Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › The Open Pandora: An ultimate portable player?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Open Pandora: An ultimate portable player? - Page 23

Poll Results: Would you buy a Pandora to use as your portable player?

 
  • 31% (24)
    Yes
  • 68% (52)
    No
76 Total Votes  
post #331 of 364

I'm listening to Ronald Jenkees "Fifteen Fifty" on my Pandora with the Shure earbuds.

 

Talk about high definition, it doesn't get much better than this in my experience!

 

I highly recommend Ronald Jenkees' three albums.

All of his music is totally awesome... even his raps!

 

He has a huge following on youtube - and yeah I know youtube is ultra low-fi,

so go buy his albums, check out bandcamp and his website!

 

 

full disclosure: I am Ronald Jenkees pimp, no just kidding.

I don't think this is spam, I am a just a fan - & some of his music is great for testing audio kit!

 

 

Can the Dragonfly function as a portable player in itself, or you have to plug it into a computer? or Pandora :)

 

Costs about $300?  Did you get a better deal?

 

Why so expensive, is the cost mainly from the DAC chip itself?

I can't imagine any chip costs anything like that much, even a GPU chip!

 

For $100 I would definitely get one, or $200 if it could work as a player without the computer,

but $300 for a USB audio device, it seems to me like they must be making more than 200% profit on each unit!

I guess it's unique, and they want to cover their R&D costs.


Edited by sswam - 1/16/13 at 7:39pm
post #332 of 364
This is a favorite of mine: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=smE-uIljiGo
Edited by tds101 - 1/17/13 at 7:46am
post #333 of 364

the dragonfly is of that cost because he maker thought that they can sell it at that cost , the same why a pandora cost 600 dollar for a retro gaming system

post #334 of 364
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retrias View Post

the dragonfly is of that cost because he maker thought that they can sell it at that cost , the same why a pandora cost 600 dollar for a retro gaming system

The Pandora had a lot of issues during production. Basically, the Pandora was a case of anything bad that could have happened, did. The PCB company went out of business, the case manufacturers had issues, the nubs took forever to get consistent results, and a whole lot of other problems completely outside the scope of their control. These are the reasons why the price had to be increased.


Edited by takato14 - 1/17/13 at 2:16pm
post #335 of 364
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sswam View Post

Can the Dragonfly function as a portable player in itself, or you have to plug it into a computer? or Pandora :)

 

Costs about $300?  Did you get a better deal?

 

Why so expensive, is the cost mainly from the DAC chip itself?

I can't imagine any chip costs anything like that much, even a GPU chip!

 

For $100 I would definitely get one, or $200 if it could work as a player without the computer,

but $300 for a USB audio device, it seems to me like they must be making more than 200% profit on each unit!

I guess it's unique, and they want to cover their R&D costs.

The Dragonfly is a USB-powered DAC/amp for laptops, that's all it really does. 

 

I won mine in a contest along with a $300 interconnect. (which I don't need, PM me if you want more info)

 

It uses a $65 DAC chip and whats likely a very expensive amp as well (not sure which it is). It's made of machined metal, coated in nextel, and comes with a little genuine leather pouch. It's a fair price for what you get. It sounds like a dream, too. 

post #336 of 364
Could we perhaps get a dedicated review? Match it up to some similar price range players?
post #337 of 364
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venasa View Post

Could we perhaps get a dedicated review? Match it up to some similar price range players?

Working on a dedicated review. Doing lots of A/B testing with it going against the Dragonfly. Can't compare to players in the same price range because, quite frankly, I'm poor.

 

Besides, the Pandora isn't a dedicated player, and while it does sound far better than any consumer-grade product I've touched, the Pandora wasn't designed to do any single thing perfectly. It was designed to do a lot of things very, very well, be it emulation, audio, or portability. That said, it's doing quite well in comparison to the Dragonfly, which is nearly $300 on its own and is <only> a DAC.

post #338 of 364
Quote:
Originally Posted by takato14 View Post

The Dragonfly is a USB-powered DAC/amp for laptops, that's all it really does. 

