[betweentheears]

Maybe another thread on the keychain. Is it full bodied or hollow.

 

[userlander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by betweentheears /img/forum/go_quote.gif Maybe another thread on the keychain. Is it full bodied or hollow.

Looks a little thin to me.

 

[SleazyC]

Looking through this thread it looks like an almost overwhelming positive regard for the µDAC. I have a pair of Audio Technica ES7's at work being fed from a Macbook -> Leckerton Audio UHA-3. The only reference I have seen to the ES7 + µDAC combo seems to be slightly negative so I was wondering if anyone else is using this combo and cold give me their impression.

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grokit /img/forum/go_quote.gif I am listening to my HD600s right now through the uDAC with an upgraded cable; I also have tried my HD600s with my iBasso D4. I think that both amps are are underpowered with the HD600s; having said that, I think that the D4 amplifier does go a bit louder than the uDAC with the 9v on, but not by much. To me, the HD600s can sound fatigue-ingly bright when not used with the right amp, and I do not have this issue with the uDAC at all. And it gets plenty loud for most listening. So the uDAC also has better synergy with the HD600s IMHO; the D4 has more of a "reference" DAC in it, while the HD600s sound more musical to my ears with the uDAC. If you don't need to go portable, there is no 9v battery to replace on the uDAC. But there is no way to get full amplification out of the D4 without one, even when it is connected to your computer. The D4 will also work with your iPod for portable use with the 9v battery, while the uDAC will not go portable at all. So although they may appear so as small DAC/amp combos, these are really not directly comparable products and your intended usage should ultimately guide you. Get that rca-1/8" cable! You will hear a huge improvement, then use the uDAC as a DAC/amp until you can get a real amp, as the uDAC scales up nicely. But so does the D4, and without the battery. Try plugging your headphones into your Creative T20s' headphone out, for "exercise"

Agreed, they are not really directly comparable and are in different categories - technically the uDAC is in the category of things like the Apogee mini-DAC and CEntrance DACport.

If you are stuck with a budget DAC/amp or portable to get you by until you have a more powerful desktop amp, the uDAC will sound a little more musical than the stock D4 and the DAC inside uDAC is not a big compromise, sounding as good as DACs 2-3x it's cost. The D4 is indeed more powerful in 9v mode (8-10 hour battery life) but most of the time because of the short battery life one may end up leaving it in 5v mode where is is clearly NOT as powerful as the uDAC. I don't use the D4 battery myself because charging them is a pain, and I often forget to turn off the battery switch and I find it dead later. I do think the D4 with the opamp upgrades and 9v is better with HD600, but now it's at $300 after upgrades and I have to change batteries every day.

Now, if someone said all that matters is driving HD600 with the most portable-power and that battery life didn't matter, but also has the best portable DAC, I'd tell them to get the D4 with the OPA1611A class-A biased opamps because it seems slightly more powerful than the Pico and sounds more like my P-51 Mustang (which is more aggressive than the uDAC). But if someone asked me about the best sounding portable amp for the HD600 and said the DAC quality wasn't as important, then I'd recommend the 3MOVE because it still seems more powerful than the D4, Pico or XM5 at 9v; and it can be bumped up to 12v with a PSU where it comes closer to other desktop amps in the same price range. And, the sound quality with HD600 is good as well (vivid V1 at 5v has the power of other 9v amps, but the quality is not on the same level so I left it out).

But, the reason I have been recommending uDAC as the budget HD600 solution for computer listening is that it can drive the HD600 "well enough" to enjoy very much, and it's 40% the cost of the D4 which leaves more money saved up to pair it with a more powerful amp later. So, I think we see this in the same light, that it's easy to be underpowered with HD600 but if you understand the power limitations then you have a few choices out there.

