[b0ck3n]

What I see from NwAvGuy is a desire to equip the masses with knowledge in a business chock full of dishonest and misleading marketing. Other members who've done the same, such as dfkt who blew the lid on the HM-801, have been treated with equal disdain. It's not surprising that the companies who develop mentioned devices are aggravated, but to see communities backing those companies in discrediting single forum members is frankly making me sick. Anyone who's bought the products is free to enjoy them just as much as they did before they knew they're actually crap. Future consumers are warned not to waste their money on something that performs worse than DACs and DAPs at a fraction of the price.
 
It's about time the audio world got with the times and left ignorance in the rear view.

 
Quote:

NwAvGuy has been booted from a couple of other audio forums recently due to his attitude and vendettas, and I completely understand why Nuforce would get aggravated with him as well.  I still think it's a great bang for the buck.  I haven't heard another DAC/amp near this price range that sounds as good as the uDAC-2, as a headphone amp or DAC-only (I admit I have not heard them all, but I did a 13 USB DAC/amp review a while back).  I don't have the large channel imbalance NwAvGuy found in his, and with the high quality recordings that I listen to the sound is clean and crisp and free of audible distortion.
 

 

 

[ru9]

Quote:

  I don't have the large channel imbalance NwAvGuy found in his,
 

Where are your measurements? At lease, NwAvGuy backed up his claims.
 
From my understanding, NwAvGuy was never booted out of Head-fi.
 
May I ask what other audio forums are you talking about?

 

[xnor]

I don't think he was ever banned here but left this place because of the censorship.
 
Quote from his blog (subjective vs objective article):

Bottom Line: I got the message loud and clear and Head-Fi doesn't seem like an organization I want to contribute to.

 
No big deal imo, since there are other forums/places (diyaudio.com for example).

 

[faileas]

the 'large' channel imbalance was mainly at low volumes, with low impedance headphones or earbuds apparently - its impossible to replicate with my ATH M50 for example
 
Nwavguy did get banned from here, but he's still blogging - currently about the amplifier he designed, and on hydrogen audio and a few others. His methods are interesting, but a little more tact might have helped.
 
 

 

[khaos974]

the 'large' channel imbalance was mainly at low volumes, with low impedance headphones or earbuds apparently - its impossible to replicate with my ATH M50 for example
 
Nwavguy did get banned from here, but he's still blogging - currently about the amplifier he designed, and on hydrogen audio and a few others. His methods are interesting, but a little more tact might have helped.
 
 

Large? Yes, it was large indeed, 10 dB imbalance between left and right the pot set just before 9 o'clock on mine. And Nuforce does acknowledge it btw:

http://www.nuforce.com/hp/products/iconudac2/

Note1. The uDAC-2 is designed for consumer playback of digital music. It has not been calibrated for professional recording. At the 9 o'clock volume indicator, there is hardly any signal; further, analog pots do not behave reliably. At normal listening levels, the volume tracking is within 1dB.

 

[Reticuli2]

I tend to think designing audio electronics by ear is a myth. Measurements have to be used along the way in designing something like this. If multiple units across multiple product lines measure that poorly it's either because the designs were outsourced or the quality control is bad... or both. So then it would be incumbent on such a company to prove they are in fact designing these products and prove a concerted improvement in quality control. Until then the choice would be obvious.
 
I would be interested in seeing tests done on the Icon, though, as Jan Meier is fond of it (and selling it) and has always had a reliable ear and the tests to back it up.  The reviews on Amazon are glowing.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

I tend to think designing audio electronics by ear is a myth. Measurements have to be used along the way in designing something like this. If multiple units across multiple product lines measure that poorly it's either because the designs were outsourced or the quality control is bad... or both. So then it would be incumbent on such a company to prove they are in fact designing these products and prove a concerted improvement in quality control. Until then the choice would be obvious.
 
Sadly many objectively dreadful products make it to market, Stereophile does measurements on a wide range of items, some are truly technically apalling and I am not just talking about 2 guys working in a shed, $60K combos and $10K McIntosh servers perform so badly as to be truly low fidelity. That these products often garner rave stereophile reviews gives pause for thought...
 
The other thing which always puzzles me is are these things received so well because they are so terrible or in spite of being terrible. If it is in spite of being terrible then it seems like a waste of money as you can buy technically competent kit much cheaper, if it is because they are terrible then likewise I am sure you can buy crappy gear much cheaper such as the PS1 which is technically crappy but was a cult player a few years ago...
 
 
 
 
I would be interested in seeing tests done on the Icon, though, as Jan Meier is fond of it (and selling it) and has always had a reliable ear and the tests to back it up.  The reviews on Amazon are glowing.

 

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

I tend to think designing audio electronics by ear is a myth. Measurements have to be used along the way in designing something like this. If multiple units across multiple product lines measure that poorly it's either because the designs were outsourced or the quality control is bad... or both. So then it would be incumbent on such a company to prove they are in fact designing these products and prove a concerted improvement in quality control. Until then the choice would be obvious.

