disinformation. And the less intelligent people fall for it..making the aforementioned look good. Think of the years worth of disinformation they've spread all over this form. I'm buying a new Sony amp to replace the Linn amp because the Linn amp is 26 years old and impractical. The Linn amp will still sound better though. Once or twice I have made a point that is valid and true, such as analogue being better for sound quality than digital. Yes I know that is primarily my belief, but it's a belief based just as much on objective fact as it is on subjective listening. The Nyquist Theory proves that analogue is indeed better than digital, for sound quality. That is because the sampling rate during the conversion process (converting the analogue signal to digital) has to be higher than _F_max, otherwise there will be important parts of audible information missing from the encoded digital format.  I know this is right, because it's an objective fact. so I do not need to show humility when someone tries to prove me wrong.
(btw you can ignore me all you want, I do not care as I know when i'm right about something, and i'm right about it).


----------



## bfreedma

SonyFan121 said:


> I do know about humility, I have plenty of it. However; It only makes sense for someone to show humility when they are wrong and I was not wrong.  I did not proclaim that that post I made of which I quoted from an external website about the Nyquist theory was mine's, I should've written my own interpretation of the Nyquist Theory but didn't have the time. I just forgot to mention that I had quoted it from another website. Actually, as regards Bigshots test; I was convinced I could hear a difference between the audio formats, I did spend a good 45 - 50 minutes on it. Then I realised that his test was flawed because the audio samples where themselves contained within an audio sample (Flac), instead of being separate files. It's almost like he tried to cheat me. That lead me to believe that he doesn't really know as much as he has everyone here believe he does. I did not get abusive, but it is just not in my nature to let someone treat me disrespectfully. And also you have to understand that potentially there are some people here with huge Ego's and blatant bias who are spreading disinformation. And the less intelligent people fall for it..making the aforementioned look good. Think of the years worth of disinformation they've spread all over this form. I'm buying a new Sony amp to replace the Linn amp because the Linn amp is 26 years old and impractical. The Linn amp will still sound better though. Once or twice I have made a point that is valid and true, such as analogue being better for sound quality than digital. Yes I know that is primarily my belief, but it's a belief based just as much on objective fact as it is on subjective listening. The Nyquist Theory proves that analogue is indeed better than digital, for sound quality. That is because the sampling rate during the conversion process (converting the analogue signal to digital) has to be higher than _F_max, otherwise there will be important parts of audible information missing from the encoded digital format.  I know this is right, because it's an objective fact. so I do not need to show humility when someone tries to prove me wrong.
> (btw you can ignore me all you want, I do not care as I know when i'm right about something, and i'm right about it).




Does “humility” have a definition in Scotland that I’m not familiar with?

One last try:  you’re dramatically overestimating your domain knowledge and confusing what you believe with the operational realities in play here.  Try taking a step back and actually consider what others are posting - you might learn something.  If you think others here are spreading disinformation, be specific and refute it with objective evidence.

Respect here is earned, not given.  Your repeated posting that you’re more intelligent and worse, those who don’t agree with you are less intelligent isn’t going to earn you the respect you seem to desperately crave.  Frankly, I’d be insulted if I actually believed you had the level of knowledge you claim, but I’m not, as you don’t.


----------



## SonyFan121 (Feb 4, 2019)

Just because I don’t sound like a quantum physicist when I post something doesn’t mean I know nothing. And I don’t desire anyone’s respect. I don’t need to.


----------



## bfreedma

SonyFan121 said:


> Just because I don’t sound like a quantum physicist when I post something doesn’t mean I know nothing. And I don’t desire anyone’s respect. I don’t need to.



Well, I tried.  Good luck and good riddance.

(Exits the megalomania sandbox)


----------



## SonyFan121

Good for you.


----------



## bigshot (Feb 4, 2019)

I encourage everyone to stop feeding the obvious trolls. We have someone who is interested in doing their first objective test. That is where we should be focusing our attention so we can help. There's no point crapping up the thread with someone who has nothing at all to offer.


----------



## castleofargh

SonyFan121 said:


> If someone chooses to be biased when _conducting their own tests_ then that's up to them, who are you to tell them what to do.


 I read this and can't help but wonder:  who are you to tell him what to do?  it's always awkward when someone is caught doing the very thing he's criticizing somebody else for doing. more so when it's in the same sentence.


SonyFan121 said:


> And also you have to understand that potentially there are some people here with huge Ego's and blatant bias who are spreading disinformation.


very true. it's also obvious to most people now that you're one of them, and it's starting to be a problem.


SonyFan121 said:


> The Nyquist Theory proves that analogue is indeed better than digital, for sound quality.


 no.
Nyquist's sampling theorem defines the minimum band limiting required to be able to fully reconstruct a signal within a given frequency bandwidth. if you want to reconstruct a wider frequency range, you simply collect more samples per second. at no point does this theorem demonstrate digital media's inferiority. your rational against digital audio is an argument against all of the real world including all you beloved analog gears. an analog recording is subjected to the same types of limitations(and then some more). be it tape, vinyl or wax cylinders, they all sample and quantify the signal. be it a result of the transduction process, or the consequence of using a given material and speed, what's analogue is the process of recording and playing back the signal in a continuous way. that alone doesn't magically turn anything into a perfect replica of the other thing. the actual stored information on the medium is always quantified and always band limited in some way. even sound in the air is band limited and an electrical wire will filter frequencies. your "proof" is non existent, or a critic of everything. I let you chose.

not that it has anything to do with Kris and his Iphone.  sorry for perhaps feeding the troll.


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> That's a pretty clear bias. You're going to have to make an effort to make sure it doesn't skew your results.
> 
> What headphones do you plan to use?


Hmm. That's a bit of a catch 22. I see what you mean. The biggest bias is that I want to like the Mojo. Being a blind test should remove the effect of these bias? I am most interested in running the test with my K10's but will also use the HD600's. 



SonyFan121 said:


> If someone chooses to be biased when _conducting their own tests_ then that's up to them, who are you to tell them what to do.


Not wishing to prolong this as it has been pretty much dealt with further on in the thread but just to express support for Bigshot, he is helping me do something that I am very interested in and I appreciate his help.


----------



## bigshot

You will need some sort of headphone amp for IEMs and HD800s for the output from the iPhone. The impedance is pretty sure to be a mismatch. Do you have a headphone amp you can use?


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> You will need some sort of headphone amp for IEMs and HD800s for the output from the iPhone. The impedance is pretty sure to be a mismatch. Do you have a headphone amp you can use?



Out of curiosity, what is/are the audible effect/ of an impedance mismatch?  I've probably heard them before but ever really paid attention enough to diagnose as such.


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> You will need some sort of headphone amp for IEMs and HD800s for the output from the iPhone. The impedance is pretty sure to be a mismatch. Do you have a headphone amp you can use?


I was intending to use the Mojo alone with the iems as that is how I listen. I have an O2. HD600's not 800's BTW.


----------



## bigshot

The mojo would be fine. It has an amp built in, right? The direct output from the iPhone would require amping.


----------



## sonitus mirus

TheSonicTruth said:


> Out of curiosity, what is/are the audible effect/ of an impedance mismatch?  I've probably heard them before but ever really paid attention enough to diagnose as such.



Here is some great information about impedance with regards to headphones and amps. (the link may not stay for long if this site still has it in for this blogger)

*https://preview.tinyurl.com/bp7crrr*


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> The mojo would be fine. It has an amp built in, right? The direct output from the iPhone would require amping.


The Mojo doesn't actually have an amp section. It takes the output directly from the DAC. I should amp both the Ciem's and the 600's from the iPhone?


----------



## bigshot

Is this what you have? If so, this is a DAC and amp in one.
https://www.audiolab.com/chord-mojo...z4V5WaAp3U4YjT0LFhTeZG4oJw8nJN9QaAvlJEALw_wcB

You would need an amp for the iPhone too to compare apples to apples so to speak.


----------



## bigshot (Feb 5, 2019)

SonyFan121 said:


> as regards Bigshots test; I was convinced I could hear a difference between the audio formats, I did spend a good 45 - 50 minutes on it. Then I realised that his test was flawed because the audio samples where themselves contained within an audio sample (Flac), instead of being separate files.



That isn't true at all and you know it. You turned in your results and they were randomly distributed because you misunderstood the instructions. When you change your story now to try to make your failure my fault, it tips your hand. A lossy file contained in a lossless file sounds exactly like the original lossy file. I put it in the lossless file so you couldn't peep at the data rate by doing a get info on the file. This makes it impossible to rank all the files without actually listening to them and discerning the quality by ear. You intended to cheat the test and you found out you couldn't. Now you're trying to blame it on me.

You spend 40 minutes on the test? The test file itself has a longer running time than that. You're admitting you didn't even listen to the whole file. Ha ha.

NEXT!!


----------



## SonyFan121

[/QUOTE]


bigshot said:


> That isn't true at all and you know it. You turned in your results and they were randomly distributed because you misunderstood the instructions. When you change your story now to try to make your failure my fault, it tips your hand. *A lossy file contained in a lossless file sounds exactly like the original lossy file.* I put it in the lossless file so you couldn't peep at the data rate by doing a get info on the file. This makes it impossible to rank all the files without actually listening to them and discerning the quality by ear. You intended to cheat the test and you found out you couldn't. Now you're trying to blame it on me.
> 
> You spend 40 minutes on the test? The test file itself has a longer running time than that. You're admitting you didn't even listen to the whole file. *Ha ha.
> 
> NEXT!!*



What are you a child? Get..a..life.
Your test was flawed. Who in the right mind would do that? you my friend, are a complete nutjob and are an insult to my intelligence.
I refuse to entertain you! continue your rants! I won't be listening to you any longer.


----------



## bigshot

BUH BYE!!!


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> Is this what you have? If so, this is a DAC and amp in one.
> https://www.audiolab.com/chord-mojo...z4V5WaAp3U4YjT0LFhTeZG4oJw8nJN9QaAvlJEALw_wcB
> 
> You would need an amp for the iPhone too to compare apples to apples so to speak.


Yes. That's the Mojo. This is Relic's post which mentions the output of Mojo. 
Chord and Rob have confirmed many times that the line out mode is simply a digital volume preset, nothing is bypassed. Rob has also confirmed that the 'amp' is basically just the analogue stage of the DAC, you can't seperate the sound from the DAC from the analogue stage in the Mojo. There is no traditional seperate 'amp' section and that's how Rob designs all his current DACs.


----------



## bigshot

Yes, the Mojo has impedance that will work with your IEMs and full size cans. The iPhone's headphone output is designed for portable headphones, so you'll need to amp the output of the phone to get the proper impedance for your IEMs and headphones. Ideally, you would amp from the line out of the phone rather than the headphone out. Then you would have a fairly equal comparison of DAC to DAC.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Feb 5, 2019)

sonitus mirus said:


> Here is some great information about impedance with regards to headphones and amps. (the link may not stay for long if this site still has it in for this blogger)
> 
> *https://preview.tinyurl.com/bp7crrr*



Thanks for that informative link.  So if I read correctly it states that the output impedance of the source(IE: iPod, Galaxy phone, etc) should be no more than 1/8th of the impedance of what that source is driving(headphone, earbud) and preferably less.  According to several sites I checked the output impedance of the iPod 6gen Touch is somewhere between 2-4ohms(3.79 specifically acc. to one site which laid out the steps of calculating it). 

So that Touch should not have any audible issues driving any of my cans - MDR-7506, HD-280 Pro, DT-880 Pro 250ohm, etc - other than having to crank it up a bit more when listening via the latter-most of those three.

What I was looking more for was descriptions of the effects  of impedance mismatch: 'uneven frequency response', 'distortion', etc.


----------



## bigshot (Feb 5, 2019)

Volume level, frequency response imbalance and degraded dynamics. I know what you're talking about though... No one seems to give straight answers on this subject. They get sidetracked into details and forget to state the obvious clearly enough.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> Volume level, frequency response imbalance and degraded dynamics. I know what you're talking about though... No one seems to give straight answers on this subject. They get sidetracked into details and forget to state the obvious clearly enough.



I do know that of the three the Beyer I mentioned sounds the most transparent, perhaps because I have to set the volume much higher to reach my comfort level compared to what I set it for the other two cans I mentioned.  Or is it because the Beyer is a higher quality headphone?


----------



## bigshot

Could be either of those things. If you level match, you might know for sure if it's the headphone or the amping. But the impedance should tell you pretty well whether they need amping or not. Lower impedance amping less necessary. Higher means amps are more necessary.


----------



## castleofargh

krismusic said:


> Yes. That's the Mojo. This is Relic's post which mentions the output of Mojo.
> Chord and Rob have confirmed many times that the line out mode is simply a digital volume preset, nothing is bypassed. Rob has also confirmed that the 'amp' is basically just the analogue stage of the DAC, you can't seperate the sound from the DAC from the analogue stage in the Mojo. There is no traditional seperate 'amp' section and that's how Rob designs all his current DACs.


don't worry too much, your(our) initial question is to know how much audible difference you get with your ears(not your eyes) between the phone and using it with the Mojo on you specific IEM. so that's the test you have to conduct. beyond that, it would of course be interesting to know what causes what and other tests could help for that. but it's another story. 



TheSonicTruth said:


> Thanks for that informative link.  So if I read correctly it states that the output impedance of the source(IE: iPod, Galaxy phone, etc) should be no more than 1/8th of the impedance of what that source is driving(headphone, earbud) and preferably less.  According to several sites I checked the output impedance of the iPod 6gen Touch is somewhere between 2-4ohms(3.79 specifically acc. to one site which laid out the steps of calculating it).
> 
> So that Touch should not have any audible issues driving any of my cans - MDR-7506, HD-280 Pro, DT-880 Pro 250ohm, etc - other than having to crank it up a bit more when listening via the latter-most of those three.
> 
> What I was looking more for was descriptions of the effects  of impedance mismatch: 'uneven frequency response', 'distortion', etc.


the thing is, several events can occur depending on the amp and headphone used, that are all somehow related to impedance ratios.  here the unknown and the number one suspect for audible difference is the impedance curve of @krismusic's IEM. if that impedance curves moves from very low to pretty high within the audible range, then chances are that the frequency response will be affected audibly simply from using amplifier sections with different impedance output. but then again, if the minimum impedance value of the IEM is above 8 times the impedance of the various sources, then the potential change in frequency response should stay below 1dB and be a nothing burger. so it would really help to have impedance measurements from that IEM. I could do it if he sends the IEM to me, but Kris is being bothered enough already. maybe such measurement will pop out somewhere(perhaps it's already online and I just failed to find?). or if his listening test doesn't suggest much of a difference, then maybe we can assume that the impedance of the IEM is high enough and be happy with that. 

some other potential issues purely related to impedance would be when a device has capacitors at the output, then the lower the impedance of the load(headphone), the more the low end will roll off. 
in general a really bad impedance ratio can mean some low freq attenuation anyway, but nothing remotely close to what capacitors can do. so usually you'll just dismiss that part as it's assumed to remain irrelevant under usual circumstances. 
a bad impedance ratio could also mean bad electrical damping(so how well the electrical signal controls the movement of the driver). if the headphone already has strong mechanical damping, you don't really have to care too much, but otherwise it could result in audible change. it's something you can experience with passive speakers pretty easily as they have really low impedance so it's easy to get a high impedance amp output and fool around with it. with headphones in general I wouldn't expect a clearly noticeable change purely due to lack of electrical damping. and for balanced armature IEM even less so. I've played with resistors to tune the signature of multidriver IEMs when the crossover offered a favorable result(rare), and in my anecdotal tests, I couldn't really tell the sound apart from simply applying a digital EQ with the same FR impact. the only time I did get a noticeable difference, was because my source couldn't handle a very low impedance IEM too well. so adding resistors reduced the demand in current and saved the amp section from distorting like crazy. but again that's a fairly extreme circumstance. even with cellphones, there has been only a handful of cases where the output started distorting horribly into even a 16ohm IEM pushed a little loud. it's something I try to look up when the measurements are available, and the same way, I now avoid purchasing IEMs with impedance going below 10ohm in the audible range, and that is usually enough not to worry about that last situation of the amp itself struggling with a low impedance load. 
on the top of my head I think that's about it. if I made a mistake or oversimplified something I hope someone will point it out. the rest is a matter of power efficiency(ideally with impedance bridging, we'd want the amp to be 0ohm), but it's irrelevant for audiophiles. when we look up amplifier specs, they already give the power output into various loads. so we know from the start what's going on and how loud we can get with a given headphone.


----------



## bigshot

castleofargh said:


> don't worry too much, your(our) initial question is to know how much audible difference you get with your ears(not your eyes) between the phone and using it with the Mojo on you specific IEM. so that's the test you have to conduct.



Can the Mojo act as an amp so you could switch between the phone using the Mojo as amp and using the Mojo as both DAC and amp? He's trying to compare the iPhone to the Mojo. Both of those need to have the proper impedance for the cans he plans to use.


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> Can the Mojo act as an amp so you could switch between the phone using the Mojo as amp and using the Mojo as both DAC and amp? He's trying to compare the iPhone to the Mojo. Both of those need to have the proper impedance for the cans he plans to use.


No. The Mojo cannot be used as an amp alone. I think this is all getting rather overcomplicated. What I want to know initially is, does the Mojo improve the sound of the iPhone using my CIEM's which I use daily. As a side test I will also use my HD600's. If there is a possibility that there is some kind of electrical miss match in this set up, impedance etc then I would be very interested to know about that. Unfortunately Noble are very secretive about the specs. For reasons I don't know.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (Feb 7, 2019)

krismusic said:


> No. The Mojo cannot be used as an amp alone. I think this is all getting rather overcomplicated. What I want to know initially is, does the Mojo improve the sound of the iPhone using my CIEM's which I use daily. As a side test I will also use my HD600's. If there is a possibility that there is some kind of electrical miss match in this set up, impedance etc then I would be very interested to know about that. Unfortunately Noble are very secretive about the specs. For reasons I don't know.



This 'Mojo' thing is starting to sound more like an added sweetener to me.  Effects I could probably accomplish with an app or with the EQ on the receiver I use as a headphone amp.  Have you contacted Noble directly regarding specifications?  If, as you stated, they are kept secret, then I need not know any more!

As you might know, I'm the 'K.I.S.S.' guy of these forums - keep it simple, and less junk in the listening chain.  That stuff's for the audiophiles.


----------



## bigshot (Feb 7, 2019)

krismusic said:


> What I want to know initially is, does the Mojo improve the sound of the iPhone using my CIEM's which I use daily.



The answer to that is pretty certainly yes, but not for the DAC in the Mojo. It's because of the amp. A $50 Cmoy Altoids tin amp would probably accomplish the same thing. I have one of those that I would give you for your test, but I'm afraid it is deeply buried in my garage.

Most reports of one DAC sounding better than the other boil down to impedance mismatches that are the fault of the headphones, not the DACs. DACs are all designed to sound the same. Some headphones require amping and some don't. Both your IEMs and your cans are designed to be amped. That's why they don't sound the same unamped straight out of the headphone jack of the iPhone as they do amped through the Mojo.

