[Odezra]

Had some time to myself for a change so I thought I'd A/B my Denafrips Ares II to my Mojo 2. It was originally just for S&G's but I was surprised when I heard a real difference. The Mojo 2 seems to have a bit more clarity and/or more definition to the top end. The biggest difference comes out in the top end of vocals, kinda like that little bit of edge that makes the vocals stand out. I tried eq'ing a little more top end onto the Ares using my Schiit Loki Mini but it added too much and got harsh. In addition to the clarity, the Mojo 2 also added a touch more sound stage. I'm kind of at a conundrum now. I'm not going to make any rash decisions but I think I am liking the Mojo 2 more. I did make a point of making sure the Mojo 2 eq was set to flat. I feel kinda weird contemplating swapping the Ares II out of my desktop setup for the Mojo 2.

I'm running Roon from my desktop PC via USB to a Denafrips Iris and then coax to the Ares II and optical to the Mojo 2. Both the Ares and Mojo are then going to a Schiit SYS switch which then goes to another Schiit SYS which routes the signal to either a RebelAmp or my Woo Audio WA6 tube amp. Using headphones tonight, mostly my Focal Clear and Audeze LCD-2 Closed Back. I'll do more A/B'ing tomorrow using speakers to see how the difference sounds that way. For that, I have the signal going to an emotiva BasX A2m amplifier to a pair of Kef Q150's.

Mojo 2 really outperforms it’s price point and can perform v well in low - mid fi systems.

I just finished a major set of comparisons with a burson conductor 3x gt, mojo 2, Gustard r26, and had a topping in there for s&gs. Tried them in a speaker set up (Buchardts with a tube amp) and in HP set up. Mojo ended up number 2, just behind the Gustard - lost out to bass extension and impact mostly.

It’s a super DAC for the money and with poly is v flexible (if only mojo / poly battery life was a wee bit better).

 

[ChrisGB]

My thoughts on the expensive 3.5mm to balanced adaptor is that at what price point does a good 3.5mm terminated cable come in as a better sonic performer?

Any adapter, no matter how well it is designed and made, or whatever exotic materials it may contain, will introduce an additional mechanical connection to the chain, which in itself can cause degradation of the sound. You then also add at least 7 solder joints and at least 4 lengths of conductor that all introduce potential for degradation too. Add in the potential interactions between changes of conductor material. I'd be interested to find out if a good non balanced cable at the same cost didn't sound at least as good, if not better.

 

[AussieMick]

But if you have a $750 headphone cable, maybe you look for a $300 adapter instead of buying another $750 cable in 3.5mm?

 

[thecrow]

Thanks. Ordered one.

There’s also the longer version.
the Lt-Lt3

https://fiio.com/productinfo/718506.html

 

[BS5711]

But if you have a $750 headphone cable, maybe you look for a $300 adapter instead of buying another $750 cable in 3.5mm?

But if you are interested in quality sufficient to have a $750 cable why would you want to slum it with an adapter, or frankly with a Mojo !

One would have a super high end copper bodied DAP surely ! Right ?

Google “PW Audio Orpheous”. A near US $8,000 IEM cable, I think it is pretty obvious what the companies target market is !

 

[BS5711]

Only one to find out and that’s to listen to it.

Blind listen ?

Do you really think you are going to hear an adapter, blind A/B ?

I am certain I couldn’t.

I am beginning to think my hearing is simply faulty and I am missing out on the improvements from all the audiophile toys that so many others hear plain as day

Stickers were the best one I read recently.

 

[Kentajalli]

My thoughts on the expensive 3.5mm to balanced adaptor is that at what price point does a good 3.5mm terminated cable come in as a better sonic performer?

50p !!

Any adapter, no matter how well it is designed and made, or whatever exotic materials it may contain, will introduce an additional mechanical connection to the chain, which in itself can cause degradation of the sound. You then also add at least 7 solder joints and at least 4 lengths of conductor that all introduce potential for degradation too. Add in the potential interactions between changes of conductor material. I'd be interested to find out if a good non balanced cable at the same cost didn't sound at least as good, if not better.

For as long as a cable is not badly made, uses decent materials, then difference between cable sonic signature is almost nil.
I say almost because some DACs may be sensitive to cable capacitance and/or inductances. Also if a headphone is really low impedance, and the DAC is at the edge of its capability to drive them, then any additional contact or cable impedance may upset that balance.
For example:
The cable bundled with Hifiman EDXS, has high impedance (from sample to sample) , and highish capacitance. General quality of manufacturing is not that high.
With a sensitive enough DAC and the lowish impedance of the headphones, sometimes you can hear sonic difference is cables, only because the bundled cable is bad!
Use a good cable that comes bundled with focal headphones, and you'll find EDXS behaves a little better.

 

[daveya]

Yeah a guy on the EdXS thread said he could hear differences with cables in a shop, 4 different cables all sounded different

 

[headfry]

50p !!

For as long as a cable is not badly made, uses decent materials, then difference between cable sonic signature is almost nil.
I say almost because some DACs may be sensitive to cable capacitance and/or inductances. Also if a headphone is really low impedance, and the DAC is at the edge of its capability to drive them, then any additional contact or cable impedance may upset that balance.
For example:
The cable bundled with Hifiman EDXS, has high impedance (from sample to sample) , and highish capacitance. General quality of manufacturing is not that high.
With a sensitive enough DAC and the lowish impedance of the headphones, sometimes you can hear sonic difference is cables, only because the bundled cable is bad!
Use a good cable that comes bundled with focal headphones, and you'll find EDXS behaves a little better.

