1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

Chord Mojo DAC-amp ☆★►FAQ in 3rd post!◄★☆

Discussion in 'Portable Source Gear' started by Mython, Oct 14, 2015.
First
 
Back
726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735
737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746
Next
 
Last
  1. kenman345
    the USB filters, would seem the most beneficial. It sounds like the best input is Optical if you are wanting best ground isolation/sound. I was using my Mojo with a simple cable before but now gonna use the Jitterbug I have to see if I hear a difference. 
     
  2. Angular Mo
    Two questions related to Rob Watts' comments on optical output as a source to the Mojo;

    1. What is audio "glare"? What does it sound like? And how does one distinguish it from detail?

    2. Is the conclusion that one with an Apple computer should be using its optical/toslink output (that also serves as a headphone output) rather than its USB output, even if one uses an AudioQuest Jitterbug, Schiit Wyrd, Uptone Regen and an Akiko USB tuning stick, or similar devices ?
     
  3. Dopaminer
     
     
     
    I`m quite pleasantly blown away by Rob`s words.  I have alway thought optical sounded better somehow, but believed USB would be better somehow.  
     
    It seems the answer to your second question is yes, and I will start using my Macbook`s optical out with my portables form now on . . .   
     
  4. jarnopp

    Thanks, Rob. Given this, does that imply that the add-on modules will connect to Mojo via optical or coax, where possible (like SD reader or Bluetooth)?
     
  5. Rob Watts
    Glare is normally used for extreme form of hardness or grain in the treble. So I guess one could say going from bad to good glare, grainy, hard, bright, smooth, dark. 
     
    Distinguishing it from detail is tricky as a brighter sound is easy to confuse it with more detail resolution. Indeed, truly more transparency, does sound brighter. So you have to be very careful, and I have been caught out in the past. One way of recognising it is with timbre - it the extra brightness is noise floor modulation for example, then all instruments will sound brighter - even those that are supposed to sound rich and dark. But if the brightness is better detail resolution, then smooth instruments will just sound clearer, not brighter. Also, if instrument separation and focus is worse, then it is not more transparency.
     
    When somebody says it sounds better, but can't actually describe in details what the differences are, be warned! They may be preferring distortion. Fortunately, our lizard brain ignores all this - if its really better, it will be more emotional and involving, so you should use this as your goal. But assessing whether its more emotional or musical takes a lot of time, you can't do it on a quick AB test.
     
    The USB filter devices help (hopefully) but do not solve the problem. It has to use galvanic isolation to do it properly.
     
    Rob
     
    Chord Electronics Stay updated on Chord Electronics at their sponsor page on Head-Fi.
     
    https://www.facebook.com/chordelectronics https://twitter.com/chordaudio http://www.chordelectronics.co.uk/
    onsionsi, Pokemonn, salla45 and 3 others like this.
  6. Ike1985

    I will be sending it back, Moon Audio is going to send me an RMA number soon
     
  7. ThatPhil
    Maybe a good idea for Hugo mk2 would be to have one USB with isolation and the other without instead of the HD & SD USB inputs so desktop users can have better sound without needing extra hardware e.g wyrd or regen, and still have the best portable device.
     
  8. NaiveSound
    I just wish I could find a true optical cable thay would fit the way this cable fits

    (this is what I'm currently using)
    Screenshot_2016-01-13-00-55-02.png

    My price limit is 30$ for a true optical cables (short-like the picture above)

    For me to pair my dx80 to mojo properly and to sound as good as described on this thread, please anyone... Help

    1455120515601-1051561098.jpg


    This is what I have now, it sounds good, but I feel it can definitely sound better with a proper cable to connect them both
     
  9. Mython Contributor
     
     
     
    I mean no offence by this, but please... you've posted that top picture multiple times in this thread.
     
    Currently, the only optical cable that looks like your current stereo analogue cable (which, if I'm not mistaken, you're using as though it was a true co-ax cable), would be the Sysconcepts cable, which has been specifically modified by Sysconcepts to be so extremely short. That cable has been discussed many, many times, in this thread, and you know that that information is linked in the 3rd post of this thread.  Ooops - + the (also expensive) MoonAudio one - thanks cj3209, for reminding me!)
     
    It will not cost $30, though, because it is not a mass-produced cable.
     
    That's unfortunate, but it's just the way things currently are.
     
    We will probably eventually see cheaper equivalents, but not until a big optical cable vendor considers that the DAC-Amp stacking sector of the marketplace is big enough to make it worthwhile (the worldwide success of Mojo is making it more and more worthwhile, though, which means there may be some hope for you!)
     
    .
     
    alan_g and NaiveSound like this.
  10. OneL0ve
     
    I just got this optical cable from japan (use Google chrome to auto translate)
     
    http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/B00MGHQO4G/ref=olp_product_details?_encoding=UTF8&me=
     
    optical.jpg
     
    Angular Mo likes this.
  11. cj3209
  12. Mython Contributor
     
     
    Well, that's nearer to a super-short cable, but I'm not sure I'd trust it in my pocket, because it's not as low-profile as the Sysconcepts one.
     
  13. OneL0ve

    Lol, um no. [​IMG]
     
  14. OneL0ve
     
    Well, don't put it in your pocket. [​IMG][​IMG]
     
  15. Mython Contributor
    There's definitely a niche that needs filling, for a sensible-priced uber-short, uber-low-profile optical cable, but it must be tricky to get them around a very tight radius bend, without failure, and without costing too much in manual labour to produce.
     
First
 
Back
726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735
737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746
Next
 
Last

Share This Page