The way to test whether the Mojo's DAC is better would be to amp the output from the iPhone so the impedance matches your cans. Then you'd be comparing apples to apples. Alternatively, you could use headphones with a lower impedance rating that don't require amping to do the test.


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> The answer to that is pretty certainly yes, but not for the DAC in the Mojo. It's because of the amp. A $50 Cmoy Altoids tin amp would probably accomplish the same thing. I have one of those that I would give you for your test, but I'm afraid it is deeply buried in my garage.
> 
> Most reports of one DAC sounding better than the other boil down to impedance mismatches that are the fault of the headphones, not the DACs. DACs are all designed to sound the same. Some headphones require amping and some don't. Both your IEMs and your cans are designed to be amped. That's why they don't sound the same unamped straight out of the headphone jack of the iPhone as they do amped through the Mojo.
> 
> The way to test whether the Mojo's DAC is better would be to amp the output from the iPhone so the impedance matches your cans. Then you'd be comparing apples to apples. Alternatively, you could use headphones with a lower impedance rating that don't require amping to do the test.


So how about if I compare the Mojo to the I iPhone plus O2?


----------



## bigshot

What is the o2? I'm afraid I don't keep up on all the model numbers.


----------



## StandsOnFeet

bigshot said:


> What is the o2?


It isn't really a model number.  It's more of a nickname:
https://www.jdslabs.com/products/35/objective2-headphone-amplifier/


----------



## bigshot

Yeah that would work great. The only other thing is to figure out what to play the file on to go into the Mojo. Do you plan to use your computer, krismusic?


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> Yeah that would work great. The only other thing is to figure out what to play the file on to go into the Mojo. Do you plan to use your computer, krismusic?


I was planning to use Tidal premium.


----------



## bigshot

You use the iPhone to play on the phone, what will you use to play through the Mojo? Or does it have an onboard Tidal player?


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> You use the iPhone to play on the phone, what will you use to play through the Mojo? Or does it have an onboard Tidal player?



Too. many. gadgets. head. hurts!


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> You use the iPhone to play on the phone, what will you use to play through the Mojo? Or does it have an onboard Tidal player?


the Mojo is a portable DAC/amp, nothing more, nothing less.
I still think that you're over complicating things. Kris came talking about how he felt a legit difference using his IEM with the added Mojo, and we wondered how sure he was about that(sighted tests, uncontrolled, blablablah). that's what started the all thing and the question he still needs to test as properly as he can(ideally with the help of someone else to try and have a pseudo blind test at some point).
let him get there, and after that depending on the answer, we can try to torture him some more with different questions/tests.


----------



## krismusic

castleofargh said:


> the Mojo is a portable DAC/amp, nothing more, nothing less.
> I still think that you're over complicating things. Kris came talking about how he felt a legit difference using his IEM with the added Mojo, and we wondered how sure he was about that(sighted tests, uncontrolled, blablablah). that's what started the all thing and the question he still needs to test as properly as he can(ideally with the help of someone else to try and have a pseudo blind test at some point).
> let him get there, and after that depending on the answer, we can try to torture him some more with different questions/tests.


Ha ha! Thanks for your consideration Castle. I'm visiting a good friend next weekend who is into all this stuff. So that's when I will do the test. He is in fact blind, so it will be a true blind test!!!


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> You use the iPhone to play on the phone, what will you use to play through the Mojo? Or does it have an onboard Tidal player?


I use an old 5s as a player with Mojo.


----------



## bigshot

Perfect. I'd suggest using the line out from the iPhone and 5s rather than the headphone out. That would reduce another variable you don't want influencing the test.


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> Perfect. I'd suggest using the line out from the iPhone and 5s rather than the headphone out. That would reduce another variable you don't want influencing the test.


I use line out from the 5s with a third party cable which incorporates the CCK.


----------



## bigshot

You’re set!


----------



## krismusic

BTW. The only spec for the K10 that Noble ever released that I am aware of is that they are "less than 32ohm" impedance. I don't know why they are so cagey.


----------



## bigshot

Not sure how you're going to level match using a streaming source. It may take you a long time to get that balanced, and you're not going to be precise, but it should be good enough to hear night and day differences at least.


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> Not sure how you're going to level match using a streaming source. It may take you a long time to get that balanced, and you're not going to be precise, but it should be good enough to hear night and day differences at least.


Perfect level matching isn't that important....if you can be honest with yourself.....ask me how i know lol


----------



## bigshot

I've been thrown off on quickie tests by level differences.

OK. I'll bite. How do you know?


----------



## Glmoneydawg

bigshot said:


> I've been thrown off on quickie tests by level differences.
> 
> OK. I'll bite. How do you know?


When i came in here about a year ago,i was looking to upgrade my very expensive digital front end.After lurking here for a while, i tested what i had against a Cambridge CXU bluray player.I was heavily biased against the Cambridge (i do love big,shiny heavy audio gear).I just used a cheapie spl meter and my ears and even with my want to find fault with the Cambridge ..i could hear no difference after weeks of trying with headphones and speakers.So not a quickie test,but i didn't find (reasonably close)level matching to be an issue.Btw made a bundle selling my old setup


----------



## bigshot

It sounds like you did pretty accurate level matching. Here we're talking about not using an SPL meter and matching by ear using music, not tones. That is more difficult. Not impossible, but it would take quite a while of noodling and several rounds of tests and rematching levels probably.


----------



## krismusic

Well. I just left my friend after an afternoon of testing and listening. We can confidently say that there is no useful difference in sound between the iPhone and the Mojo. We mainly ended up using the Sennheiser 600's as we could both listen to them. Straight out of the phone the phones volume was at maximum. Even then. Once the level of the Mojo was the same. No difference. A little more volume with the 600's might be useful. A simple amp would provide that.  All decent DAC's sound the same. Including the iPhone dongle. A very enlightening afternoon. Thanks Bishot and Castleofargh.


----------



## bfreedma

krismusic said:


> Well. I just left my friend after an afternoon of testing and listening. We can confidently say that there is no useful difference in sound between the iPhone and the Mojo. We mainly ended up using the Sennheiser 600's as we could both listen to them. Straight out of the phone the phones volume was at maximum. Even then. Once the level of the Mojo was the same. No difference. A little more volume with the 600's might be useful. A simple amp would provide that.  All decent DAC's sound the same. Including the iPhone dongle. A very enlightening afternoon. Thanks Bishot and Castleofargh.




Compliments on taking the time and effort to investigate this.  Nothing beats hands on testing and in most cases, it doesn't require a huge amount of gear, just good methodology.


----------



## StandsOnFeet

bfreedma said:


> it doesn't require a huge amount of gear, just good methodology.


And a fair amount of courage and honesty.  Good going.


----------



## bigshot

Congratulations to you! I can’t tell you how many people come into Sound Science and argue points like this with us without going to the trouble of testing it themselves. You are the first person I can think of in recent memory who has done that. That’s the same thinking process that we all went through when we started here. You’re now an official member of Sound Science! Welcome!


----------



## krismusic

Thank you Bigshot. It was your calm persistence that convinced me to try a test. I've posted the outcome in a couple of places. I await getting shot down for DBT. It is extraordinary how much people want to believe what they want to believe!


----------



## Steve999

krismusic said:


> Thank you Bigshot. It was your calm persistence that convinced me to try a test. I've posted the outcome in a couple of places. I await getting shot down for DBT. It is extraordinary how much people want to believe what they want to believe!



That's pretty cool. Congrats.


----------



## taffy2207 (Feb 16, 2019)

krismusic said:


> I've posted the outcome in a couple of places. I await getting shot down for DBT. It is extraordinary how much people want to believe what they want to believe!



It's starting (kinda). The Vultures are circling!

It's amazing how people react like you've personally attacked their Mother or something when you mention tests / bias with regards to a product they own. I imagine them all talking in Dalek voices saying "MUST DEFEND MY PURCHASE! MUST DEFEND MY PURCHASE! ".

It's crazy how people get so emotionally attached to a box with wires in (yeah I know, generalisation).

I'm beginning to think a lot of people on head-fi consume gadgets to fill holes in their lives.


----------



## bigshot

krismusic said:


> I await getting shot down for DBT!



The funny thing is that the people who refuse to do a DBT because they don't believe in them are the first ones to question your testing methodology if your DBT results don't validate their own opinion.


----------



## krismusic

I am getting a few people saying that a test isn't appropriate to Mojo. That it kind of creeps up on you. That is a view that I used to subscribe to but today's test result was not debatable.


----------



## castleofargh

krismusic said:


> Well. I just left my friend after an afternoon of testing and listening. We can confidently say that there is no useful difference in sound between the iPhone and the Mojo. We mainly ended up using the Sennheiser 600's as we could both listen to them. Straight out of the phone the phones volume was at maximum. Even then. Once the level of the Mojo was the same. No difference. A little more volume with the 600's might be useful. A simple amp would provide that.  All decent DAC's sound the same. Including the iPhone dongle. A very enlightening afternoon. Thanks Bishot and Castleofargh.


so this was a test of the 2 DACs. but have you tried to test your IEM in the iphone vs mojo as amp sections?

about your results, IMO they're for you. you experiment and it helped reset your own ideas about the gears. because you are confronted to your preconceptions and your controlled experience saying 2 different things. there is conflict but it's between you and yourself so it's not too challenging to take a deep breath and decide to trust controlled experimentation over sighted impressions(although many audiophiles can't even do that). the hard part was to do the controlled test. 
but your experience probably isn't going to convince many others, because to them this experiment is about a conflict between their impressions and some dude online saying something else. every fiber of their ego is telling them to trust themselves over anybody else. it's human and while it's irritating sometimes, we can't really blame them for being human.






another thing to keep in mind: failing one test doesn't mean there isn't something to hear. be it something you might notice another day with more practice, or something you might notice with slightly different testing conditions(like using test signals instead of music, which usually improves our hearing thresholds). or simply something that you don't notice but someone else might perceive because he's a youngster, a musician, a sound engineer, etc. it's important not to become an evangelist of the "no difference principle" just because one test failed to support audibility. 
but if many actual tests by many people suggest the same conclusions, then it's a different story.


----------



## bigshot (Feb 16, 2019)

The amp doesn't matter. You can get a transparent amp if you need it for cheap. A Mojo isn't cheap. It's important when doing tests to keep focused on "the prize". You aren't testing for testing's sake. You're trying to determine what makes a difference. You don't need to know that impedance mismatches will screw up sound quality. That has been proven and is generally accepted. His test was to find out if music through the DAC in the Mojo sounded better than music played on an iPhone. He found out. No equivocation. It isn't just for him. He found out what all of us who have done tests already know.

Show me a DAC that sounds different and I will be the first in line to say all DACs don't sound alike. I haven't seen a bit of proof to indicate that they sound different. Just excuses and equivocation and non-real world theories. To hell with that. I want to know. I'm not interested in genuflecting to complete smoke and mirrors.

Honestly, I think we entertain as much hoodoo in Sound Science as they do in the land of audiophools. We do it with unproven sloppy logic and theoretical hypothetical constructs. That is exactly what they do. And it's for the same purpose... to prop up self validation through waffling and what ifs.

WHAT IF redbook isn't enough? WHAT IF we can actually hear inaudible frequencies? WHAT IF vinyl has some magical mojo that sounds better than digital? WHAT IF spending a lot of money on an amp or DAC really does translate into better sound quality? WHAT IF compressed audio is throwing out important sound you can hear? I'm sorry... I've done those tests. I know the lay of the land. If you want to prove me wrong, do it by PROVING me wrong. Just show me the DAC that sounds different. I really want to find it too.


----------



## Sterling2

This thread has become a chapter from a Kafka novel. There's no exit and always just one more problem. A nightmare bigger than any  stimulated by cholesterol medication.


----------



## JM1979

krismusic said:


> Well. I just left my friend after an afternoon of testing and listening. We can confidently say that there is no useful difference in sound between the iPhone and the Mojo. We mainly ended up using the Sennheiser 600's as we could both listen to them. Straight out of the phone the phones volume was at maximum. Even then. Once the level of the Mojo was the same. No difference. A little more volume with the 600's might be useful. A simple amp would provide that.  All decent DAC's sound the same. Including the iPhone dongle. A very enlightening afternoon. Thanks Bishot and Castleofargh.



Very interesting. What model iPhone did you test with?

I have the iPhone XS and it sounds notably better than my wfie’s 8 and my work iPad (at least two versions old). It may just be more power because I can plug in my PM3s right into the Apple dongle and only need the volume to be 2/3 of the way up for it to be very loud. On the 8, I can go max volume and be comfortable.


----------



## krismusic

JM1979 said:


> Very interesting. What model iPhone did you test with?
> 
> I have the iPhone XS and it sounds notably better than my wfie’s 8 and my work iPad (at least two versions old). It may just be more power because I can plug in my PM3s right into the Apple dongle and only need the volume to be 2/3 of the way up for it to be very loud. On the 8, I can go max volume and be comfortable.


I used the XS Max. An outstanding device. I take your point about amp power. From 7 on I would think the IPhone's will sound the same as they all use the dongle?


----------



## JM1979

krismusic said:


> I used the XS Max. An outstanding device. I take your point about amp power. From 7 on I would think the IPhone's will sound the same as they all use the dongle?



I would think that too; also because Apple doesn’t provide much hardware update info specific to audio when a new model comes out. 

One thing it might be, is that with the X series, Apple added more speakers to the phone and perhaps needed a little more power in order to deliver that upgrade?


----------



## bigshot (Feb 17, 2019)

It's likely with a luxury phone they would put more onboard power into it, expecting people to use more expensive cans with it.

If you have headphones that require amping, you will need either a simple headphone amp if you use an Apple phone, or a DAC with a built in amp if you use an external DAC. The sound quality of the phones and DACs are most likely all the same. I've tested dozens of digital audio components and properly amped, they all sound the same. The only difference is what sort of headphones they work best with unamped. That's more an issue with the headphones than it is the DAP or DAC.



Sterling2 said:


> This thread has become a chapter from a Kafka novel. There's no exit and always just one more problem. A nightmare bigger than any  stimulated by cholesterol medication.



In this forum, trying to get people to think in a straight line and not go off into irrelevant technical tangents is as easy as herding cats. Everyone wants to toss in some tiny detail or exception to the rule that only applies in the atmosphere of Saturn or if you listen to your iPod while sitting on the generators deep inside Hoover Dam. I think they imagine that they're helping by dotting every i and crossing every t, but it doesn't take more than a couple of "what ifs" and "well actuallys" to completely sidetrack the path to a goal.

I'm really glad Krismusic was able to get all the way through his test without interference, because it shows that it actually is possible for this forum to be of use to people in a practical way. Now that he's got the switcher and knows a little bit about level matching and blind testing, he can go on to do more tests. That's how you crack the shell of bull crap that surrounds audiophilia so you can access the truth that helps you make your own equipment choices more efficient and effective.


----------



## SergeSE

During beta-testing of the new df-measurement procedure I performed measurements of 12 Apple mobile devices including almost all iPhones. Despite some problems with accuracy of my early measurements there is a clear evidence that all Apple mobile devices starting from iPhone 4 use the same audio solution. Their artifact signatures and levels of signal degradation are very similar to each other. So the measurements confirm, they all will sound the same, at least with 32 Ohm headphones.


----------



## JM1979

SergeSE said:


> During beta-testing of the new df-measurement procedure I performed measurements of 12 Apple mobile devices including almost all iPhones. Despite some problems with accuracy of my early measurements there is a clear evidence that all Apple mobile devices starting from iPhone 4 use the same audio solution. Their artifact signatures and levels of signal degradation are very similar to each other. So the measurements confirm, they all will sound the same, at least with 32 Ohm headphones.



Nice research and thank you for sharing. Could you post the models you tested.


----------



## Sterling2

bigshot said:


> It's likely with a luxury phone they would put more onboard power into it, expecting people to use more expensive cans with it.
> 
> If you have headphones that require amping, you will need either a simple headphone amp if you use an Apple phone, or a DAC with a built in amp if you use an external DAC. The sound quality of the phones and DACs are most likely all the same. I've tested dozens of digital audio components and properly amped, they all sound the same. The only difference is what sort of headphones they work best with unamped. That's more an issue with the headphones than it is the DAP or DAC.
> 
> ...


Right-On, Right-On!


----------



## bigshot

SergeSE said:


> During beta-testing of the new df-measurement procedure I performed measurements of 12 Apple mobile devices including almost all iPhones. Despite some problems with accuracy of my early measurements there is a clear evidence that all Apple mobile devices starting from iPhone 4 use the same audio solution. Their artifact signatures and levels of signal degradation are very similar to each other. So the measurements confirm, they all will sound the same, at least with 32 Ohm headphones.



For all intents and purposes, the Apple models before they started using their own branded DAC chips sound the same too. They might measure different, but I've had Apple products all the way back to the Power Mac 8500AV and they have all been audibly transparent.


----------



## SergeSE (Feb 19, 2019)

JM1979 said:


> Nice research and thank you for sharing. Could you post the models you tested.


iPod classic (2009), iPod Shuffle 4G, iPhone 5C, iPhone 4, iPad mini 2, iPhone 4S, iPhone 6, iPhone 5, iPhone SE, iPhone 5S, iPhone 3G, iPod shuffle 2G



bigshot said:


> For all intents and purposes, the Apple models before they started using their own branded DAC chips sound the same too. They might measure different, but I've had Apple products all the way back to the Power Mac 8500AV and they have all been audibly transparent.


My measurements show that iPhone 3G and iPod shuffle 2G (before iPhone 4 era) have substantially higher levels of degradation of real music signal. This must lead to lower perceived audio quality for sure.

[merged]


----------



## Kammerat Rebekka

I figure this thread is the right place for this as I see a lot of folks who’ve measured these things meticulously.
Can anyone tell me if Apple ever made an iPod with more than the usual 1 VRMS? 
I own a little xDuoo dap that puts out about 1.5 (although the manufacturer states 2) and it fairs well with all my headphones...it’s just that awful UI that irks me. Then again I am used to the friendly and wholly intuitive UI from iPods, so the contrast is almost overwhelming when you then chug in a 128gb micro sd card filled with mp3 320. It can be a nightmare finding specific albums and artists.
It’d additionally be swell to have an iPod that didn’t need a small amp with fx my planars


----------



## Arunabha Lahiri

Excuse me does anyone here have the new iPad mini. It's pretty inexpensive when compared to the iPhone xs line and have the a12. It has a headphone jack. I was wondering does it compare to the output of the xs Max. Also how is the audio on the iPad pro as it uses a new dongle? Thank you. Do I need any amp to drive moondrop kanas pro iem? I might get a campfire comet instead too. Haven't decided yet. These are pretty entry level iems, does anyone here have experience with these iems? Thank you. .


----------



## bigshot

I’ve found that every Apple product I’ve bought going back over a decade has perfect sound.


