[music4mhell]

 

Ohk last Q, what's the color of the LED while you are charging ? White/Green/Blue ?

Solid green. Goes out when charging is complete.

Ohk then, that means your Mojo is not charging when you are using, the LED should be white color. (By the was when you connect the charger, it takes 4/5 seconds to change the color into white)
 
It happened to me also, i changed the USB plug, i am using now the Chromevast Plug which has 5V/1A output.

 

[rbalcom]

Well that's odd. As I'm sure you've read it should be white while charging. Full charge is blue to green to yellow to red to blinking red. Fried LED maybe. Can you exchange your unit?

Most likely could return it, but it seems to function ok except for the battery indication. Will have to follow up with the dealer if I can't figure out why mine is different.

 

[Vidal]

Has anyone done a comparison between the Mojo and the Dragonfly 1.2?
 
There's a huge difference in price in the UK £400 vs £129. Whilst the dragonfly won't work out of the box with the iPhone I'm pretty certain I could fettle up a portable solution with a USB hub and battery to get it to work. It would have a similar footprint to the Mojo for a fraction of the price.
 
Is the Mojo a significant step up, a review I read said it's closer than I expected it to be but wondered if others had any thoughts?

 

[sandalaudio]

  Has anyone done a comparison between the Mojo and the Dragonfly 1.2?
 
There's a huge difference in price in the UK £400 vs £129. Whilst the dragonfly won't work out of the box with the iPhone I'm pretty certain I could fettle up a portable solution with a USB hub and battery to get it to work. It would have a similar footprint to the Mojo for a fraction of the price.
 
Is the Mojo a significant step up, a review I read said it's closer than I expected it to be but wondered if others had any thoughts?

 
Objectively the most obvious difference is the maximum output voltage and power. Mojo can deliver 5Vrms and 720mW at 8 ohms, which is more than enough to drive big inefficient headphones or very low impedance multi-BA driver IEMs.
 
Dragonfly being USB bus-powered, it caps out at 2Vrms due to the ESS Sabre DAC's built-in voltage output, and 150mW at its best. I often find it cap out in volume when I use it on bigger headphones.
 
Also some people have lots of 192kHz and DSD albums that Mojo can play natively, while Dragonfly is limited in that sense.
 
It really depends on what kind of earphones you are connecting to. For normal IEMs and headphones, you rarely benefit from the huge power of the Mojo, so the sound quality is subjective. I found the Dragonfly 1.2 feel punchier and drier, but lacking a bit of mid texture, so it feels hot and exciting, while others might say it's a tad annoying. Mojo on the other hand has loads of detail in the low mid, like the vocals and lead electric guitar, so I can really get into the music, but it can sound a bit tame on the highest and lowest frequency ranges. 
 
I think the Mojo is a good investment as an all-round, fully specced, super powerful portable amp, whereas Dragonfly is a good compromise solution for on the move. By the way the Dragonfly 1.2 sounds much nicer than the original one, which was too rough and violent sounding for me.

 

[salla45]

   
Objectively the most obvious difference is the maximum output voltage and power. Mojo can deliver 5Vrms and 720mW at 8 ohms, which is more than enough to drive big inefficient headphones or very low impedance multi-BA driver IEMs.
 
Dragonfly being USB bus-powered, it caps out at 2Vrms due to the ESS Sabre DAC's built-in voltage output, and 150mW at its best. I often find it cap out in volume when I use it on bigger headphones.
 
Also some people have lots of 192kHz and DSD albums that Mojo can play natively, while Dragonfly is limited in that sense.
 
It really depends on what kind of earphones you are connecting to. For normal IEMs and headphones, you rarely benefit from the huge power of the Mojo, so the sound quality is subjective. I found the Dragonfly 1.2 feel punchier and drier, but lacking a bit of mid texture, so it feels hot and exciting, while others might say it's a tad annoying. Mojo on the other hand has loads of detail in the low mid, like the vocals and lead electric guitar, so I can really get into the music, but it can sound a bit tame on the highest and lowest frequency ranges. 
 
I think the Mojo is a good investment as an all-round, fully specced, super powerful portable amp, whereas Dragonfly is a good compromise solution for on the move. By the way the Dragonfly 1.2 sounds much nicer than the original one, which was too rough and violent sounding for me.

Yeah, it's something I've noticed; the power and control of the sound at higher volumes. I can crank up the Mojo using my T1's and it just delivers great sound all the way. Poised and controlled. It's nice once in a while esp for live concerts. 
 
