[userlander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwheel /img/forum/go_quote.gif Whoah, slow down there fella. I'm not "schooling" you on "language and expression" my friend. Nor did I say anything that would suggest that I encourage dishonesty for your impression on the udac. I'm simply saying that you need to stop putting words in people's mouths. If this turns into an re-evaluation of audio terms, I'm fine with that. You guys can go on ahead. But don't try to speak for others. As far as your honors degree in English... I'm sure you are familiar with the phrase "brevity is the soul of wit." Now go back and take note of how many times you repeated yourself. But that's ok... you've got a degree.

But I'm not trying to be witty. I'm trying to be descriptive, and answer a slew of flak coming my way over terminology some people don't like.

I'm not here to define my terms for you. You didn't ask that of anyone else. You just accepted what they said at complete face value without one comment. Suddenly you see something in my posts that rubbed you the wrong way (because you apparently failed to read it in the matter of fact way it was intended but attribute other meanings to it, calling it "negative," -- while also accusing *me* of putting words in other people's mouths, lol) and you start crucifying me over it.

Well, guess what? I said what I meant. If you don't like it, ignore it. Disregard it. Everyone has an opinion, and you are equally free to have yours. If in your opinion this is a great laid back neutral DAC for classical, then go for it. That's your choice and your opinion. I happen to have a different one. That's the way it goes. Not everyone is always going to agree with you; that's just the way life is, sorry.

 

[userlander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donunus /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh and just to add more fun... Warm is different from boomy also... Some might agree that the udac is warm but boomy is a totally different thing. Warm is talking more about the lower mids while boominess talks about excessive midbass

So why are people being so negative about the uDAC, then, calling it "boomy?"

I guess we'll never know, because no one ever questioned that at all, unlike the way I am getting raked over the coals.

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donunus /img/forum/go_quote.gif I too believe thick and full bodied are not exactly the same... Ex I would call hd600s full bodied while bose Quietcomforts thick for example... Or dt880s slightly lean sounding in tone due to a slightly recessed midrange with a punchy and full bass(not thick).

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by donunus /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just researched it just now to make sure I am not wrong with my use of thick above and I found J Gordon Holts Audio glossary saying... thick: Describes sodden or heavy bass. bloom: A quality of expansive richness and warmth, like the live body sound of a cello. Stereophile: Sounds Like? An Audio Glossary here it is for quick reference... a short version of the book

Nice link. I'll have look it over to see if full bodied matches the "bloom" definition as I think it would.

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

Quote:

Originally Posted by userlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif So why are people being so negative about the uDAC, then, calling it "boomy?" I guess we'll never know, because no one ever questioned that at all, unlike the way I am getting raked over the coals.

I believe he left out a comma. I think he meant to read like this, "Some might agree that the udac is warm, but boomy is a totally different thing." and wasn't calling it "warm but boomy". I'm sorry you took the rest of the discussion so personally, it wasn't meant so.

 

[userlander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadphoneAddict /img/forum/go_quote.gif I believe he left out a comma. I think he meant to read like this, "Some might agree that the udac is warm, but boomy is a totally different thing." and wasn't calling it "warm but boomy". I'm sorry you took the rest of the discussion so personally, it wasn't meant so.

But K_19 called it boomy. And not once, but twice -- once with HD650, and once with some other phone.

Do you agree that it's boomy? You didn't question or challenge that, or ask him to define "boomy," so you must agree, right? No one called that "negative," so I guess boomy is now a positive attribute. Interesting.

 

[zombi]

I dont get any "boominess" out of the udac, Id actually like some of that

. For me the udac, is bright and punchy. Not really warm for me it thins out the lower mids and bass a bit too much. At times it can be thin and grainy especially with horn instruments.

Anybody else notice this, specifically with horns in jazz?

 

[donunus]

Yah I left out a comma, sorry. hehehe and for others that are getting confused... Bloomy and boomy are two different things

Warm and Full Bodied is bloomy while sounding "thick" is more like boomy. I say more like but not exactly the same because boomy is having a "one-note bass" character where all other frequencies are masked by a huge peak in the region while thick might characterize just a huge rise in response to the entire region. A room for example might cause boominess in speakers for example because of frequency doubling in room reflections.

 

[Blackwheel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by userlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif But I'm not trying to be witty. I'm trying to be descriptive, and answer a slew of flak coming my way over terminology some people don't like. I'm not here to define my terms for you. You didn't ask that of anyone else. You just accepted what they said at complete face value without one comment. Suddenly you see something in my posts that rubbed you the wrong way (because you apparently failed to read it in the matter of fact way it was intended but attribute other meanings to it, calling it "negative," -- while also accusing *me* of putting words in other people's mouths, lol) and you start crucifying me over it. Well, guess what? I said what I meant. If you don't like it, ignore it. Disregard it. Everyone has an opinion, and you are equally free to have yours. If in your opinion this is a great laid back neutral DAC for classical, then go for it. That's your choice and your opinion. I happen to have a different one. That's the way it goes. Not everyone is always going to agree with you; that's just the way life is, sorry.