----------



## turbomustang84

I still use my 4s for music and had to move to Android because I need a headphone jack .
No other phone is near the sound Quality of my 4s imho


----------



## stonesfan129

I have the iPod Touch 6g 128gb.  I compared it to the 1st gen FiiO X1 and 1st gen FiiO X3 I have.  I thought both of those sounded better than the iPod Touch.  The iPod Touch sounds weird by comparison with the same exact files.  Like less detailed.  If that means the FiiO players color the sound, then I guess I like colored sound.  iPod has perfect sound?  Ehh not quite in my opinion.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 22, 2019)

Apple products are flat and clean. They require amping with some cans to sound their best. If you cans are colored in one direction, they might sound better with a player that is colored in the other direction, but it's unlikely that any players are colored. Differences are usually due to impedance, not response.

When comparing DAPs it's best to do it though line out, not the headphone jack, level match and do a direct A/B switched blind comparison. I'm betting you didn't do that.

Or just look at the measurements. Apple players generally measure as well as standalone audiophile players.

In the final analysis though, it probably doesn't matter what DAP you choose. They all are probably audibly transparent. Better to choose because of features.


----------



## stonesfan129 (Apr 22, 2019)

bigshot said:


> Apple products are flat and clean. They require amping with some cans to sound their best. If you cans are colored in one direction, they might sound better with a player that is colored in the other direction, but it's unlikely that any players are colored. Differences are usually due to impedance, not response.
> 
> When comparing DAPs it's best to do it though line out, not the headphone jack, level match and do a direct A/B switched blind comparison. I'm betting you didn't do that.
> 
> ...



How are you supposed to test through line out on an iPod Touch 6G?  I thought the USB port just acted as a secondary headphone out.  I listened through the headphone out on the iPod and through the line out on the FiiO players.  Another thing to add - with the FiiO players, I can just connect them to my PC and sync my music through MusicBee.  With iPod, I am having to deal with iTunes and sometimes it has issues syncing songs that the player is capable of playing.  iPods are also notoriously expensive for the same amount of storage space.  For example, they don't even offer an iPod Touch in 256gb.  I can go buy a 200gb card for my FiiO X1 and have a player that costs a fraction of what I'd pay for an iPod Touch with less storage space.


----------



## bigshot

On newer models, you would use the headphone out, but patch both it and the thing you're comparing it to into the same amp with level matching. The object is to avoid impedance differences from affecting the comparison.


----------



## stonesfan129

bigshot said:


> On newer models, you would use the headphone out, but patch both it and the thing you're comparing it to into the same amp with level matching. The object is to avoid impedance differences from affecting the comparison.



So I have to spend even more money on an amp?  So then what is the appeal of the iPod to begin with if it costs twice as much as my FiiO player?


----------



## bigshot (Apr 23, 2019)

You don't have to buy an amp. You don't even have to do controlled listening tests. But if you're comparing, you want to compare apples to apples. Impedance mismatches affect specific headphones. It isn't an indication that the player itself has lower fidelity. Digital players should all have a level of fidelity beyond the threshold of transparency. One shouldn't sound any better than any other one. If they do, it's likely because you are using headphones that weren't designed to be used with that player. The solution to that is a simple headphone amp. You can get one for as little as $25. Having a headphone amp or two on hand is very handy if you want to do controlled tests. You need to be able to balance the output level.

If you don't bother to apply any controls to your comparisons, your opinions aren't worth much. If you really want to know the truth, you go the extra mile to eliminate bias and perceptual error. It isn't hard and it isn't expensive. It's what we do here at Sound Science.

The appeal of the iPod is features. It's basically an iPhone without the phone. It does a lot more than many other players.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Man, this topic has been beaten like a rented mule - just _listen to the dang music!_


----------



## SergeSE

A friend of mine offered his still-in-use iPod 5th (Video) for df-measurements. Conclusion: thanks to Wolfson audio chip with relatively high level of waveform degradation iPod 5th (Video) has its own distinctive sound signature (slightly harsh mids, transparent highs). Some music types/genres can benefit from this artifact signature, some other will not. As a result there always be lovers and haters of this player. Starting from iPhone 4 and iPod 6th Gen. Apple uses much more transparent/neutral audio chips from Cirrus Logic.


----------



## krismusic

I recently ditched the Chord Mojo I have been using with my iPhone and have had just as many "wow" moments with my music. Just because the iPhone is so mainstream does not mean it is not a miracle. I think we forget that in our haste to overcomplicate.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

krismusic said:


> I recently ditched the Chord Mojo I have been using with my iPhone and have had just as many "wow" moments with my music. Just because the iPhone is so mainstream does not mean it is not a miracle. I think we forget that in our haste to overcomplicate.



If smart phones and mp3 players already have DACs built in, why run that output through yet another DAC?


----------



## bigshot

The new iPhone has digital out that bypasses the internal DAC. It's a concession to audiophools who think more things to carry around means better sound.


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> The new iPhone has digital out that bypasses the internal DAC. It's a concession to audiophools who think more things to carry around means better sound.


It has always been possible to bypass the DAC in the iPhone by using line out and a CCK. IIRC the headphone socket was removed to allow the iPhone to be even thinner and the space was used for haptics or somesuch. Nothing to do with audiophiles or audiophools.


----------



## TheSonicTruth (May 23, 2019)

bigshot said:


> The new iPhone has digital out that bypasses the internal DAC. It's a concession to audiophools who think more things to carry around means better sound.



Man, bigs, you'd be a hit over on the ComputerAudiophile(now 'Audiophile Style') forums, lol!  I'm dealing with the nonsense you just described, on a daily basis.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

krismusic said:


> It has always been possible to bypass the DAC in the iPhone by using line out and a CCK. IIRC the headphone socket was removed to allow the iPhone to be even thinner and the space was used for haptics or somesuch. Nothing to do with audiophiles or audiophools.



Just for the heckuvit I dongled out of my iPhone 5's lightning port to headphone and heard goose eggs.  

Does audio come out of the lightning only on iPhone 7 & up, which have no mini-TRS out?


----------



## Sterling2

Just a sidebar: I recently purchased a 2007 Cadillac SRX. To play from my iPhone 7+ to the Cadillac's Bose radio required me to buy a DAC, since the radio does not have a digital input.  I went with a $35 Belkin. So far, I'm satisfied with the sound in all manner. Only thing problematic is I cannot control the iPhone from the radio. At any rate, I do not know how I'd go about appraising the iPhone 7's DAC, since the only means for appraisal is the from the iPhone's speakers.


----------



## yuriv (May 23, 2019)

SergeSE said:


> A friend of mine offered his still-in-use iPod 5th (Video) for df-measurements. Conclusion: thanks to Wolfson audio chip with relatively high level of waveform degradation iPod 5th (Video) has its own distinctive sound signature (slightly harsh mids, transparent highs). Some music types/genres can benefit from this artifact signature, some other will not. As a result there always be lovers and haters of this player. Starting from iPhone 4 and iPod 6th Gen. Apple uses much more transparent/neutral audio chips from Cirrus Logic.



There might be a simple explanation for that. The 5G and 5.5G iPod Video's volume control lets you drive the 3.5mm output so that a 0 dBFS sine goes into clipping. At maximum volume, the signal is hotter than the line out in the 30-pin connector. That one doesn't depend on the system volume and doesn't go to clipping. The work-around for the 3.5mm output is simple: Just reduce the volume a tiny bit. In practice, you don't notice it with headphones because you won't have the volume control at maximum. Even when you have it cranked up and hooked to a line in, it might not be noticeable unless your music spends a lot of time near 0 dBFS. Even RMAA fails to find the problem because they do their distortion testing at -3 dBFS. But if you play back a 0 dBFS sine at maximum volume, you'll see the clipped signal on your scope.

I first wrote about this in AVS Forums 12 years ago, but the pictures are gone from my post. Archimago found the same much more recently:






Signal clipping on iPod Video 3.5mm jack at maximum volume. Source: http://archimago.blogspot.com/2016/09/retro-measure-2006-apple-ipod-classic.html​
I'm not sure if you've ruled this out during your testing. My iPod Video worked the last time I used it, which was years ago. It's in a drawer somewhere. IIRC, it was pretty audibly transparent with the work-around.

Edit: I see that you've already seen Archimago's page on this, based on your comment on his site. In practical use, my old iPod didn't sound all that different from recent players, if you can get around the output impedance and the roll-off caused by the blocking capacitor. BTW, I measured 5.5 ohms at 1 kHz vs. Archimago's 11 ohms.


----------



## SergeSE

yuriv said:


> I'm not sure if you've ruled this out during your testing. My iPod Video worked the last time I used it, which was years ago. It's in a drawer somewhere. IIRC, it was pretty audibly transparent with the work-around.


Thanks for the note. I know about that clipping (I read Archimago too)). Yes, it was ruled out during recording of SE test sequences. The sound signature (artifact signature indeed) of iPod 5th is due to Wolfson chip architecture. Mid frequencies degrade to more extent than highs. Odd harmonics prevail in the distortion.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

Sterling2 said:


> Just a sidebar: I recently purchased a 2007 Cadillac SRX. To play from my iPhone 7+ to the Cadillac's Bose radio required me to buy a DAC, since the radio does not have a digital input.  I went with a $35 Belkin. So far, I'm satisfied with the sound in all manner. Only thing problematic is I cannot control the iPhone from the radio. At any rate, I do not know how I'd go about appraising the iPhone 7's DAC, since the only means for appraisal is the from the iPhone's speakers.



couldn't you just use the lightning headphone adapter dongle?


----------



## JM1979

TheSonicTruth said:


> Does audio come out of the lightning only on iPhone 7 & up, which have no mini-TRS out?



Via the cheap iPhone ear buds, there is a small dac chip in the lightning plug and audio does come out. 

I also use the little lightning dongle to hook up slightly less cheap ear buds for when I go to the gym.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (May 23, 2019)

JM1979 said:


> Via the cheap iPhone ear buds, there is a small dac chip in the lightning plug and audio does come out.
> 
> I also use the little lightning dongle to hook up slightly less cheap ear buds for when I go to the gym.



yeah the dac is in the dongle and it sounds very good. I'm in agreement with Bigshot that many audiophiles waste too much money on dacs.  Pretty much any dac that isn't actually defective will do the job...


----------



## Wes S

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> yeah the dac is in the dongle and it sounds very good. I'm in agreement with Bigshot that many audiophiles waste too much money on dacs.  Pretty much any dac that isn't actually defective will do the job...


This is true, until you actually hear, what a "good" dac can do.


----------



## Voxata

Wes S said:


> This is true, until you actually hear, what a "good" dac can do.


 Will concur, A solid chain can make a difference. Night and day? Maybe not so much... Enough for me to pick and and easily have a preference? Definitely.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

what would one consider would be a "good" dac versus a "lesser" dac?  Also, how stringently have those preferences in favor of one over another been tested?  Just curious...


----------



## SparkOnShore (May 23, 2019)

Wes S said:


> This is true, until you actually hear, what a "good" dac can do.



Have you actually done a correct blind test and if so, could you pick the “good” dac from the “bad” one? Sorry but I don’t believe this story of good and bad dacs! Maybe your so called good dac adds some color to the sound which you may like, but in that case it’s not transparent and neutral as it should! Is Apple using a bad dac but your brand is using a good dac?? I don’t know, I mean all this audiophile unsubstantial naivety is kind of funny anymore!...Are you actually trying to justify all the money you have given up to now, for no reason?...


----------



## TheSonicTruth

JM1979 said:


> Via the cheap iPhone ear buds, there is a small dac chip in the lightning plug and audio does come out.
> 
> I also use the little lightning dongle to hook up slightly less cheap ear buds for when I go to the gym.



Well, audio does not come out of the dongle to headphone on a 5 or 6 iPhone.

As for the clipping issue mentioned by others here, I keep my Volume Limit(under Music menu) a tad below max setting.  Still loud enough to drive my Beyer 880s.


----------



## Wes S (May 23, 2019)

SparkOnShore said:


> Have you actually done a correct blind test and if so, could you pick the “good” dac from the “bad” one? Sorry but I don’t believe this story of good and bad dacs! Maybe your so called good dac adds some color to the sound which you may like, but in that case it’s not transparent and neutral as it should! Is Apple using a bad dac but your brand is using a good dac?? I don’t know, I mean all this audiophile unsubstantial naivety is kind of funny anymore!...Are you actually trying to justify all the money you have given up to now, for no reason?...


Done it already, and difference is night and day.  Have you? or don't and save a bunch of money.  Ignorance is bliss.


----------



## Wes S

Wes S said:


> Done it already, and difference is night and day.  Have you? or don't and save a bunch of money.  Ignorance is bliss.


Also, you have to have the gear to hear the difference.


----------



## Voxata

Agreed on this front. Every piece of gear has a bit of color. Even the supposed absolutely neutral stuff. This is what makes the great gear stand out. Additionally, some headphones react well to lots of clean power despite the lower quality gear getting 'loud'. I can pretty easily pick out the iDSD Silver vs the iDSD BL. The silver has a more open and airy presentation with more treble presence. It is also tonally far more natural sounding. The BL loses that natural sound and huge staging for a more black background, resolution and more bass slam. These two units supposedly on paper from an FR standpoint measure the same yet - this observation has been made by so many. Point is, even though it may be subtle the sound has some different characteristics between DACs and Amps. Maybe you should explore more before just thumbing down that everything just sounds the same.


----------



## SoundAndMotion

TheSonicTruth said:


> Just for the heckuvit I dongled out of my iPhone 5's lightning port to headphone and heard goose eggs.
> 
> Does audio come out of the lightning only on iPhone 7 & up, which have no mini-TRS out?


What iOS version do you have? It should work with iPhone 5 and 6 if you have iOS 10 or higher.


----------



## SparkOnShore

Wes S said:


> Done it already, and difference is night and day.  Have you? or don't and save a bunch of money.  Ignorance is bliss.



Ignorance is all yours. There is no difference coming from the dac. There is difference coming from impedance mismatch between your headphones and iPhone audio output. That’s why you believe there is a difference. Dacs offer no difference in sound. Proven. Full stop. Headphones and impedance do cause difference in sound. Dacs not. As simple as that. Yes I have done blind tests and I found out that dacs cause no difference. Now go and spend more to an even “better” dac!!! Haha...


----------



## SparkOnShore (May 23, 2019)

Correct approach is to say I sense a difference in sound between connecting my particular headphones directly to an iPhone and connecting them to an amp. With this I agree 100% since most probably your particular headphones present an impedance mismatch with the iPhone out which is of course eliminated by the amp. If you use different headphones with no impedance problems with the iPhone, you will not feel this difference but of course in that scenario you will hear the real difference between different headphones, which is another discussion all together! In any case Dacs offer no audio difference. Headphones do, Dacs don’t!


----------



## bigshot

^ this. People don't separate the functions of what those black boxes do and try to understand the source of differences. It isn't the source. It's the transducer and amp.


----------



## bigshot (May 23, 2019)

SergeSE said:


> Thanks for the note. I know about that clipping (I read Archimago too)). Yes, it was ruled out during recording of SE test sequences. The sound signature (artifact signature indeed) of iPod 5th is due to Wolfson chip architecture. Mid frequencies degrade to more extent than highs. Odd harmonics prevail in the distortion.



We're talking "audible" here right? Not just measurements. You did a blind listening test? How many participants and what were the odds of picking the Wolfson correctly? Surely it wasn't 100% of the time, because I have a wide range of iPods and I've tried my darnedest to hear a difference between them and have failed- total random.


----------



## krismusic (May 23, 2019)

I have a Mojo. Supposedly a benchmark punching above is pricetag. At Bigshots request I A/B'd using a switch box. Any difference from the iPhone dongle was absolutely undetectable to my ears and to those of a friend. I am very fortunate in that I have money to spend on my interests. Although music is one of my main enthusiasms in life, I am very reluctant to spend money on audio equipment as there is so much nonsense that gets accepted when in reality it is placebo and expectation bias.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

SoundAndMotion said:


> What iOS version do you have? It should work with iPhone 5 and 6 if you have iOS 10 or higher.



9.x

I.

don't.

do.

software updates.


----------



## krismusic

TheSonicTruth said:


> 9.x
> 
> I.
> 
> ...


Is this some kind of badge of honour for you? I see no point in buying into the Apple ecosystem and then not using it properly.


----------



## SergeSE

bigshot said:


> We're talking "audible" here right? Not just measurements. You did a blind listening test? How many participants and what were the odds of picking the Wolfson correctly? Surely it wasn't 100% of the time, because I have a wide range of iPods and I've tried my darnedest to hear a difference between them and have failed- total random.



I'm talking about both audibility and measurements. In music-based audio metric (df-measurements) these two things are connected. No, I didn't perform blind tests with iPod 5th. Its level of degradation of real musical signal is 10dB higher than of modern top smartphones (including Apple ones). I'm pretty sure that such huge difference will be discovered in properly designed (high impedance headphones, level matching, etc.) listening test.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

krismusic said:


> Is this some kind of badge of honour for you? I see no point in buying into the Apple ecosystem and then not using it properly.



Because with updates it's like a line from a certain Van Halen song.


----------



## Wes S

SparkOnShore said:


> Ignorance is all yours. There is no difference coming from the dac. There is difference coming from impedance mismatch between your headphones and iPhone audio output. That’s why you believe there is a difference. Dacs offer no difference in sound. Proven. Full stop. Headphones and impedance do cause difference in sound. Dacs not. As simple as that. Yes I have done blind tests and I found out that dacs cause no difference. Now go and spend more to an even “better” dac!!! Haha...


Like I said, ignorance is bliss!


----------



## bigshot

SergeSE said:


> No, I didn't perform blind tests with iPod 5th. I'm pretty sure that such huge difference will be discovered in properly designed (high impedance headphones, level matching, etc.) listening test.



You might want to double check that with a quick listening test. Because I've done careful listening tests with all of my iPods, iPhones and Macintosh computers, including ones with Wolfson chips and going all the way back to the 8500AV, and they all sound identical. Something else might be causing the distortion you measured, or perhaps it is a form of distortion that isn't audible.


----------



## SparkOnShore

Wes S said:


> Like I said, ignorance is bliss!



I agree. Audiophoolishness as well!! Best wishes!


----------



## yuriv

SergeSE said:


> Thanks for the note. I know about that clipping (I read Archimago too)). Yes, it was ruled out during recording of SE test sequences. The sound signature (artifact signature indeed) of iPod 5th is due to Wolfson chip architecture. Mid frequencies degrade to more extent than highs. Odd harmonics prevail in the distortion.



Some more thoughts on those old iPods, now that you've ruled out the clipping issue:

It looks like you're testing with a 32-ohm dummy load on each channel, at 150mVrms. From what I can remember, the performance of the 3.5mm output gets a lot worse with a low-impedance load like that. The distortion figures are much higher, for example. But that's really the built-in headphone amp's fault, not the DAC's. Newer iPhone and iPad headphone amps are a lot better here.

