[Allanmarcus]

Right, got it. Had it before. Used to have a Mojo. I understand.

 

[x RELIC x]

Right, got it. Had it before. Used to have a Mojo. I understand.

No worries, just trying to help those that may not realize the way it works. I've read quite a few times that people wish the Mojo, for example, had a line-in but that's just not possible.

 

[Hansotek]

I have been reading a number of items on how hard it is to determine ANY difference that a DAC (or DAC/amp) makes! This started when I was determined to rank order my 7 portable DAC/amps by how much they improved the sound out of my iPhone 5S, from a little improvement to a lot. Well... I chose my best DAC (Hugo 1), and found that for the widest variety of headphones and source material and bit rates (CD lossless vs. high-res), I could hear NO difference! That's right... headphone straight from iPhone 5S vs. digital from iPhone 5S and into Hugo. I even did instantaneous A/B comparisons with a switch, and had my wife (the Ruthie of ruthieandjohn), who hears headphone differences better than I do, listen.

I am not alone in my inability to distinguish DACs. Head-fier Skamp in 2013 posted a thread Blind Test: 6 DACs Compared, in which he posted files from 6 DACs, as well as the original, listed the DACs, and invited folks to listen and tell him which was which. Lots of objective measurements of waveforms, peaks, valleys, and subjective comments on how similar or different the various versions sounded, but near as I can tell, no one actually posted a rank ordering of the quality of the 6, nor did he reveal which was which.

My recent travails are reported here. There, I relate how hard I have tried to distinguish my iPhone vs. my iPhone plus Hugo, as well as helpful advice from myself and others (e.g., use drums, no use vocals, no, use the songs that have appeared in other reviews of DACs,...)

Now I have reviewed DACs, and I have reported differences. There are two cases... the MHDT Stockholm 2 DAC, which I found indistinguishable from my Schiit Bifrost Multibit with any of my headphones except the HiFiMAN HE1000, with which I could tell a difference. The other case is the V-MODA M-100 either direct from iPod or from V-MODO VAMP VERZA DAC, where there was an improvement.

Another view is that one should NOT do A/B comparisons in quick succession with one vs. the other, but instead "live" with one or the other for an hour, a day, or a week to become fully accustomed to its sound, then switch. I'll try that next.

Comparing DACs is incredibly difficult.

In my experience, that last route is best: to "live with" a DAC for a while, then switch and then switch back. Once you've become acclimated to hearing things a certain way, additions and subtractions become much more obvious. Rapid A/B testing is unlikely to yield many solid results, especially on headphones. It is very hard to focus the ear in that way for any prolonged period of time and you're more likely to end up just fighting with your own brain than making any significant observations. The brain just isn't wired to work that way.

FWIW, I find A/B testing DACs to be a bit easier in some ways with a good 2-channel system than headphones because of the differences in staging and imaging.

 

[x RELIC x]

This ^

 

[ngoshawk]

Comparing DACs is incredibly difficult.

Once you've become acclimated to hearing things a certain way, additions and subtractions become much more obvious. Rapid A/B testing is unlikely to yield many solid results, especially on headphones

I would agree that the overall assessment of headphones can be difficult to garner from A/B testing, but for me (in my limited experience), A/Bing headphones can give me differences of sound signature. Then, again in my limited experience, I am better able to focus on those possible perceived differences. It is one thing to know that my Nightowl sounds vastly different than my Grado GH-2, but by comparing quickly, I can somewhat assess those differences. For me, that seems to work. And yes, different sound signatures to me, can be assessed somewhat quickly, but not very reliably. Of that we agree!

But for overall assessment and nuances yes, MUCH longer listening is needed! As for DAC's? I'm afraid that my tired old ears struggle, by I try my best following Brooko's excellent methods as a guide. Regardless, I will struggle my best with the Hugo 2, I am really looking forward to it!

I guess I'm saying we agree, but I use those subtle A/B differences to focus on the possible discrepancies...hope that comes across...sigh.

Sorry, my part was eaten into the quote...

 

[Sonic Defender]

For my part, when I describe things I always describe components as a combined signature. I will simply review the Hugo2 as I experience it and how it presents the sound to me. I won't per say do comparisons as I also feel that audio memory isn't that reliable so I like to write about what I hear from the system. I'm going to now get ready to start using the Hugo2. It landed yesterday, but due to commitments I was unable to even hook it up.

 

[ngoshawk]

Sorry, my response was eaten into my initial response...sigh.

 

[Allanmarcus]

I belive I read somewhere that one needs to listen for at least 60-120 seconds before switching in and A/B test. I will be comparing to my existing equipment because (no offense, @Sonic Defender ), reviews that don't compare to give me a baseline are not as useful to me.

 

[Hansotek]

Sorry, my response was eaten into my initial response...sigh.

I was just talking about rapidly A/B testing DACs, not other equipment. It sounds like you agree.

 

[EagleWings]

Interesting discussion about comparison methodologies. In my experience there are certain aspects for which quick A/B switching works and certain aspects for which listening to the gear for longer sessions is more reliable.

For aspects such as transparency, cleanliness in note transitions, tone, timbre and dynamics, quick A/B switching seem to work just fine.

When it comes to details and resolution, quick A/B switching may not be reliable. That is because, once you hear certain details from one gear and you quickly switch to the other one, you are actively looking for these details and it becomes more easy to hear these details on the 2nd gear. And so long term listening of each gear and going through same albums can yield a more reliable result.

For aspects such as separation, soundtsgae and imaging, both could work.

 

[ruthieandjohn]

My current thinking (evolving since I am still learning) is that I should listen to about one song, over and over, in one configuration. If the song is unfamiliar, so much the better... I listen, in the same configuration, over and over until it becomes familiar.

Then, I change configurations (i.e. go through the Chord Hugo if I was not in the first configuration) and listen again. I try both to get an overall impression of any difference, and also try to see if I discover new things in the music that I didn't hear in the repetitive listening before.

Next, I take another song, also unfamiliar, and listen multiple times in the second configuration (here, with the Hugo) until I am familiar with it, then switch to the first configuration and again try to note any overall impression of difference, plus any new musical discovery in the piece.

It seems perhaps that the differences between DACs is a tiny effect that only accumulates over time, maybe manifested by more rapid user fatigue. it might be like trying to compare the vision through a plexiglass vs. a glass window... if you look through a soda straw at the same scene in each, you might not notice any difference (just as differences in DACs may escape rapid A/B switching), but if you look at the whole scene over a period of time, perhaps the differences accumulate into something significant.

Anyway, that will be the thrust of my current listening attempts.

 

[Sonic Defender]

I belive I rad somewhere that one needs to listen for at least 60-120 seconds before switching in and A/B test. I will be comparing to my existing equipment because (no offense, @Sonic Defender ), reviews that don't compare to give me a baseline are not as useful to me.

No offense taken, I personally am quite happy reading about a description of the sound as being perceived by the user and that is enough for me. Here is a shot of the Hugo2 compliment of kit spread out.

 

[Allanmarcus]

Is the remote a true audiophile remote with all gold and silver connections and solder?

 

[ruthieandjohn]

I am commissioning a small study on the audio effects of black vs. silver remote controls for audio equipment. I've been told that there is a HUGE difference (by the same person who sold me special escutcheon plates for my audio wall plugs.)

 

[ngoshawk]

I was just talking about rapidly A/B testing DACs, not other equipment. It sounds like you agree.

Yes. Yes we do.