If some one asked me to recommend a $200-500 amp for the HD600, I almost never recommend a portable amp or something like the uDAC, unless I'm saying get the uDAC or D4 combined with a more powerful amp that would pair nicely with them. Even the $180-$250 amps like EF2, Nuforce Icon, Qinpu A-3, Travagans Red have more power for HD600 than uDAC, and although the sound quality is not miles ahead they will still do a better job driving HD600 when combined with the uDAC than the uDAC alone (or D4 alone). The more costly Grahm Slee NOVO combined with the uDAC would be a bigger upgrade for HD600, and once you are in that $300-400 price range for amp alone then the options open up more.

 

[K_19]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SleazyC /img/forum/go_quote.gif Looking through this thread it looks like an almost overwhelming positive regard for the µDAC. I have a pair of Audio Technica ES7's at work being fed from a Macbook -> Leckerton Audio UHA-3. The only reference I have seen to the ES7 + µDAC combo seems to be slightly negative so I was wondering if anyone else is using this combo and cold give me their impression.

I believe that was me making that comment, but just to go into more detail with that; ES7 has slightly humpy lower mids and bass which are already forward and these qualities don't match up all that well with the uDAC. Thing with ES7 in general though is that I've noticed they don't synergize all that well with all the amps I've tried so far... they've been extremely picky and have benefitted very little.

All IMO though. Perhaps someone else can chime in.

 

[sune]

Out of stock today!!

LOL - That'll teach me

 

[sune]

The uDac is still in stock in the Nuforce Europe Store. However the "exchange rate" that Nuforce uses between dollars/Euro (as someone put it) means that an iBasso D4 would only be 1.3 (!) times more expensive to get.

Would anyone still consider getting the uDac over the D4 under those conditions?

I would use a potential amp/dac mainly with a computer, but I don't mind that the D4 offers the posibility of changing opamp and going on the road. On the other hand, something that sounds "more musical" out of the box, is also quite appealing.

 

[sune]

Sorry, never mind, It'll be back in stock in the amazon store within the week it seems. No more delibetaring

 

[rawrster]

alo audio also sells them now. i didnt check stock but they are a head-fi sponsor so theres a link to their store on the side of the page.

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sune /img/forum/go_quote.gif The uDac is still in stock in the Nuforce Europe Store. However the "exchange rate" that Nuforce uses between dollars/Euro (as someone put it) means that an iBasso D4 would only be 1.3 (!) times more expensive to get. Would anyone still consider getting the uDac over the D4 under those conditions? I would use a potential amp/dac mainly with a computer, but I don't mind that the D4 offers the posibility of changing opamp and going on the road. On the other hand, something that sounds "more musical" out of the box, is also quite appealing.

Did you miss this, which should help? http://www.head-fi.org/forums/6332052-post843.html

You have enough information here to decide for yourself, depending on what features you need and how much you care about power, battery life or changing opamps. But, look at everyone's opinion and not just mine and userlander's impressions.

 

[donunus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by userlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif But the question is why didn't you raise all these objections and ultra-microscopic definitional concerns and quibbling when the other guy said it sounded "boomy?" He's the one who said it sounded boomy, not me. The comment you just made you should have made 20 pages ago when he originally said it, not to me.

I wasn't objecting to you

I was just trying to help youre arguments with Larry by adding some definitions of audiophile terms since it was the root of the arguments

 

[hmm...]

any plans to sell the uDAC on ebay for the bing cashback?

 

[userlander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donunus /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wasn't objecting to you I was just trying to help youre arguments with Larry by adding some definitions of audiophile terms since it was the root of the arguments

Did you get yours yet? I'm still interested in hearing your impressions.

Regarding these "audiophile" terms, they can be useful, but I think they only go so far -- especially when they're qualified by the writer at the time. This isn't an exact science, after all. Imo we should read things in good faith trying to understand what the writer is attempting to convey rather than trying to force their descriptions to correspond to some more or less arbitrary list or set of terms somewhere. Not that it isn't useful to have common guidelines and frames of reference, but when the writer clearly defines what they mean, it shouldn't be that much of a problem.