If the testing chain really looks like it does from your picture, then you're really testing DAC -> Headphone amp -> output R + blocking cap (even though the R+C really should be part of the amp itself). At a 32-ohm load, you're going to see (and hear) the effect of that capacitor on the frequency response. It's quite noticeable, much more so than the differences between DACS.

If you really want to characterize the performance of the DAC, take the line output from the 30-pin connector. Of course you'll have to do away with the 32-ohm dummy load. Or, if you dial back the volume so that it's at unity gain instead of overdriving the headphone amp, you can hook up the 3.5mm jack to a typical line in (10 k+). The performance should be a lot better because you're not seeing the effect of the headphone amp being asked to drive a difficult load.

I also noticed that even with a high impedance load, the noise and distortion go way up when the iPod is charging via the 30-pin connector. The distortion was up by a factor of 10, IIRC.

Again, what's really noticeable in real-world use, much more than the DAC's performance itself, is the headphone amp. Its self noise isn't as good as the newer Lightning or USB-C dongles. You can really notice it on ultra sensitive IEMs. The bass roll-off from the blocking cap is also very noticeable on low impedance loads.
I'll have to dig up my old scratched up iPod to see if the hard drive still fires up, lol.


----------



## Sterling2

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> couldn't you just use the lightning headphone adapter dongle?


 I  needed a device which could be plugged into the cigarette lighter to keep the iPhone charged, as well as a DAC function.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

Sterling2 said:


> I  needed a device which could be plugged into the cigarette lighter to keep the iPhone charged, as well as a DAC function.



gotcha


----------



## gregorio

Wes S said:


> [1] Done it already, and difference is night and day. Have you? [1a] or don't and save a bunch of money. Ignorance is bliss.
> [2] Also, you have to have the gear to hear the difference.



1. I have, and so have countless thousands of others. That leaves two possibilities, either: A. You did NOT do "a correct blind test" or B. Your hearing is "night and day" different to all other human beings and therefore you are an alien, a machine or a mutated human being.
1a. Or, do an incorrect test and spend a bunch of money on equipment that is audibly identical. Ignorance is expensive bliss!

2. Using the very best, highest fidelity equipment, the difference cannot be heard. Logically therefore, the "gear to hear the difference" must be relatively poor, low fidelity gear. But then of course you run into another logical problem, how can you describe a low fidelity DAC as "good", compared to a higher fidelity DAC, that is "bad"?



Voxata said:


> Agreed on this front. Every piece of gear has a bit of color. Even the supposed absolutely neutral stuff. This is what makes the great gear stand out.



The same logical problem as point #2 above. While every piece of gear has some level of colouration, in some/many pieces of gear that level is below the threshold of audibility and it's therefore audibly transparent, IE. Has perfect fidelity (as far as human hearing is concerned). Under the designed for conditions, nearly all average/modestly priced cables, DACs and amps fall into this category. Therefore, for some piece of gear to "stand out" it must have a level of colouration above audibility, not be audibly transparent and be of lower fidelity, very significantly lower fidelity if the difference is "night and day"! In other words, you are effectively saying that "what makes great gear stand out" (in these categories) is low fidelity? 



SergeSE said:


> Conclusion: thanks to Wolfson audio chip with relatively high level of waveform degradation iPod 5th (Video) has its own distinctive sound signature (slightly harsh mids, transparent highs).



From what I can tell you didn't test the Wolfson chip, you tested the combination of Wolfson chip + amplifier and therefore you have no basis for your conclusion because it could be entirely "thanks to" the amplifier and have absolutely nothing to do with the chip. And, as already mentioned by others, it could be entirely thanks to the amplifier ONLY when under an inappropriate (not designed for) load. Do you have any objective evidence to support your conclusion?

G


----------



## SergeSE

bigshot said:


> You might want to double check that with a quick listening test. Because I've done careful listening tests with all of my iPods, iPhones and Macintosh computers, including ones with Wolfson chips and going all the way back to the 8500AV, and they all sound identical. Something else might be causing the distortion you measured, or perhaps it is a form of distortion that isn't audible.



I have some doubts that quick listening test will be appropriate for the case. At least I will need high impedance and high sensitivity headphones. Not to say about providing true blindness of the test, which is not easy indeed. That's where the music-based audio metric can be helpful. All those artifact signatures, Df levels and related math help to find the cases where listening tests can be safely substituted with measurements. Measurements are repeatable and less complicated than listening tests, they must be used for evaluation of sound quality (in combination with listening tests) for sure. What exact measurements should be used is another question. I proposed df-measurements for the purpose as more appropriate/informative than traditional set of parameters - THD, freq.responce, etc.

Anyway the listening test of iPod 5th is impossible at the moment as the player was not mine and I don't have it now )).





yuriv said:


> Some more thoughts on those old iPods, now that you've ruled out the clipping issue:
> 
> It looks like you're testing with a 32-ohm dummy load on each channel, at 150mVrms. From what I can remember, the performance of the 3.5mm output gets a lot worse with a low-impedance load like that. The distortion figures are much higher, for example. But that's really the built-in headphone amp's fault, not the DAC's. Newer iPhone and iPad headphone amps are a lot better here.
> 
> ...





gregorio said:


> From what I can tell you didn't test the Wolfson chip, you tested the combination of Wolfson chip + amplifier and therefore you have no basis for your conclusion because it could be entirely "thanks to" the amplifier and have absolutely nothing to do with the chip. And, as already mentioned by others, it could be entirely thanks to the amplifier ONLY when under an inappropriate (not designed for) load. Do you have any objective evidence to support your conclusion?
> 
> G



Actually I agree with all your points (except may be the next to last by bigshot, can't check it now). I consider DAC and amp as a single stage because today they are designed together as a SoC solution in most cases (“Wolfson chip”). Even more, I'm trying to treat a source of sound as a black box in my measurements. Proper audio measurement procedure should not account the way a sound was processed inside a device. And I use the 32 Ohm resistive load roughly simulating real-life usage scenario. So I don't see any sense to measure a DAC separately in portable players.

It seems to me that the main challenge today while designing headphones amplifiers in portable players is power consumption efficiency and trade off between the latter and sound quality.


----------



## bigshot (May 24, 2019)

yuriv said:


> It looks like you're testing with a 32-ohm dummy load on each channel, at 150mVrms. From what I can remember, the performance of the 3.5mm output gets a lot worse with a low-impedance load like that. The distortion figures are much higher, for example. But that's really the built-in headphone amp's fault, not the DAC's.



When I did my test, I compared line out to line out amped through the same amp.



SergeSE said:


> I have some doubts that quick listening test will be appropriate for the case. At least I will need high impedance and high sensitivity headphones. Not to say about providing true blindness of the test, which is not easy indeed.



It isn't hard at all. The old iPods had true line out through their dock. All you do is run the output of the line out through a preamp to level match into an amp with switchable inputs. Then take your reference line out and run it into the same switchable amp. Get a friend to switch for you and record your choices. If you are able to discern a difference, swap the preamp you're using to level match to the reference instead of the iPod and run the test again to make sure the preamp isn't coloring it. I didn't get that far... My choices were clearly total guesses. Of course you could just get two identical preamps too.

You can't depend solely on measurements and try to relate that to audibility in the abstract. You have to use real human ears. People in hifi forums who don white coat and pretend to be scientists tend to fall prey to doubling down on "what ifs" and "just to be safes". They end up thinking that things that are completely inaudible in the real world might just possibly be audible if the circumstances are right. They're correct of course, but who lives in an anechoic chamber? I sure don't! I just want to know if something is audibly transparent in the way that I use it... listening to music in my living room. It isn't hard at all to set up a test to determine that.


----------



## Voxata

I'm saying it had some different identifiable characteristics. For example the SU-8 and DX7s Bal out to thx 789 sounds different in specific ways.


----------



## SergeSE

bigshot said:


> You can't depend solely on measurements and try to relate that to audibility in the abstract. You have to use real human ears. People in hifi forums who don white coat and pretend to be scientists tend to fall prey to doubling down on "what ifs" and "just to be safes". They end up thinking that things that are completely inaudible in the real world might just possibly be audible if the circumstances are right. They're correct of course, but who lives in an anechoic chamber? I sure don't! I just want to know if something is audibly transparent in the way that I use it... listening to music in my living room. It isn't hard at all to set up a test to determine that.



In music-based audio metric such relationship between measurements and audibility can be researched and used in practice. In traditional audio metric this relationship can be traced only by audio professionals with experience. For consumers the interpretation of traditional measurements is made mostly by marketers. 

I'm sure that both approaches objective and subjective are valuable for assessment of perceived sound quality. We just need to find the right combination of them.

To have some "safe margins" is quite reasonable due to complex nature of human perception of sound and its quality and due to our not complete knowledge of the issue. Also we don't need to be 100% efficient while manufacturing and choosing the right audio equipment. Some extra quality is psychologically comfortable when we talk about Music and shows some respect to audiophiles. In the end audiophiles do not try to sell you usual audio equipment as premium one, manufacturers do.


----------



## Steve999 (May 26, 2019)

SergeSE said:


> In music-based audio metric such relationship between measurements and audibility can be researched and used in practice. In traditional audio metric this relationship can be traced only by audio professionals with experience. For consumers the interpretation of traditional measurements is made mostly by marketers.
> 
> I'm sure that both approaches objective and subjective are valuable for assessment of perceived sound quality. We just need to find the right combination of them.
> 
> To have some "safe margins" is quite reasonable due to complex nature of human perception of sound and its quality and due to our not complete knowledge of the issue. Also we don't need to be 100% efficient while manufacturing and choosing the right audio equipment. Some extra quality is psychologically comfortable when we talk about Music and shows some respect to audiophiles. In the end audiophiles do not try to sell you usual audio equipment as premium one, manufacturers do.



You made claims of an audible difference in equipment without doing any reliable listening to back it up, or evidence or data that the difference, however much it might approach the audible, would actually be audible to you or anyone. I really like a lot of your work but for me that is going one step too far. It takes us down the rabbit hole.

As a for example, I looked up @Voxata ‘s equipment he listed in his last post. It had been carefully measured on another forum I find credible. Apparently it all measures extremely well for its price point. He seems to have chosen carefully. If having something that measures really well for the price point gives you pride in ownership and it doesn’t break your budget at all I’m all for it. It’s not my cup of tea but I get it. But as the reviews made clear all characteristics that were measured and were not quite as good as the very best measurements they had ever encountered or were otherwise remarkable were far lower than the known thresholds of audibility.

Now, will this iPod you discuss sound exactly the same? If by measurements it’s an edge case I think it would be best to say we don’t know, rather than to speculate based on certain aspects of the measurements that it would be audibly non-transparent for its intended purpose and further speculate as to the purported minor non-transparent characteristics of the sound that would result. That’s why I think you went one step too far there, from someone with absolutely no dog in this fight.


----------



## bigshot (May 27, 2019)

SergeSE said:


> In music-based audio metric such relationship between measurements and audibility can be researched and used in practice. In traditional audio metric this relationship can be traced only by audio professionals with experience.



Most of the published studies on thresholds of audibility are done with tones, not music. In practice the thresholds are as much as an order of magnitude lower when you are using music than with tones. (PS I'm a professional with experience.)

You should just do some simple listening tests yourself. I know in audiophile forums people attribute all kinds of coloration to DACs, But I've done controlled listening tests of various DACs (Wolfson, Cirrus, Sabre, etc.) All the ones I've tested are audibly transperent. If you took the time to do some tests yourself, you would know this too.


----------



## Logan75

Good quality


----------



## Sterling2 (May 27, 2019)

Here's just a sidebar getting us out of the weeds of minutia for a minute. Although I have an iPad with analog output, that output is only used for headphones and it's rare for me to use headphones, since, in my private environment, I can enjoy my JBL L100t3's speakers without intruding on anyone's ears.  So, the iPad's DAC is moot. I do however use my iPhone 7+ via Airport Express to listen to stereo music in my iTunes Library from my high quality home theatre system. This means to music pleasure is as easy on my ears as it is convenient. In fact, while I'm not a prophet, it's not a stretch to speculate that the future of home, as well as portable music enjoyment will be an iPhone Wi-Fi or Bluetooth wireless transmission to powered speakers.   The need for control amps, AVR's, pre-pros, and all manner of source components will expire because the iPhone does indeed produce/deliver a high enough quality sound to be seen as sufficient by most folks on the Planet.


----------



## Whazzzup

Hugo far improves listening experience of an iPhone. Not even close


----------



## SergeSE (May 27, 2019)

Steve999 said:


> You made claims of an audible difference in equipment without doing any reliable listening to back it up, or evidence or data that the difference, however much it might approach the audible, would actually be audible to you or anyone. I really like a lot of your work but for me that is going one step too far. It takes us down the rabbit hole.
> 
> As a for example, I looked up @Voxata ‘s equipment he listed in his last post. It had been carefully measured on another forum I find credible. Apparently it all measures extremely well for its price point. He seems to have chosen carefully. If having something that measures really well for the price point gives you pride in ownership and it doesn’t break your budget at all I’m all for it. It’s not my cup of tea but I get it. But as the reviews made clear all characteristics that were measured and were not quite as good as the very best measurements they had ever encountered or were otherwise remarkable were far lower than the known thresholds of audibility.
> 
> Now, will this iPod you discuss sound exactly the same? If by measurements it’s an edge case I think it would be best to say we don’t know, rather than to speculate based on certain aspects of the measurements that it would be audibly non-transparent for its intended purpose and further speculate as to the purported minor non-transparent characteristics of the sound that would result. That’s why I think you went one step too far there, from someone with absolutely no dog in this fight.


Good question. To be honest there is not enough info about correlation between measurable degradation of waveform (Df, dB) and audibility of that degradation. Such info can be derived from results of various listening tests. I have only preliminary figures based on analysis of HydrogenAudio listening tests of codecs and beta-testing of 30+ portable players on SE site. At this point of research I'm pretty sure that 10dB improvement in reproduction of real musical signal is huge and must be audible. 10dB is the difference in measurements between early portable players like iriver E100, iphone 3G and modern top smartphones by Apple, Huawei and Xiaomi or iPod classic 2009 for example. Then, looking at df-slide with measurements of iPod 5th we can see that 1kHs Sine is degraded higher than 12.5kHz Sine (more harmonics) and odd harmonics are prevail over even ones (relative position of two triangle signals which is also confirmed by traditional spectral view of harmonic products). So it's quite easy to say how exactly that degradation will be audible - harsh mids. But in general I agree with your objection - relation of df-measurements and audibility should be researched better. I wish I had more time for this but I do what I can.



bigshot said:


> Most of the published studies on thresholds of audibility are done with tones, not music. In practice the thresholds are as much as an order of magnitude lower when you are using music than with tones. (PS I'm a professional with experience.)
> 
> You should just do some simple listening tests yourself. I know in audiophile forums people attribute all kinds of coloration to DACs, But I've done controlled listening tests of various DACs (Wolfson, Cirrus, Sabre, etc.) All the ones I've tested are audibly transperent. If you took the time to do some tests yourself, you would know this too.


I think my reply to Steve999 also suits your objections. I will just add that I'm trying to use results of third party listening tests for the research, not mine. The reason is clear I think.

[merged]


----------



## krismusic

Sterling2 said:


> Here's just a sidebar getting us out of the weeds of minutia for a minute. the iPhone does indeed produce/deliver a high enough quality sound to be seen as sufficient by most folks on the Planet.


Brave attempt!



Whazzzup said:


> Hugo far improves listening experience of an iPhone. Not even close


Have you done any blind listening tests to substantiate this claim?


----------



## Whazzzup (May 27, 2019)

krismusic said:


> Brave attempt!
> 
> 
> Have you done any blind listening tests to substantiate this claim?


 yes, i think its called scaling my encores


----------



## castleofargh

Steve999 said:


> You made claims of an audible difference in equipment without doing any reliable listening to back it up, or evidence or data that the difference, however much it might approach the audible, would actually be audible to you or anyone. I really like a lot of your work but for me that is going one step too far. It takes us down the rabbit hole.
> 
> As a for example, I looked up @Voxata ‘s equipment he listed in his last post. It had been carefully measured on another forum I find credible. Apparently it all measures extremely well for its price point. He seems to have chosen carefully. If having something that measures really well for the price point gives you pride in ownership and it doesn’t break your budget at all I’m all for it. It’s not my cup of tea but I get it. But as the reviews made clear all characteristics that were measured and were not quite as good as the very best measurements they had ever encountered or were otherwise remarkable were far lower than the known thresholds of audibility.
> 
> Now, will this iPod you discuss sound exactly the same? If by measurements it’s an edge case I think it would be best to say we don’t know, rather than to speculate based on certain aspects of the measurements that it would be audibly non-transparent for its intended purpose and further speculate as to the purported minor non-transparent characteristics of the sound that would result. That’s why I think you went one step too far there, from someone with absolutely no dog in this fight.


nothing is entirely black or white, what those discussions easily leave aside despite a few heroes who try their best, are the conditions used when testing. obviously in this sub section almost everybody is familiar with the criteria we define for an actual listening test when the differences are assumed to be small(we only had to repeat it thousands of times for years, audiophiles are such fast learners...). but the testing conditions are just as important with objective measurements. it's fundamental to have them well specified and hopefully understood by those who try to draw conclusions from those experiences.
in this case of iStuff, we know from the get go that they will be limited in max power output, we can expect an amp section that's not the best we can possibly make(because portable, small, and made to be as cheap as possible), and of course we can expect that using low impedance loads(IEMs or resistors) will yield worst results than unloaded measurements or measurements with average impedance phones and an almost fully resistive behavior. just with that knowledge, we can try to push a device into situations that won't be nominal for it, to try and reveal clear audible/measurable differences. just like I'm fairly confident that if we aim for nominal conditions for the devices and stable loads, then most will sound the same or really very close. 
we're not discussing fundamental scientific theories here, most of the time people are effectively talking about one or two anecdotes when using a specific list of devices under specific conditions. how they decide to interpret that as global superiority of one device is their mistake. us treating those statements as if they were legitimate propositions that deserve to be argued, is IMO, our mistake. and I mean that both for "X is night and day different compared to Y", and for "all DACs sound the same". most of the time, the lack of specific conditions surrounding a statement is conclusive about the relevance of the statement.


----------



## Sterling2 (May 27, 2019)

Whazzzup said:


> Hugo far improves listening experience of an iPhone. Not even close


I'm skeptical of praise which use phrases like blows away, blows out of the water, not even close, and far improves, which are all  exaggerations. The fact is today's iPhone satisfies.


----------



## Whazzzup

Thought about the metaphors while listening and typing. I generally wouldn't use this except that's exactly how i felt. Now don't get me wrong i could be quite happy with an iPhone or iPad, and have, but once you hear the difference....just like iTunes is a good enough player or using an iMac is fine, itv etc... but once one hears bit perfect and a dedicated server, well  you won't go back. IMO


----------



## bigshot (May 27, 2019)

Sterling2 said:


> Here's just a sidebar getting us out of the weeds of minutia for a minute. Although I have an iPad with analog output, that output is only used for headphones and it's rare for me to use headphones, since, in my private environment, I can enjoy my JBL L100t3's speakers without intruding on anyone's ears.  So, the iPad's DAC is moot.



