[Argo Duck]

Likely true. My field is social dynamical research, but I did graduate level cognitive science with specific focus on how we hear sounds as speech and how we 'remember'. This was some 16 years ago however and not my specialty. I use cognitive measurement in some of my experiments. That's the limit.

My point though is that science is complex. Application of scientific 'fact' without understanding its context and especially its literature - the history of theory-building and hypothesis testing behind it - is meaningless. Yet I see science frequently misused in this way to substantiate untested conclusions. Deduction is not the end in science; it is the path to the next experimental test.

Enuff said. I had hoped to provoke a little thought about how science is actually done. It starts with questioning. Never mind; nothing to see here, move on

Your questions are not a blind alley, they're simply questions that lead me to believe you have to grab a neurophysiology book and you'll get the answers, because at this point you're walking in circles trying to understand something extremely complex without understanding the basics.

 

[Chris J]

How much better can it really get?

A product comes out and everyone sings praises as to how much better it is than anything else before. And so, many enthusiasts proclaim, "I gotta have one." Eventually things calm down and everyone finds something else to get excited about.

A year later the same company comes out with a "newer better version." Once again excitement boils over and everyone's gotta get one of these. Eventually things calm down and everyone finds something else to get excited about.

The next year, the same scenario plays out yet once again.

Yep, you guessed it, same story. Year after year the same story plays out, again and again. Eventually we as humans will need to be upgraded to tell the difference, or convince ourselves that we are experiencing something.

There was a time in the distant past when Class B SS Amps inflicted upon us crossover distortion and high levels of IMD. There was a time when tube amps had crappy output transformers and very noisey designs. We had cheap turntables with ceramic cartridges. Fast forward to today, wow things are pretty darned good. Technology has improved by leaps and bounds, however, we are still human beings. Is it possible that year after year audio products can continue to improve with such noticable differences, with no end in sight. I don't think so. Think about it.

If you have a Modi or Magni, please continue to enjoy them.

Here is the ultimate goal:
Your sound system does not sound like a collection of transistors and speakers, it is indistinguishable from the real thing.

Your questions are not a blind alley, they're simply questions that lead me to believe you have to grab a neurophysiology book and you'll get the answers, because at this point you're walking in circles trying to understand something extremely complex without understanding the basics. It's like trying to understand differential equations without knowing how to count to 10 and add or subtract. You're oversimplifying the human hearing,  we don't just hear "sound" as a general phenomenon. There are various parts of the auditory cortex that deal with various types and parts of sound, speech being one of them. Yes, there is literally an area which ONLY handles words that you hear , and is only active when you hear words, because it's only activated when the previous parts of the path filter the words out and send it into that part. If you damage that part, you can't understand speech anymore. You can hear the words, but you don't understand what they mean.  Our hearing is not highly reliable, it's in fact completely opposite to that when it comes to subjective impressions, especially something as subjective as "sound quality".  Words are not subjective to our brains, so you can't compare that to an actual sound of the word. Meaning of the word and sound of the word are handled by completely different areas of the brain. Again, this is all really difficult to explain without going into detail that require medical knowledge, when I've studied about hearing in med school, there was a section about 50 pages long in our physiology book, but very, very densely written and only the most important parts of it, sort of like a summary, and some parts were really difficult to wrap your head around, especially when we know how it works from observational point of view, but don't understand the exact mechanism. On top of that, each part had plenty of references to other books, which means there are literally thousands of pages of books and scientific papers written on this topic. All you need is time to read it.

Never underestimate The Ducks understanding of human perception!

We're pretty much at a point where big improvements when it comes to DAC's are no longer possible.  Soon, in a few years, cheap 100 dollar DAC's will offer the same quality as DAC's that cost thousands of dollars today, in fact, we're close to that today, but those high end manufacturers won't tell you that, I mean, who will pay for their ultra expensive DAC's then? The differences between best and entry level nowadays is not as big as people assume when it comes to digital sources. We're talking about fine changes and really small improvements.

