Colorfly C3, Hisoundaudio Rocoop, or Hifiman 601 - Page 12

From this thread, I can summarize there are 2 better DAPs to be considered:

>>>Colorfly C3 was highly recommended by "stozzer123" & "H20Fidelity" etc.

>>>Hisound RoCoo-P was highly recommended by "gnarlsagan", "goodvibes", "Lee730" etc.

My question here is what is the best DAP between C3 and RoCoo-P in term of

product reliability especially the consistency of UI interface?

So far has anyone experienced the UI freezed or hang-up in C3 or RoCoo-P that you need to hard-reboot?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnarlsagan 


Later in the thread it was determined that the c3 actually has the most accurate frequency response, better than hisound.

In the end it will depend on the persons preferences. While my Sansa fuze measures flat it was in no way comparable to my Hifiman 601 nor Studio V in audio quality. I haven't been able to demo the C3 yet but may be able to from H20. He'll be receiving my Rocoo BA to compare those units after DigitalFreak is done comparing it with his gear. So measuring well isn't the entire piece of the pie. Not even close. The DX100 is an exception to this as it sounds amazingly good and measures ruler flat. Yet a Clip is also not comparable at all although they both measure similar. I feel there are obviously characteristics to sound that cannot be accurately measured (yet) and would explain many discrepancies in said gear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by skamp 

Conclusion: you like all DAPs that are both overpriced and marketed as "audiophile". Not much of a mystery there!

Not much of a mystery that you spew hyperbole that your Clip and O2 are the end all and that is as good as it gets. Also that you consider the Clip "Hi-fidelity?" lmao Your naive at best and misleading to those who want to obtain better audio quality. I'll trust anyone with first hand experience over someone who has none yet uses objectivity as a shield. Then again objectivity requires doing tests on such gear and you obviously haven't even done that. I guess that doesn't make you objective either now does it? You just seem to be here to attempt to rain on everyone's enjoyment? Why not just hang in the "Science Forum" or go back to anythingbutipod? I don't think many find your posts in general to be of any contribution here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnarlsagan 

Tbh I hear zero difference between the fuze and the leckerton uha6s. It's true someone can prefer anything. Sharing personal preferences imo is less useful than sharing measurable data or abx tests. Also it should be acknowledged that personal preferences can be expressed through the hundreds of different headphone options available, which I think makes more sense than using colored gear. If one wants more bass, etc. then one can use eq or find a different headphone to fill that niche. But of course everyone has their preferences and suitable financial sitatuations.

You may not be able to hear such a difference due to your headphones as well. Generally speaking, yes the UHA6 and Fuze measure flat. But there is surely differences in the sound staging (width/depth), imaging, transparency, dynamics. They are not comparable at all IMO. Now if you don't appreciate those characteristics in sound or can't differentiate them then by all means stay with your current gear. It won't get any better for you then. The reasons I mention your IEMs is because they all are lacking in sound staging. Very much in your head sound so maybe that could be playing a roll with you not being able to perceive a difference. For me its very easy to differentiate them based on the qualities I've mentioned above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnarlsagan 


Do you think the leckerton and fuze affect iems differently concerning soundstage, imaging, etc?
But none of my iems? I'm a pretty proficient listener at this point. I've heard a lot of top iems and all the totl headphones.

The Leckerton definitely has a wider sound stage than the Fuze. It also has quite a bit more depth to the sound IMO. The background is blacker, the sound is cleaner. Depending on the Op Amp you are using that will change the presentation as well. You mention trying out various gear. Try actually sitting down with that said gear for hours and getting fully acquainted with their sound and then comparing them between the Fuze and the Leckerton. You may be a proficient listener but that doesn't mean you are proficient without actually spending a good amount of time with said gear. That even applies to me in certain circumstances. My impressions on the AKG3003 would not have been so great if I only spent a few minutes with the gear. Same with my new 1Plus2 IEM. I needed time to get acquainted with the sound as well as burn them in. It makes a huge difference. Then you have some IEMs that will impress you from the start but don't have true staying power (they end up on the for sale forum).

