FIRST IMPRESSIONS: Nuforce uDAC USB DAC AMP with line out and S/PDIF out
Mar 22, 2010 at 5:12 PM Post #1,501 of 1,841

userlander

Banned - aka walrus1 - aka vidranger1 - aka iggy-starnuts
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Posts
1,745
Likes
12
Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberspyder /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Guys, there's that troll spray button in your UserCP: "Edit Ignore List"

BAM, done and ignored for eternity.



Good advice. Then I wouldn't have to waste my time responding to all the attacks from the uDAC cult just for answering someone's question by saying the Clip sounds better. Works out for everyone.
 
Mar 22, 2010 at 5:12 PM Post #1,502 of 1,841

donunus

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 12, 2004
Posts
9,214
Likes
144
Userlander,
I enjoy the Udac in other words I am a tin eared slut
biggrin.gif
I know its limitations but I happen to like its minor colorations. Cheers

Its all fun. Chill out guys, Userlander is passionate about audio and wants to point out the flaws of the udac is all. I'm gonna get back to enjoyin the tunes because what this crappy udac did for some reason is make me forget that I need to spend more money on sources and amps even though I know they are not the most technically correct thing out there. Its got Soul
 
Mar 22, 2010 at 5:13 PM Post #1,503 of 1,841

donunus

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 12, 2004
Posts
9,214
Likes
144
. double post...

I'll just add that we are all entitled to our own opinions on what we prefer. I do agree with some of the descriptions that userlander uses for the uDac but it just happens to be the sound I like is all
biggrin.gif
 
Mar 22, 2010 at 5:25 PM Post #1,505 of 1,841

henryhan

Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Posts
92
Likes
10
hey userlander, just out of curiosity, how much time do you spend on Head-fi everyday?? and how much time is devoted to this one thread??

also:
>implying that we are a cult and that this is not just how consumerism works
>implying that people aren't just posting to solicit/troll a response from you now that everyone has heard your opinion about a hundred times
>implying implications of facts that imply truth and yet are implied opinions

(ps. I hope you respond to this post)
 
Mar 22, 2010 at 5:26 PM Post #1,506 of 1,841

HONEYBOY

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
May 13, 2009
Posts
1,088
Likes
248
Quote:

Originally Posted by userlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Again, you have it backwards, like the other guy. I merely stated my opinion in a one- or two-line post, and was attacked for it. Of course I am going to defend myself when attacked with smug and patronizing comments, as I have every right to do. If you don't want to see my responses to being attacked, then don't attack me for stating my opinion. Thanks.

Btw, you also make another mistake in your reasoning. The uDAC has sizzly, thin, and grainy highs compared to other DACs I compared it to. That is not an "opinion," that is a fact. It also has recessed mids and bloated mid-bass compared to those other dacs. If you then make a judgment on those facts, like "it still sounded good anyway," that is an opinion. So don't mix up opinion and fact. You might like thin and grainy highs, which is an opinion, but you can't change the fact that it has thin and grainy highs by saying it's just an "opinion." It's not an opinion, it's a fact, in the same way that it's a fact that an HD650 is a "darker" sounding heapdhone than an RS-325i. Your opinion might be that you like one or the other one more, but that doesn't change the fact of how it sounds.



There is no mistake in my reasoning. I am simply sharing my experience that differs markedly from yours. Your mistake is that you state your opinions about subjectively relative terms/qualities as unequivocal facts and expect them to go unchallenged. There is nothing to gain from this kind of argument so am out.
 
Mar 22, 2010 at 5:29 PM Post #1,507 of 1,841

userlander

Banned - aka walrus1 - aka vidranger1 - aka iggy-starnuts
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Posts
1,745
Likes
12
Quote:

Originally Posted by dcpoor /img/forum/go_quote.gif
userlander, always the poor victim.
regular_smile .gif


Banned from HEAD-FI
cool blog



The guy I responded to asked a simple question: How does the uDAC sound compared to the Fuze/Clip? Is it significantly better, as good? I simply said the Clip sounded better. Then I was attacked for it, as the posts show.