DAC's have pretty much hit the ceiling, the future won't bring much in terms of their evolution. The future of headphone audio is in adaptation of headphones to each and every individual, as well as lots of digital sound processing that will create an illusion of really listening to real sounds, not something coming out of a small speaker next to your ear. Sort of "surround sound", but done properly, something that will sound absolutely 100% real.  It's pretty much very similar to video technology. We've pretty much hit the ceiling when it comes to TV's and monitor's, from a technical point of view. Pixels are small enough, colors are ultra-precise, contrasts are infinite, refresh rates are more than good enough, etc. The direction we will go now is 3D, mainly virtual reality, applying that technical ability that we have in order to not watch a flat screen that kind of looks like a window into a different reality anymore, but instead to wear glasses our heads that will really make us see and be in that different reality, or at least make it feel 100% real. Sound will go in exactly the same direction. Stereo will die out, fixed sound recordings will die out,  3D sound recordings will be possible, I mean 3D in the sense that we will be able to move, at our will, through the virtual sound stage. In 50 years we'll be  able to simulate every single sensation, including the sensation of movement while being still. That will lead to incredible evolution in sound and listening to music, imagine being able to move on a virtual stage where musicians play music, and it looks and sounds exactly as if you were really there.

Realism, my friends, realism.
Everything else is just a trivial sideshow.
When was the last time you listened to your headphones and said, "that sounds like the real thing"?

Excellent job of finding the silver lining!! I salute your efforts... 

Hey, thanks man!

 

[StanD]

@Chris J I thought I laid out a simple logical concept, we have limits so electronic audio products cannot get markedly better all the time, especially when existing good products have already exceeded our perceptive abilities. Your answer was more like a dismissive hand wave, tell me something that is trully meaningful that addresses my statement.

 

[Argo Duck]

^

I don't think Chris J was being dismissive at all. As an EE, I think he is quite serious about what he stated as 'the ultimate test'. Not to be fanciful but has a parallel perhaps with the Turing test.

 

[Chris J]

@Chris J
 I thought I laid out a simple logical concept, we have limits so electronic audio products cannot get markedly better all the time, especially when existing good products have already exceeded our perceptive abilities. Your answer was more like a dismissive hand wave, tell me something that is trully meaningful that addresses my statement.

Well it wasn't meant to be!
Sorry, plain prose can read different than the tone added by a face to face conversation.

But Andre is correct, my true intention was: does that hi-Fi system over in the corner pass The Turing Test?
I suspect we tend to forget this in these conversations, but I'm not a mind reader so I can't get into everyone's head.

Why do my Classical recordings sound unsatisfying?
Because they don't sound like the real thing.
OTOH, the local symphony sometimes sounds rather unsatisfying because my Rach Sym #2 was not conducted by Previn.

ya can't win, can ya?

The Turing Test Argument.....maybe it's really the transducers that hold us back....that seems to be the conventional logic.

Or maybe I'm just a contrarian!

Or maybe the test that shall not be named is the wrong test.

 

[bikerboy94]

Schiit Magni/Modi 2 ( Uber ) Thread

Come on guys lets get back on topic. This has been going on for 3 pages.

 

[Chris J]

Schiit Magni/Modi 2 ( Uber ) Thread

Come on guys lets get back on topic. This has been going on for 3 pages.

Very true.
This going in cricles....I'l shut up now.
Enjoy your Magni + Modi!

 

[StanD]

Well it wasn't meant to be!
Sorry, plain prose can read different than the tone added by a face to face conversation.

But Andre is correct, my true intention was: does that hi-Fi system over in the corner pass The Turing Test?
I suspect we tend to forget this in these conversations, but I'm not a mind reader so I can't get into everyone's head.

Why do my Classical recordings sound unsatisfying?
Because they don't sound like the real thing.
OTOH, the local symphony sometimes sounds rather unsatisfying because my Rach Sym #2 was not conducted by Previn.

ya can't win, can ya?

The Turing Test Argument.....maybe it's really the transducers that hold us back....that seems to be the conventional logic.

Or maybe I'm just a contrarian!

Or maybe the test that shall not be named is the wrong test.

Well, amps aren't getting much better, to sort of get back on topic -> get a Magni 2 Uber.  

 I'm done for now.

 

[Krutsch]

Any-Hooo... 

 
Received my Modi 2 Uber today. Connected it to my Mac Mini (2009), using Roon for playback, thru a Wyrd and into my 2-channel speaker system (NAD C 375 BEE integrated amp, into a high-pass filter and then into Miller & Kreisel powered sub and 4 ohm bookshelf speakers). I listen with a near-field speaker arrangement.
 