Listening to Lynyrd Skynyrd - One More From The Road right now. Tuesday's Gone's sounding mighty wonderful!!

 

[rkt31]

regarding burn in I would say mojo sounded bass heavy to start with. after about 30 hours with isotek CD it opened up and sounded much more balanced. as compare to Hugo it sounds slightly warm up which goes well with my Beyer dt880 600ohm.

 

[rkt31]

slightly warm which

 

[Layman1]

   
 
 
Vinyl rips have their fans, mostly because vinyl is considered, by many fans, to sound superior to digital formats.
 
But the problem is that as soon as you rip vinyl to digital, you are taking away the very thing about it that is supposedly superior - it's pure analogue quality.
 
Added to this, one should bear in mind that anyone doing a vinyl rip is unlikely to have a studio-grade ADC (Analogue-Digital-Converter).
 
So, in my opinion, vinyl rips are just absurdly stupid. I'd much rather have a digital file made, using a studio-grade ADC, from the original studio analogue master tape, than have someone at home, no matter how excellent their record deck may be, converting a vinyl record to a digital file.
 
 
 
In any case, I am really, really looking forward to the day (quite soon) when Rob Watts gets a high tap-count ADC into some commercial studios, so that some analogue master-tape albums can be remastered to digital, using his excellent digital conversion approach - these particular remasters should sound very substantially better than any other digital masters or remasters ever produced, thus far.

Heh. I've read all of this thread, including all of your excellent posts and only just found out you were the one who started it! I salute you for an outstanding effort

 
Regarding the comment on Rob Watts putting an ADC into some commercial studios, is this a wish, or has there been confirmation that he actually has this in the pipeline?
If so, sign me up at once

 
Finally, regarding the vinyl thing..
There are some things about this that I just don't get. I'd heard the various arguments about vinyl being the best (and this argument extended to vinyl rips).
When I've tried vinyl rips, even those claimed to be converted using TOTL equipment, I felt.. disappointed.
Most had that hiss and crackle sound, which to me defeats the point of having hi-fi sound if it's muted by that noise.
Furthermore, even when making the volume louder, the music seemed somehow a bit muted and compressed.
Maybe on just one or two I felt like there *might* be a greater dynamic range (especially when hiss and crackle absent), but due to the effects above, I still couldn't really appreciate it.
I've never heard vinyl records played on a high quality system, so that's what I'm lacking perhaps? I'm certainly inclined to agree with your point about rips made using studio grade ADC's!
Not to mention the awed reviews from people listening to CD rips via the Mojo and discovering whole new dimensions of sound and detail!
 
Finally, and please excuse my ignorance on this issue, but people state that vinyl is analogue. But a vinyl record has pits in it. So a flat part of the record contains (I assume) no information, and a pit some information. So in terms of 1's and 0's and digital data, how is this analogue rather than digital, and different from a CD?

 

[masterpfa]

 
Finally, and please excuse my ignorance on this issue, but people state that vinyl is analogue. But a vinyl record has pits in it. So a flat part of the record contains (I assume) no information, and a pit some information. So in terms of 1's and 0's and digital data, how is this analogue rather than digital, and different from a CD?

I think even though vinyl recordings have pits, the needle, while reading this information, is recreating the analogue sound via a magnetic field........

Now I'm getting lost in trying to explain it...

 

 

[uzi2]

  I think even though vinyl recordings have pits, the needle, while reading this information, is recreating the analogue sound via a magnetic field........

Now I'm getting lost in trying to explain it...

 

The amount of movement induced into the stylus by the record groove is not 1, 0 or -1, it is any value in between (analog). Yes this can be converted to an electronic signal by a magnetic cartridge.

 

[Light - Man]

  I think even though vinyl recordings have pits, the needle, while reading this information, is recreating the analogue sound via a magnetic field........

Now I'm getting lost in trying to explain it...

 

 
Guys, if we have had a Mojo and are now looking for a step up in overall SQ for a portable dac/amp or even desktop - where do we go from here?

 

[corius]

Vinyl has "grooves" not "pits". The grooves have varying depths, think them like a valley between hills. The needle, or stylus,  tracks these varying grooves and creates a varying voltage using the "cartridge" that the stylus is connected to. The stylus moved inside a coil,  or sometimes magnet, in the cartridge, and this movement induces a varying continuous voltage at the output of  the coil. The varying voltage is then amplified by a phono amplifier, which is much more sensitive than a normal preamplifier as the cartridge output is very low.
 