Its obvious that they should be measuring these things along the way, for safety if nothing else, but the evidence seems to suggest that many companies both large and small do otherwise.

 

[Reticuli2]

[size=10pt][size=10pt][size=10pt][size=10pt]Well I can't say I've seen such evidence.  I've seen too many companies where this "designed by ear" stuff is claimed and inevitably I find out they are either not the ones who designed it (outsourced or some OEM design they licensed) or their quality control is practically non-existent after their own theoretically sound design is shoddily implemented by their outsourced manufacturer. The latter is the sadder situation of the two, as they just flush some poor shmuck's hard design work down the toilet.  But you really cannot design electronics by ear. You can certainly tailor it by ear along the way. Sure. But you can't design it without actually measuring a functioning unit during the design process. It just doesn't and cannot happen. If they don't know how their products should measure or the product lines have significant & varying systemic defects, then it's not just some random issue. Either they designed it and their quality control sucks, or they didn't design it. Sometimes claims to the contrary, quite often actually, turn out to be excuses from some, yes, qualified engineer, but one who was essentially hired into a PR job to flash their credentials and pretend it's all normal. Electronics engineers who designed their products are intimately aware of what they can do and how they should measure. It comes with the territory. In my experience you cannot separate them. If there appears to be a functional disconnect in a company's conception-to-customer pathway, then there literally is one between designer, promoter, and/or quality control of some kind.[/size][/size][/size][/size]
[size=10pt][size=10pt][size=10pt] [/size][/size][/size]
[size=10pt][size=10pt][size=10pt][size=10pt]Now, to be fair, super-low impedence headphone jacks are a relatively new affair.  And skimping on a volume pot is an old story.  But some of the other stuff in this thread arguably falls outside that.[/size][/size][/size][/size]
[size=10pt][size=10pt][size=10pt] [/size][/size][/size]
[size=10pt][size=10pt][size=10pt][size=10pt]Not sure a random bad audio server or something means they never measured or tested the equipment during design.[/size][/size][/size][/size]
[size=10pt][size=10pt][size=10pt] [/size][/size][/size]
[size=10pt][size=10pt][size=10pt][size=10pt]"The other thing which always puzzles me is are these things received so well because they are so terrible or in spite of being terrible. If it is in spite of being terrible then it seems like a waste of money as you can buy technically competent kit much cheaper, if it is because they are terrible then likewise I am sure you can buy crappy gear much cheaper"[/size][/size][/size][/size]
[size=10pt][size=10pt][size=10pt] [/size][/size][/size]
[size=10pt][size=10pt][size=10pt][size=10pt]You, sir, have just blown my mind.[/size][/size][/size][/size]
[size=10pt][size=10pt][size=10pt] [/size][/size][/size]
[size=10pt][size=10pt][size=10pt]PS1 was o.k.  I had an original with the S-Video cable (bought with the unit from the get-go!) that bypassed the volume control.  Probably has more to do with the weirdness of a PS1 actually not sounding terrible.  Such a strange novelty to find out it sounds good.  But that was my first CD player and got a lot of use out of it as a teen.  Kind of a unique tone it had.  Wish I still had it to test.  My Denon and Pioneer later blew it away handily, though.[/size][/size][/size]
[size=10pt][size=10pt][size=10pt] [/size][/size][/size]
[size=10pt][size=10pt][size=10pt]Does anyone know of any tests that have been done on the Icon?[/size][/size][/size]

 

[nbakid2000]

So to avoid distortion with this DAC, I have to turn my computer sound from 100%? Is that right?
 
What is the minimum I can drop the sound so it still retains the full 16bit resolution, since dropping the volume drops the resolution or whatever? 90? 80? What would be considered a decibel?
 
Thanks.

 

[maverickronin]

Anything less than 100% is less than 16 bit resolution.  Every bit of resolution is 6dB but many volume sliders are calibrated weirdly so I couldn't give you a number.
 
Find a setting that just barely sounds softer when listening to normal music.  For most people that ends up being about 1dB which is enough to keep the DAC chip from clipping.

 

[nbakid2000]

I like the sound of this DAC but the whole idea of turning down my computer volume otherwise it'll clip, which gives me not the full resolution I should be getting really burns me. I'm still within the 30 day warranty so I may return this thing.

 

[Satellite_6]

You could buy an HRT MSII instead. 24 bit resolution. 

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

I like the sound of this DAC but the whole idea of turning down my computer volume otherwise it'll clip, which gives me not the full resolution I should be getting really burns me. I'm still within the 30 day warranty so I may return this thing.

"Resolution" in this case just means dynamic range or signal-to-noise ratio. If you don't listen very loud, it won't matter. I use ReplayGain, it does the same thing but often on a -10 dB scale (so I only get 14 bits of "resolution").
 
While the DAC clipping is unnecessary and stupid, most of the uDAC's flaws are on the amp side. If you use it as just a DAC, I imagine it's pretty decent (but not worth it when you can get a UCA202 (but don't use the UCA202 as an amp)).

 

[maverickronin]

If you get a 24 bit DAC like that HRT you can use the digital volume with out losing any resolution on 16 bit resolution files.