[zilch0md]

  Hi Guys,
 
[snip]
 
With that in mind, it won't leave me a huge amount of space for music. Not the biggest library by far, but even ripped per above, its about 30GB. That'll be a whole lot bigger with FLAC of course. So, the other week I saw these: http://www.lexar.com/products/usb-flash-drives/lexar-jumpdrive-c20i.html
 
128GB of onboard memory with through connection to USB-A for charging (and transferring data from the Mac/PC, of course)
 
So...as an easy way of getting around my space constraints, can I use this as my connection between the iPhone and the Oppo, and populate it with FLAC audio? I know I'll need to use the Lexar application to access the music - that may prevent me from using Hibiki or Onkyo HD, so maybe I'm just wasting my time completely?
 
[snip]
 
Spencer.

 
Don't miss the 1st footnote on the page you linked:
 

 ¹ Files supported: Music—MP3/CAF/ACC/AIF/WAV/AIFF/M4A. Video—AVI/FLV/MP4/MOV/M4V/MKV/MPG/RM/RMVB/WMV

 
FLAC is not supported.
 
As you concluded, above, in my experience, ALL of the outboard storage products out there that are made for iDevices, can only play files using an included proprietary player.  I suspect, but you would have to test it, that the proprietary player would send S/PDIF to the HA-2's USB A port, no problem. But how polished is the UI of that player?  I'd bet it's a buggy piece of junk. Again, you'll have to test it. Take one for the team and let us know. 

 
Mike

 

[Mercilesslord]

hi guys where do u guys get ur micro usb to micro usb otg cable? i am looking for a cheap one. thanks!!

 

[ryanjsoo]

hi guys where do u guys get ur micro usb to micro usb otg cable? i am looking for a cheap one. thanks!!

Have a look at this one here:
http://s.aliexpress.com/Qnqu63EF

 

[TimeLord]

@spennyb
There has been a lot communicated about FLAC and ripping CDs in the past couple pages, so I won't try to gather the quotes. I do want to point you in the right direction when it comes to ripping CDs. In the not too distant past, I too was faced with the dilemma of tons of mp3s ripped in various compression settings from 192 to 320 kbps over the years and decided once and for all to rip everything into FLAC.
 
mp3 and AAC (in the case of iTunes) are lossy formats; this means in order to achieve their extraordinary size compression of a song they throw away parts of the frequency spectrum. The lower the kbps, the more information is thrown out. You can test this for yourself. Rip a song in 128 kbps and then again in 320 kbps and it will be apparent to you which one is which.
 
FLAC is different. It's a compression algorithm, but it is lossless. As someone above has already mentioned there are different compression settings. You can set the compression level from zero to 8. If set at zero, the output file is the least compressed (bigger file), but the ripping process is faster as there is less work to be done. If you set the compression level to 8, then the output file is the smallest it can be, but the ripping process takes the longest. Of course any setting in between zero and 8 will yield a compromise of file size and ripping speed, accordingly.
 
Someone mentioned that CD quality is the best you can do and anything else above that is a waste. I have found that to not be true. I have countless examples of higher bit rate music that sounds better. How far up the bit rate ladder can you go before there are no differences? I cannot answer that question. There are sound engineers and recording masters that do not agree on this point, let alone a hobbyist such as myself. Additionally, I don't know if the higher bit rate music that I have is better because it is a higher bit rate or if the sound engineers did a better job of creating the higher bit rate tracks than they did the lower bit rate tracks when they created them from the master recordings.
 
If you want to hear what a truly well recorded track in a high bit rate can sound like, download any album by Chesky Records from HDTracks and I guarantee you'll be blown away.
 
I'd be remiss if I didn't point this out regarding HDTracks: Not all the music on HDTracks that is higher bit rate originated that way. I understand that they upsample a lot of their high bit rate tracks from CDs. Essentially filling the extra space with nothing and therefore having no audible difference from the lower bit rate tracks. So check the details section of the album and see what they state there to see if that particular album is worth the extra cost for the higher bit rate. Chesky Records albums are guaranteed to be sourced from the master and you'll definitely get what you pay for on those albums.
 
As for ripping a CD, the best way that I have found for doing this is using Exact Audio Copy (EAC); and best part is, it is free as long as you're not using it for commercial purposes. EAC takes into account, even the particular minor misalignment of the laser in your drive. It takes longer to use this software than other software, but when you're done ripping with EAC that's the last time you'll have to rip your collection because you will end up with an exact copy of whatever is on your CD. Also, EAC compares the resulting output files with all other EAC users that have ripped that CD and gives you a score that will let you know how well your rip was performed.
 
Again for the doubters, take an mp3 that was ripped at 320 kbps and compare that to an EAC ripped CD and compare the results. You should be able to hear the difference between the lossy mp3 and the lossless FLAC. If you're unable to discern the difference, then happily stick to your mp3s.
 
As for iPods and iPhones, that is what I use for transport and I feed the digital output of my iPhone to the HA-2/HA-2 SE. To do that, I use Korg's iAudioGate which works similarly to Onkyo HD Player and outputs the digital bits past Apple's 24 bit 48 kHZ limit. I prefer iAudioGate because the interface is cleaner and it gets updated more than Onkyo's. It's not perfect, but it gets the job done.
 
One last thing, if you are only going to be ripping CDs and won't have to deal with higher bit files, you can make your life simpler by using EAC to rip into ALAC (apple's lossless format similar to FLAC) and it will be compatible iTunes and iPhones. You can use the native iPhone player. Or you can use iAudioGate to output to the HA-2. Also, it is simple to go back and forth between FLAC and ALAC. Since they are both lossless, you are simply swapping out containers and you are not losing anything in the conversion.
 