You can probably get a docking plug that has a true line out if you want.



SergeSE said:


> I think my reply to Steve999 also suits your objections. I will just add that I'm trying to use results of third party listening tests for the research, not mine. The reason is clear I think.



Most of us here in Sound Science are used to doing controlled listening tests ourself. The problem with working purely in theory is that audiophiles who do that tend to cherry pick the most extreme cases to justify going down the rabbit hole of assuming better numbers automatically mean better sound. When you graduate from second hand results from third party listening tests to first hand tests you do yourself, you will get a much better perspective on what really matters and what doesn't. That's called practical first hand experience.

Saying a Wolfson chip sounds different from a Cirrus chip when you haven't even heard the difference yourself doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot. That's just being an armchair quarterback. There are countless people on the internet who parrot facts and figures without the experience to know how to interpret them into real world sound. I know that being able to recite lots and lots of numbers, quoting sources and being able to type out long paragraphs of pure theory impresses most people in audiophile forums, but to me it's just a lot of empty talk without real world application. I'm only interested in making my system sound great for the purposes of listening to music in my home. I'm not trying to launch a rocket to the moon or achieve absolute theoretical purity to extremes.

I have done controlled listening tests with a bunch of iPod models. I've got nine of them and three iPhones. In my tests, they all sound exactly alike. Maybe they measure differently, but to normal human ears there is no audible difference. The majority of people here in Sound Science who have actually conduct careful listening tests find the exact same thing. if you'd like, you can consider that a third party listening test and factor that into your opinion now... or you can just cherry pick the abstract theories that support your preconceived opinion.



Whazzzup said:


> Thought about the metaphors while listening and typing. I generally wouldn't use this except that's exactly how i felt. Now don't get me wrong i could be quite happy with an iPhone or iPad, and have, but once you hear the difference....just like iTunes is a good enough player or using an iMac is fine, itv etc... but once one hears bit perfect and a dedicated server, well  you won't go back. IMO



And you know the next question is did you do a direct A/B switched, line level matched, blind listening test to come up with that opinion, or is it an impression based on purely subjective impressions?

And the next thing I'm going to point out is that I did a carefully controlled listening tests comparing the output of the Oppo HA-1,  iPod Classic, a $40 Walmart DVD player, a high end SACD player and various other computers and players and they all sounded exactly the same.



Whazzzup said:


> Thought about the metaphors while listening and typing. I generally wouldn't use this except that's exactly how i felt.



How you feel about the Hugo is irrelevant to everyone but you. The only thing other people would be able to relate to is how it sounds. I seriously doubt that there is a 'night and day' difference in actual sound quality. The way to determine that would be to do a careful listening test. It isn't hard and people here are happy to help you figure out how to set one up. Knowing exactly how different units sound relative to each other, and not depending on feelings will make you a much smarter shopper.

I'm curious though... what makes you think an iPod or other kind of DAC is not bit perfect? Do you think that they produce an audible level of error? What do you base that on?


----------



## krismusic

Whazzzup said:


> Thought about the metaphors while listening and typing. I generally wouldn't use this except that's exactly how i felt. Now don't get me wrong i could be quite happy with an iPhone or iPad, and have, but once you hear the difference....just like iTunes is a good enough player or using an iMac is fine, itv etc... but once one hears bit perfect and a dedicated server, well  you won't go back. IMO


I have the Mojo and there is no discernible improvement. I admit I have not heard the Hugo 2 but I doubt that it is a quantum leap on the Mojo...


----------



## Whazzzup (May 27, 2019)

krismusic said:


> I have the Mojo and there is no discernible improvement. I admit I have not heard the Hugo 2 but I doubt that it is a quantum leap on the Mojo...


 surprising but never heard mojo. I have Hugo and have tested Hugo 2 side by side. But concerning Hugo and iPhone max s, Hugo wins powering my encores via dhc 8 braid silver type 6 litz cable. have had my Hugo for 5 plus years, so whether it be iPhone 5,6,7 no difference.


----------



## bigshot

Line level matched, blind, direct A/B switched?


----------



## Whazzzup

Is there an eco chamber here?


----------



## bigshot

If there is any difference it's because of the impedance of your headphones, not the quality of the DAC or the type of wire in your cable.


----------



## SparkOnShore (May 28, 2019)

bigshot said:


> If there is any difference it's because of the impedance of your headphones, not the quality of the DAC or the type of wire in your cable.



Exactly! So please, to all you “audiophiles”, please use headphones whose impedance matches your iPhone, iPad or iPod. Not just any high quality headphone. Check impedance from manufacturer before buying. Many high quality headphones have impedances that do not match the one of your idevices which results to audio degradation and makes you think that Dac of iPhone is bad! It’s not that, it’s just the impedance!


----------



## krismusic

SparkOnShore said:


> Exactly! So please, to all you “audiophiles”, please use headphones whose impedance matches your iPhone, iPad or iPod. Not just any high quality headphone. Check impedance from manufacturer before buying. Many high quality headphones have impedances that do not match the one of your idevices which results to audio degradation and makes you think that Dac of iPhone is bad! It’s not that, it’s just the impedance!


So what impedance should we be going for?


----------



## SparkOnShore

I believe low. 17-20 is perfect.


----------



## SparkOnShore

But also up to 36 ohms quite good.


----------



## bigshot (May 28, 2019)

It's impedance and sensitivity. My Oppo PM-1s are 32 ohm with 102dB sensitivity. They work fine with iPods and iPhones. My old Sennheiser HD-590s were 20 ohm with 102dB. They worked fine too.


----------



## krismusic

SparkOnShore said:


> But also up to 36 ohms quite good.


Thanks for the info. Appreciated. So my K10's at "less than" 32 should be OK. It's annoying that Noble are so cagey about their specs.


----------



## SparkOnShore

krismusic said:


> Thanks for the info. Appreciated. So my K10's at "less than" 32 should be OK. It's annoying that Noble are so cagey about their specs.



As bigshot says correctly it’s a combination of impedance and sensitivity. I just mentioned the impedance of my choice for idevices but did not mention sensitivity. Normally his Sennheiser at 120 ohms could not be that preferable but he says they are just fine...


----------



## krismusic

SparkOnShore said:


> As bigshot says correctly it’s a combination of impedance and sensitivity. I just mentioned the impedance of my choice for idevices but did not mention sensitivity. Normally his Sennheiser at 120 ohms could not be that preferable but he says they are just fine...


Well I certainly enjoy the K10's out of the phone. I have tried quite a few different portable amps and come to the conclusion that they don't add anything. Now the same for the Mojo Dac.


----------



## Whazzzup

err think less than 1


----------



## Whazzzup (May 28, 2019)

I have enjoyed encore out of phone, but hugo is much more enjoyable. Scale, 3d, overall. Hugo overrides the rockwell dac of the iPhone


----------



## TheSonicTruth (May 28, 2019)

bigshot said:


> It's impedance and sensitivity. My Oppo PM-1s are 32 ohm with 102dB sensitivity. They work fine with iPods and iPhones. My old Sennheiser HD-590s were 120 ohm with 102dB. They worked fine too.



Among my full-size canventory are Sennheiser HD-280 Pro, Sony MDR-7506, Grado SR80i, and Beyerdynamic DT-880 250ohm version.

They all have impedances waaaaaaaaay over 30ohms, but the first two I mentioned have sensitivities speced. above 100dB.  So I can easily drive them with my iPods and iPad.  No comment regarding my search for impedance or sensitivity specs on any generation Apple buds or Air Pods - that's APPLE for ya - tightfisted on any meaningful specs, like they're the Skunk works or something. 

The  Grado sensitivity is a tick below 100dB, but - they have the lowest impedance, 36ohms, of them all.  Plus they have no dip, characteristic of most headphones, in their freq. response between 3-8kHz.  More in-your-face sounding than my others.

The Beardynamics - no misspelling, they can be a _bear_ to drive from a small digital device! - have the mother of impedance among my cans, and sensitivity(or sound pressure levels as their European builders properly term it!) of 96dB.  So of the sixteen volume positions on most iOS devices, I'd have them set at 12 or higher for most casual listening.  Put any amp between the Beyers and my devices, and the Beyers shine, with just a modest prsence in the 150-200Hz zone, and the 'softest' highs of all my phones.

The Sonys and the Sennheisers are easily listenable, for me anyway, at volume clicks 8-10. Clear, reasonably balanced sound across the spectrum, the Sonys being the most top-heavy of my collection.

Nearly 40 years ago, at the age of 10, I'd have to have the volume MAXED OUT with a combination of my iPod and any of the headphones above; due to pre-and post-natal exposure to toxins _no_ child deserves, I had constant colds, ear infections, and my hearing curve must have looked like the Swiss Matterhorn, its peak being arount 2-4kHz!  That's right: my hearing was WORSE as a child and to extent as a teen than it has been since my thirties. No bass, no highs to speak of - imagine the worst sounding telephone you've ever, in your life, taken a call on! lol

Now, my hearing tests fairly flat, just with a steep roll-off above 12kHz.  At least I still hear bottom now! lol


----------



## SparkOnShore

Whazzzup said:


> I have enjoyed encore out of phone, but hugo is much more enjoyable. Scale, 3d, overall. Hugo overrides the rockwell dac of the iPhone



As said many times here, it has nothing to do with the dac. Dac of Hugo and Dac of iPhone are exactly the same. Most probably Hugo has some audio coloration which you like, or because of its amplifier matches better your headphone’s impedance. Dacs are no different. Both Hugo and iPhone dacs are transparent and thus offering same audio results.


----------



## Whazzzup

SparkOnShore said:


> As said many times here, it has nothing to do with the dac. Dac of Hugo and Dac of iPhone are exactly the same. Most probably Hugo has some audio coloration which you like, or because of its amplifier matches better your headphone’s impedance. Dacs are no different. Both Hugo and iPhone dacs are transparent and thus offering same audio results.


 except therefore they do not sound the same. I care less for this gizmo or that, but hugo is not designed the same as rockwell dac, both are separately patented. Yes the op stage will be a factor as well. Impediance is less than 1 ohm. 
However concerning iPhone models or iPads i hear no difference.


----------



## castleofargh

low impedance load(IEM/headphone) let a lot of current flow in the circuit, that can very much become a problem for the amp. my extreme example of that would be to short circuit the DAP using only a wire with maybe 0.1ohm of impedance. no need to be an electrical engineer to guess that the DAP will not love being short circuited. when an IEM goes as low as 4ohm at some frequencies, we're getting close that. if nothing is specified, I would try to avoid IEMs going below 16ohm. most of the time they need so little power that everything is fine even if it doesn't measure amazingly, but it's unlikely to be the best combination one can dream of(objectively at least). headphones above 100ohm might also start to require too much voltage for portable gears, and the iStuff aren't high gain devices, so we'd like to avoid a headphone we can't get loud enough for our preference. the concern is sensitivity here, but it just so happens that high impedance headphones can often have rather low sensi so I'm making an amalgam here. 
with those 2 extreme situations that we would like to avoid(along with perhaps extremely sensitive IEMs in case the DAP has a lot of background hiss), we end up in the middle, where everything is typically more stable. the old standard of devices good from 16 to 300ohm doesn't mean much today, but we can still find plenty of devices that start to measure poorly around 16ohm and lower. bad luck, most TOTL IEMs nowadays tend to be overly sensitive stuff with crazy low impedance so I don't buy any of those. it's apparently good for the IEM, but it's crap for the amp, so I honestly don't understand that trend. I'm probably missing something important...


----------



## SparkOnShore

Dacs sound exactly the same. Devices sound different, due to amplifiers coloration etc. But let’s repeat again, Dacs sound the same. You do not need another dac. iPhone dac is enough. You also may think you hear more due to psychological reasons, but I am sorry to say they are not real.


----------



## SparkOnShore

Whazzzup said:


> except therefore they do not sound the same. I care less for this gizmo or that, but hugo is not designed the same as rockwell dac, both are separately patented. Yes the op stage will be a factor as well. Impediance is less than 1 ohm.
> However concerning iPhone models or iPads i hear no difference.



Dacs sound exactly the same. Devices sound different, due to amplifiers coloration etc. But let’s repeat again, Dacs sound the same. You do not need another dac. iPhone dac is enough. You also may think you hear more due to psychological reasons, but I am sorry to say they are not real.

And what was the other comment of yours that iTunes is not bit perfect? I would like you to analyze this thought of yours little more...


----------



## bigshot (May 28, 2019)

SparkOnShore said:


> As bigshot says correctly it’s a combination of impedance and sensitivity. I just mentioned the impedance of my choice for idevices but did not mention sensitivity. Normally his Sennheiser at 120 ohms could not be that preferable but he says they are just fine...



Sorry... that was a typo. The Senns are 20 ohm, not 120 ohm.



TheSonicTruth said:


> The Sonys and the Sennheisers are easily listenable, for me anyway



Well it's not only about listenability and volume, it's also about accuracy. If the amp and transducers are matched properly, you get balanced sound. In theory, the further away from matched you get, the less balanced it is. But you have a lot more leeway with headphones than you do with speakers. I suppose you could just keep it basic and amp only if you need more volume and you wouldn't be too far off the mark. In general, cans either require amping or they don't. Amping a set of headphones that doesn't need it doesn't make them sound better. It just makes them louder. I know the rest of Head-Fi believes that any time you add an electronic box to the chain, it sounds better. But that just isn't true.

People worry a lot about it, but ballparking it is fine.



Whazzzup said:


> except therefore they do not sound the same



If you add a $50 Cmoy amp to the iPod, it will sound exactly like your Huge-o Mojo Jojo or whatever it's called. The DAC chips sound identical. The difference is the amp, not the DAC.


----------



## Whazzzup

SparkOnShore said:


> Dacs sound exactly the same. Devices sound different, due to amplifiers coloration etc. But let’s repeat again, Dacs sound the same. You do not need another dac. iPhone dac is enough. You also may think you hear more due to psychological reasons, but I am sorry to say they are not real.
> 
> And what was the other comment of yours that iTunes is not bit perfect? I would like you to analyze this thought of yours little more...


 Ok I didn’t realize for 1, we are at the all dacs are the same sound science, my mistake, I’m leaving. Second I can’t say I said that about iTunes so my evaluation of my thought is irrelevant other than my system playback with an external server playing roon core was superior to iMac iTunes combo.


----------



## Whazzzup

lastly yes my Hugo was better in providing musical enjoyment regardless if it’s the pulse arrays, fpga code, digital volume, or op phase which actually doesn’t exist in chord in that there is no amplifier per se.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

Whazzzup said:


> Ok I didn’t realize for 1, we are at the all dacs are the same sound science, my mistake, I’m leaving.



No! We need more audiophiles in here, so we can educate and enlighten them!


----------



## SparkOnShore (May 28, 2019)

Whazzzup said:


> Ok I didn’t realize for 1, we are at the all dacs are the same sound science, my mistake, I’m leaving. Second I can’t say I said that about iTunes so my evaluation of my thought is irrelevant other than my system playback with an external server playing roon core was superior to iMac iTunes combo.



There is no this sound science and that sound science. There is just one sound science and it says that all Dacs sound the same and that you do not need Hugo Boss’ dac. iPhone’s dac sounds exactly the same and additionally you will not have to carry this brick around with you...There are of course marketers, salesmen and forum agents, who want you to believe your Hugo Boss sounds superior because of its dac. Well, it’s just not true. Please arrange a correct and controlled blind test and you will find out by yourself. I don’t want you to leave this sub but if you choose to leave, bye and have a critical mind, always...


----------



## castleofargh

SparkOnShore said:


> There is no this sound science and that sound science. There is just one sound science and it says that all Dacs sound the same and that you do not need Hugo Boss’ dac. iPhone’s dac sounds exactly the same and additionally you will not have to carry this brick around with you...There are of course marketers, salesmen and forum agents, who want you to believe your Hugo Boss sounds superior because of its dac. Well, it’s just not true. Please arrange a correct and controlled blind test and you will find out by yourself. I don’t want you to leave this sub but if you choose to leave, bye and have a critical mind, always...


I don't agree with this any more than I agree with empty statements of difference. it's not that easy to properly test DACs and most people putting out statements did not conclusively test anything. those who did have tested a small number of DACs that in no way allows them to draw conclusion on all DACs. it's not right to push the "all DACs sound the same" mantra as if it was established truth when it's not even something we can prove. 

with that said, it's obvious that the amplifier and possible interactions with the IEM/headphone are way more likely to affect sound than a DAC. we have plenty of clear electrical reasons for that to be true, and a great many measurements suggesting the same. if a DAC makes a huge difference nowadays, it's probably that it has a problem or simply that the difference in loudness is misinterpreted as so many subjective improvements. but saying that is not the same as saying that all DACs sound the same, which is false and can be demonstrated to be without too much efforts.


----------



## Whazzzup

who's hugo boss? I call bias right there.


----------



## bigshot (May 28, 2019)

Whazzzup said:


> Ok I didn’t realize for 1, we are at the all dacs are the same sound science



I am looking for one that clearly sounds different to do controlled listening tests with. If you have one that has an unique sound, and would be willing to lend it to us to do a Sound Science listening test, let me know.



Whazzzup said:


> my thought is irrelevant other than my system playback with an external server playing roon core was superior to iMac iTunes combo.



Care to participate in a controlled test to verify your impression?



castleofargh said:


> it's not that easy to properly test DACs



What makes it so hard? You run line out through a preamp, level match, blind switch. Listen for a difference. It's one of the easiest things to compare. Headphones are hard to compare. DACs are a piece of cake.

All of the DACs, amps and players that I've tested sound the same. They were designed to be audibly transparent, so that shouldn't be a surprise. I keep asking for someone who is positive they have one that sounds different to participate in a controlled test to verify that, and so far, no takers. That should tell you something. I think we all know that you could go to amazon, search up DACs and choose one like pin the tail on the donkey and you'd end up with one that is audibly perfect. Some of us just want to hedge our semantic bets based on some theoretical exception that no one has identified yet. And of course the folks who jury rig the test by using square waves, level riding and other tricks to make the inaudible audible to them.


----------



## Whazzzup (May 28, 2019)

You can buy one on the Internet.

No, I already did


----------



## bigshot

Whatever you'd like to test, we'll test it against an iPod with a Wolfson DAC if you want.


----------



## randomnin

Damn, this sound science section is blissful. After wandering only the other sections for months, here I'm awash with phrases like "blind tests" and "there's only one sound science". No platitudes, niceties and tolerance of biases. Wonderful, just wonderful!


----------



## JM1979

What an interesting thread. Here are my unscientificly tested thoughts:

-The current iPhones X, XS have really good sound and iDACs for a mobile device. 
-Hugo 2 is a very significant improvement in all aspects of the iPhone DAC.  Maybe the amp stage plays a part. 
-Audioquest DFR is a step up from the Apple dac chips. This is very noticable via my car audio, more so than Via headphones, especially iems.


