[Chibs]

That is unfortunate.

I typed a more detailed reply but I won’t bother. No amount of explaining my intent seems to be getting my point across clearly.

Thanks,
There's just no need for moderation of mine and other's descriptives.
I've owned the Diablo too and see a very large gap between that and Mojo, but that's just me. What maybe a small difference to your ears and experience is definitely large in mine. Assuming you've demoed the Mojo 2 and can form your own opinion of course. To me it's the difference between a piece of kit sitting in a drawer and one getting used all the time. This is based on sound quality, features, and use case. Now that's a pretty big difference in my books. But again that's just me.
You do you as they say.

 

[BS5711]

Thanks,
There's just no need for moderation of mine and other's descriptives.
I've owned the Diablo too and see a very large gap between that and Mojo, but that's just me. What maybe a small difference to your ears and experience is definitely large in mine. Assuming you've demoed the Mojo 2 and can form your own opinion of course. To me it's the difference between a piece of kit sitting in a drawer and one getting used all the time. This is based on sound quality, features, and use case. Now that's a pretty big difference in my books. But again that's just me.
You do you as they say.

You are certainly entitled to your view, I simply don’t hear the very significant differences between gear that you apparently do, I certainly know I am not alone in that.

I think the issue with this stuff stem from the massive differences in the type if people involved in this hobby. The huge differences in involvement level, the difference reasons for being involved at all, the different areas we get enjoyment from within the hobby, how important the gear is versus the music, do we listen for pleasure or to dissect the minutiae and certainly not least the level of financial investment in the hobby and the exposure to greater amounts of equipment that enables.

These people all share the same forums by and large so opinions come from literally all corners of the hobby and they will sometimes clash.

Anyway, we agree to disagree and as you said, you do you and I will do me.

 

[Mediahound]

Mojo 2 is way better than the iFi for sure.

Over in the iFi thread, the iFI is better though.

 

[BS5711]

Mojo 2 is way better than the iFi for sure.

Over in the iFi thread, the iFI is better though.

Yep, and in the Topping thread the Topping is better, and the Ear Men thread the …….

 

[AussieMick]

I wish people would use the adjectives below to describe SQ differences and refrain from using the ones on the second list:

1. Significant
2. Noticeable
3. Marginal
4. Splitting hairs
‐--------------------------
1. Night & day
2. World's apart
3. Jump out of your seat
4. The second coming of Christ

This comment wins the day! It blows the other comments out of the water!

 

[AussieMick]

Mojo 2 is way better than the iFi for sure.

Over in the iFi thread, the iFI is better though.

This is definitely on the podium for comment of the day!

 

[thecrow]

I wish people would use the adjectives below to describe SQ differences and refrain from using the ones on the second list:

1. Significant
2. Noticeable
3. Marginal
4. Splitting hairs
‐--------------------------
1. Night & day
2. World's apart
3. Jump out of your seat
4. The second coming of Christ

No sliced bread reference?

Blows it out of the water?
(copyright: John darko)

edit: i just saw aussiemick’s post.

i don’t things will change here: i must have posted this more than a million times here on headfi: “Don’t exaggerate!!”

 

[Rob Watts]

Interesting. I wonder if flyte3333 was thinking the same as me, namely that some of the differences experienced between live and recorded music (image depth, tonality, timbre) might be due to the recording process (microphones, cables, ADC etc) and not just its reproduction? In which case further improvements may need to concentrate more on factors upstream rather than downstream.

So my post about my recordings were in context of lateral imagery and sound stage width - where these recordings via my DACs and the DCA Stealth have a lateral imagery performance identical to live acoustic instruments, indicating that this particular facet of performance does not need improving.

The recording programme is for two reasons - firstly so that I can test my pulse array ADC. Secondly, so that I can determine objectively what are the subjective differences from reproduced sound to live sound actually are, as this will enable better DACs, and better recordings in the future. At the moment, the ADC coding is being finished, with hardware testing next week. So I am not ready to start recording in anger - but I needed to be able to get to grips with Blumlein recording, and the only way to do this is by practice, as mic setup is critical (amongst other things too). Also, I needed a benchmark set of recordings using pro ADCs that are currently available, using Blumlein techniques.

Now I already know that ADCs are severely limiting performance as they suffer from noise floor modulation, poor (in my terms) small signal accuracy, and hideous amounts of aliasing. These factors in DAC design have a huge influence in performance, and will degrade depth, timbre and the sense of speed and impact. The programme I have planned will of course evaluate the obvious - the ADC performance and the DAC/amp performance as I have direct control over these factors. But you are correct in that it is a whole chain of mic (including placement), cabling, ADC, recording software, lap-top and powering, DAC/amp and headphones. But I will have direct control over the transducer to transducer chain, and plan to evaluate the mic and headphones against the ultimate - live acoustic sound.

