All this talk about pairing... Maybe we should focus on stuff the Mojo is not pairing ok with? 
Chord Mojo(1) DAC-amp ☆★►FAQ in 3rd post!◄★☆
- Thread starter Mython
- Start date
moises13456
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2015
- Posts
- 45
- Likes
- 11
Me too.. But damn mojo got hooked by new zealand customs! Still waiting for clearance!
Anyone here from new zealand?
Anyone here from new zealand?
NaiveSound
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2015
- Posts
- 3,178
- Likes
- 619
All this talk about pairing... Maybe we should focus on stuff the Mojo is not pairing ok with?
I agree, and on both ends (what is feeding the Mojo) and what cans/iems used too,
Because source does matter.
I wish I could find even one track from Dark side eof the moon in the best mastering, Japanese or whatever... In flac.... Oh how I wish...
The internet is vast, just like the universe. There is a high probability the dark side of the moon tunes are out there
x RELIC x
Headphoneus Supremus
Pink Floyd's 'The Endless River' is great on the Mojo as well. 
ubs28
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2013
- Posts
- 3,992
- Likes
- 1,099
Is the Chord Mojo supposed to have a small soundstage or is there something wrong with my unit?
I tried the Mojo as DAC for the Taurus MKII with the HD 800 S and the Hugo clearly won.
I tried the Mojo as DAC for the Taurus MKII with the HD 800 S and the Hugo clearly won.
analogmusic
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2015
- Posts
- 462
- Likes
- 207
Many comments here are quite puzzling, if you do not take into account the quality of the actual file.
And by that I mean, was it ripped from a original CD, with a professional software like DBpoweramp, or EAC, which calibrates the CD mechanism to compensate for offset.
I have had a lifelong dislike of CD, but after reading Barry Diaments thoughts and trying it out, I may have to change my views. (He has remastered Led Zeppelin albums, and is a very experienced recording engineer), who basically said that NO CD transport he has tried has been able to recover the audio data 100 % accurately, and only computer extraction can do this.
So I would encourage you to re-rip your CD's again, avoid MP3, and listen again
I have found detail I never knew was there in my CD's when I ripped them again when DBpoweramp, and my lifelong dislike of CD now needs some rethinking... maybe.
At the very least you can at least read Barry Diament thoughts on digital audio and CD here
http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-barry-diament-soundkeeper-recordings#pkgRsGzQfVttu1YP.97
On your Soundkeeper Recordings site, you recommend CD-Rs over CDs for those buyers who will play back their music on a transport or player yet you also recommend the CD for those buyers that intend to rip their music to hard drive. Could you explain why a CD-R is better than a CD when spinning a disc and why this difference doesn't matter when ripping and playing back from hard drive?
I wish I could explain why. I’ve read a number of theories and some of them may or may not make sense.
From my earliest days in CD mastering, I always noticed that the finished CDs from different replication facilities all sound different from each other and none sounds indistinguishable from the CD master used to make it. Often, CDs made on different production lines within the same plant don’t sound like each other either. In all cases, there is a loss of “focus” and fine detail, usually subtle, sometimes not so subtle.
When it came time to choose a plant to do Soundkeeper’s CDs, I spoke with a few dozen facilities. The one I ultimately chose was the only one which, without any prompting from me, did not claim their CDs sound exactly like the masters. It turns out, their CDs are the closest in my experience. I can still distinguish between the CD and the master from which it was made but with their discs, I need a synchronized playback against the master to discern the differences.
This plant cuts the glass master (the first step in CD production) in real time, instead of the more typical 4x or faster used by most other facilities nowadays. They also use a ~9 second injection molding cycle, rather than the more common ~4 second cycle. Whether these account for why their discs are more faithful, I don’t know. Some say procedures like this make for better formed “pits” in the disc, making it easier for the player to read the disc with less “jitter” (i.e., timing errors). I don’t know if this is the case but I do know I like the results.
With a well made CD-R (burned at relatively slow speed on a high quality blank), I find the results of playback in a CD transport or player sound closer to the CD master than even the best pressings in my experience.
I think something similar occurs with processes such as SHM, Blu-Spec and HQCD, where the processes are different from usual and sometimes the materials in the disc itself are different. I recently compared some of these with their plain CD counterparts. I was pretty surprised by the degree of difference I heard and found it to be so obvious, I would have bet I was listening to two different masterings, with different EQ!
To “prove” this, I extracted both the “special” disc and the plain CD to computer hard drive so I could perform a “null” test. In a null test, two digital files are synchronized (to the sample) and mixed together. The polarity of one of the files is reversed. What results is that everything the two files have in common, i.e., what is the same in the files, is cancelled (or “nulled”), leaving only what is different between the files. To my surprise, the result of the null test was dead silence. Listening to the two files from the computer resulted in both sounding indistinguishable from each other. It was a slightly clearer version of the “better” disc heard from the CD player. Whether commercial CD, “special” material or process CD or a fine CD-R, my experience has consistently been that extraction to computer and playback from there (as a raw PCM file in .aif or .wav format) gets me the true sound of the master.
"What I do know is that as an audio enthusiast, I’ve always wanted to hear “the master” at home. With computer audio, this is finally a reality."