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> If you add a $50 Cmoy amp to the iPod, it will sound exactly like your Huge-o Mojo Jojo or whatever it's called. The DAC chips sound identical. The difference is the amp, not the DAC.





SparkOnShore said:


> There is no this sound science and that sound science. There is just one sound science and it says that all Dacs sound the same and that you do not need Hugo Boss’ dac. iPhone’s dac sounds exactly the same and additionally you will not have to carry this brick around with you...There are of course marketers, salesmen and forum agents, who want you to believe your Hugo Boss sounds superior because of its dac. Well, it’s just not true. Please arrange a correct and controlled blind test and you will find out by yourself. I don’t want you to leave this sub but if you choose to leave, bye and have a critical mind, always...


You are not going to change anyone's mind by sneering at them.


----------



## krismusic

JM1979 said:


> What an interesting thread. Here are my unscientificly tested thoughts:
> 
> -The current iPhones X, XS have really good sound and iDACs for a mobile device.
> -Hugo 2 is a very significant improvement in all aspects of the iPhone DAC.  Maybe the amp stage plays a part.
> -Audioquest DFR is a step up from the Apple dac chips. This is very noticable via my car audio, more so than Via headphones, especially iems.


Unscientifically tested thoughts don't fly here. Sorry.


----------



## JM1979

krismusic said:


> Unscientifically tested thoughts don't fly here. Sorry.



Ha, good point. I didn’t realize what forum I was in. I just watch this thread because I use my phone as my source regardless of the chain and enjoy reading everything on this site.


----------



## SparkOnShore

krismusic said:


> You are not going to change anyone's mind by sneering at them.



I never intended to sneer at anybody. If I sounded like that I truly apologize.


----------



## bigshot

JM1979 said:


> -The current iPhones X, XS have really good sound and iDACs for a mobile device.
> -Hugo 2 is a very significant improvement in all aspects of the iPhone DAC.  Maybe the amp stage plays a part.
> -Audioquest DFR is a step up from the Apple dac chips. This is very noticable via my car audio, more so than Via headphones, especially iems.



There are several things you need to do to eliminate the possibility of perceptual error and bias from affecting your comparison:

First of all, you need to compare apples to apples. In order to compare DACs, you need to compare the two line outs through the exact same amp. The Hugo includes a built in amp that can push home style cans. The iPhone doesn't. It's intended for use with portable headphones. So if you compare using home style headphones, it isn't a fair comparison. However if you run the line out from the two through the same headphone amp, you will have a fair comparison.

Secondly, you need to match the line level. Some components have a line out that is a little louder than others. The quality may be the same, but it's human nature to perceive louder as better sound quality. So you run a test tone and use a preamp to adjust the levels so both are exactly the same.

Thirdly, you have to reduce the space of time between samples. Human auditory memory is notoriously short. If samples are similar, we can forget the sound we are comparing in as little as a couple of seconds. To overcome this, you line up the exact same file in both DACs and run them into a switcher, so you can easily switch back and forth between them to detect subtle differences if they exist.

Fourth and most importantly, it is vital to conduct a blind test. Human beings are all subject to the effects of bias. It's how we are able to quickly make decisions and form opinions. You can't turn this off. It is built into us. So to eliminate bias from altering your results, you hide the identity of the samples from yourself by having someone else assign the two samples to A and B. That way, the fact that you spent $1000 on one and $50 on the other won't color your impression of how they sound.

Do a number of rounds of tests to make sure you are able to discern consistently. Your first test has a 50-50 chance of being right, even if you just guess. Those odds go down with multiple tests and you will know whether you are hearing what you think you hear.

One thing you will find out by doing this sort of test is that the differences if they exist at all are very very small. You will have to strain to hear things you might have previously thought were "night and day" differences. Doing a test like this is fun, and the equipment to do it doesn't cost more than $50 or $60 at most. It's really nice to know for sure based on first hand experience rather than taking someone else's word for it. It gives you confidence that you are making the correct buying decisions. That alone is worth the $50 for a switcher and preamp.


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> What makes it so hard? You run line out through a preamp, level match, blind switch. Listen for a difference. It's one of the easiest things to compare. Headphones are hard to compare. DACs are a piece of cake.
> 
> All of the DACs, amps and players that I've tested sound the same. They were designed to be audibly transparent, so that shouldn't be a surprise. I keep asking for someone who is positive they have one that sounds different to participate in a controlled test to verify that, and so far, no takers. That should tell you something. I think we all know that you could go to amazon, search up DACs and choose one like pin the tail on the donkey and you'd end up with one that is audibly perfect. Some of us just want to hedge our semantic bets based on some theoretical exception that no one has identified yet. And of course the folks who jury rig the test by using square waves, level riding and other tricks to make the inaudible audible to them.


matching the voltage output has to be done without interfering much with the following amp, rapid switching needs to switch the source's destination and the amp input, that might take a second or make distinctive noises. or we could have 2 sources synchronized but that is in itself a difficulty.
I've had a few DACs that would make a little sound when a signal started being sent to them(some only when changing sample rate, others no matter what was sent), and that would let me identify the DAC.
all in all, I've found that trying to setup listening tests for DACs is harder than for amps into a specific load. although the possibility of using different loads of different sensitivity makes the field of experiment with amps much wider, each specific situation is rather simple to test. 
the alternative that I use a lot is to simply record the output of the DAC unloaded, and ABX that, but I've met several people who dismiss that form of testing because they believe the recording and replay will remove the filter characteristics ringing and whatever else that made a given DAC distinctly good. they usually have a hard time supporting evidence that ringing from the anti aliasing or other stuff are audible, but one thing brings another and  in the end nobody demonstrated anything and nobody trusts nobody. so maybe that's not a good testing method for reasons. 

but deep down I believe you're part of the legendary cabal against good DACs, you pretend not to notice night and day differences to push your evil agenda. 
prove that I'm wrong!


----------



## bigshot (May 28, 2019)

I've got no problems doing that stuff. I'm not doing things to published standards, so I don't have to be 100% anal about it. My purposes are just to determine if a difference exists under normal use (listening to music in the home). If I determine a difference, I might want to apply more stringent controls to see if it's something slipping though the cracks, but I haven't had to do that. Most stuff is close enough that I can't tell even if I try hard. That is good enough for my purposes, and it's good enough for everyone else who is just listening to music on their rigs.

Now if I was running a recording studio, I would want to be more thorough. But I'm just playing back music in my living room. Most of the stuff people obsess over in internet forums are based purely on theory. They read some minute detail and then worry about it *potentially* affecting their sound. Pretty soon the inaudible molehill becomes a mountain that costs them thousands of dollars to correct. If they determined whether they could hear it first, they would save a lot of expense and worry. I listen very carefully to my system and work on improving it. I find I have more impact when I identify an audible flaw and then try to figure out what's causing it, rather than making up a theoretical flaw then trying to prove it's audible.



castleofargh said:


> the alternative that I use a lot is to simply record the output of the DAC unloaded, and ABX that, but I've met several people who dismiss that form of testing



If you've already proven that your capture method is audibly transparent by comparing a capture to a file that hasn't been captured, then that argument is moot.



castleofargh said:


> but deep down I believe you're part of the legendary cabal against good DACs, you pretend not to notice night and day differences to push your evil agenda. prove that I'm wrong!



It's a lot easier to imagine differences that don't exist than it is to overlook blatant differences. And blind testing removes the element of bias anyway.


----------



## gregorio

SergeSE said:


> I consider DAC and amp as a single stage because today they are designed together as a SoC solution in most cases (“Wolfson chip”).



We have to be very careful when audiophiles are around though! Many audiophiles will simply take "chip" to mean DAC chip and make all kinds of false assertions about audible differences between DACs.



Whazzzup said:


> [1a] Hugo far improves listening experience of an iPhone. Not even close
> [1b] But concerning Hugo and iPhone max s, Hugo wins powering my encores via dhc 8 braid silver type 6 litz cable
> [2] except therefore they do not sound the same. I care less for this gizmo or that, but hugo is not designed the same as rockwell dac, both are separately patented.
> [3] Ok I didn’t realize for 1, we are at the all dacs are the same sound science, my mistake, I’m leaving.



1. Your first statement is false, your second statement on the other hand could be true, except for the part about the cable (which makes no difference). A Hugo has a far more powerful amp section (and far lower impedance) than an iPhone, so if your HPs require higher power, produce a greater load, than an iphone is designed for, it's very likely there will be an audible difference, maybe even an obvious difference. However, using HPs with an appropriate load, a Hugo would NOT "far improve the listening experience of an iPhone", in fact there would be no audible difference! If we take a two identical Ducatis around a race circuit but add a 500kg weight to the second one, we'd easily notice a very different performance but would we therefore conclude and assert that the first Ducati is far superior to the second? Of course not, common sense/basic understanding dictates that the "load" is entirely responsible for the difference. Unfortunately, many audiophiles seem incapable of the same level of common sense/understanding that everyone takes for granted with vehicle performance!

2. It doesn't matter in the slightest how differently they're designed, the only thing that matters is the end result, is there any audible difference in the output? Using simple logic, that leaves two possibilities:
A. Your perception is being fooled, you are imagining audible differences where there are none because you have not done a fair, controlled DB/ABX test.
B. You are actually hearing a (audible) difference, due to your HP's load being inappropriate for the iPod/iPhone. In which case you again have not done a fair, controlled DB/ABX test! 
Note: A few DAPs/DACs have been deliberately designed to have a lower fidelity, audible difference. For example, the Pono implements a filter that rolls off from around 10kHz which is within audibility. However, this is not the case with the Hugo.
In either case, you have not done an appropriate test, despite your claims that you have!

3. Yes, it is YOUR mistake. With the exception of a very few DACs which are deliberately designed to be audibly lower fidelity and differences in amp output power (which of course is the amp and not the DAC), then all the reliable evidence indicates no audible differences between DACs, that's the science! Mistakes are understandable but repeating the same mistakes over and over, even after they've been explained to you, is NOT! If you believe we're all mistaken and you're not, then to start with you have to provide some reliable evidence but you never do, you just leave in a huff, only to pop back up some time/place later and make the exact same mistake all over again! BTW, in case you're confused, audiophile marketing materials or "impressions" do not qualify as reliable evidence.



castleofargh said:


> the alternative that I use a lot is to simply record the output of the DAC unloaded, and ABX that, but I've met several people who dismiss that form of testing because they believe the recording and replay will remove the filter characteristics ringing and whatever else that made a given DAC distinctly good.



I've heard that argument but it doesn't hold water. Even a fairly modest ADC set to record at 96kHz, will accurately capture any filter characteristics of the test DAC, within and even well beyond the audible freq range. Any other supposedly audible artefacts of the ADC would be the exactly the same across all the A, B and X samples and therefore would not affect the result.

G


----------



## Whazzzup

yes it was a mistake.


----------



## ruthieandjohn (May 29, 2019)

Just did a quick non-blind only-audibly-output-level matches comparison of my iPhone 5SE driving my Ultrasone Edition 8 (Ruthenium) headphones vs. a Sony A17 DAP (my cheapest smallest DAP) as transport driving my Chord Hugo via the Sony port to USB converter, USB input to Hugo, and same headphones. I was listening to Barbara Streisand and Michael Buble from her Partners album at lossless CD rates.  I switched between 5 sec segments of each song, same sagment first played by one, then the other, back and forth.

No significant difference in sound to my ears.  I _might_ have perceived a bit more openness between instruments and a bit more cymbal shine on the Hugo, but not so much as I would ever be able to tell which was which if I were just listening to one without rapidly switching between them.

This is the same result as I found when I had the temerity to post in the Chord Hugo thread, over a year ago, that I could hear no difference. This was likely for a different headphone and DAP, but results were the same.  I was challenged by one person there in particular stating that there HAD to be a difference and that I must be wrong.

I realize that I am subject to possibly overloading the limited output of the iPhone with the load of the Ultrasone Edition 8 headphones, but I don’t think that is likely, as those headphone have been described by at least one leading member here as among the best to drive with the iPhone.

However, it IS fun to fiddle with a $2,000 beautiful piece of gear with multicolored lights, trying to figure out how to physically construct a robust package of DAP, adapter, cable, and Hugo.  It makes me THINK it sounds better, just as a bread recipe with 17 ingredients MUST taste better than one with only five, right?


----------



## StandsOnFeet

So, even a sloppy test finds either no or an extremely subtle difference between the Hugo and an iPhone. It's what I'd expect. 

I agree about the beauty of the box and the multicoloured lights having some appeal. On the other hand, $2300 CDN is an awful lot to pay for aesthetics.


----------



## castleofargh

gregorio said:


> 've heard that argument but it doesn't hold water. Even a fairly modest ADC set to record at 96kHz, will accurately capture any filter characteristics of the test DAC, within and even well beyond the audible freq range. Any other supposedly audible artefacts of the ADC would be the exactly the same across all the A, B and X samples and therefore would not affect the result.


yes it's also my opinion, but it causes to jump into one or two other rabbit holes about ringing, the number of taps we need to approximate something, the noise shaping at -250dB, jitter and what not. we end up having to convince people about hearing thresholds for all that just to convince them that the test is probably valid. it would ideally be better to just have an almost irreproachable test. but I'm nitpicking here, I'm arguing in favor of a huge level of control when the other testing method presented here is typically people not controlling anything at all and telling how they feel. in that mindset, recording a DAC to abx the matched and time aligned files is freaking amazing ^_^.


----------



## Steve999 (May 29, 2019)

randomnin said:


> Damn, this sound science section is blissful. After wandering only the other sections for months, here I'm awash with phrases like "blind tests" and "there's only one sound science". No platitudes, niceties and tolerance of biases. Wonderful, just wonderful!



Yes, we’re amazing, only 50-plus pages and counting to discuss the sound quality of iStuff!  Actually it’s in large part because of the dynamic you allude to—we cut across the intended philosophical grain and established pecuniary interests (I’m hoping they don’t know what pecuniary means) of the much larger rest of head-fi. It’s only a matter of time until the next poor soul posts here and expects to have a typical head-fi conversation and then off we go.

But I’ve learned a lot of interesting things and come across some thoughtful nuances in this thread though so it’s cool.


----------



## bigshot

If it convinces folks to try their hand on conducting a blind test themselves, I think it's great. More audiophiles should arrive at their opinions through first hand controlled testing.


----------



## SergeSE

gregorio said:


> We have to be very careful when audiophiles are around though! Many audiophiles will simply take "chip" to mean DAC chip and make all kinds of false assertions about audible differences between DACs.


I thought it is not difficult today to find out that “Wolfson chip” from iPod 5th is WM8758BG. From its description:

The WM8758B is a low power, high quality stereo CODEC designed for portable applications such as MP3 audio player. The device integrates preamps for stereo differential mics, and drivers for headphone and differential or stereo line output. External component requirements are reduced as no separate microphone or headphone amplifiers are required. Headphone and line common feedback improves crosstalk and noise performance. Advanced on-chip digital signal processing includes a 5-band equaliser, a mixed signal Automatic Level Control for the microphone or line input through the ADC as well as a purely digital limiter function for record or playback. Additional digital filtering options are available in the ADC path, to cater for application filtering such as ‘wind noise reduction’ and notch filter. - https://d3uzseaevmutz1.cloudfront.net/pubs/proDatasheet/WM8758B_v4.4.pdf

Today's price is $2 - https://www.digipart.com/part/WM8758BG


----------



## stonesfan129 (May 30, 2019)

I don't understand why people think Wolfson > anything else.  I like the way the Wolfson WM8740 sounds in my FiiO X3 1G.  But I thought it all depended upon how it was implemented and the device's output impedance, amplification and the source files that ultimately affected the sound quality on the headphones.  For as much as people hate on iPods, I actually think my iPod Touch sounds quite nice on my Sennheiser HD598SE and Apple earpods.  I thought all of the newer iPods were using Cirrus Logic DACs.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> If it convinces folks to try their hand on conducting a blind test themselves, I think it's great. More audiophiles should arrive at their opinions through first hand controlled testing.



I think a lot of audiophiles just feel the need to hear a 'difference'.


----------



## SergeSE

TheSonicTruth said:


> I think a lot of audiophiles just feel the need to hear a 'difference'.


So, they are the best subjects for any listening tests. Welcome to SE blind listening tests!


----------



## bigshot (May 30, 2019)

stonesfan129 said:


> I don't understand why people think Wolfson > anything else.



It's the old "common knowledge" phenomenon. One person states an opinion in a forum based on facts, misconception, bias, whatever... and someone else sees that and repeats it. It spreads like a virus until everyone believes it and parrots it. By this time, it's gospel and they've forgotten what it's even based on.

The truth is that the specs on the Woflson DAC in the iPod 5th is far beyond the threshold of human perception. It's as transparent as any other DAC ever used in iPods. As you say, how the headphone out matches to the headphones is much more likely to cause coloration than the DAC ever is.



TheSonicTruth said:


> I think a lot of audiophiles just feel the need to hear a 'difference'.



Even if they aren't actually hearing it.


----------



## gregorio

ruthieandjohn said:


> This is the same result as I found when I had the temerity to post in the Chord Hugo thread, over a year ago, that I could hear no difference. This was likely for a different headphone and DAP, but results were the same. I was challenged by one person there in particular stating that there HAD to be a difference and that I must be wrong.



Unfortunately, much/most of the audiophile world is based on this. The Hugo is marketed with a host of impressive sounding processing features (filters with millions of taps, etc.), then various professional reviewers all sing the Hugo's praises and last but not least, a Hugo costs $2,700, while the audio playback components in an iPhone cost about $20. Add all this up and there absolutely "HAS to be a difference", which results in the last piece of the puzzle; numerous audiophiles posting "impressions" which confirm this difference. It's unthinkable that: All those processing features either make no difference at all or no audible difference AND that all those professional reviewers have been directly/indirectly bribed AND that a $2,700 device is no higher fidelity than a $20 one AND that all the numerous audiophiles' "impressions" are placebo/wrong. It just sounds like some ridiculous conspiracy theory and therefore, without question you "must be wrong", either you've got defective hearing/equipment or you're trolling.



StandsOnFeet said:


> [1] So, even a sloppy test finds either no or an extremely subtle difference between the Hugo and an iPhone. [2] It's what I'd expect.



1. Although of course, most "sloppy tests" find the opposite, because they've failed to eliminate volume/power differences, expectation/confirmation biases or commonly both.

2. It's not necessarily what I'd expect. Sure, using HPs/IEMs that can easily be driven by an iPhone's amp, there won't be any audible difference. On the other hand, I expect that an audiophile who's spent $2,700 on a DAC/Amp to also have spent a considerable amount on some fairly exclusive/esoteric audiophile HPs/IEMs, which have a higher probability of requiring more power/lower impedance than an iPhone's amp can easily provide. 



castleofargh said:


> [1] yes it's also my opinion, but it causes to jump into one or two other rabbit holes about ringing, the number of taps we need to approximate something, the noise shaping at -250dB, jitter and what not. we end up having to convince people about hearing thresholds for all that just to convince them that the test is probably valid.
> [2] it would ideally be better to just have an almost irreproachable test.