 

I won mine in a contest along with a $300 interconnect. (which I don't need, PM me if you want more info)

 

It uses a $65 DAC chip and whats likely a very expensive amp as well (not sure which it is). It's made of machined metal, coated in nextel, and comes with a little genuine leather pouch. It's a fair price for what you get. It sounds like a dream, too. 

The chip is under $10. Where do you get this stuff?

http://www.amazon.com/HiFiMeDIY-Digital-Analog-Converter-Optical/dp/B00AOH5JTQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1358551034&sr=1-1&keywords=es9023

 

The dragonfly also does HiDef which the Pandora's PCM1770 absolutely does not.


Edited by goodvibes - 1/19/13 at 11:32am
post #339 of 364
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodvibes View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by takato14 View Post

The Dragonfly is a USB-powered DAC/amp for laptops, that's all it really does. 

 

I won mine in a contest along with a $300 interconnect. (which I don't need, PM me if you want more info)

 

It uses a $65 DAC chip and whats likely a very expensive amp as well (not sure which it is). It's made of machined metal, coated in nextel, and comes with a little genuine leather pouch. It's a fair price for what you get. It sounds like a dream, too. 

The chip is under $10. Where do you get this stuff?

http://www.amazon.com/HiFiMeDIY-Digital-Analog-Converter-Optical/dp/B00AOH5JTQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1358551034&sr=1-1&keywords=es9023

 

The dragonfly also does HiDef which the Pandora's PCM1770 absolutely does not.

Does the Dragonfly not use the ES9018? That's what I thought it was, was I wrong?

 

"HiDef" is pointless and needs to be forgotten. Bit depth doesn't make an audible difference and anything above 48000 KHz is actually worse because it's spectral padding that allows supersonic frequencies to exist. Try setting sinegen to 192, sliding the bar up will create a phaser-like effect in the upper ranges, and you'll hear things at crazy values like 40 KHz and other frequencies far out of the range of human ears.

post #340 of 364

Same chip I was referring to but 023 version.

 

What a bunch of regurgitated gibberish. What does arbitrary up-sampling have to do with anything? What does using crapping software have to do with properly encoded material. You're not helping your prize possession by prattling nonsense. Unless you've heard the absolute best examples of formats, you're in no position to cast aspersions. Why would anyone take you seriously with the false, misleading and uninformed statements that you make. Take it down a notch, tell us if you like it and why and can the babel please.

 

The Tera is 'better' because it doesn't have a screen and this is 'better' because it doesn't do HiDef. Nonsense. They may be great and better than other things at what they do but these omissions aren't what will make it so.


Edited by goodvibes - 1/21/13 at 8:21am
post #341 of 364
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodvibes View Post

Same chip I was referring to.

 

What a bunch of regurgitated gibberish. What does arbitrary up-sampling have to do with anything? What does using crapping software have to do with properly encoded material. You're not helping your prize possession by prattling nonsense. Unless you've heard the absolute best examples of formats, you're in no position to cast aspersions. Why would anyone take you seriously with the false, misleading and uninformed statements that you make. Take it down a notch, tell us if you like it and why and can the babel please.

 

The Tera is 'better' because it doesn't have a screen and this is 'better' because it doesn't do HiDef. Nonsense. They may be great and better than other things at what they do but these omissions aren't what will make it so.

The ES9018 is extremely expensive. It's one of the two TOTL chips in ESS's Sabre line and costs $65 according to this link:

http://ecommerce.ismosys.com/ordering/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=34&products_id=479

 

I'm not 100% sure this is the same chip in the Dragonfly. What you sent to me uses the ES9023. 

 

I've done my research and I've used my own ears, and I'm telling you there is no audible difference between 16/48 and 24/192. I've even given something anyone can try to prove 192 is certainly worse. It was completely unrelated to the Pandora, I'm just sick of hearing it over and over again because it really does not sound any different. 

post #342 of 364
Quote:
Originally Posted by takato14 View Post

 

The amps however appear to be on the same level. Both are strong and don't color the sound, and while the Dragonfly does have a little more power than the Pandora's amp, they're not very far apart. Personally I think the Pandora is the better one in this regard because the amp stage of the device is pure analog instead of digital (in other words, the volume isn't controlled digitally). 