You're right - the same exact thing happened in that other thread that you linked to my blog about. The mods here deleted that thread to get rid of the evidence, but I saved all the posts and will post them as soon as I clean them up. The same thing happened there that just happened here: I answered a simple question with a simple answer, and I was attacked for it by the forum trolls, who only want good things said about their cult gear and who attack anyone else who says the Emperor has no clothes or who mentions other gear that's better. Same thing every time, and I'm glad we're building up such a good evidence for it, over and over again. It only strengthens my case every time it happens.
 
Mar 22, 2010 at 5:29 PM Post #1,508 of 1,841

NotoriousBIG_PJ

Step 1: Plug power cable into wall. Step 2: Plug other end of power cable into....umm.... Step 0.5: Order something to power with power cable.
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Posts
3,487
Likes
18
Quote:

Originally Posted by userlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif
The uDAC has sizzly, thin, and grainy highs compared to other DACs I compared it to.


I have to disagree with your opinion on the uDac's high end. The highs are not the most detailed, but they are certainly the opposite of sizzly. I've never experienced any ear-fatigue with the uDac and grados, where as I have with a couple of other usb dacs that cost 3x and 5x more.

Biggie.
 
Mar 22, 2010 at 5:32 PM Post #1,509 of 1,841

HeadphoneAddict

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Posts
17,449
Likes
831
Quote:

Originally Posted by userlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif
It's not an "over-exaggeration" at all to say the highs are sizzly, thin and grainy. I compared the uDAC extensively to other, better DACs using Georg Friedrich Handl's Water Music suites, Archangelo Corelli complete op. 6 Concerto Grossi, and the Bach Brandenburg Concertos - both the Trevor Pinnnock and the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment versions -- and the uDAC high end is simply awful. Thin, fizzy, grainy - I could almost hear the dropouts in random high frequencies. The other two dacs I tested with - the Hotaudio DAC-Extasy and the Musical Fidelity V-DAC did not exhibit those weaknesses at all. Listening to classical on the uDAC is not an experience I would like to repeat. If you can't hear that, you either have not heard any other DACs that are better, or you're just not being honest.

The presentation of the uDAC *is* aggressive and forward -- it's voiced that way intentionally to give a "wow" factor instead of being neutral -- and there is also a recession in the upper mids that is part of that "U" shaped sound and contributes to it. You can hear it especially on vocals, where I compared Pearl Jam, REM, Stereolab, the Jam, and others on the uDAC with the DAC-Extasy and the V-DAC, and vocals on the uDAC are definitely more recessed, thin and distant. I explicitly even mentioned in it my notes for Eddie Vedder and the Jam's That's Entertainment specifically. Again, if you can't hear that, you either have not compared the uDAC properly to other, better and more neutral dacs, or you are not being honest for some reason.

Pearl Jam - Even Flow - udac: midboost, vocals sound a little hollow; ex: much more "even" sounding, vocals more natural and prominent, less midbass, overall better balance
The Jam - That's Entertainment - vocals more recessed, midbass boosted, hotter high end; extasy more natural sounding


The same goes for the mid-bass hump, which makes the uDAC virtually unlistenable on DT880s, and by the reports on HD650s, too. Other, better and more neutral DACs don't have that problem. They present that frequency more accurately and neutrally.

The uDAC is a mediocre, mass market DAC at best, in the same league as bose or skullcandy. It has a bloated midbass, thin and sizzly highs and recessed upper mids to give a "U" shaped "wow factor" sound. Some people might like that sound, like with Ultrasone headphones, which is fine. However, with the uDAC it goes beyond just the sound signature to being actual defects in the high frequencies.

You can say "but it's good for the money." I say it's a waste of money at virtually any price. There are much better DACs out there for the money, or even less, including the Bit Perfect and others. Those don't have the sexy marketing behind them, though, and that seems to be what people here are more interested in than sound quality.

I challenge ANYONE with a decent set of headphones to compare the uDAC to better dacs like the ones I mentioned, listening to classical music, midrange vocals, etc. and say they don't hear the flaws I outlined. If you say you don't hear them, you either don't know what you're talking about, or you're just not being honest. And that's no exaggeration.