1. Yes but of course ringing is an artefact caused by steep filters and we don't have steep filters at a recording sample rate of 96kHz. So, even a fairly modest ADC should near perfectly capture any DACs ringing up to at least 35kHz or higher. So, we just have to convince people that they don't have a higher frequency hearing threshold than a dog's.

2. TBH, I don't think it would make any difference. To many audiophiles, any test, no matter how perfect/ideal, will always be more reproachable than their beliefs. In some cases we do have an effectively perfect test, an objective measurement but many audiophiles still reproach them!

G


----------



## bigshot

Most people in Head Fi make crap up. Harder to do that here.


----------



## elfary

For what is worth in 2014 Cirrus Logic acquired Wolfson. Thus there is no longer such a thing as Wolfson.

https://investor.cirrus.com/news-an...Acquire-Wolfson-Microelectronics/default.aspx

When Apple switched to Cirrus noise floor/hiss and bass roll off just disappeared from iDevices.

Cirrus codecs were better than Wolfson. May be that's why the acquired Wolfson and it was not the other way around.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

this is an interesting thread...

https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/dig...ind-test-audible-difference-whatsoever-3.html

it's baffling to me that some in the audiophile world have such a difficult time accepting the value of blind testing.  Even in light of the fact that in blind testing it's shown to be impossible to differentiate between a $30 dac and a $3000 one, still there's people desperately clinging to the notion that there is _something _about the expensive model that makes it worth the money - and that there is something about blind testing that makes audio exempt from it as a use-able procedure.  They make silly statements such as "I've never understood the need to compare different products"  Um...what?  This entire hobby is largely based on comparisons of different products - unfortunately, those comparisons are usually completely subjective and totally meaningless.  If I'm being lead to believe that there is something meaningful that justifies spending $3000, or even $300 on a product rather than $30, a (true, blind) comparison between those products matters.  If I can't get any real, audible benefit from the more expensive item, then I'd much rather save the money and put it towards something I know will make a difference.  Imho, a $3000 dac should not just be a modest improvement over a $30 one.  It should be substantial, easily identifiable, significant.  It's not.  In fact, the difference appears to be completely insignificant - even non-existent. Same goes for expensive cables.  Unless there's a difference evident in blind testing, give me the cheap ones thank you.


----------



## SparkOnShore

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> this is an interesting thread...
> 
> https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/dig...ind-test-audible-difference-whatsoever-3.html
> 
> it's baffling to me that some in the audiophile world have such a difficult time accepting the value of blind testing.  Even in light of the fact that in blind testing it's shown to be impossible to differentiate between a $30 dac and a $3000 one, still there's people desperately clinging to the notion that there is _something _about the expensive model that makes it worth the money - and that there is something about blind testing that makes audio exempt from it as a use-able procedure.  They make silly statements such as "I've never understood the need to compare different products"  Um...what?  This entire hobby is largely based on comparisons of different products - unfortunately, those comparisons are usually completely subjective and totally meaningless.  If I'm being lead to believe that there is something meaningful that justifies spending $3000, or even $300 on a product rather than $30, a (true, blind) comparison between those products matters.  If I can't get any real, audible benefit from the more expensive item, then I'd much rather save the money and put it towards something I know will make a difference.  Imho, a $3000 dac should not just be a modest improvement over a $30 one.  It should be substantial, easily identifiable, significant.  It's not.  In fact, the difference appears to be completely insignificant - even non-existent. Same goes for expensive cables.  Unless there's a difference evident in blind testing, give me the cheap ones thank you.



+ 1.000.000!!

This is a very important post from sgt ear ache!! Please send it to all fools audiophiles all around the globe! Sgt thanks a lot for being here!


----------



## krismusic

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> this is an interesting thread...
> 
> https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/dig...ind-test-audible-difference-whatsoever-3.html
> 
> it's baffling to me that some in the audiophile world have such a difficult time accepting the value of blind testing.  Even in light of the fact that in blind testing it's shown to be impossible to differentiate between a $30 dac and a $3000 one, still there's people desperately clinging to the notion that there is _something _about the expensive model that makes it worth the money - and that there is something about blind testing that makes audio exempt from it as a use-able procedure.  They make silly statements such as "I've never understood the need to compare different products"  Um...what?  This entire hobby is largely based on comparisons of different products - unfortunately, those comparisons are usually completely subjective and totally meaningless.  If I'm being lead to believe that there is something meaningful that justifies spending $3000, or even $300 on a product rather than $30, a (true, blind) comparison between those products matters.  If I can't get any real, audible benefit from the more expensive item, then I'd much rather save the money and put it towards something I know will make a difference.  Imho, a $3000 dac should not just be a modest improvement over a $30 one.  It should be substantial, easily identifiable, significant.  It's not.  In fact, the difference appears to be completely insignificant - even non-existent. Same goes for expensive cables.  Unless there's a difference evident in blind testing, give me the cheap ones thank you.


I agree except... When you conduct a blind test, is it not true to say that one of the things you are testing is your ability to pick out small differences? i.e. One vital piece of test equipment may be faulty. Your ears!


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (May 31, 2019)

krismusic said:


> I agree except... When you conduct a blind test, is it not true to say that one of the things you are testing is your ability to pick out small differences? i.e. One vital piece of test equipment may be faulty. Your ears!



I don't know what point you are making.  Ideally, the sort of blind testing I'm most interested in is having the test conducted on a variety of different subjects - as in not just my ears or one set of ears but the ears of several different people.  Sure, maybe my ears are no good (although I can certainly hear fairly subtle differences between different models of headphones), but if a dozen people take the test and none of them can distinguish a difference then it's less likely to be bad ears.  And we aren't talking here about items that are $100 and $140.  We're talking about something that is almost no money on one hand, and several thousand dollars on the other.  One would hope that it wouldn't be too hard for average ears to tell the difference...

not to mention when people present their recommendations for these things, they often make claims to the effect that the differences are dramatic.  It will be "I've been listening to my new Topping DX1000 dac for the past few hours and holy crap this thing is amazing!  It blows my old fiio XYZ away...seriously night and day improvement!"  If the difference is actually dramatic, I'm pretty sure most people with more than a passing interest in music and audio would be able to identify some distinction in a blind test...


----------



## krismusic

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> I don't know what point you are making.  Ideally, the sort of blind testing I'm most interested in is having the test conducted on a variety of different subjects - as in not just my ears or one set of ears but the ears of several different people.  Sure, maybe my ears are no good (although I can certainly hear fairly subtle differences between different models of headphones), but if a dozen people take the test and none of them can distinguish a difference then it's less likely to be bad ears.  And we aren't talking here about items that are $100 and $140.  We're talking about something that is almost no money on one hand, and several thousand dollars on the other.  One would hope that it wouldn't be too hard for average ears to tell the difference...
> 
> not to mention when people present their recommendations for these things, they often make claims to the effect that the differences are dramatic.  It will be "I've been listening to my new Topping DX1000 dac for the past few hours and holy crap this thing is amazing!  It blows my old fiio XYZ away...seriously night and day improvement!"  If the difference is actually dramatic, I'm pretty sure most people with more than a passing interest in music and audio would be able to identify some distinction in a blind test...


I didn't realise that a blind test had to be a group test.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

Well it doesn't have to be.  But obviously, the more people who take the same test the better...the results just become more and more conclusive.


----------



## krismusic

Sgt. Ear Ache said:


> Well it doesn't have to be.  But obviously, the more people who take the same test the better...the results just become more and more conclusive.


When I blind tested the Mojo against the iPhone, I did so with one other. We found it amusing that neither of us could detect a difference. To the point that with the same track playing simultaneously, we couldn't tell when the signal had been switched! It would be great to conduct a larger test but almost impossible to arrange.


----------



## bigshot (May 31, 2019)

The thresholds of audibility are just as important as the spec sheet on an audio component. Audibility is the context for the numbers on the spec sheet. The problem with audiophiles is that they chase endless incremental improvements in numbers far beyond their ability to perceive the improvement. They sit in their living room listening to a Beethoven symphony convinced that with their DAC it must sound purer than with a cheap DAC. But the truth is, it sounds exactly the same because even cheap DACs are capable of achieving audible transparency.

Controlled testing puts the lie to audiophile common knowledge like Cirrus is better than Wolfson and 24 bits is better than 16 and DSD is better than PCM. It would be possible to correctly predict how something might sound by the numbers if you know the context of what our ears can and can't hear, but audiophiles only want to believe that they can hear the inaudible through training and their inborn discerning nature. They don't want to admit that they have ordinary human ears like everyone else and they hear the same frequencies as anyone else.



krismusic said:


> When I blind tested the Mojo against the iPhone, I did so with one other. We found it amusing that neither of us could detect a difference. To the point that with the same track playing simultaneously, we couldn't tell when the signal had been switched! It would be great to conduct a larger test but almost impossible to arrange.



You made the effort to find out for yourself, so the results had more impact. I've seen many examples of audiophiles being presented with careful peer reviewed studies showing that they are incorrect, only for the audiophiles to dismiss them out of hand as "flawed studies". Did they bother to do a test themselves? Nope.

Proof doesn't make any difference if someone flat out doesn't want to know the truth. You made an effort. It wasn't hard, but your results mean more to you that way. They're also a hell of a lot more useful to you than the audiophile's common knowledge. I think people learning for themselves is a lot better than controlled tests with large pools of people being tested. It's easier to dismiss a finding written on a piece of paper than it is to dismiss the fact that you can't hear a difference as hard as you try.


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache (May 31, 2019)

bigshot said:


> You made the effort to find out for yourself, so the results had more impact. I've seen many examples of audiophiles being presented with careful peer reviewed studies showing that they are incorrect, only for the audiophiles to dismiss them out of hand as "flawed studies". Did they bother to do a test themselves? Nope.
> 
> Proof doesn't make any difference if someone flat out doesn't want to know the truth. You made an effort. It wasn't hard, but your results mean more to you that way. They're also a hell of a lot more useful to you than the audiophile's common knowledge. I think people learning for themselves is a lot better than controlled tests with large pools of people being tested. It's easier to dismiss a finding written on a piece of paper than it is to dismiss the fact that you can't hear a difference as hard as you try.



Yes for sure, as far as my own knowledge is concerned I would love to do a bunch of these tests myself.  In the absence of having tested myself, I like the big tests on large groups.  However, it's true that those can always be shot down as having been "flawed" in some way...or simply as having been faked to achieve a certain outcome.  But, the more the preponderance of available evidence points in one direction the harder it becomes to disregard...

And while it is great that krismusic challenged himself by taking the test...if he came here and claimed to have done so and that he had been able to hear a difference, he'd have been asked to provide proof right?  Would you have believed him?

Has Mythbusters ever done an episode testing audiophile myths??


----------



## bigshot (May 31, 2019)

If a small scale test shows a clearly perceptible difference, then you do more tests with more people to verify it. You don’t need to verify a null result.

Doing listening tests is easy and the equipment to do it is only about $50. If you were interested, folks here could give advice on how to DIY and not have to depend solely on what people tell you you can or can’t hear.

For myth busting, see the AES links in my sig file


----------



## Sgt. Ear Ache

bigshot said:


> For myth busting, see the AES links in my sig file



Ah cool thanks.  I'll watch that later...


----------



## The Socialist Nerd

Personally I think the new iPod touch *7th gen will sound better than my iPhone XR. Less interference which is key.


----------



## SparkOnShore

But we use Apple’s lightning to 3,5 dongle anymore for audio out.


----------



## SparkOnShore

The Socialist Nerd said:


> Personally I think the new iPod touch *7th gen will sound better than my iPhone XR. Less interference which is key.



But we use Apple’s lightning to 3,5 dongle anymore for audio out.


----------



## The Socialist Nerd

SparkOnShore said:


> But we use Apple’s lightning to 3,5 dongle anymore for audio out.



Yes but the iPhone includes more components inside which can cause interference to the audio quality/chip... the standalone iPod will rank higher than any mobile phone.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

The Socialist Nerd said:


> Yes but the iPhone includes more components inside which can cause interference to the audio quality/chip... the standalone iPod will rank higher than any mobile phone.



Absolutely!





(if you hear like the Bionic Woman or Steve Austin $6M...)


----------



## gregorio

The Socialist Nerd said:


> Yes but the iPhone includes more components inside which can cause interference to the audio quality/chip... the standalone iPod will rank higher than any mobile phone.



How does interference affect the audio quality?

G


----------



## bigshot

You can look at the measurements and see that there is no audible interference.


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> You can look at the measurements and see that there is no audible interference.


Not even from the phone signal if not running in airplane?


----------



## SparkOnShore

The Socialist Nerd said:


> Yes but the iPhone includes more components inside which can cause interference to the audio quality/chip... the standalone iPod will rank higher than any mobile phone.



Even if that was the case, as you say, these are “components inside”. But dongle is not inside; it takes the digital signal out of the phone through the lightning port and gives us the desired analogue signal by using its included DAC. This whole procedure takes place out of the phone, not inside.


----------



## krismusic

SparkOnShore said:


> Even if that was the case, as you say, these are “components inside”. But dongle is not inside; it takes the digital signal out of the phone through the lightning port and gives us the desired analogue signal by using its included DAC. This whole procedure takes place out of the phone, not inside.


I don't really know of what I speak but doesn't that signal originate and travel through the phone stuffed with all the components associated with numerous other tasks that the phone performs? It seems reasonable to assume that it is going to pick up some noise on its way to the dongle...


----------



## bigshot

Just because something seems like it might be so, it doesn't make it so. The iPhone is designed to put out clean sound and it does.


----------



## castleofargh

krismusic said:


> I don't really know of what I speak but doesn't that signal originate and travel through the phone stuffed with all the components associated with numerous other tasks that the phone performs? It seems reasonable to assume that it is going to pick up some noise on its way to the dongle...


IMO the answer to something like that comes from measurements, not from the arbitrary decision that cellphone interference must ruin the sound. they might not even generate something reaching the magnitude of all the other noises and distortions already in the default audio circuitry, headphone distos, room noises, etc. don't fall for the classic audiophile tunnel vision where we look at something in complete isolation and decide that if it seems worst that way, then it's worst and it really matters in a full playback system.
to play devil's advocate, we could wonder if a cellphone that was fully optimized to try and shield its own sensitive components, might not give a better result than something without such a carefully designed shielding and sitting in the vicinity of the cellphone we're probably carrying with us anyway?


----------



## gregorio

krismusic said:


> I don't really know of what I speak but doesn't that signal originate and travel through the phone stuffed with all the components associated with numerous other tasks that the phone performs? It seems reasonable to assume that it is going to pick up some noise on its way to the dongle...



It probably does but again, how does "some noise" in the (digital data) signal affect the quality of the (analogue) audio signal?

G


----------



## theveterans (Jun 8, 2019)

Both iPod Touch 6G and 7G sound great to me

https://cdn.head-fi.org/a/10303408.jpg


----------



## goatkidbaahcity

Wish Apple would allow for customization of the volume steps on the IOS devices. Given how well the dongle measures, I would bet one of the major drivers behind perceived differences in sound quality between Iphone/Ipod and mid-tier DAP's is just the ability to fine tune listening volumes.


----------



## TheSonicTruth

goatkidbaahcity said:


> Wish Apple would allow for customization of the volume steps on the IOS devices. Given how well the dongle measures, I would bet one of the major drivers behind perceived differences in sound quality between Iphone/Ipod and mid-tier DAP's is just the ability to fine tune listening volumes.



17 steps(including completely muted). 16 squares on my iPods touch 4-6, iPad Mini, and iPhones.    10 steps/squares is comfortably loud via my MDR-7506, and 12-14 steps for my Beyer 880s(250ohm).


----------



## Mirimar

Sorry if this is the wrong thread... does anybody know why it would be the case that I can load Eagles Hotel California in 24/192 as an AIFF file to the stock music app on my iPod Touch 7th Generation but if I convert the same files to ALAC (tried with iTunes and XLD keeping the bit depth and sample rate the same) I get an error saying that the ALAC files can not be played on the iPod Touch?


----------



## bigshot

I'm not positive, but my guess is that the 192 is the problem, not the 24.


----------



## Mirimar

I agree. I just don’t understand why it works at 192 in AIFF format but not ALAC. I’m not even playing it at 192 it’s just that it’s a much better recording than the 16/44 CD I have from 1976 which sounds terrible.


----------



## bigshot

It probably has something to do with the ALAC codec, not the hardware itself. I bet if you open it in a sound editing program and bounce it down to 96 or 44.1 it will work and won't sound any different.


----------



## gregorio

Mirimar said:


> I just don’t understand why it works at 192 in AIFF format but not ALAC.



My guess would be that it's an apple software restriction for it's own lossless codec. Certainly the decoding of a 192/24 ALAC is easily within the ipod's processor capabilities but maybe it's enough of an extra processor hit to reduce the battery life to below the listening time advertised, if you were to continually play 192/24 ALACs. That would be my guess.

G


----------



## bigshot

I don't see the advantage of such a high sampling rate in a portable device anyway.


----------



## castleofargh

Mirimar said:


> Sorry if this is the wrong thread... does anybody know why it would be the case that I can load Eagles Hotel California in 24/192 as an AIFF file to the stock music app on my iPod Touch 7th Generation but if I convert the same files to ALAC (tried with iTunes and XLD keeping the bit depth and sample rate the same) I get an error saying that the ALAC files can not be played on the iPod Touch?


can you confirm that the AIFF file is indeed what's stored in the ipod itself? not sure because of the way you say it, but would it be possible that the app just converts the file and sends something else entirely?


----------



## TheSonicTruth

bigshot said:


> I don't see the advantage of such a high sampling rate in a portable device anyway.



That's because you - and I - are not audiophiles!


----------



## bigshot

I prefer to call myself a "Hi Fi Nut"!


----------



## castleofargh (Jun 14, 2019)

TheSonicTruth said:


> That's because you - and I - are not audiophiles!


if it's a desire for higher bit depth and sample rate, wouldn't that make the person an objectivist?


----------



## TheSonicTruth

castleofargh said:


> if it's a desire for higher bit depth and sample rate, wouldn't that make the person an objectivist?



I don't know if you're just kidding?  Otherwise I'd refer you to Monte's Digital Audio articles and clips on Xiph.


----------



## bigshot

I think someone who likes bigger numbers would be called a Numeraphile


----------



## Mirimar

I’m definitely not worried about the sample rate of the file. I’m only worried about using this recording as it sounds really good compared to the CD version I have from 1976. I can reduce the sample rate to from 192 to 48 but if the EXACT same file as AIFF can be loaded onto the device I can’t see why the ALAC version can’t. Unless the stock Apple Music app or iTunes reduces the sample rate of AIFF files and not ALAC.


----------



## bigshot

Bouncing it down won't hurt the sound quality at all if you use a good sound editing app.