Just a note here, Dragonfly does have 64 step analog volume control.

post #343 of 364
Quote:
Originally Posted by takato14 View Post

The ES9018 is extremely expensive. It's one of the two TOTL chips in ESS's Sabre line and costs $65 according to this link:

http://ecommerce.ismosys.com/ordering/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=34&products_id=479

 

I'm not 100% sure this is the same chip in the Dragonfly. What you sent to me uses the ES9023. 

 

I've done my research and I've used my own ears, and I'm telling you there is no audible difference between 16/48 and 24/192. I've even given something anyone can try to prove 192 is certainly worse. It was completely unrelated to the Pandora, I'm just sick of hearing it over and over again because it really does not sound any different. 

 

 

What makes you think it's an 018.( It's the same as the link to the cheapie I provided. ( I added a couple words to my answer so it makes sense). It's a 023. The 018 is an 8 channel dac. If anything they would use the 012 but they don't and it would be overkill here. Here's the DAC it uses.http://ecommerce.ismosys.com/ordering/product_info.php?manufacturers_id=34&products_id=950  $1.68 and well under a buck to Audioquest

 

Using sinegen to prove a format is worse only proves one thing and it regards someone's lack of understanding. The idea that you couldn't produce digital ultrasonics without artifacts is a bit close minded as well.

 

The extra samples have the capability of higher frequency generation but that's not what it's purpose is. It has to do with time constants, noise floor, and less audible low pass filtering. Nothing to do with actually producing ultra sonics. What many don't know about digital is that distortion goes up as signal level goes down so that by dropping the noise floor, distortion on subtlties is improved as is tracking. It's not just about dynamic range.

 

I get a much better rendition of a simple mic'd acoustic analog master tape wnen copied above 16/48. I can A/B them though it's obvious enough on top kit to not be required. Though I use it, I've never found CD quality up to the best analog standards.

 

I don't want to turn this into another HiDef discussion and it's need for portable is admittedly debateable but this is also more than a carry while listening device and it would be nice if it were more capable. We'll be happy to here your take on it's sound and use but it's not better for being less capable of something that has become accepted whether you care for it or not.


Edited by goodvibes - 1/21/13 at 8:50am
post #344 of 364
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whippler View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by takato14 View Post

 

The amps however appear to be on the same level. Both are strong and don't color the sound, and while the Dragonfly does have a little more power than the Pandora's amp, they're not very far apart. Personally I think the Pandora is the better one in this regard because the amp stage of the device is pure analog instead of digital (in other words, the volume isn't controlled digitally). 

Just a note here, Dragonfly does have 64 step analog volume control.

The point here is the Pandora has an analog dial to control the sound. The Dragonfly uses digital buttons to control a stepped volume control. The former is better in my opinion.

post #345 of 364

http://boards.openpandora.org/index.php/user/4661-takato14/?tab=topics

http://boards.openpandora.org/index.php/topic/11688-problem-with-the-usb/

Doesn't sound like the dragonfly is supported by the Pandora.

 

Dragonfly is cost effective because you can't beat it for it's price. They use and need to pay for the async stremlength license, do a 64 position dig controlled analog V control that will be more accurate than a pot. It's also not 'buttons' but whatever controls the V on your source computer. Incorporates 2 dedicated clocks, has seperate regulation and has a real warranty.

 

I suspect that the Halide is better for a little more but it also doesn't drive headphones.

 

It looks like the Pandora uses a polar tantalum 330mf output coupling cap off a likely inverting TPA6110a2 so there will be some bass roll off with low impedance phones. I don't consider this a big deal or indicative on the overall sound but I think it should be noted. Of course, bass will now become undesirable, LOL


Edited by goodvibes - 1/22/13 at 3:02am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › The Open Pandora: An ultimate portable player?