A CD on the other hand uses a laser to read "pits" and the data is either 0 or 1. These binary bits are then grouped, typically into 16s, which are then converted into a voltage by a DAC (Digital to Analogue Converter). The conversion occurs, in the case of a CD at 44.1 kHz, 44.1 thousand times a second. In that way the output of the DAC resembles the same type of waveform as vinyl, but it is always a digital approximation to the analogue output of vinyl.
 
The more bits and higher the sampling frequency the closer to analogue you get which is why the people here drool over 24bit 96kHz and beyond.

 

[x RELIC x]

Heh. I've read all of this thread, including all of your excellent posts and only just found out you were the one who started it! I salute you for an outstanding effort

Regarding the comment on Rob Watts putting an ADC into some commercial studios, is this a wish, or has there been confirmation that he actually has this in the pipeline?
If so, sign me up at once

Finally, regarding the vinyl thing..
There are some things about this that I just don't get. I'd heard the various arguments about vinyl being the best (and this argument extended to vinyl rips).
When I've tried vinyl rips, even those claimed to be converted using TOTL equipment, I felt.. disappointed.
Most had that hiss and crackle sound, which to me defeats the point of having hi-fi sound if it's muted by that noise.
Furthermore, even when making the volume louder, the music seemed somehow a bit muted and compressed.
Maybe on just one or two I felt like there *might* be a greater dynamic range (especially when hiss and crackle absent), but due to the effects above, I still couldn't really appreciate it.
I've never heard vinyl records played on a high quality system, so that's what I'm lacking perhaps? I'm certainly inclined to agree with your point about rips made using studio grade ADC's!
Not to mention the awed reviews from people listening to CD rips via the Mojo and discovering whole new dimensions of sound and detail!

Finally, and please excuse my ignorance on this issue, but people state that vinyl is analogue. But a vinyl record has pits in it. So a flat part of the record contains (I assume) no information, and a pit some information. So in terms of 1's and 0's and digital data, how is this analogue rather than digital, and different from a CD?

If I may, vinyl doesn't sound better by default because of the format (or pops and clicks), but because quite often the studio will brick wall the cd release by increasing the levels too much which clips the dynamic range and often flattens the audio. You can't (shouldn't) do that with vinyl or the stylus risks jumping out of the groove and overal makes playback a mess. It has to do with the way the studio decides the recording is handled when released on the medium, not the medium itself. Basically, bad decisions from studios with quite a few cd releases because they will sell better to the general audience who wants every note played loud. This is directly against audio fidelity.

Vinyl is analogue as its a physical medium moving to create music by the stylus picking up vibrations from the grooves in the record and the cartridge converting those vibrations to an electrical signal with a magnetic coil, each change in the groove creates a different voltage. The record can represent any value within the range of the grooves where digital can not. CD is digital as its just 0's and 1's which needs to be converted to voltage by the DAC, which does this in a stair step sampled fashion, not smoothly like analogue. The Mojo, and Rob Watts approach in general, helps to reduce the gap between digital and analogue by sampling (re-sampling) the audio many times more in the time domain than other DACs to recreate the original analogue performance.

Yes, it's a truth that Chord is working on an ADC.

 

[noobandroid]

  Vinyl has "grooves" not "pits". The grooves have varying depths, think them like a valley between hills. The needle, or stylus,  tracks these varying grooves and creates a varying voltage using the "cartridge" that the stylus is connected to. The stylus moved inside a coil,  or sometimes magnet, in the cartridge, and this movement induces a varying continuous voltage at the output of  the coil. The varying voltage is then amplified by a phono amplifier, which is much more sensitive than a normal preamplifier as the cartridge output is very low.
 
A CD on the other hand uses a laser to read "pits" and the data is either 0 or 1. These binary bits are then grouped, typically into 16s, which are then converted into a voltage by a DAC (Digital to Analogue Converter). The conversion occurs, in the case of a CD at 44.1 kHz, 44.1 thousand times a second. In that way the output of the DAC resembles the same type of waveform as vinyl, but it is always a digital approximation to the analogue output of vinyl.
 
The more bits and higher the sampling frequency the closer to analogue you get which is why the people here drool over 24bit 96kHz and beyond.

the dave maybe?

 

[Francisk]

  Mojo will only take as much current as it needs. It's been covered many times here. 1 amp is the bare minimum and 2 amps will be fine. I read also in use 1.7amps is the draw, so 2amps will be fine for carging whilst playing. I'm using a 2.1amp power source and it charges nicely all the time.

Thanks for solving the 2 amp question salla45.