The sad fact is that it is you who have actually exaggerated the sound quality of the uDAC, which in reality is mediocre at best, and unfortunately have misled a lot of people in the process who could have gotten better DACs for less money. And that is what is really too bad, not to mention newbies getting into the hobby who will think the uDAC is some kind of benchmark when in reality it's not even audiophile grade, but more like skullcandy and bose.



I'm sorry that's the way you feel about it, although there is still some conflicting terminology in your review - forward and aggressive, with recessed mids and smiley face or "U" shaped frequency response don't seem to go together in my book.

This is primarily a DAC with RCA out, with a headphone out and S/PDIF out added for convenience, and I've tested it as a DAC feeding several nicer amps and I feel that it works very well as a budget DAC using the RCA out. I've also posted that feeding the DAC into a $169 HiFiMan EF2 or Qinpu A-3 is an upgrade over the built-in headphone amp. So, your accusation that I am exaggerating it's headphone amp performance is an exaggeration.

Saying that it belongs in the company of Bose and Skull Candy headphones is also a disservice to the readers. It's a nice sounding $99 DAC/amp, with better synergy with some phones and amps than others. And, I will disagree with your "Thin, fizzy, grainy, waste of money at virtually any price" comments to the end, and chalk it up to some anger on frustration on your part.

You also forgot to mention "thick", which you used as a description before - so you meant "Thick and thin, fizzy, grainy, forward and aggressive but with a "U" shaped frequency response and recessed mids", is that right?
 
Mar 22, 2010 at 5:42 PM Post #1,511 of 1,841

K_19

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Posts
3,072
Likes
63
Quote:

Originally Posted by donunus /img/forum/go_quote.gif
hehehe userlander is to the udac as I am to the k701. cheers hehehe anyway I really like this udac. I don't find it colored when compared even to an ipod so saying that a sansa clip is more neutral says a lot about the sansa clip since the darn thing is so inexpensive
biggrin.gif
I'll get one anyway for jogging use one of these days and see what this neutral sound you speak of is
biggrin.gif



lol.

I think these combinations are probably the biggest love and hate relationships with a particular gear I've seen here on Head-fi in the last few years:

Love:

Acix - K701

KBI - DT48

Voltag3 - SE530

Bilavideo - Grados



Hate:

Olblueyez/Uncle Erik/Donunus (in order of extreme-ness
tongue.gif
) and the K701's

Acix and the HD650's

music_4321 and SE530's

Olblueyez and anti-cable ppl.
tongue.gif


And now Userlander with uDAC.
biggrin.gif


Userlander of course has the right to hate the gear of course, and so does anyone who hates a particular gear. if it sounds bad to you, then it sounds bad. I can totally respect that. Nothing wrong with arguing about it either, when done constructively (and I feel that both sides have done that here well enough). I do feel that right now it's more about userlander feeling victimized rather than how much he hates the uDAC, though. He probably doesn't even hate the uDAC THAT much (definitely didn't seem that way at first, he gave credit where it's due), but more annoyed about some of the negative responses he's been getting of his review of it (and granted, some were uncalled for), and how he was banned earlier from the stuff that went on in that PH100 thread. IMO I think both sides needs to cool it a bit, and just agree to disagree, as the point have been made pretty clear from both sides... anything more after this can only be needless arguing and flaming and won't really add much to the thread.
 
Mar 22, 2010 at 5:46 PM Post #1,512 of 1,841

userlander

Banned - aka walrus1 - aka vidranger1 - aka iggy-starnuts
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Posts
1,745
Likes
12
Quote:

Originally Posted by henryhan /img/forum/go_quote.gif
hey userlander, just out of curiosity, how much time do you spend on Head-fi everyday?? and how much time is devoted to this one thread??

also:
>implying that we are a cult and that this is not just how consumerism works
>implying that people aren't just posting to solicit/troll a response from you now that everyone has heard your opinion about a hundred times
>implying implications of facts that imply truth and yet are implied opinions

(ps. I hope you respond to this post)



Again, why the personal attacks? If it matters, the statistics show I make about 4 posts a day here. But so what. Does that even have anything to do with anything? Since you raised the issue, Headphone Addict makes over 13 posts a day. I don't see you questioning how much time he spends here. How come?