Your truth, not everybody's.

 

[Raffik1]

My Mojo 2 is connected to my Mac mini, and I listen mostly to Amazon Music and Audionirvana. Amazon has a strange habit of having files with different resolutions even in the same album. For example, on Making Movies by Dire Straits, the first two tracks are 24 bit/192 kHz, while the rest are at 16 bit/44.1 kHz. I use the Mac's Audio MIDI Setup to set the output fidelity to the Mojo 2, and keep it at the highest rate for the album. However, when a lower-resolution song comes on, Amazon Music lowers the output resolution to the track's resolution, but since the MIDI is still set on 24/192, the Mojo 2 shows the input at that higher rate as well (blue power button). In this case, where is the upsampling happening? Is MIDI doing the upsampling, or the Mojo 2?

 

[Kentajalli]

Your truth, not everybody's.

You mean, my opinion.
Truth is singular for everyone.
Reminds me of that woman that used to work for Trump, she called it Alternative truths!
That's OK. I got you, it's cool.

 

[Kentajalli]

My Mojo 2 is connected to my Mac mini, and I listen mostly to Amazon Music and Audionirvana. Amazon has a strange habit of having files with different resolutions even in the same album. For example, on Making Movies by Dire Straits, the first two tracks are 24 bit/192 kHz, while the rest are at 16 bit/44.1 kHz. I use the Mac's Audio MIDI Setup to set the output fidelity to the Mojo 2, and keep it at the highest rate for the album. However, when a lower-resolution song comes on, Amazon Music lowers the output resolution to the track's resolution, but since the MIDI is still set on 24/192, the Mojo 2 shows the input at that higher rate as well (blue power button). In this case, where is the upsampling happening? Is MIDI doing the upsampling, or the Mojo 2?

Audionirvana or Mac's MIDI.
If Mojo reports it is receiving 192kHz, then it must have happened beforehand.
In this case it is a padded output, meaning, that samples are just repeated to make them appear as 192kHz.
This is not a good idea!
You have paid extra money for your Mojo, for Mojo to do the upsampling, which is automatic.
Mojo upsamples everything to 768kHz very cleverly, by looking at past samples and future samples (using a buffer) and averaging them to calculate the correct inner samples.
That's what is meant by TAPS.
If you feed it artificial 192kHz material, then you are fooling your Mojo, into believing that those samples are real, but they are not!
If you can, don't upsample, let Mojo do what it was designed to do (for which you paid good money for).

 

[BS5711]

You mean, my opinion.
Truth is singular for everyone.
Reminds me of that woman that used to work for Trump, she called it Alternative truths!
That's OK. I got you, it's cool.

Precisely.

Given a person with very good hearing the differences are literally either audible in the human range or they are not, there is no version of truth, and honestly it isn't even opinion, it is personal observation, if there is a change and your hearing is decent you will hear it.

I remember getting my first decent headphone cable. I was listening to music while working when it was delivered so I swapped the cable over and plugged back into the same set up. BOOM .... wow this cable thing is real, amazing clarity and added details. I stopped and had some lunch, popped back to my desk and did a bit of back and forth between the cables and very quickly realised what I heard so very vividly half an hour earlier was all in my head, expectation bias.

I have bought about 10 nice cables since, not mad high end but nice, GUCraftsman, Kinera Dromi and and several Forza ..... I don't expect to hear sound changes and, guess what, I don't.

I am nowhere near as experienced as a lot of people that post here but approaching these sort of things with my analytical, engineering background mindset I am quickly forming the opinion after a couple of years meddling in this hobby that a MASSIVE part of it that is literally built around the human imagination and people hearing things that either literally don't exist or at best are small changes that the "audiophile" blows out of all proportion and calls them "significant".

If, using the same headphone, I can't plug into one set up versus another and hear an immediate difference (as one would using a different headphone on the same set up) the difference is not significant. If I have to listen to selected parts of selected tracks to hear a tiny edge taken off the biting treble (yeah I have done that) the differences are slight.

That might be important to one person but the way these super subtle and sometime imagined changes are discussed on places like Head Fi perpetuates a culture that frankly is wearing a bit thin on me. I am downsizing gear and simplifying things, enjoying simple but decent gear with a few decent headphones and IEM and listening to the music rather than the equipment. Yes I like the toys as much as the next guy but for goodness sake keep some perspective.

 

[Kentajalli]

Well the difference is not measurable!
There are very simple and effective tests available.
Such as, playing music or multiple tones into a pair of headphones, recording the output, then changing the cable and repeat.
By subtracting the two, differences , if any , should show up.

 

[BS5711]

Well the difference is not measurable!
There are very simple and effective tests available.
Such as, playing music or multiple tones into a pare of headphones, recording the output, then changing the cable and repeat.
By subtracting the two, differences , if any , should show up.

We are in total agreement here.

I am happy to believe that there could be changes that are heard but not measured, granted a stretch I know, but still, if any person with good hearing can't hear a change the change isn't there or it is so slight as to be, in any sane persons mind, "meaningless" and not "significant" in the literal technical sense of the word. Perhaps the believers should start describing the sound change not as "significant" or "night and day" but as "extremely subtle, barely noticeable, but important to me because the change cost me $1,000 to achieve".

I saw a video on Passion for Sound I think it was that was exactly as you described. Not "measuring" the sound as much rather "recording" the sound and its exact inverse with a different cable and playing back the sum ..... literally no sound because the sounds were exactly the same but inversed and they cancelled each other out completely. That was literally the recorded sound using gear more sensitive than human hearing not a FR graph.