or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Resonessence Labs Concero discussion/review thead
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Resonessence Labs Concero discussion/review thead - Page 118

post #1756 of 2248
Quote:
Originally Posted by project86 View Post
 

 

 

What is going on here?!?!?!? I'm shocked and appalled!!! If you've ever visited the Audiogon forums or especially Audio Asylum, you'd know that ALL tweaks result in improvements. 100% of the time. Period. 

 

If you aren't careful, you'll have your Audiophile card revoked. 

oops, I covet that darn card.  Maybe I did hear a difference............hmmmmm.........yea that's right................ a BIG difference.  :D

post #1757 of 2248
Thread Starter 

That's more like it.  :o2smile:

post #1758 of 2248
Just found this thread...wondering what the consensus is between the Concero HP and Centrance M8, strictly from a SQ standpoint?
post #1759 of 2248
Thread Starter 

Sorry, haven't tried the M8 myself. Perhaps someone else has?

post #1760 of 2248

Hi project86.  I notice possibly you are the most prolific DAC reviewer on this board.  Have you ever thought about doing a DAC ranking list like joker and AJ?  That would be really helpful.  If not, it's cool as it's time consuming, and thanks for spending time on reviewing all these DACs.

post #1761 of 2248
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverEars View Post
 

Hi project86.  I notice possibly you are the most prolific DAC reviewer on this board.  Have you ever thought about doing a DAC ranking list like joker and AJ?  That would be really helpful.  If not, it's cool as it's time consuming, and thanks for spending time on reviewing all these DACs.

 

I don't really think that is fair to ask, since project86 doesn't have access to all the various DACs reviewed so far to do side by side comparisons. I find his current side-by-side comparisons very handy already.

post #1762 of 2248
Thread Starter 

It's a fair question and I certainly understand the idea behind it. I actually used to have something like that, just a really simple thread with a DAC at $200, another DAC at $500, another at $1,000 etc. Don't remember it now because it's been so long. It wouldn't be relevant by now anyway.

 

The problem is that new stuff keeps coming in, and old stuff mostly goes back to the manufacturer after the writeup. Joe rarely has to send back his CIEMs - most companies offer to let the reviewer keep them or at least buy for a discount, since it's not a product that can be immediately resold anyway. So he can usually go back and do a direct comparison. I do end up buying some DACs once in a while but for the most part they go back to the company after a while. So it's hard to compare them down the road when I no longer have access to everything. 

 

I still try to keep them in mind and give approximate comparisons where I can. So at least we can extrapolate an older model to a newer one if they both have comparisons to the same DAC. It's really the best I can do. 

post #1763 of 2248

If you kept all of them, I can't imagine what your living room would look like! :eek:

post #1764 of 2248
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post
 

If you kept all of them, I can't imagine what your living room would look like! :eek:

 

 

Ha! Even now it's pretty ridiculous.... I've got a Salamander 6 shelf rack completely full (double stacked), have taken over a nearby bookshelf, have several desktop and bedside rigs going..... and I still need more space.

 

It's to the point where I evaluate new review suggestions by thinking "Do I even have room for that anywhere?" I need to get better at chasing down call tags for return shipping, so stuff doesn't linger so long. 

post #1765 of 2248
Quote:
Originally Posted by project86 View Post  Ha! Even now it's pretty ridiculous.... I've got a Salamander 6 shelf rack completely full (double stacked), have taken over a nearby bookshelf, have several desktop and bedside rigs going..... and I still need more space. It's to the point where I evaluate new review suggestions by thinking "Do I even have room for that anywhere?" I need to get better at chasing down call tags for return shipping, so stuff doesn't linger so long. 