But if that's the list you want to use as a guideline, I'll amend some of my comments as follows:

They define "aggressive" as having more to do with the high frequencies than I intended: "Reproduced sound that is excessively forward and bright," which I don't mean at all. I meant a kind of artificially sounded boosting or enhancement of the mid frequency range, similar to when the highs and lows are emphasized to give something "sizzle," except in this case with the mids emphasized instead of the highs and lows.

It seems that the closest word they use for what I'm trying to describe is "overblown": "Bloated. Excessively fat and rich," except I wouldn't say excessively. I would say "mildly."

They furthermore describe "bloated" in this context as, "2)... overly rich, warm, and reverberant," which fits what I'm trying to convey (except for overly, which I would change to "slightly"), but they describe "fat" as meaning "the sonic effect of a moderate exaggeration of the mid- and upper-bass ranges," which imo doesn't fit at all, insofar as it has to correspond to the low frequencies. Since they don't define what they mean by "rich," I'll use that word to mean the same thing as "fat," except pertaining to the mids: "a moderate exaggeration."

I was also tying "thickness" into this sense of mid-warmth, but they define thickness as being only about the bass frequencies: "Describes sodden or heavy bass." I don't think the uDAC has sodden or heavy bass at all, I think it actually has good and lively bass (although perhaps a bit "boomy" [edit: *on certain headphones!*]). So I will completely take back saying it was "thick," and just go with calling it rich for that, too. It's not thick, it's rich: "a moderate exaggeration of the mid and lower-mid frequencies."

So to tie all that together using their terminology, and *compared to gear that is closer to neutral,* the uDAC, *in my opinion,* is not thick or aggressive, but instead it is slightly overblown, mildly bloated, with the latter being expressed as being more "rich" than "fat." Not VERY bloated. Not EXCESSIVELY overblown. Slightly, and only when compared to neutral. (Hope that is enough qualification for the "very" police

).

To me all of that actually sounds worse than just saying "thick and aggressive," and then describing what you mean, but if that's the way you want to go I'm doing my best to oblige.

And to think I almost called the lower mids a little bit "tubby." Imagine what a sh!tstorm that would have unleashed.

Hope that helps.

 

[donunus]

For the mids, you can use the simple term "forward". The upper mids to highs "aggressive"

 

[userlander]

Going through that list, here imo are some of the more positive attributes of the uDAC. With so much positive being said about the DAC (and FOTM products in general) I tend to like to focus on some of the perceived flaws so when taken altogether a more balanced picture hopefully can emerge. For the record, I think the positives of this DAC far outweigh the negatives (for most genres and probably on most headphones) but I thought it was also important to detail some of the weaknesses as I saw (or heard) them.

But again, for more of the upside, I would also add these attributes, from the list donunus linked to above:

a fair bit ballsy - Describes a system which is stentorian, punchy, and visceral

has good bloom - A quality of expansive richness and warmth....

clean - Free from audible distortion

definitely non-clinical - clinical: Sound that is pristinely clean but wholly uninvolving

consonant - Agreeable to the ear; pleasant-sounding.

dynamic - Giving an impression of wide dynamic range; punchy. This is related to system speed as well as to volume contrast (volume seems a little less dynamic)

gutsy - Ballsy

good presence - A quality of realism and aliveness

very slight texture, texturing - A perceptible pattern or structure in reproduced sound, even if random in nature. Texturing gives the impression that the energy continuum of the sound is composed of discrete particles, like the grain of a photograph (I guess that seems like a negative, but in this case it actually sounds good - meaning the music has texture and doesn't sound flat or bland)

tube sound, tubey - That combination of audible qualities which typifies components that use tubes for amplification: Richness and warmth, an excess of midbass, a deficiency of deep bass, outstanding rendition of depth, forward and bright, with a softly sweet high end (except for the "bright," and keeping the slightly overblown mid-bass aspects in mind) I would also say "organic," but that's not on the list so I hope it doesn't create more controversy.

I'm using grado phones with this (alessandro), and I don't really have a great sense of the soundstaging, imaging, etc. So I purposely left those aspects out. From what I can tell, it seems to have a medium/average if not *slightly* narrow soundstage but with good imaging, but that's as far as I can say.