You can get more details from my Watts Up?... thread and the first recording is here. Remember this is an amateur orchestra, from a tiny town in west Wales, that had at that stage only been in existence for a few weeks, so don't expect global standard musical performances!

You are certainly entitled to your view, I simply don’t hear the very significant differences between gear that you apparently do, I certainly know I am not alone in that.

I think the issue with this stuff stem from the massive differences in the type if people involved in this hobby. The huge differences in involvement level, the difference reasons for being involved at all, the different areas we get enjoyment from within the hobby, how important the gear is versus the music, do we listen for pleasure or to dissect the minutiae and certainly not least the level of financial investment in the hobby and the exposure to greater amounts of equipment that enables.

These people all share the same forums by and large so opinions come from literally all corners of the hobby and they will sometimes clash.

Anyway, we agree to disagree and as you said, you do you and I will do me.

People have very different sensitivities. My wife can not localise sound at all, and has poor sensitivity and discrimination. My sons on the other hand go nuts over the sound of guitar pick-up internal wiring... So to some listening to DACs is a small difference, but to others it certainly is a night and day difference. Nobody is right or wrong in this - but it is wrong to say that because an individual can't hear a difference, or that that difference is small, certainly does not mean that individuals opinion applies to everybody as it does not. I don't think you even need to agree to disagree on this - just accept that people have different tastes and sensitivities, and actually enjoy differences. The World would be truly awful if we were all the same with the same tastes.

That's why readers should make their own minds up and listen for themselves. You may end up saving cash, or transforming your musical life and enjoyment - which outcome depends upon you, and what works for you - and you will only find out by listening and making your own mind up.

 

[rlanger]

That's why readers should make their own minds up and listen for themselves. You may end up saving cash, or transforming your musical life and enjoyment - which outcome depends upon you, and what works for you - and you will only find out by listening and making your own mind up.

You've certainly transformed mine. Thanks Rob.

 

[BS5711]

……. People have very different sensitivities. My wife can not localise sound at all …… wrong to say that because an individual can't hear a difference …….. and you will only find out by listening and making your own mind up.

Thanks for your comments, Rob.

Love the Mojo original by the way, to me it still holds its own very well.

I would be interested in more information on variations in hearing.

I can hear very distinct difference in say IEM tuning with ear tip changes or perhaps adding a layer of damping foam in a headphone to cut the treble a little but I don’t usually hear significant changes from DACs and amplification.

If I listen for some time to a certain amplifier then quickly swap and continue with the same music I can often get a somewhat subtle awareness that the sound is different, perhaps a bit smoother overall or a bit harsher but in a few moments the sound is normal and perfectly fine. The most distinct example of that was swapping between an all tube amp and a Schiit Heresy op amp based amplifier. The heresy sounded dry. I don’t however hear anything obvious in an A/B test and I don’t usually hear significant changes if listening for specific changes in treble for example on a certain passage of music.

What I have also noticed is that I can clearly hear horizontal and vertical positioning in a headphone or IEM soundstage and I can hear sounds that are perceived to be behind me but sounds very rarely seem to be coming from in front of me.

Are the above indicative of any particular hearing trait ? A clue to why I likely don’t hear obvious differences in terms of DACs and amplifiers while others apparently hear differences that they consider to be truly profound ?

Perhaps I hear something similar to others I just don’t take this stuff as seriously so I perceive the differences as subtle while to others they take on a level of importance that literally just doesn’t make sense to me from my frame of reference.

EDITED TO ADD: perhaps as an interesting technical exercise, for me at least, as you know the original Mojo so intimately, what specifically should I listen for in a comparison with an ifI Gryphon to highlight the differences. Those DAC/amps specifically since I have them both.

Many thanks.

 

[Daniel Johnston]

Perhaps I hear something similar to others I just don’t take this stuff as seriously so I perceive the differences as subtle while to others they take on a level of importance that literally just doesn’t make sense to me from my frame of reference.

You've answered your own question.

I'm like you, I can't hear dramatic differences between well engineered audio gear. I know that the Hugo 2 was too detailed and fatiguing for me. I had to pair it with the correct transducer to enjoy the sound. I do know that the Mojo 2 gives me almost all the details I perceived with the the Hugo 2, but the addition of a little EQ to spice things up and no fatigue.