Oh right - because he is your "leader" who you want to agree with so you can be in the "club." So how much time someone spends here only matters when it's someone who doesn't want to be in the club and who you want to attack because of that. But it's not a cult, of course not. Got it.
wink.gif


"How much time devoted to this one thread." You can't go back and find out for yourself? I think the last post I made here was like 5 or 6 WEEKS ago. Definitely over a month ago. But again - so what? Why the personal attacks? Most other regulars in this thread have posted here way more than I have. But again - it seems that you only want to make that an issue when it someone who disagrees with you. Interesting how that works.

Also interesting how you ignore the fact that, if after I said "the clip sounds better" everyone had just left the comment alone without attacking me for it, it would have ended right there. Just one person's opinion - big deal. But no, the uDAC trolls can't leave it alone. They have to start in with their "I give ups" and their "oh boys" and their eye rolling.

That's who you should be questioning, not me. That's the behavior you should be criticizing, like: "why can't someone say the clip sounds better without getting all the smug responses for it?" Somehow that's never questioned though. Just like in any cult.
 
Mar 22, 2010 at 6:05 PM Post #1,513 of 1,841

userlander

Banned - aka walrus1 - aka vidranger1 - aka iggy-starnuts
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Posts
1,745
Likes
12
Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadphoneAddict /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I'm sorry that's the way you feel about it, although there is still some conflicting terminology in your review - forward and aggressive, with recessed mids and smiley face or "U" shaped frequency response don't seem to go together in my book.

This is primarily a DAC with RCA out, with a headphone out and S/PDIF out added for convenience, and I've tested it as a DAC feeding several nicer amps and I feel that it works very well as a budget DAC using the RCA out. I've also posted that feeding the DAC into a $169 HiFiMan EF2 or Qinpu A-3 is an upgrade over the built-in headphone amp. So, your accusation that I am exaggerating it's headphone amp performance is an exaggeration.

Saying that it belongs in the company of Bose and Skull Candy headphones is also a disservice to the readers. It's a nice sounding $99 DAC/amp, with better synergy with some phones and amps than others. And, I will disagree with your "Thin, fizzy, grainy, waste of money at virtually any price" comments to the end, and chalk it up to some anger on frustration on your part.

You also forgot to mention "thick", which you used as a description before - so you meant "Thick and thin, fizzy, grainy, forward and aggressive but with a "U" shaped frequency response and recessed mids", is that right?



Bottom end is thick in the midbass region, as is pretty well established.

High end is thin and fizzy sounding, as no one (yet) wants to admit.

Upper mids in the vocal region are recessed, and, according to my notes I posted above, sometimes a bit "hollow" sounding.

It's pretty clear that you're trying to discredit me and deflect all criticism I make by playing semantic games. But I think we all know that verbal descriptions, as useful as they can be, are ultimately subjective and difficult to quantify. We do our best to describe things, but there will always be an element of imprecision about it. donunus is right that we would then need to refer to the frequencies and amplitudes or decibels to be more precise. But I really don't care to waste that much more time being ultra-precise over a $99 dac. As far as general descriptions go, I stand by my observations as I've outlined them here. Most reasonable people can get a sense of what I heard from those comments, and then they are free to agree or disagree.

I think what people need to call more into question are amorphous and basically meaningless comments like, "I feel that it works very well as a budget DAC using the RCA out."

"It works very well." What on earth does that mean? How does that describe the sound in any way? It's kind of funny to hear someone criticize me over terminology when I am trying to be as precise as possible within the limitations of language, and then they put out lame statements like "I felt it worked very well." I'm sure bose headphone owners think those "work very well," too. It really doesn't say much of anything. It's about as non-committal a statement as someone can make, in fact.

I see that a lot in reviews here, and I think it's a big problem. That's why I try to avoid making wishy washy statements like that and be as balls to the wall as possible. At least then people get a clear picture of where I stand on it. Then they can agree or disagree. Unfortunately, it instead tends to get you attacked around here, where it seems most people prefer the wishy washy kind of approach. Oh well.
tongue_smile.gif
 
Mar 22, 2010 at 6:18 PM Post #1,514 of 1,841

Head Injury

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Posts
5,404
Likes
441
Quote:

Originally Posted by userlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I don't see you questioning how much time he spends here. How come?

