[simonm]

Bluetooth module that used aptx or better would be very nice using optical.  I would buy it.

Hell yes. But I imagine this would be a pricey piece of kit in addition to the module and require it's own battery no?

Problem is (for iPhone users at least) that iPhone doesn't yet support aptx. Maybe the next one will if it loses the analogue jack.

For those not familiar with aptx Bluetooth, what sort of audio resolution is it capable of?

 

[simonm]

I just spoke to blue moon, following up on my email about the butt plate....they have no idea either about an ETA either...they call frequently for updates, too.

Hahaha. Now I won't refer to it as anything but the butt plate either.

Wonderful contribution!

 

[Joe Bloggs]

But the amazing thing is, there appears no limit to how accurate these small signals need to be in order for the brain to not truncate or flatten depth. In order to accurately reproduce depth you need extreme small signal linearity. You can't do this with R2R DAC's, as the resistors can't be matched. With DSD or delta sigma (Mojo is delta sigma too) the problem is now how well the noise shaper functions. As a signal gets closer to the noise shaper noise floor, the levels get smaller, as a signal that is smaller than the resolution limit of the noise shaper is truncated. To overcome this you need to have very high resolution outputs, with a noise shaper that has very high resolution - in Mojo's case, the noise shaper has a thousand times more resolving power than conventional high end noise shapers,

You speak as though the Mojo is striving towards a signal target that is 100% correct for real-life soundstaging for the listener, when in fact music is produced for loudspeakers for the most part and the soundstage cues, when reproduced through headphones, are so far off that you're effectively talking about millimetre-precise missile targeting using the Mojo on a targeting system that's using the map of the wrong country for navigation! If the target is off by a thousand miles I don't see how it matters whether you hit the target with nanometre or centimetre accuracy...

No, what you need is a proper HRTF processor that processes the spatial cues encoded in the recording for speaker setups into something that is recognizable by the brain after it is "reproduced" by headphones such that
1. Proper timing and frequency amplitude relationships are all totally destroyed
2. Proper crossfeed of sound signals between left and right ear is completely missing

Conventional headphone soundstaging is mostly a matter of make-believe unless the above are corrected for...

This processing needs to be tailored for the individual for maximum effect, in which case, you can close your eyes and listening to headphones would simply be indistinguishable from listening to the speaker system.

 

[canali]

Hahaha. Now I won't refer to it as anything but the butt plate either.

Wonderful contribution!

well i guess butt plate beats ...  butt plug 

 

 

[Mojo ideas]

Just to be clear, when I say I'm feeling impatient, that's not a dig against Chord. It is a character flaw of mine

Sorry Dexter the delays with the cable pack have been beyond our control should be only a short while longer. JF Chord.

 

[x RELIC x]

You speak as though the Mojo is striving towards a signal target that is 100% correct for real-life soundstaging for the listener, when in fact music is produced for loudspeakers for the most part and the soundstage cues, when reproduced through headphones, are so far off that you're effectively talking about millimetre-precise missile targeting using the Mojo on a targeting system that's using the map of the wrong country for navigation! If the target is off by a thousand miles I don't see how it matters whether you hit the target with nanometre or centimetre accuracy...

No, what you need is a proper HRTF processor that processes the spatial cues encoded in the recording for speaker setups into something that is recognizable by the brain after it is "reproduced" by headphones such that
1. Proper timing and frequency amplitude relationships are all totally destroyed
2. Proper crossfeed of sound signals between left and right ear is missing

Conventional headphone soundstaging is mostly a matter of make-believe unless the above are corrected for...

This processing needs to be tailored for the individual for maximum effect, in which case, you can close your eyes and listening to headphones would simply be indistinguishable from listening to the speaker system.

Joe, IIRC Rob has done most of his listening tests when designing his DACs using speakers (I may be wrong of course). You assume that he is talking about a system when in fact he is only talking about the capabilities of his DACs.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Joe, IIRC Rob has done most of his listening tests when designing his DACs using speakers (I may be wrong of course). You assume that he is talking about a system when in fact he is only talking about the capabilities of his DACs.

Well, he gave his nanosecond-accuracy soundstage speech in response to someone listening with headphones and IEMs, so my comment stands.