 

That's the wrong kind of "room treatment"! :wink_face: 

post #1766 of 2248

I got to say I'm quite disappointed with HP.  It sounds way too smooth.  It lacks detail retrieval.  I was hoping a lot for $900.  HP is my first lesson regarding opening up my wallet wider doesn't reap benefits, and I more expensive doesn't mean more quality.  My FiiO X5 pushes more details.  My ODAC/O2 is the most accurate, clear, and detailed I have and nothing has beaten it.  It sounds so real, and HP sounds artificial.  Too tight and smooth.  It sound like it was tuned for audiophiles, not for monitors like me.  And I got a feeling nothing ever will(this is not for full can, but for iems)


Edited by SilverEars - 6/6/14 at 7:35pm
post #1767 of 2248
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverEars View Post  I got to say I'm quite disappointed with HP.  It sounds way too smooth.  It lacks detail retrieval.  I was hoping a lot for $900.  HP is my first lesson regarding opening up my wallet wider doesn't reap benefits, and I more expensive doesn't mean more quality.  My FiiO X5 pushes more details.  My ODAC/O2 is the most accurate, clear, and detailed I have and nothing has beaten it.  It sounds so real, and HP sounds artificial.  Too tight and smooth.  It sound like it was tuned for audiophiles, not for monitor like me.  And I got a feeling nothing ever will(this is not for full can, but for iems)

 

Eh? This is the first time I'm confused by someone's interpretation of how the HP sounds. I never thought anyone would ever accuse the HP of being too smooth and lacking detail.

 

I liked the X5... for its smoothness. I'm sure the ODAC is good, but I never bothered with it because it doesn't support 88.2 kS/s music of which I have tracks mastered natively in. I've never listened to a bone stock O2 before.

 

Also, by the same measure, if you go by the ODAC designer's standards, the HP beats the ODAC/O2 combo in all metrics, and pays further, much more detailed attention to jitter control. Even the ODAC/O2's designer would say the HP is better --- he'd just say it's a rip off. RLabs designs by the numbers too, and subjective sound quality is an additional layer of adjustment, but they use the most sensitive discerning equipment, like the $20,000 AP SYS2722. It's not like they slapped the thing together.


Edited by tomscy2000 - 6/6/14 at 7:41pm
post #1768 of 2248
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post
 

 

Eh? This is the first time I'm confused by someone's interpretation of how the HP sounds. I never thought anyone would ever accuse the HP of being too smooth and lacking detail.

 

I liked the X5... for its smoothness.

 

Also, by the same measure, if you go by the ODAC designer's standards, the HP beats the ODAC/O2 combo in all metrics, and pays further, much more detailed attention to jitter control. Even the ODAC/O2's designer would say the HP is better --- he'd just say it's a rip off.

LOL.  so you are saying the jitter that is mentioned is audible?  You may want to look into perceivable jitterl levels.  I'm not basing what I want to hear based on on jitter number.  I base on my ears, and it's pretty obvious HP is smooth as butter.  If you have the two and give me comparison, I would respect your opinion more.  If not, .....


Edited by SilverEars - 6/6/14 at 7:40pm
post #1769 of 2248
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverEars View Post  LOL.  so you are saying the jitter that is mentioned is audible?  You may want to look into perceivable jitterl levels.  I'm not basing what I want to hear based on on jitter number.  I base on my ears, and it's pretty obvious HP is smooth as butter.  If you have the two and give me comparison, I would respect your opinion more.  If not, .....

 

I know what's said about jitter, both sides of the argument. My point is that they pay attention to everything, not whether you can hear differences or not. The whole point behind the ODAC designer's philosophy was that if you design by the numbers, you could get a high performance device with not a lot of money. The HP is a higher performance device by all measurable standards, but subjectively, you're saying that it sounds worse. That's the disconnect that I'm trying to highlight. So either the ODAC/O2 is audibly transparent and the HP are audibly transparent and the two devices sound identical, or something else is at play here.

post #1770 of 2248
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomscy2000 View Post
 

 

I know what's said about jitter, both sides of the argument. My point is that they pay attention to everything, not whether you can hear differences or not. The whole point behind the ODAC designer's philosophy was that if you design by the numbers, you could get a high performance device with not a lot of money. The HP is a higher performance device by all measurable standards, but subjectively, you're saying that it sounds worse. That's the disconnect that I'm trying to highlight. So either the ODAC/O2 is audibly transparent and the HP are audibly transparent and the two devices sound identical, or something else is at play here.

Well his philosophy is that we can design to spec at way cheaper price, and some specs are not perceivable(this is why I mentioned look into jitter).  To me it's obvious HP has some sort of butter filter.  :P

 

Anyway, compare them first, and we can talk more.  There is not point of discussion here if you haven't compared them.


Edited by SilverEars - 6/6/14 at 8:54pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Resonessence Labs Concero discussion/review thead