Oh right - because he is your "leader" who you want to agree with so you can be in the "club." So how much time someone spends here only matters when it's someone who doesn't want to be in the club and who you want to attack because of that. But it's not a cult, of course not. Got it.
wink.gif


...

Just like in any cult.



So, speaking of personal attacks, what do you call that?

If it's an consolation, I've heard no high-end DACs but have heard onboard, an iPod 5.5G, a Clip, an XtremeGamer card, and the uDAC. To my ears the uDAC trumps all of them. iPod and Clip both beat onboard, but for my short time with the Clip I couldn't really deem it better or worse than the iPod. The XtremeGamer beats both portables. The uDAC beats the card. I haven't done blind testing, but I can immediately tell the difference between the two. The uDAC has better defined bass, more detail, more separation, and a darker background.

If it's colored to make it sound better than it is, I don't care. I listen to Grados and I use a tube amp. I'm not exactly looking for flawless neutrality here. But I have heard both the Clip and uDAC like you did, and I find the uDAC much better.

What does that mean? That I'm a cult member? That you're a troll? Or is it just that we have different tastes, different priorities, different experience? The uDAC is a fine upgrade for an audiophile newbie. Perhaps you think otherwise because you have experience with better DACs. Though regardless of experience I strongly, strongly disagree with your statement that the Clip sounds better, and would blind test them in a moment if I had the capabilities.
 
Mar 22, 2010 at 6:26 PM Post #1,515 of 1,841

HeadphoneAddict

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Posts
17,449
Likes
831
See my comments in RED

Quote:

Originally Posted by userlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Bottom end is thick in the midbass region, as is pretty well established.

Are you going to call all the other amps out there that don't have synergy with HD650 thick? Or rather, is it the HD650 that are thick? Semantics are important, and so is SYNERGY.

High end is thin and fizzy sounding, as no one (yet) wants to admit.

Upper mids in the vocal region are recessed, and, according to my notes I posted above, sometimes a bit "hollow" sounding.

You seem to be the only one who feels that way, which is why there is nobody else out there to admit that.

It's pretty clear that you're trying to discredit me and deflect all criticism I make by playing semantic games.

Well, as the saying goes, "You're not paranoid if they really are out to get you." The problem is we are not out to "get you".

But I think we all know that verbal descriptions, as useful as they can be, are ultimately subjective and difficult to quantify. We do our best to describe things, but there will always be an element of imprecision about it. donunus is right that we would then need to refer to the frequencies and amplitudes or decibels to be more precise. But I really don't care to waste that much more time being ultra-precise over a $99 dac. As far as general descriptions go, I stand by my observations as I've outlined them here. Most reasonable people can get a sense of what I heard from those comments, and then they are free to agree or disagree.

I think what people need to call more into question are amorphous and basically meaningless comments like, "I feel that it works very well as a budget DAC using the RCA out." "It works very well." What on earth does that mean? How does that describe the sound in any way?

Now you are asking me to be ultra-precise when you yourself don't care to "waste that much more time" doing that? I am not being ultra-precise in my more recent discussion with you because I already reviewed the product, and am not going to keep repeating myself. If you INSIST, "works very well as a budget DAC" means "it sounds good, musical and entertaining with an adequate level of detail and soundstage, while mostly committing sins of omission and not commission."

It's kind of funny to hear someone criticize me over terminology when I am trying to be as precise as possible within the limitations of language, and then they put out lame statements like "I felt it worked very well." I'm sure bose headphone owners think those "work very well," too. It really doesn't say much of anything. It's about as non-committal a statement as someone can make, in fact.

I see that a lot in reviews here, and I think it's a big problem. That's why I try to avoid making wishy washy statements like that and be as balls to the wall as possible. At least then people get a clear picture of where I stand on it. Then they can agree or disagree. Unfortunately, it instead tends to get you attacked around here, where it seems most people prefer the wishy washy kind of approach. Oh well.
tongue_smile.gif



I'm not smiling anymore. You SUCK the fun out of this.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top