Spoiler: Spoiler: Regarding detail

Edit: Detail-wise, I find that tuning a pair of headphones so that the frequency response flattens out, both in terms of rough bass-mid-treble balance and in terms of removing the sharp resonant peaks that are endemic with earphones at high frequencies, removes masking caused by gross frequency emphases in the case of the former and a sort of comb-filtering effect caused by the latter. As a result the music snaps into focus in a way that is akin to getting glasses for the first time after a lifetime with heavy shortsightness and being used to squinting as a way of seeing more clearly. You guys should try it sometime

 

[Rob Watts]

Yes depth reproduction is tested with speakers, as its much easier to hear depth problems that way. But small signal non-linearity also improves detail resolution, and that aspect is easier to hear with HP.... Horses for courses.

 

[LouisArmstrong]

Basically, they make their DAC circuit, in contrast to most DACs out there (or all other portable DACs and DAPs for that matter) which simply use ready-made DAC chips and put on a nice coating. There is only one other DAC designer that does the same, and that DAC is like over US$100,000. 

 

[Nosce Te Ipsum]

Hello, I was thinking of getting Mojo as a main DAC for my system and HP amp for my HD 650s, do you think it is a good idea?
 
When using as a main DAC I would connect it to my amp...do I need a 3,5mm mini jack to RCA adaptor for this purpose? At the moment I'm using a Xonar Essence ST connected to my amp using a Wireworld Oasis 6 interconnect... I was also wondering if it is a good upgrade to Essence ST getting the Mojo... can someone explain me how to use it as a main DAC connected to an integrated amp (NAD C326)? In this case is it better to connect it to the Essence ST via SPDIF or to the PC via USB?
 
Thanks

 

[LouisArmstrong]

  Hello, I was thinking of getting Mojo as a main DAC for my system and HP amp for my HD 650s, do you think it is a good idea?
 
When using as a main DAC I would connect it to my amp...do I need a 3,5mm mini jack to RCA adaptor for this purpose? At the moment I'm using a Xonar Essence ST connected to my amp using a Wireworld Oasis 6 interconnect... I was also wondering if it is a good upgrade to Essence ST getting the Mojo... can someone explain me how to use it as a main DAC connected to an integrated amp (NAD C326)? In this case is it better to connect it to the Essence ST via SPDIF or to the PC via USB?
 
Thanks

I think Hugo has RCA out but you need to be aware that the connectors are quite tight, therefore you probably can't use RCA cables with thick plugs.

 

[Nosce Te Ipsum]

 
I think Hugo has RCA out but you need to be aware that the connectors are quite tight, therefore you probably can't use RCA cables with thick plugs.

Well, Hugo is a bit too much for my pockets atm that's why I would choose Mojo... so I was wondering if an adaptor like this or a similar product would be a good choice for my purpose of using it as a main DAC... https://www.amazon.co.uk/AudioQuest-Hard-Mini-3-5mm-Adaptor/dp/B003VJX2F2

 

[Mython]

It is true that Mojo uses fundamentally the same technology as Hugo, and is very keenly-priced, considering how much leading-edge DAC technology it incorporates.
 
Mojo has approximately the same power output as Hugo, and approximately the same complexity of digital processing, but it is tuned slightly differently. Different people will hear the differences differently. Personally, I hear Hugo as sounding slightly more 'airy' than Mojo, but the differences are quite small.
 
Hugo offers fullsize RCA Phono connections, which Mojo does not. Hugo also offers 1/4" headphone jacks, while Mojo has 3.5mm (1/8") headphone jacks. And there are a few other small differences (Mojo can accept extremely high sampling rates, but almost no one would be able take advantage of that, on the move, due to limitations with portable transport devices currently available).
 
I'm sure John Franks or Rob Watts will chip-in, if they see-fit, but my understanding, from various interviews I've encountered, is that, following-on from the enormous success of Hugo, the Chord team wanted to get the same fundamental technology and performance into the hands of an even wider audience, and to do that, they had to create something at a much more-accessible price-point. The rationale behind this was (partly) because they wanted to lift more people into the hi-fi realm of portable listening, and thus enjoy their music more than they can from many of the mp3 players and smartphones available in the past few years and present day. Bringing more people into a realisation of how much better music can sound, on the move, when reproduced to a high technical standard, may benefit not only the customer and the company, but, perhaps, by virtue of expanding the industry customer base, the industry as a whole.
 