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee730 

The Leckerton definitely has a wider sound stage than the Fuze. It also has quite a bit more depth to the sound IMO. The background is blacker, the sound is cleaner. Depending on the Op Amp you are using that will change the presentation as well. You mention trying out various gear. Try actually sitting down with that said gear for hours and getting fully acquainted with their sound and then comparing them between the Fuze and the Leckerton. You may be a proficient listener but that doesn't mean you are proficient without actually spending a good amount of time with said gear. That even applies to me in certain circumstances. My impressions on the AKG3003 would not have been so great if I only spent a few minutes with the gear. Same with my new 1Plus2 IEM. I needed time to get acquainted with the sound as well as burn them in. It makes a huge difference. Then you have some IEMs that will impress you from the start but don't have true staying power (they end up on the for sale forum).

Which iems would you say change between these two sources? Do you have any theories as to what causes the differences in soundstage, imaging, etc. in the iems that do change? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnarlsagan 

 

Which iems would you say change between these two sources? Do you have any theories as to what causes the differences in sound-stage, imaging, etc. in the iems that do change? 

The amp itself is contributing its own characteristics to the sound. I've noticed this on many IEMs. From my IE80s, MDR-7550s, FX700s, Tralucent 1Plus2, Fit Ear 334. There is so much more to sound than just "sound". There are other things to factor in. If you don't value those subtleties then I recommend against upgrading your gear any further as it will just leave you disappointed. But the sound staging will definitely make things that much more noticeable. With an IEM that has little to no sound staging (all in your head and what I call invading sound) I can understand it being that much harder to notice any changes in the sound stage if there isn't much of one to begin with.... For example comparing the O2 amp to the UHA6 MKII the differences between these amps are night and day for me...

The 02 is so much more focused on width of its sound stage. Very wide presentation and aggressive. Gets fatiguing quite fast listening to this amp. Very good for rock though. While the UHA6 MKII is much more focused on depth (which the O2 sorely lacks in). Yet the UHA6 MKII still has decent width within its sound stage, but nothing like that of the O2. So I find the UHA6 MKII to be more balanced overall with its presentation. Both have black backgrounds, yet how they both produce music is quite different IMO when you take a look at the entire picture. Overall the UHA6 MKII is the clear winner IMO. That balance that I speak of coincides with the music sounding better as a whole to me. But when I put in Op Amp 209 the UHA6 MKII became a transparency monster. Even more so than the O2 amp. It took transparency to another level. For me this became fatiguing to listen to for longer periods of time and I was hearing the nitty and gritty in recordings that you are not intended to hear (artifacts from the conversion from analog to digital). That is what leads me to get fatigued and I don't like that lol.

But in the end I ended up keeping the Tralucent T1 amp as it is even more balanced to my ears than the UHA6MKII. In comparison it makes the UHA6 MKII sound like its lacking in width within its sound stage and focusing too much on depth instead. While the T1 has great width and depth (balance) within its sound stage, even a fuller sound. This leads to the treble, mids and bass also sounding better to me. They just flush each other out and compliment one another. So pretty much when I use amps its not just for volume. That is honestly not the reason I use amps. It is to drive the IEM/headphones to their full potential. To get better control over the drivers themselves which results in better sound. Yet not all IEMs will really honestly benefit as much as other IEMs at the same time. That will really depend on the IEMs you have and also depend on your needs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnarlsagan 

I value subtleties as secondary benefits to more obvious audible characteristics like FR. None of those iems you mentioned are close to a diffuse field reference, which would be the most obvious thing about them imo. For my tastes I start with FR and from the iems that do well in that regard I consider further subtleties. But everyone has their own preferences.

Do you think you could tell these sources apart blindly? I don't mean to doubt your abilities, but I find it odd that there are characteristics of sound that completely elude me, especially when measurements put many of these sources into transparent territory. Of course I'll give it another shot to see if I'm missing something.

Would this answer your question? Because I was the one who got those results listed in that thread. There are reasons I do what I do. There are reasons I prefer lossless to lossy. It is not for archival purposes although that is reason enough. It is because I can hear the difference. Now I understand many can't and that is alright. But I am not many. I feel the same applies to my preferences with the amps and gear that I choose. It is because I can hear those differences and in the end they tailor to my preferences as you had mentioned.

http://www.head-fi.org/t/646131/do-you-hear-the-difference-take-the-128kbps-320kbps-test#post_9053689

Without nuance, expression and thereby appreciation of an art form is lessoned. A slight non linearity if not too localized or severe, is less problematic for me than a slight lack of resolution. Dynamic constraints, prat, phase, damping, distortion. There's so much more to this than frequency response which is always questionable in an IEM.