I don't think you read my first post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackwheel /img/forum/go_quote.gif - In all honesty, when I read your description of the uDac, it sounds negative. I'm not saying you are right or wrong because I've never heard it... but you do put a damper on the consistently positive compliments the device has been getting for the last 50-something pages. (maybe that is a good thing)

I clearly stated that I think that it is good that you are critiquing the uDac. That's exactly what I've been waiting for after over 50 pages of praise. I'm fine with with that. I also apologize for getting carried away in this argument (I'm like that

). I'm not on Head-fi to make enemies.

-

 

[donunus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by userlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif But K_19 called it boomy. And not once, but twice -- once with HD650, and once with some other phone. Do you agree that it's boomy? You didn't question or challenge that, or ask him to define "boomy," so you must agree, right? No one called that "negative," so I guess boomy is now a positive attribute. Interesting.

Actually, I'm questioning to myself... How could a dac be boomy unless it was made to have a bass boost in specific frequencies. Thick is more likely than boomy but anyway I'll see for myself how the uDac sounds when it finally gets to me and report what I think of the issues being discussed.

 

[drizek]

So how long does it take to ship from amazon?

 

[userlander]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donunus /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually, I'm questioning to myself... How could a dac be boomy unless it was made to have a bass boost in specific frequencies. Thick is more likely than boomy but anyway I'll see for myself how the uDac sounds when it finally gets to me and report what I think of the issues being discussed.

It definitely sounded thick on my DT880s. I don't know if I would go so far as to call it boomy - I would have to listen again. But I don't think so.

But my point was just that no one questioned that or characterized that as "negative" in the least. That seems odd to me compared with how everything I've said has been so severely scrutinized.

 

[donunus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by userlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif It definitely sounded thick on my DT880s. I don't know if I would go so far as to call it boomy - I would have to listen again. But I don't think so. But my point was just that no one questioned that or characterized that as "negative" in the least. That seems odd to me compared with how everything I've said has been so severely scrutinized.

Boomy is more negative than thick unless the particular headphone has a dip at the exact spot the boominess occurs. A Thick sounding DAC might even be nice for thin sounding cans

 

[HeadphoneAddict]

Quote:

Originally Posted by userlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif But K_19 called it boomy. And not once, but twice -- once with HD650, and once with some other phone. Do you agree that it's boomy? You didn't question or challenged that, or ask him to define "boomy," so you must agree, right? No one called that "negative," so I guess boomy is now a positive attribute. Interesting.

I'm subscribed to about 3000 threads so I can miss things like that sometimes, but I've worn myself out over this and don't feel like going back to find his post right now. I would say it's the HD650 that are boomy, and I have said that many times before, that if they aren't amped by just the right amp they can be boomy and veiled and rolled off. So if another person heard boomy with HD650, can you say that was the uDAC or the HD650 which caused that? I would say it's the combination of the two and that the HD650 demands more from an amp than the uDAC can provide.

In another thread I warned someone not to get the HD650 to pair with the uDAC, but strongly recommended the HD600 instead. I made that recommendation based on previous experience with the HD650 combined with other similar gear. I even stated what kind of amp it would take to make me like the HD650.

So, I believe in "gear synergy" and that when you combine two or more pieces of gear then you may emphasize/multiply/reduce certain sonic traits, in a good or bad way. My "boomy" UE11 Pro sound great with the uDAC, as it controls the bass without boosting it, and fills in the mids. The UE11 Pro also sound great with my PS Audio DAC feeding my WA6. But I can't listen to them out of my iPhone headphone out, or many other portable amps. If I had only used the iPhone to review them, my impressions would have been very slanted. So, I don't like to make an "absolute" statement about what a particular piece of gear sounds like until I have tried it mixed with different sources, amps or phones and compared it to many similar items.

 

[donunus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeadphoneAddict /img/forum/go_quote.gif So, I don't like to make an "absolute" statement about what a particular piece of gear sounds like until I have tried it mixed with different sources, amps or phones and compared it to many similar items.

Only when trying many source/ amp combos can someone really point out all the common flaws of a particular headphone but you can usually predict that a headphone cannot be saved by any amp if the flaws are big and fatal

 

[lh0628]

I'm having a problem with my uDAC, the left channel cuts out from time to time, and I need to unplug then plug it back in to make it work again.

This worries me a bit. Anyone else experiencing this?