----------



## Mirimar

castleofargh said:


> can you confirm that the AIFF file is indeed what's stored in the ipod itself? not sure because of the way you say it, but would it be possible that the app just converts the file and sends something else entirely?



Yes. AIFF 24/192 is fine - the same files all things being equal doesn’t work as ALAC. Not a big deal I was just curious!


----------



## castleofargh

Mirimar said:


> Yes. AIFF 24/192 is fine - the same files all things being equal doesn’t work as ALAC. Not a big deal I was just curious!


oh I completely understand curious ^_^. sadly that was my only idea. maybe someone more familiar with those devices will turn up one day.


----------



## Stevko

Do the EU and US dongel have same modelnumber?  A1749 ? but different partnr?


----------



## Stevko

What ipad sounds best? (Minijack)


----------



## bigshot

All of my Apple gear sounds the same- perfect.


----------



## Sterling2

bigshot said:


> All of my Apple gear sounds the same- perfect.


Yep, all of my Apple Music devices sound great but the best is from iMac M1 outputting to my Parasound P6 2.1 Preamplifier/DAC, very lifelike at any volume.


----------



## mikeyhd

have a buch of apple device and can't hear any difference as long as same output is used


----------



## Stevko

So an apple dongle will sound same as an ipad?


----------



## bigshot

Yes, the apple dongle is as good sounding as it gets.


----------



## bigshot

Sterling2 said:


> Yep, all of my Apple Music devices sound great but the best is from iMac M1 outputting to my Parasound P6 2.1 Preamplifier/DAC, very lifelike at any volume.


That's likely because of the preamp rather than the DAC. Your headphones may just require amping to sound their best.


----------



## Stevko

bigshot said:


> Yes, the apple dongle is as good sounding as it gets.


Gonna sell my tr-amp.
My wifes ipad sounds better with my T1.
So considering an ipad. But if the apple dongle sounds as good as an ipad…


----------



## bigshot

I don't know anything about the equipment you own, but an amp is separate from the DAC. The dongle doesn't include an amp. If it sounds better through a DAC/amp, it is probably because of the amp, not the DAC. If properly designed and manufactured, all DACs should be audibly transparent.


----------



## Stevko

The ipad sounds more right for me. The tr-amp lift the bass and highes too much


----------



## bigshot

That sounds like you haven't matched your levels before comparing.


----------



## Stevko

bigshot said:


> That sounds like you haven't matched your levels before comparing.


Levels? Too much volume?


----------



## bigshot

If one sample is a teeny bit louder than the other, it will sound like the bass and treble is louder. Human hearing isn't the same at all volumes. The quieter something is, the more the midrange is pronounced, and the louder it gets, the more midrange is suppressed compared to the lows and highs, even if the equalization is identical. You need to precisely match the volumes between the two things you're comparing or you'll end up being fooled by the way your ears hear.

Unless one of your DACs is defective, the frequency response should be identical.


----------



## Stevko

bigshot said:


> If one sample is a teeny bit louder than the other, it will sound like the bass and treble is louder. Human hearing isn't the same at all volumes. The quieter something is, the more the midrange is pronounced, and the louder it gets, the more midrange is suppressed compared to the lows and highs, even if the equalization is identical. You need to precisely match the volumes between the two things you're comparing or you'll end up being fooled by the way your ears hear.
> 
> Unless one of your DACs is defective, the frequency response should be identical.


Not sure what it is. But in this case, the apple dongle sounds better than my TR-amp.(with T1)
With my Grados, the tr-amp is great.
Can it be something like that the amp output too much current/voltage? Too sensitive HP`s, and no gain adjustment knob?


----------



## bigshot

Yes, it could be an impedance issue. Especially if one sounds good with one set of cans and the other sounds good with a different set of cans.


----------



## Stevko (Jul 11, 2022)

Who knows.. I will sell my TR-amp and buy an ipad instead


----------



## Stevko

Anyone here with an new Macbook?

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT212856


----------



## Stevko

Tried my apple dongle today. Low sound.
Apple dongle at max = ipad 50-60% vol.
Pretty sure this dongle played louder for some weeks ago.. whats wrong?


----------



## bigshot

Your headphones aren’t as sensitive as you thought. Just get an inexpensive headphone amp. That should cost no more than $50 to $75.


----------



## Stevko

My wifes ipad works great. 75-80 vol = loud.
My dongle not loud at max.
Measurements says both output 1V

Already own an amp


----------



## Stevko

Stevko said:


> My wifes ipad works great. 75-80 vol = loud.
> My dongle not loud at max.
> Measurements says both output 1V
> 
> Already own an amp


If i put the dongle in the ipad. It plays louder. Buggy iphone?


----------



## bigshot

There is nothing wrong with any of it. Properly amped it will all sound the same. You’re using headphones that have impedance that require amping. The iPad has a battery and an amp built in. The dongle has no battery and it has no amp. If you get a little battery operated amp, it will work fine. They make dongle amps. I’ve seen them at Amazon. One of those would work fine. The other alternative is to use headphones that don’t need amping.


----------



## Stevko (Jul 15, 2022)

yes, think I need a little dac/amp.
something between an apple dongle and my tr-amp 
My wifes ipad 2017 sounds very good.
My HPs = 32ohm/100dB


----------



## bigshot (Jul 15, 2022)

You don't need a DAC. The dongle is the DAC. All you need is an amp. The DAC in the dongle is the same as the DAC in your iPad. Your problem is amping, not the DAC. All Apple DACs sound the same.


----------



## Stevko

Sold my amp before christmas. Regret now…


----------



## bigshot

Just buy an inexpensive amp. I bet it will sound perfect to you.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> Your headphones aren’t as sensitive as you thought. Just get an inexpensive headphone amp.


How do you know that? And as you don’t, why advise buying a headphone amp?


Stevko said:


> Apple dongle at max = ipad 50-60% vol.
> Pretty sure this dongle played louder for some weeks ago.. whats wrong?


Bigshot may well be correct but he might not be. It maybe just some setting that’s different, for example “Sound Check” (loudness normalisation) enabled on the iPhone but not on the iPad and there are other settings that could potentially be causing this issue. Personally, I would thoroughly investigate all the potential software differences before going out and buying some additional hardware.

G


----------



## Stevko

used my dongle in may with my old iphone SE 2020, bought an iphone 12 mini from the outlet in juni!
smaller phone= lower current/voltage to feed ext equipment from lightning?


----------



## gregorio

Stevko said:


> smaller phone= lower current/voltage to feed ext equipment from lightning?


But your phone is not supplying the analogue signal voltage to your headphones, the dongle is. Of course though, your phone is supplying the power for your dongle, so that *might* have an effect. I would still check all potential software differences/settings first. 

G


----------



## bigshot

To put that more specifically… in your phone, go to settings > music > sound check should be on. It’s generally on by default, but Gregorio is correct that you should check to make sure it’s on.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> To put that more specifically… in your phone, go to settings > music > sound check should be on.


It probably is on already, because sound check will generally make recordings sound quieter. He needs to check if it’s “on” on the iPad. His solution maybe to turn it “off” on the iPhone. There are other potential software settings that could be causing the issue besides “Sound Check”. 

G


----------



## bigshot (Jul 15, 2022)

I wouldn’t turn sound check off. That will make some music loud and other music not. The idea is to get the overall volume higher.

You might not be reading who you are speaking with here. Open ended suggestions aren’t going to help him. You need to be specific.

I do think he wants his music loud though. An inexpensive amp would do that. He’s had amps in the past and I think he’s used to having that headroom for his normal listening level.


----------



## Stevko

Mmm. all off. But I have to download the music app before i find these settings


----------



## Stevko

looks like a great little thing:

https://www.headfonia.com/fiio-ka1-review/


----------



## bigshot

Nope. That’s a DAC. You don’t need a DAC, you need an amp.


----------



## gregorio

bigshot said:


> I wouldn’t turn sound check off. That will make some music loud and other music not. The idea is to get the overall volume higher.


And turning sound check off would get the overall volume louder for most tracks.


bigshot said:


> Open ended suggestions aren’t going to help him.


You mean like buying more hardware when there could be a simple software fix?


bigshot said:


> I do think he wants his music loud though. An inexpensive amp would do that.


So would/could turning off sound check, EQ, a simple volume adjustment or some other software setting and that would be a lot cheaper than even an inexpensive amp and more ergonomic too!


Stevko said:


> Mmm. all off. But I have to download the music app before i find these settings


What’s that EQ setting?

G


----------



## gregorio

Stevco,

When you say your iPhone is about 50-60% less volume than your iPad, are you comparing the iPhone + dongle with your iPad + dongle or with the iPad’s analogue (3.5mm Jack) output?

If it’s the former, then the issue is most likely (though not definitely) software based. If it’s the latter, then try the dongle on your iPad and see if you get the same loss of volume as with the iPhone. If you do, then most likely (though not definitely) the power output of the dongle is the issue. If this is the case, then a HP amp as bigshot suggested would solve the problem but it could also be solved by ordering a new Apple Dongle from the USA. Assuming you are in Europe, Apple nerfed the output power of it’s dongle to comply with EU regulations. The US version is not nerfed and can output around 50% more power than the European version, if memory serves.

G


----------



## Stevko

Comparing iphone 12 mini with dongle with 3.5mm analog on ipad 2017.
Ipad with dongle sounds louder than on iphone.
Based in europe.
Maybe I should get the US ver


----------



## Stevko

Turning down the volume.now it sounds pretty good. The T1 needs less volume than my Grados.
Gonna put my ios things in the drawer.
And enjoy the music with my tr-amp and T1


----------



## stonesfan99

What are people listening on now that iPods are effectively dead?  I've had a FiiO M6 for a couple years that I am pretty happy with.


----------



## bigshot

I use my iPhone.


----------



## thamasha69

stonesfan99 said:


> What are people listening on now that iPods are effectively dead?  I've had a FiiO M6 for a couple years that I am pretty happy with.






I still use my iPhone 6S as my daily phone and audio source. With a lightning  to usb-c adapter that works with usb DACs, it opens up a world of options without resorting to Apple's bulky adapter.


----------



## Stevko

Tested more today, the ipad still sounds louder. The ipad is perfect. Clean sound and loud enough.
The dongle ara a bit lower.
So what i need is a dongle with a little bit more power. So if i order one from US, it offer more power? Any ok places that sends to europe?


----------



## stonesfan99 (Jul 17, 2022)

I'm kind of sad that FiiO has stopped producing its lower-tier and mid-tier players.  The screen on my M6 no longer works (it's full of dead pixels).  I was looking to buy another one, but Amazon doesn't have them anymore.  iPod Touch is effectively dead.  What other players are out there?  Is there anything similar to the iPod Touch form factor that supports Bluetooth, microSD cards and sounds good?  My phone only has 32gb of storage and I don't like running down my phone battery to play music.


----------



## castleofargh

Stevko said:


> Tested more today, the ipad still sounds louder. The ipad is perfect. Clean sound and loud enough.
> The dongle ara a bit lower.
> So what i need is a dongle with a little bit more power. So if i order one from US, it offer more power? Any ok places that sends to europe?


The million dollar question: if there is a european limitation, is it set in the dongle or handled by the euro phone config that recognizes the dongle and lowers the digital level?
Of course I have no idea and perhaps I’m creating a false concern for you.


----------



## Stevko

Think i skip it. Too much fright


----------



## bigshot

Just amp it.


----------



## Stevko

Yeea. Think an apple dongle an the new nx7 should work great….


----------



## bigshot

I use a c-moy altoids tin amp sometimes. It cost me $75 and it sounds great.


----------



## gregorio

castleofargh said:


> The million dollar question: if there is a european limitation, is it set in the dongle or handled by the euro phone config that recognizes the dongle and lowers the digital level?


The European dongle is a different version and I assumed it was different hardware. If it’s the same hardware as the US dongle, just with different firmware instructing the host (phone) to output a lower digital level, then the European dongle would potentially have an output level higher than the regulations permit. Although, I it would depend on exactly how the regulations are worded (and interpreted). From Apple’s side, I presume it would be a lot simpler if both dongle versions had identical hardware, just different firmware.

In short, good point/question and I don’t know the answer.

G


----------



## Davesrose

gregorio said:


> The European dongle is a different version and I assumed it was different hardware. If it’s the same hardware as the US dongle, just with different firmware instructing the host (phone) to output a lower digital level, then the European dongle would potentially have an output level higher than the regulations permit. Although, I it would depend on exactly how the regulations are worded (and interpreted). From Apple’s side, I presume it would be a lot simpler if both dongle versions had identical hardware, just different firmware.
> 
> In short, good point/question and I don’t know the answer.
> 
> G


I would think that if Apple has a difference in devices in EU vs US, it would have to do with EC regulations.  Just a quick search, consensus is that there is a limitation with EU vs US when it comes to the USB-C to headphone out (for iPad).  "Hardware limitation because of EU laws yes. US/intl is 1Vrms, while the EU is 0.5Vrms iirc.".  So if it's more hardware voltage, "A2049 (US version). The other version from EU has a code of A2155."  Or MFR (from what I see on B&H):

US version: MU7E2*A*M/A

EU version: MU7E2*Z*M/A


----------



## Stevko

Where can european people buy US ver?


----------



## SoundAndMotion

Stevko said:


> Where can european people buy US ver?


I can think of 3 options, but the first 2 may not be legal... I don't know.
1- Buy online in the US and pay for shipping to you.
2- Have a friend buy it there and send or bring it here.
3- If you ever go there, be patient and buy on your next trip.

Edit: we do all 3... often.


----------



## SoundAndMotion

Stevko said:


> Where can european people buy US ver?


eBay 5.35€ + 11.98€ shipping


----------



## Stevko

Now I only own 32ohm cans/easy to drive.(sold all my cans over 32ohm)
A B tested som apple gear.
Sound pretty good.
Can’t hear any difference between all these ios gear in sound quality. The ipad have more power,thats all.
My portable tr-amp sound the same…
Not sure if i need it more.


----------



## bigshot

My cans are 32 ohms too. Much simpler.


----------



## Stevko

bigshot said:


> My cans are 32 ohms too. Much simpler.


Yes. Easy peasy.
An ipad is all I need.
This ipad 5 sounds pretty good! Any better ipad?(this is my wifes ipad)


----------



## Stevko

How much is the output power from an ipad? 1V?
An apple dongle,ipod must be less! Use about 20-30% less volume when listen to music on the ipad.


----------



## Stevko (Aug 29, 2022)

Doing some reaserch:
Ipad5:
Apple 343S00144-A0 and 338S1213 power management and audio codec respectively

Ipad 6:
Cirrus Logic CS42L83A low power audio codec
Whats best?


----------



## bigshot

All Apple products I've bought (and I've bought a lot of them over the years!) have been audibly transparent. They all sound the same- perfect. I highly doubt there is any audible difference between the iPad 5 & 6. Choose based on features because the sound is almost certainly the same.


----------



## Stevko

Ordered an ipad 2020 10,2 from the outlet  hope it sounds good.
220$ with VAT,freight and full warranty


----------



## orion1973 (Sep 5, 2022)

Stevko said:


> Doing some reaserch:
> Ipad5:
> Apple 343S00144-A0 and 338S1213 power management and audio codec respectively
> 
> ...


I have a 6th gen iPad and the headphone out on it is at least the loudest of any Apple devices with headphone out I currently own to compare. I have an iPad 6th generation, iPhone 6s, iPod 5.5, iPod 6th generation. I personally think it sounds the best as well, but that’s partially subjective and also because I tend to use Koss porta pro 60ohm and all the Koss variants built around the porta pro drivers with them. The extra power helps those a lot. If your looking for a bit more power then the Apple dongle and want high res, then the Fiio KA1 is probably the most simple and the most economical option I am aware of. I use that more then anything because of the extra bit of power.  It’s not much of a boost but again it helps my Koss phones. Still though it’s $50.00 compared to $10.00.

EDIT: I was also curious if the DAC/ amp from the Apple lightning EarPods was better then the Apple adapter. So I butchered a pair and soldered them onto my sporta pros. They are much quieter. I then picked up some $15.00 MFi certified lighting earphones from Office Depot and butchered those and soldered them onto the sporta pros. The MFi is supposed to use the Cirrus logic chips. Those sounded pretty much the same to me as the official Apple lighting dongle. As a bonus I now have some sporta pros with a built in lightning cable and working microphone and controls. I take those or my airpod pros when I’m out and about.

https://majorhifi.com/cirrus-apple-lightning-jack/


----------



## orion1973

bigshot said:


> I use a c-moy altoids tin amp sometimes. It cost me $75 and it sounds great.


I have one of those. I don’t particularly like it, myself because it distorts at mid to high volume. I know I can swap the amp chips out though. Mine is marked 4556AD JRC.


----------



## bigshot

Something wrong with it if it distorts. You input level might be too high.


----------



## Stevko (Sep 6, 2022)

orion1973 said:


> I have a 6th gen iPad and the headphone out on it is at least the loudest of any Apple devices with headphone out I currently own to compare. I have an iPad 6th generation, iPhone 6s, iPod 5.5, iPod 6th generation. I personally think it sounds the best as well, but that’s partially subjective and also because I tend to use Koss porta pro 60ohm and all the Koss variants built around the porta pro drivers with them. The extra power helps those a lot. If your looking for a bit more power then the Apple dongle and want high res, then the Fiio KA1 is probably the most simple and the most economical option I am aware of. I use that more then anything because of the extra bit of power.  It’s not much of a boost but again it helps my Koss phones. Still though it’s $50.00 compared to $10.00.
> 
> EDIT: I was also curious if the DAC/ amp from the Apple lightning EarPods was better then the Apple adapter. So I butchered a pair and soldered them onto my sporta pros. They are much quieter. I then picked up some $15.00 MFi certified lighting earphones from Office Depot and butchered those and soldered them onto the sporta pros. The MFi is supposed to use the Cirrus logic chips. Those sounded pretty much the same to me as the official Apple lighting dongle. As a bonus I now have some sporta pros with a built in lightning cable and working microphone and controls. I take those or my airpod pros when I’m out and about.
> 
> https://majorhifi.com/cirrus-apple-lightning-jack/


Thanks.important info for all of us.
When useing ipad instead of an apple dongle. I need less volume.so I bought an ipad.


----------



## orion1973

bigshot said:


> Something wrong with it if it distorts. You input level might be too high.


Yeah, I turn the input level down and it still distorts when I crank up the headphone amp. Could be just poorly made or I need a more powerful one. The one I have just takes 1 9v.


----------



## bigshot

I think it’s made wrong. It shouldn’t distort.


----------



## Stevko

Stupid dog


----------



## Sterling2

bigshot said:


> That's likely because of the preamp rather than the DAC. Your headphones may just require amping to sound their best.


I don’t use headphones and the DAC is in the P6.


----------



## Stevko

Stevko said:


> Ordered an ipad 2020 10,2 from the outlet  hope it sounds good.
> 220$ with VAT,freight and full warranty


Tested it with my T1 G3 some hours now. Great sound and enough power/volume. Don’t need an amp


----------