Even if Rob tells you what to listen for between the iFi and the Mojo, it still won't be dramatic enough for you to change your mind. That being said, I am curious about his response (if can since MOTs have very strict rules about discussing competitor products).

 

[Kentajalli]

You've answered your own question.

I'm like you, I can't hear dramatic differences between well engineered audio gear. I know that the Hugo 2 was too detailed and fatiguing for me. I had to pair it with the correct transducer to enjoy the sound. I do know that the Mojo 2 gives me almost all the details I perceived with the the Hugo 2, but the addition of a little EQ to spice things up and no fatigue.

Even if Rob tells you what to listen for between the iFi and the Mojo, it still won't be dramatic enough for you to change your mind. That being said, I am curious about his response (if can since MOTs have very strict rules about discussing competitor products).

As If Mr. Watts would know the ifi in question well enough to compare to Mojo2!
And even if he did, he would be inclined to pass his opinion on a competition, and therefore open up a slew of replies from ifi lovers and possibly the manufacturer.
The question can be answered by someone with no conflict of interest, perhaps.
I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[Daniel Johnston]

As If Mr. Watts would know the ifi in question well enough to compare to Mojo2!
And even if he did, he would be inclined to pass his opinion on a competition, and therefore open up a slew of replies from ifi lovers and possibly the manufacturer.
The question can be answered by someone with no conflict of interest, perhaps.
I wouldn't hold my breath.

That's my point.

The rules for MOTs commenting on competitor products is very strict. I remember reading a former MOT had multiple posts deleted by moderators because they said they liked Focal Utopia headphones the best.

 

[Rob Watts]

Thanks for your comments, Rob.

Love the Mojo original by the way, to me it still holds its own very well.

I would be interested in more information on variations in hearing.

I can hear very distinct difference in say IEM tuning with ear tip changes or perhaps adding a layer of damping foam in a headphone to cut the treble a little but I don’t usually hear significant changes from DACs and amplification.

If I listen for some time to a certain amplifier then quickly swap and continue with the same music I can often get a somewhat subtle awareness that the sound is different, perhaps a bit smoother overall or a bit harsher but in a few moments the sound is normal and perfectly fine. The most distinct example of that was swapping between an all tube amp and a Schiit Heresy op amp based amplifier. The heresy sounded dry. I don’t however hear anything obvious in an A/B test and I don’t usually hear significant changes if listening for specific changes in treble for example on a certain passage of music.

What I have also noticed is that I can clearly hear horizontal and vertical positioning in a headphone or IEM soundstage and I can hear sounds that are perceived to be behind me but sounds very rarely seem to be coming from in front of me.

Are the above indicative of any particular hearing trait ? A clue to why I likely don’t hear obvious differences in terms of DACs and amplifiers while others apparently hear differences that they consider to be truly profound ?

Perhaps I hear something similar to others I just don’t take this stuff as seriously so I perceive the differences as subtle while to others they take on a level of importance that literally just doesn’t make sense to me from my frame of reference.

EDITED TO ADD: perhaps as an interesting technical exercise, for me at least, as you know the original Mojo so intimately, what specifically should I listen for in a comparison with an ifI Gryphon to highlight the differences. Those DAC/amps specifically since I have them both.

Many thanks.

Transducers generally have large quantitative (that is easy to hear) changes, but DAC/amps are more qualitative (less obvious but can have profound musical or emotional difference). So I can listen to one of my DACs with a cheap pair of speakers, that have poor frequency response in Hi-Fi terms - but it sounds very musical, because the instruments sound real and tangible.

The key difference to listen out for is variation - if a system can portray variation in dynamic, timbre, the starting and stopping of notes, and has instrument seperation and focus so that when the going gets busy low volume instruments are not swamped by the loud ones - then it will be musical, or rather allowing you to get emotionally involved in the music. There are technical reasons why conventional DAC/amps do not portray variation - things tend to sound the same with congestion - but I would be here all day writing about the technical reasons!

 

[BS5711]

You've answered your own question.

I'm like you, I can't hear dramatic differences between well engineered audio gear. I know that the Hugo 2 was too detailed and fatiguing for me. I had to pair it with the correct transducer to enjoy the sound. I do know that the Mojo 2 gives me almost all the details I perceived with the the Hugo 2, but the addition of a little EQ to spice things up and no fatigue.

Even if Rob tells you what to listen for between the iFi and the Mojo, it still won't be dramatic enough for you to change your mind. That being said, I am curious about his response (if can since MOTs have very strict rules about discussing competitor products).

Well I am glad I am not alone at least.

I don’t need my mind changed but it would be interesting to have listening tips from the man that designed at least one of the products.