 
 
I admit some of the above sounds a bit like advertising copy, but it's simply the most succinct way I can relate it to you
 
 
 
 
You can find the specifications of Hugo and Mojo here
 
 
 
EDIT: mistakenly said Hugo's galvanically-isolated, when it isn't - cheers x RELIC x for the correction!

 

[x RELIC x]

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

Please read the 'Informative posts by Rob Watts' section of post #3. I've included loads of discussion, there, that will help in your understanding.

It is true that Mojo uses fundamentally the same technology as Hugo, and is very keenly-priced, considering how much leading-edge DAC technology it incorporates.

Mojo has approximately the same power output as Hugo, and approximately the same complexity of digital processing, but it is tuned slightly differently. Different people will hear the differences differently. Personally, I hear Hugo as sounding slightly more 'airy' than Mojo, but the differences are quite small.

Hugo offers fullsize RCA Phono connections, which Mojo does not. Hugo also offers 1/4" headphone jacks, while Mojo has 3.5mm (1/8") headphone jacks. Hugo has galvanic isolation, while Mojo does not. And there are a few other small differences (Mojo can accept extremely high sampling rates, but almost no one would be able take advantage of that, on the move, due to limitations with portable transport devices currently available).

I'm sure John Franks or Rob Watts will chip-in, if they see-fit, but my understanding, from various interviews I've encountered, is that, following-on from the enormous success of Hugo, the Chord team wanted to get the same fundamental technology and performance into the hands of an even wider audience, and to do that, they had to create something at a much more-accessible price-point. The rationale behind this was (partly) because they wanted to lift more people into the hi-fi realm of portable listening, and thus enjoy their music more than they can from many of the mp3 players and smartphones available in the past few years and present day. Bringing more people into a realisation of how much better music can sound, on the move, when reproduced to a high technical standard, may benefit not only the customer and the company, but, perhaps, by virtue of expanding the industry customer base, the industry as a whole.



I admit some of the above sounds a bit like advertising copy, but it's simply the most succinct way I can relate it to you





You can find the specifications of Hugo and Mojo here


.

Just to clarify, the Hugo does not have galvanic isolation. Only the desktop 2Qute, Hugo TT, and DAVE have it. It draws too much power for portable setups.

 

[Mython]

 

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

Please read the 'Informative posts by Rob Watts' section of post #3. I've included loads of discussion, there, that will help in your understanding.

It is true that Mojo uses fundamentally the same technology as Hugo, and is very keenly-priced, considering how much leading-edge DAC technology it incorporates.

Mojo has approximately the same power output as Hugo, and approximately the same complexity of digital processing, but it is tuned slightly differently. Different people will hear the differences differently. Personally, I hear Hugo as sounding slightly more 'airy' than Mojo, but the differences are quite small.

Hugo offers fullsize RCA Phono connections, which Mojo does not. Hugo also offers 1/4" headphone jacks, while Mojo has 3.5mm (1/8") headphone jacks. Hugo has galvanic isolation, while Mojo does not. And there are a few other small differences (Mojo can accept extremely high sampling rates, but almost no one would be able take advantage of that, on the move, due to limitations with portable transport devices currently available).

I'm sure John Franks or Rob Watts will chip-in, if they see-fit, but my understanding, from various interviews I've encountered, is that, following-on from the enormous success of Hugo, the Chord team wanted to get the same fundamental technology and performance into the hands of an even wider audience, and to do that, they had to create something at a much more-accessible price-point. The rationale behind this was (partly) because they wanted to lift more people into the hi-fi realm of portable listening, and thus enjoy their music more than they can from many of the mp3 players and smartphones available in the past few years and present day. Bringing more people into a realisation of how much better music can sound, on the move, when reproduced to a high technical standard, may benefit not only the customer and the company, but, perhaps, by virtue of expanding the industry customer base, the industry as a whole.



I admit some of the above sounds a bit like advertising copy, but it's simply the most succinct way I can relate it to you





You can find the specifications of Hugo and Mojo here


.

Just to clarify, the Hugo does not have galvanic isolation. Only the desktop 2Qute, Hugo TT, and DAVE have it. It draws too much power for portable setups.

 
 
Thanks for correcting me!  I should've taken more time in typing that reply!

 
I've gone back to correct it, not to hide my mistake, but just to avoid unnecessary confusion - cheers