Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphone Amps (full-size) › *Comparison and Review* Magni/Modi vs O2/ODAC
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

*Comparison and Review* Magni/Modi vs O2/ODAC - Page 14

post #196 of 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post

 

Stop brown-nosing.  There's nothing special about the additional measurements in the Objective 2's blog.  I'm sure you'll find very minimal differences between all these measurements when comparing the O2 and Magni-- and any of the more prominent differences would be below the threshold of realistic listening levels (do we all really need to know that an amp has a -116db noise floor at half volume)  I'm a very measurement first type of guy, but at the end of the day I still rather go off subjective impressions of equipment from people whom I trust rather than looking at graphs all day.

 

Next I expect you to say that the O2 sounds the same as 1000 dollar amps in blind a/b comparisons.

 

 

The thread is about comparison between the two. The strengths of the O2 are its specs, and the measurements to prove them. The Magni, on the other hand  'sounds like the O2'.

You're speculating that they'll both measure the same, and the differences would be small. 

 

Maybe they are, maybe the Magni even exceeds the O2. 

 

Point is, I cannot say for sure, because the O2 has the numbers to prove its performance, and the Magni doesn't. 

post #197 of 428
Then you're just saying the O2/ODAC are better than everything else because of the numbers. I'm not saying that $5000 amps/dacs are necessarily better than the O2/ODAC. I'm just saying that better things exist.
post #198 of 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeaj View Post

 

And not just tested by the designer, but by others potentially with a bone to pick.  These others haven't found results that disagree with what's out there.  Also Tyll at IF to some degree.  So it is better-known, for whatever that is worth.  You can check the schematic too.

 

Personally I'd like to have more information available about everything, but I don't think they're all out there to cater to me.

 

It's not at all a fair comparison from the designers' point of view in terms of information available and transparency because Schiit needs to make money and stuff, keep things under wraps.  No company wants to disclose too much to the customers and competitors.  From the consumer's point of view, depends on your priorities.

 

I agree on most counts, and I certainly don't care about being transparent with the design. Design and performance are related, and the specs are an objective measure of how any design performs. Good specs --> good design. Thats all.

post #199 of 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by compoopers View Post

Then you're just saying the O2/ODAC are better than everything else because of the numbers. I'm not saying that $5000 amps/dacs are necessarily better than the O2/ODAC. I'm just saying that better things exist.

 

Of course better things exist, if they have the numbers to prove that. Otherwise how does one define 'better' ?


Edited by proton007 - 1/16/13 at 11:35pm
post #200 of 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeaj View Post

It's not at all a fair comparison from the designers' point of view in terms of information available and transparency because Schiit needs to make money and stuff, keep things under wraps.  No company wants to disclose too much to the customers and competitors.  From the consumer's point of view, depends on your priorities.

Audio companies often "keep things under wraps" and put out limited information to consumers to mislead them. For example, Definitive Technology does that all the time with their speakers and subwoofers. They list low end frequency responses that are not the industry standard +/- 3db frequency range, but instead where the response is already -10 to -15db down. That's why they leave it off. In order to mislead the customer.

But if the product is good, what is the downside of being more transparent?
post #201 of 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

But if the product is good, what is the downside of being more transparent?

 

Exactly. A good product shouldn't have anything to fear.

post #202 of 428

What sample rates and bit depths does Modi support?
16/44 to 24/96, including 24/88.2.

 

That's the same as the ODAC.

 

 

How can you do this when other guys are trying to sell plastic USB key DACs for 2.5x the price?
Because we aren’t greedy, and our packaging is ugly.

 

Ouch...(I'm guessing this is referring to the AudioQuest Dragonfly)


Edited by miceblue - 1/17/13 at 1:14am
post #203 of 428
It's a light jab at them, but I think the dragonfly is pretty nice considering how small it is. Making it that tiny is probably not simple engineering. Plus, they were first to do it so they have every right to jack up costs until someone else does it better, and cheaper.
post #204 of 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by compoopers View Post

It's a light jab at them, but I think the dragonfly is pretty nice considering how small it is. Making it that tiny is probably not simple engineering. Plus, they were first to do it so they have every right to jack up costs until someone else does it better, and cheaper.

stoner acoustics UD100, but thats DAC only, not amp as well

post #205 of 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by miceblue View Post

What sample rates and bit depths does Modi support?

16/44 to 24/96, including 24/88.2.

That's the same as the ODAC.
Except the ODAC doesn't support 88.2.
post #206 of 428

Yup it doesnt support 88.2...

 

While the ODAC doesn’t support 24/88, it does support the audibly identical 24/44. It’s trivial to re-sample 24/88 audio to 24/44 with no artifacts as it’s a simple divide-by-two operation (and one the operating system will perform for you automatically). I know many audiophiles probably think they’re losing something, but nobody has proven they are.

 

Alex

post #207 of 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAudio View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceblue View Post

What sample rates and bit depths does Modi support?

16/44 to 24/96, including 24/88.2.

That's the same as the ODAC.
Except the ODAC doesn't support 88.2.

Yeah my bad, I was thinking 24/88, which the O2 still doesn't support but 24/44 sounds nearly identical, unless you truly have "golden ears".

post #208 of 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by adydula View Post

Yup it doesnt support 88.2...
I'm detecting some sarcasm there. wink.gif Not trying to step on any toes, just a statement of fact. It's academic anyways, there isn't much 88.2 material out there.
post #209 of 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAudio View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by adydula View Post

Yup it doesnt support 88.2...
I'm detecting some sarcasm there. wink.gif Not trying to step on any toes, just a statement of fact. It's academic anyways, there isn't much 88.2 material out there.

I'm happy with 16/44 because I can't tell the difference between that and other sample rates. Downsampling so-called "HD" 24/96 music sounds the same to me. biggrin.gif


Edited by miceblue - 1/17/13 at 9:53am
post #210 of 428
Quote:

Originally Posted by TMRaven View Post
 

Next I expect you to say that the O2 sounds the same as 1000 dollar amps in blind a/b comparisons.

 

Added distortion in the mythical "1000 dollar amp[]" aside, that exactly right. If the O2 is transparent, adding $850 of parts and profit won't yield better sound because it can't.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphone Amps (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphone Amps (full-size) › *Comparison and Review* Magni/Modi vs O2/ODAC