My initial impression: very neutral, which is a good thing. More so, I think, than any DAC I have. My Rega, Arcam, NuForce, DragonFly, NAD MDC and NAD D 1050 DACs are all colored in different ways, speaking anecdotally - some more than others.
 
I was impressed with how, well, "un-colored" this DAC seems to be. No accentuated bass, treble or mids - again, speaking anecdotally. But I have learned to trust my initial impressions, relative to my other gear, when I move things around (and I do move things around, a lot).
 
I also appreciate the analog output stage - good power levels (greater than 2V Rms?); my system was plenty loud from the Modi 2 Uber analog out and sounded clean.
 
Handled switching sample rates with Roon across Redbook all the way to 192/24, instantly, without a click, tick or pop.
 
Best $149.00 I've ever spent on audio gear, to be sure.

 

[DCofficehack]

Ok, so DT 880 600 Ohms are now in-bound, and I need to pull the trigger on an amp.
 
Please tell me whether or not I'll regret not spending the extra $50 for the Margni 2 Uber over the regular Magni 2?
 
FYI, I'll be running my music straight off a MacBook Pro, no DAC. I don't own active speakers and don't intend to buy any, or at least I don't foresee doing it any time. Word is that the Uber has more power...should I care?

 

[bgentry]

Please tell me whether or not I'll regret not spending the extra $50 for the Margni 2 Uber over the regular Magni 2?

FYI, I'll be running my music straight off a MacBook Pro, no DAC.

I can't comment on Magni2U versus M2. But I'll say this: The internal MBP sound card versus the Modi 2 (not Modi 2U) was a rather large difference for me. I don't want to go back to the MBP's output ever. The Modi 2 is much better. Maybe put that $50 towards the Modi 2 instead.

I don't own active speakers and don't intend to buy any, or at least I don't foresee doing it any time. Word is that the Uber has more power...should I care?

No, you shouldn't care about the power. On paper the power difference is too small to make an audible difference. Now the rest of the circuitry? That's up for debate as to whether it sounds different or "better". I haven't heard the Magni2U so I can't comment. It's supposed to have more than just "more power" according to the literature.

Brian.

 

[DCofficehack]

^^^ That's the first time anyone's clearly stated that the Mac DAC (on the 2013-215 models) doesn't cut it, or that the Modi would make a significant difference. 

 

[Koolpep]

I can't comment on Magni2U versus M2. But I'll say this: The internal MBP sound card versus the Modi 2 (not Modi 2U) was a rather large difference for me. I don't want to go back to the MBP's output ever. The Modi 2 is much better. Maybe put that $50 towards the Modi 2 instead.
No, you shouldn't care about the power. On paper the power difference is too small to make an audible difference. Now the rest of the circuitry? That's up for debate as to whether it sounds different or "better". I haven't heard the Magni2U so I can't comment. It's supposed to have more than just "more power" according to the literature.

Brian.

Good advice. For now. But thinking about the future you should get the more powerful m2u this won't be your last headphone LOL *evilgrin*

The dac is certainly a must as the next upgrade. I started with the Asgard and a MBP the addition of the Asgard blew me away with my then HD598.

 

[bgentry]

^^^ That's the first time anyone's clearly stated that the Mac DAC (on the 2013-215 models) doesn't cut it, or that the Modi would make a significant difference. 

For the record my Mac, which I'm basing this comparison on, is a late 2011 model.

The Mac's built in line output sounded "good". No obvious flaws or noises or anything that made me think anything was wrong. But the difference when I plugged in the Modi 2 was considerable. The clarity improved markedly. Especially in the high frequencies. Not *more* highs. More clear highs.

Brian.

 

[DCofficehack]

For the record my Mac, which I'm basing this comparison on, is a late 2011 model.

The Mac's built in line output sounded "good". No obvious flaws or noises or anything that made me think anything was wrong. But the difference when I plugged in the Modi 2 was considerable. The clarity improved markedly. Especially in the high frequencies. Not *more* highs. More clear highs.

Brian.

I've read that the model year for the Mac makes a difference. It's the 2013 and later models with the really good DACs, But I'm not sure. I'd be delighted to hear other opinions. Either way, I'm going to hold off on the DAC. Phones + amp = my current budget limit.