What is the difference between playback from a transport or player and playback from the computer? To create a CD, those “ones and zeros” of digital code must be further encoded, using a scheme referred to as “8:14 modulation”. This is used to create the nine different length “pits” and “land” (the space between the pits) on the finished disc. Among other things, the player must spin the disc at the correct speed, track the spiral of pits, keeping the laser properly focused, read the disc, decode the 8:14 modulation, decode the resulting binary code, apply any necessary error correction, convert it to stereo analog signals and feed it to the outputs, often using a common power supply for all these functions. The computer, given something like a raw PCM file in .aif or .wav format, has a much simpler job. Whether all this accounts for the audible differences, I don’t know for sure. What I do know is that as an audio enthusiast, I’ve always wanted to hear “the master” at home. With computer audio, this is finally a reality.
With this in mind, if computer playback is the goal, the advantages CD-R has in transports and players are no longer there, hence, my recommendation of the less expensive CD to Soundkeeper customers who listen via their computers.
image: http://cdn.audiostream.com/images/62412barry3.jpg
Soundkeeper Recordings studio
You have been vocal about your preference for recording, as well as delivering, your Soundkeeper Recordings in 24-bit/192kHz format. Why 24/192?
The reason is because I feel properly done 24/192 crosses a very important threshold. Over the years, I’ve used all sorts of analog recorders and digital recorders but the output of these devices was always quite different sounding from the signal they received at their input.
Even the best 24/96 digital I’ve heard, while certainly much better than 16/44 CD in terms of fidelity the input signal, still sounds very different to me than the input that is coming directly from the microphones.
"For the first time in my experience, those reservations I have always had about digital, where I felt there were some things the best analog did better, simply evaporated."
When I first heard properly done 24/192, it was a jaw dropper. For the first time in my experience, those reservations I have always had about digital, where I felt there were some things the best analog did better, simply evaporated. This is, to my ears, a bigger jump up in quality over 24/96 than that was over 16/44. It no longer feels like a great digital recorder or a great analog recorder. It feels like the recorder has been effectively removed from the equation and I am listening directly to the mic feed.
I mention “properly done 24/192” because I’ve heard a number of converters with these numbers on their spec sheet, which actually sound worse to me at this rate than they do at 24/96. This, I attribute to the significantly increased demands made by the higher rates on clocking accuracy and for wide band performance from the analog stages.
When the higher rates are well executed, the results are simply magical. Though I hear it throughout the range, perhaps surprisingly, I find many of its benefits particularly audible in the bass. The only downside I’ve found so far is that I can no longer blame the gear for any flaws in my recordings. Of those, I must take full ownership.
Read more at http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-barry-diament-soundkeeper-recordings#lvW29mlU5AziZ8zF.99
And by that I mean, was it ripped from a original CD, with a professional software like DBpoweramp, or EAC, which calibrates the CD mechanism to compensate for offset.
I have had a lifelong dislike of CD, but after reading Barry Diaments thoughts and trying it out, I may have to change my views. (He has remastered Led Zeppelin albums, and is a very experienced recording engineer), who basically said that NO CD transport he has tried has been able to recover the audio data 100 % accurately, and only computer extraction can do this.
So I would encourage you to re-rip your CD's again, avoid MP3, and listen again
I have found detail I never knew was there in my CD's when I ripped them again when DBpoweramp, and my lifelong dislike of CD now needs some rethinking... maybe.
At the very least you can at least read Barry Diament thoughts on digital audio and CD here
http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-barry-diament-soundkeeper-recordings#pkgRsGzQfVttu1YP.97
On your Soundkeeper Recordings site, you recommend CD-Rs over CDs for those buyers who will play back their music on a transport or player yet you also recommend the CD for those buyers that intend to rip their music to hard drive. Could you explain why a CD-R is better than a CD when spinning a disc and why this difference doesn't matter when ripping and playing back from hard drive?
I wish I could explain why. I’ve read a number of theories and some of them may or may not make sense.
From my earliest days in CD mastering, I always noticed that the finished CDs from different replication facilities all sound different from each other and none sounds indistinguishable from the CD master used to make it. Often, CDs made on different production lines within the same plant don’t sound like each other either. In all cases, there is a loss of “focus” and fine detail, usually subtle, sometimes not so subtle.
When it came time to choose a plant to do Soundkeeper’s CDs, I spoke with a few dozen facilities. The one I ultimately chose was the only one which, without any prompting from me, did not claim their CDs sound exactly like the masters. It turns out, their CDs are the closest in my experience. I can still distinguish between the CD and the master from which it was made but with their discs, I need a synchronized playback against the master to discern the differences.
This plant cuts the glass master (the first step in CD production) in real time, instead of the more typical 4x or faster used by most other facilities nowadays. They also use a ~9 second injection molding cycle, rather than the more common ~4 second cycle. Whether these account for why their discs are more faithful, I don’t know. Some say procedures like this make for better formed “pits” in the disc, making it easier for the player to read the disc with less “jitter” (i.e., timing errors). I don’t know if this is the case but I do know I like the results.
