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
966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975
977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986
Next
 
Last
  1. x RELIC x Contributor

    You mean source gear? Not really when playing bit perfect and there is no noise introduced in the system (phone EMI for example). Others would disagree.
     
  2. esm87
    I wouldn't know where to start to convert a file. I dont even use a computer, everything is on my phone. I was considering getting a cheap lap top and buying a load of low cost cd's online etc then putting them onto my phone and creating playlists etc.

    My mate put about 1800 songs from various artists on my phone last week off his computer. He didn't tell me they were off copied discs, im now stuck with nearly 2000 extra songs with zero data to know who the artist etc is and theyre all 128 kbps. Track 1 around 70 times etc right through the numbers lol. My music library is a mess now, oh well lol
     
  3. x RELIC x Contributor

    I will say that 128kbps MP3 is terrible and the Mojo deserves at least 320kbps MP3 or 256kbps AAC. 128kbps MP3 is the bottom of the barrel and you are missing a lot of information in the music. The information has been stripped away to make such a small file size. At 320kbps MP3 or 256kbps AAC the differences are negligible compared to CD quality lossless, but they are still there. At 128kbps it's a huge difference.

    Compared to 128kbps MP3, Tidal HiFi should sound quite a bit better.
     
  4. bavinck
    I'm actually really impressed with 256 aac. Sounds much better to me than 320 Mp3.
     
  5. esm87
    Even 128 kbps once EQ'd I can get to sound decent enough for general on the go listening. Obviously couldnt critical listen at that though. Thats why Im thinking of buying a load of old cd's and learning how to convert them to create new playlists with good quality across the board. The better the file quality the better mojo will do and i can appreciate that. I find 320kbps files fine, I would be happy to have that as a minimum standard
     
  6. esm87
    My headphones are the v moda crossfade wireless, jvc sz1000, psb m4u2, sony mdr ex650. I havent got good enough headphones for super revealing hi fi sound. But for the way I EQ and listen to my music on the go those headphones sound really good, though I want to experience high end sound such as the se846 or the t5p 2nd gen or comparable headphone. I will buy a high end set of cans or IEM's for my music
     
  7. wahsmoh

    I agree. With a good mastering the difference between 320kbps and lossless FLAC can be discernible with careful listening. With poor masterings I can't tell any difference between 320kbps and FLAC.
     
    It depends how good of a recording it is and how much information is in the recording because I noticed with some instrumental rock and alternative music I can hear the difference between lossy and lossless compression, especially when I focus closely on the instruments.
     
    The trail end of decay is inaudible compared to the untampered lossless version, just focus on the drums and you will be able to tell with the Mojo especially. I noticed this when listening to Pixies "Surfer Rosa" cause I have both 320kbps mp3 and lossless of this album and tried going back and forth to hear any differences.
     
    Currawong likes this.
  8. aangen
    I was hoping that Mojo owners would free me from having to avoid posts discussing lossy formats. Good grief. With 200GB microsd cards, do we really need to inform each other about the wonders of lossy encoding?
     
  9. sabloke
    I refuse listening to poor quality audio. With Tidal at hand, there's no excuse
     
    masterpfa likes this.
  10. music4mhell
    In my country Tidal is not available yet. :frowning2:
     
  11. Vigrith
     
    Have to agree with this - even though I'm one of those people that can just barely tell the difference between properly handled 320mp3 and regular FLAC even when I try and listen in to the details, especially on the go because it's not like I'm 100% focused on the music personally. I end up just using spotify premium and my own 320/FLAC music files because after experimenting with TIDAL's free trial it just didn't feel like a worthy trade-off, rather have virtually every band/album at my disposal and an interface I'm very familiar with and pay less per month. 128mp3 is extremely crude though and there should be no excuse to not have at least 320 when listening to a piece of gear such as this in my opinion.
     
    As a side note I'm so impressed with the sound quality the mojo provides, I honestly did not expect it to be this good even though I mostly read nothing but stellar reviews all around. It's peaked my curiosity however, if you can get this kind of performance out of a minuscule, light-weight portable device what would a proper desktop contender (DAC+amp in 1) be within similar price range? The Woo WA7 sounds superb but it's also quite a ways more expensive, would there be a more direct desktop competitor within, say, the 400-500 GBP (550-700$) range?
     
  12. jincuteguy
    Does Tidal have a lot of new release including EDM from Armin van burren and stuff? Or their stuff is still limited?
     
  13. sabloke
    For EDM you can't go past Digitally Imported. Free version is not bad but for a few bucks a month you get decent quality and choices
     
  14. Slaphead

    To my ears 256AAC VBR is totally identical to the 16/44.1 version. Hell, I've even got some hour long mixes at 72kpbs AAC and they are still very listenable - you'll never get an MP3 file at such a low bit rate that'll still be listenable in my experience.

    I think a lot of peoples attitude to compressed audio come from anaecdotes from the 90's where the encoders were truly awful. The hardware at the time was magnitudes slower than even your average phone is today and compromises with the encoders algorithms had to be made in order to give you a compressed file in a reasonable time frame.

    The thing about compressed audio is that the encoding and decoding are asynchronous. The decoding is pretty much set in stone in that there is really only one way to decode a compressed audio file, however the standards for encoding state that encoded file must be in a particular form, leaving it up to the developer as to how they actually get the audio into that compressed form. The increase in the power of hardware, and 20 or more years of research and development into compressed audio have yielded some extremely good encoders.

    Take an MP3 encoder from 20 years ago and a modern MP3 encoder from today and compress some music at 320kpbs. There will be a stark difference between the quality of the resultant files even though they are at the same bitrate.

    Anyway getting back on topic. I'm using my Mojo with a Mac running Audivana 1.5.12 and everything is fine, except that Audivana does not detect the Mojo as being DSD capable. No big deal for me as I'm unlikely to be playing DSD tracks anytime soon, but still interesting to see that the Mojo is not being detected as DSD capable.
     
  15. Lohb
    I found the upgrade to Audirvana+ 2.x.x was worth it.
    The last few versions of 1.x.x went a bit brittle in the treble.
     
    It should be worth upgrading to it if you have MOJO now.
     
    Peter Hyatt likes this.
First
 
Back
966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975
977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986
Next
 
Last

Share This Page