[SomeTechNoob]

Some people might say something about the "sonic frequencies outside our hearing range which affect the texture of music when going >96kHz", but imho anything higher than 24/96 is pretty much marketing talk.  Can't hear any difference.  And most of my stuff is 44.1kHz anyway, so it's just upsampling.

 

[bladefd]

Some people might say something about the "sonic frequencies outside our hearing range which affect the texture of music when going >96kHz", but imho anything higher than 24/96 is pretty much marketing talk.  Can't hear any difference.  And most of my stuff is 44.1kHz anyway, so it's just upsampling.

I tried 192kHz then 96kHz then 48kHz with my DT880 and same 3 songs, and I cannot distinguish a difference in quality. I truly can't tell, and I don't have old overused ears (I have no hearing issues - in my mid 20s)

-Beethoven's Fur Elise bagatelle
-Clarity by Zedd
-Dream On by Aerosmith

 

[bladefd]

I tried 16bit vs 32bit with song Clarity, which covers bass, mids, treble on voices/instrumentals fairly well across the spectrum at 96kHz.. I can't pick up difference between the 2 bits. I raised the volume and tried to notice something minute being different but my ears hear no difference. I don't think our ears can differentiate past 16bit and 48kHz...

 

[U-3C]

You are right! That fixed it! One question: What difference would 192kHz vs 384kHz even make as far as sound quality is concerned? Humans don't have that powerful ears to pick it up, no? Is it just for marketing purposes?

I realized I posted in wrong thread right after I posted here so I put it there afterwards. I should have deleted it from here but ah well

Marketing. After mixing and mastering, it doesn't really make much of a difference.

 

[gvl2016]

  Had some time to play with the Emotiva Little Ego. This is my kind of sound, sweet and analog-like. The Slim goes to its next owner.

 
Well, after all I decided to keep the Dacport. I still think the high frequencies are a bit glassy but the low-end is tight/punchy and there is something very satisfying in the construction/form factor. Plus it doubles as a hand warmer in the office where AC is blasting cold air

 

[rikk009]

   
Well, after all I decided to keep the Dacport. I still think the high frequencies are a bit glassy but the low-end is tight/punchy and there is something very satisfying in the construction/form factor. Plus it doubles as a hand warmer in the office where AC is blasting cold air

Someone who owned both said that he couldn't differentiate between the two. 

 

[gvl2016]

  Someone who owned both said that he couldn't differentiate between the two. 

 
Well, I own both as well and I definitely can with neutral sounding headphones, less so with bright sounding cans, at least in a A/B type of test. I guess there are several variables such as headphones, variance between instances of the same device, music content, and ears, so not at all surprising opinions differ. Granted the differences are minor but I find the Dacport sounding more in your face across all spectrum, or you can say it is more revealing, the Little Ego is more relaxed with very clean and natural mid-high frequencies but somehow the low end is not as well defined as in the Dacport.

 

[snip3r77]

Does it gel well with the iphone ?
How is the power consumption as compared to dragonfly black ?

 

[U-3C]

Does it gel well with the iphone ?
How is the power consumption as compared to dragonfly black ?

If you are referring to the DACport vs the Dragonfly, the Dragonfly takes up significantly less power.

 

[SomeTechNoob]

Solving the noise floor issue and adding a 1/4" jack while I'm at it.
 
Parts arrived today.  Soldered up and testing.  This is a simple 3.5mm version.  The first pot I soldered died for some reason.  Oh well.
 

 
DACports get set on high gain and maximum volume.  Analogue pot controls volume.  Similar to that $5 el cheapo in-line volume control, but should be a lot neater in the end.  Also, the volume knob and quality in general on that cheap in-line cable is pretty bad so I put it aside.  No more hiss when the pot is set to listening levels and nothing is playing in the background.
 
Current pot I'm testing seems to still let in a small sliver of audio in at the lower end.  Maybe if I ever end up making more of these I'll pick up some ALPS RK09 pots - the one schiit uses.  Sound quality is perfectly fine to my ears though, both on my KZ ZS3(18ohm) and HD 6XX.
 
Barring any mistakes, the model drawings are now done as well.  Here are some renders.
 

 

 
It's a bit taller than I'd like, but I guess you can blame that bulky 1/4" adapter for that.
 
Gonna be printing parts relatively soon.

 

[U-3C]

Solving the noise floor issue and adding a 1/4" jack while I'm at it.

Parts arrived today.  Soldered up and testing.  This is a simple 3.5mm version.  The first pot I soldered died for some reason.  Oh well.




DACports get set on high gain and maximum volume.  Analogue pot controls volume.  Similar to that $5 el cheapo in-line volume control, but should be a lot neater in the end.  Also, the volume knob and quality in general on that cheap in-line cable is pretty bad so I put it aside.  No more hiss when the pot is set to listening levels and nothing is playing in the background.

Current pot I'm testing seems to still let in a small sliver of audio in at the lower end.  Maybe if I ever end up making more of these I'll pick up some ALPS RK09 pots - the one schiit uses.  Sound quality is perfectly fine to my ears though, both on my KZ ZS3(18ohm) and HD 6XX.

Barring any mistakes, the model drawings are now done as well.  Here are some renders.







It's a bit taller than I'd like, but I guess you can blame that bulky 1/4" adapter for that.

Gonna be printing parts relatively soon.

Awesome!

 

[gvl2016]

  Solving the noise floor issue and adding a 1/4" jack while I'm at it.
 

 
What is the resistance of the pot? Do you realize you're effectively changing output impedance of the amp by adding it before headphones?

 

[SomeTechNoob]

It's a 50k pot.  Did a bit of googling and it's what was usually recommended.  Yeah I do know that adding the pot changed the output impedance, but a slight change in sound(err, to be honest, can't hear a difference lol) is a worthy tradeoff for removing the background noise on the DACport Slim/HD.
 
My DACports usually just sit at my desk so having a slightly larger, more desktop-like form factor would be nice for me as well.

 

[gvl2016]

  It's a 50k pot.  Did a bit of googling and it's what was usually recommended.  Yeah I do know that adding the pot changed the output impedance, but a slight change in sound(err, to be honest, can't hear a difference lol) is a worthy tradeoff for removing the background noise on the DACport Slim/HD.
 
My DACports usually just sit at my desk so having a slightly larger, more desktop-like form factor would be nice for me as well.

 
I suspect you may find it sounds different later. How much different depends on the headphones, could be not much. At 50% volume assuming linear pot and pot-schematic (vs. rheostat) your output impedance goes from 1Ohm to 25kOhm, ouch.

 

[SomeTechNoob]

Yeah I've only been testing for a couple hours so far.  Definitely need a bit more eartime through the pot.
 
Did a bit of googling and came across this tidbit:
 

The output impedance is easier. It's zero at both 100% rotation and 0% rotation. Well, at 100% rotation it's whatever the source impedance is, at least. The pot contributes little to it. As you rotate the pot away from 100% and 0%, the impedance rises, and it hits a maximum at 50% resistance rotation of the top and bottom resistances in parallel. That is, the top resistor and bottom resistance are both Rp/2, and in parallel, that's Rp/4. And that's where the 1/4 of the pot resistance you heard comes from. That's actually a maximum.

So I would assume at 50% volume it'd be 50k/4.  Which is still a lot.  Ah, oh well.