With a well made CD-R (burned at relatively slow speed on a high quality blank), I find the results of playback in a CD transport or player sound closer to the CD master than even the best pressings in my experience.
I think something similar occurs with processes such as SHM, Blu-Spec and HQCD, where the processes are different from usual and sometimes the materials in the disc itself are different. I recently compared some of these with their plain CD counterparts. I was pretty surprised by the degree of difference I heard and found it to be so obvious, I would have bet I was listening to two different masterings, with different EQ!
To “prove” this, I extracted both the “special” disc and the plain CD to computer hard drive so I could perform a “null” test. In a null test, two digital files are synchronized (to the sample) and mixed together. The polarity of one of the files is reversed. What results is that everything the two files have in common, i.e., what is the same in the files, is cancelled (or “nulled”), leaving only what is different between the files. To my surprise, the result of the null test was dead silence. Listening to the two files from the computer resulted in both sounding indistinguishable from each other. It was a slightly clearer version of the “better” disc heard from the CD player. Whether commercial CD, “special” material or process CD or a fine CD-R, my experience has consistently been that extraction to computer and playback from there (as a raw PCM file in .aif or .wav format) gets me the true sound of the master.
"What I do know is that as an audio enthusiast, I’ve always wanted to hear “the master” at home. With computer audio, this is finally a reality."
What is the difference between playback from a transport or player and playback from the computer? To create a CD, those “ones and zeros” of digital code must be further encoded, using a scheme referred to as “8:14 modulation”. This is used to create the nine different length “pits” and “land” (the space between the pits) on the finished disc. Among other things, the player must spin the disc at the correct speed, track the spiral of pits, keeping the laser properly focused, read the disc, decode the 8:14 modulation, decode the resulting binary code, apply any necessary error correction, convert it to stereo analog signals and feed it to the outputs, often using a common power supply for all these functions. The computer, given something like a raw PCM file in .aif or .wav format, has a much simpler job. Whether all this accounts for the audible differences, I don’t know for sure. What I do know is that as an audio enthusiast, I’ve always wanted to hear “the master” at home. With computer audio, this is finally a reality.
With this in mind, if computer playback is the goal, the advantages CD-R has in transports and players are no longer there, hence, my recommendation of the less expensive CD to Soundkeeper customers who listen via their computers.
image: http://cdn.audiostream.com/images/62412barry3.jpg
Soundkeeper Recordings studio
You have been vocal about your preference for recording, as well as delivering, your Soundkeeper Recordings in 24-bit/192kHz format. Why 24/192?
The reason is because I feel properly done 24/192 crosses a very important threshold. Over the years, I’ve used all sorts of analog recorders and digital recorders but the output of these devices was always quite different sounding from the signal they received at their input.
Even the best 24/96 digital I’ve heard, while certainly much better than 16/44 CD in terms of fidelity the input signal, still sounds very different to me than the input that is coming directly from the microphones.
"For the first time in my experience, those reservations I have always had about digital, where I felt there were some things the best analog did better, simply evaporated."
When I first heard properly done 24/192, it was a jaw dropper. For the first time in my experience, those reservations I have always had about digital, where I felt there were some things the best analog did better, simply evaporated. This is, to my ears, a bigger jump up in quality over 24/96 than that was over 16/44. It no longer feels like a great digital recorder or a great analog recorder. It feels like the recorder has been effectively removed from the equation and I am listening directly to the mic feed.
I mention “properly done 24/192” because I’ve heard a number of converters with these numbers on their spec sheet, which actually sound worse to me at this rate than they do at 24/96. This, I attribute to the significantly increased demands made by the higher rates on clocking accuracy and for wide band performance from the analog stages.
When the higher rates are well executed, the results are simply magical. Though I hear it throughout the range, perhaps surprisingly, I find many of its benefits particularly audible in the bass. The only downside I’ve found so far is that I can no longer blame the gear for any flaws in my recordings. Of those, I must take full ownership.
Read more at http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-barry-diament-soundkeeper-recordings#lvW29mlU5AziZ8zF.99
Duy Le
Head-Fier
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2015
- Posts
- 90
- Likes
- 24
I tried to pair X5 2nd Gen with Mojo, drive ATH R70X (test in audio shop). My impression the sound is very good as AK120II. Why I must pay twice for DAC/Amp part in another expensive DAP when I have Mojo.
SearchOfSub
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2013
- Posts
- 1,571
- Likes
- 216
WCDchee
1000+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2013
- Posts
- 1,474
- Likes
- 968
Yup, the Hugo definitely has a larger soundstage. The mojo's soundstage is not very big, but it definitely isn't small, and it is very coherent. It's also affected quite a bit by the quality of the transport.
mazzy009
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2016
- Posts
- 107
- Likes
- 22
Tell me about it... Right now I'm hiding a Mojo, PM3s and a brand new Onkyo DP-X1 DAP... It is getting exhausting and at times very frustrating not being able to enjoy them all...
mazzy009
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2016
- Posts
- 107
- Likes
- 22
+1 Hiding my Mojo & Onkyo too. First she said about mojo - "Is this 3 disco lights will be at my bed all night??"
Users who are viewing this thread
