Separate names with a comma.
I like this part that he writes about the sound of Mojo.
At any rate, Mojo is a much better name than either Buddy or Trojan.
I just built a SPIDIF cable out of a old TV composite cable. Then clipped old floppy disc drive power cable from a old power supply (because this was the thickest wires I could fine with normal PC headers connection). I removed the pins from the header/jumpers. Then cut one of the heads off the old composite video cable which is rated for 75ohm. Then recrimped the cut end of the composite to the jumpers and reinserted them into the old floppy drive header. Then finalized the other end of the cable with a RCA to 3.5mm mono connector (which was less than $1 at moonrise) directly into the Mojo. This gave me much less noise than using the USB to the computer. Though feeding the Mojo with DX90 is still much cleaner even with just a standard 3.5mm stereo cable.
Yes, but after reading 14k+ posts here, it takes a lot to raise the level of discourse.
My 6 plus died yesterday and i replaced it w a 6s plus. The old 6 plus ran the mojo fine since buying the mojo 30 days ago. Only change is the new phone. Tomorrow Ill check the mojo on both my laptop and desktop pc's. If it works fine there, I'll assume the cck died.
With the micro iDSD you had to make sure that the iDSD was on before you plugged your phone into it, otherwise it would try and use the phone battery to charge itself and often it would cause the music to be intermittent, that's one benefit of two usb inputs, one for power and one for data! I'm assuming then it that it doesn't matter whether I plug my phone in before or after the mojo is turned on?
Doesn't matter since the Mojo does not charge the phone.
About the Phone vs Chord Mojo. I tried it in my car, first the Mojo then Phone, then Mojo and Phone
I could hear the downgrade in sound quality (to Phone) clearly each time.
Anyway don't take my word it, what hi-fi says this about the Chord QBD 76 DAC compared to some of the very best CD players in this world.
"The QBD76 doesn't always sound easy on the ear like Unison Research's Unico CDE does; neither does it produce rich-sounding or warm results. No, it's all about fluidity, naturalness and the kind of cohesion that only the very best turntables can manage.Most digital players, even great ones such as the Naim CDS3/555PS we use as reference, sound slightly stilted in comparison."
Read more at http://www.whathifi.com/chord-electronics/qbd76/review#r3KVXI3iFzSTEUUG.99
Now the Naim CDS3 is one fantastic CD player, one of the very best in the world, which can easily make most turntables sound inferior. Every time I play the Hugo vs my entry level project turntable, each visitor to my home says the Hugo beats the turntable.
The Mojo FPGA is even better than the one in the QBD 76.
So I am quite surprised that some people claim the Phone and the Mojo sound the same, because they don't to me.
The Mojo sounds exactly as described by what hi-fi "has the fluidity, naturalness and the kind of cohesion on the very best turntables can manage"
Damn tried with m50x, WOW. Spotify iPad > mojo > m50x.
It makes m50x sounds damn good!
Why did you say the Mojo didn't "WoW" you earlier?
I said from the outset that we are talking about very small differences here being subjectively important.
A number of points:
1. Mojo has a very simple analogue topology with a single stage analogue section. This keeps the analogue component count small, so improving transparency. But this means the OP from the noise shapers has to be low out of band noise, that is one reason why the noise shapers run at 104 MHz not the usual few MHz. It also means that the filtering has to be done within the digital domain.
2. You make the assumption that stop-band performance is not important, that a simple analogue filter is good enough. That is an assumption, my listening tests have revealed that even 120 dB rejection is not good enough - increasing it further gave sound quality benefits - and you can't possibly obtain greater than 120 dB stop-band from an analogue filter.
3. The nature of the filtering has very important time domain effects. You can't reconstruct transients perfectly (look at Whittaker Shannon sampling theory) without using an FIR filter with a sinc response - an ideal sinc FIR filter will return the original un-sampled bandwidth limited signal completely perfectly. An IIR filter, or analogue filter can't reproduce the original exactly - there will always be time domain differences.
My contention is that these subtle differences are very importantly subjectively, you clearly think otherwise. We will have to agree to disagree.
Ignorant comments? Kind of harsh, no? Someone's opinion of how electronic devices annoys you? Are you serious?
I just opt for ignoring such comments and just hope the intent was better than it seems.
Ok i have deleted the last sentence, a bit harsh, agreed
The thing is when it comes to serious digital audio, companies like Naim who use Burr-Brown DAC chips, disable the digital filter of the DAC chip, and use their own code on a DSP chip that does the Digital filtering, and then have custom designed analog filters (that are hungry for current. I can't see any phone having this kind of hardware that is so hungry for current).
These companies like Naim are very serious about not allowing out of band noise into the output as any amplifier does not like to receive 1MHZ Rf noise from a digital source. Rob has posted enough about modulation of RF noise with the musical signal that pumps up and down and adds a certain "digital" brightness to the sound. It may sound more impressive for a few minutes until its starts to bring listening fatigue , but I can't bear to listen anymore to this kind of sound.
So I can't hear that a phone DAC sounds the same as a Hi-end DAC from Naim, let alone, a Chord Mojo or Hugo.
A very simple way to know is play some piano music on a chord mojo and then on any phone.