Happy ripping.

 

[abm0]

 
Someone mentioned that CD quality is the best you can do and anything else above that is a waste. I have found that to not be true.

You may have that subjective impression, especially if you're emotionally invested in the exaggerated price paid for music on HDTracks, but I doubt you've done any proper blind/ABX testing to establish what's true and what's not in the matter. 44.1 kHz sampling is enough to perfectly reproduce all frequencies that the human perceptive apparatus can hear, and 16-bit samples are enough to accommodate a 112 dB difference between the loudest and quietest sounds in your recording. If you turn your music volume to non-hearing-damaging levels you will not be able to hear the quietest (-112 dBFS) parts of your music unless maybe you spend a lot of time listening to music in an anechoic chamber (which I'm pretty sure you don't).
 
Physics is physics and biology is biology. You can't change the hard limits of your body by purchasing more expensive music that takes up more space.
 

I don't know if the higher bit rate music that I have is better because it is a higher bit rate or if the sound engineers did a better job of creating the higher bit rate tracks than they did the lower bit rate tracks when they created them from the master recordings.

Not when they created them from the masters, but rather if they created completely new masters with hi-res delivery in mind. Only if they re-master and somehow do a better job of it the second time around (maybe they compress the dynamics less, for one handy example) will you get audibly superior quality in the hi-res release, and it will have nothing to do with either the bit depth or the sampling rate, it will just be a better master and it will sound better than the previous master even when rendered in 16/44.1.
 

Again for the doubters, take an mp3 that was ripped at 320 kbps and compare that to an EAC ripped CD and compare the results. You should be able to hear the difference between the lossy mp3 and the lossless FLAC.

Not in most songs. What ABX tests I've seen reported show experienced critical listeners unable to tell the difference for most tracks, with some rare exceptions in the form of very "busy" symphonic tracks. The difference between 320-MP3 and lossless/CD-original is also something that has been blown way out of proportion. And consumers who pay attention to the available evidence from blind/ABX tests can save themselves a lot of money and storage space by not buying or ripping absolutely everything in FLAC/ALAC/OGG-lossless/APE or what have you, and by not spending a dime on hi-res-anything (unless they plan to do some mastering themselves - hi-res is actually necessary for professional sound processing, even though it does practically nothing for pure listening).

 

[spennyb]

Timelord & abm0,
 
Thank you so much for taking the time to construct perhaps the most informative replies I've seen in a long while - jolly good reads, and some really great pointers in there with regards to applications and methodologies.
 
I didn't reply to the counter to my comment above, re "CD's being a compromise"....I'm a newb in this forum, so would be poor form, but I also appreciate it wasn't the best worded comment from me. What I actually meant was, that from a listening perspective, I agree with the counter argument as I couldn't comment whether the human ear (and especially my non-sound engineer ears!) can detect any audible difference between that offered by a CD and a master recording or HDTracks sample like the Chesky offerings.
 
What I was driving at, is that at some point in the design process for CD's, when the boffins were designing and taking input from all concerned parties, there has to have been either an engineering/mathematical compromise, a marketing compromise, a packaging/consumer compromise, cost compromise, durability compromise, etc. Or quite possibly all of the above. The fact that it's still regarded so highly for a technology that's approaching 40yrs old is astounding (in fact, being in the IT industry, I'm struggling to think of many technologies that enjoy that kind of continued longevity; zOS on Mainframe, POWERi nee AS/400 (both of which have, but are not the same as Day 1 release because they've been developed immensely), and TCP/IP)
 
....but it must also be said that with free reign in an ideal-world and without having to bow to the above considerations of price, how easily it can be manufactured, and so on, would we have had CD's?...or would laser discs (!) and studio grade magnetic media have been the dominant mainstream technology? Of course not, nobody wanted to carry those around, nobody would have manufactured a portable device for them despite being mathematically superior by being able to store more data. Even SACD with the same form factor never broke into mainstream, I'm assuming because it broke the cost compromise criteria. Unfortunately, sometimes good-enough is good-enough for 99.99% of the consuming market.
 
So, CDs are still BLOODY good technology and intrinsically "right" with all the above criteria in mind...we're still on Gen 1; a CD from 1981 will still play in a 2016 CD player, and vice-versa....amazing when you think about it.
 
Right, time for me to jump on the lathe and continue to work on the car projects, then go and play around with EAC and see what my future strategy is going to be.
 
Cheers chaps,
Spencer.

 

[TimeLord]

@abm0 I'm not here to argue what you're happy with. I was clear in my post that this is far from a settled part of sound reproduction. Even going as far as to state that I wasn't sure if higher bit rate music sounded better because of how it was created or if it was the higher bit rate itself. If you're happy with your mp3s and CD quality, good for you. Always trust your ears.

 

[sreenisatish]

Can anyone confirm if the bass boost works when using it as a line out USB DAC?

 

[TimeLord]

Can anyone confirm if the bass boost works when using it as a line out USB DAC?

I just tested it and the bass boost has no effect on the line out output.

 

[sreenisatish]

I just tested it and the bass boost has no effect on the line out output.

Ah a little disappointing but I think I'll still get it. Thanks for checking.

 

[miketlse]

Ah a little disappointing but I think I'll still get it. Thanks for checking.

I presume the design thinking was that the bass boost, is primarily to improve the sound through headphones, in noisy environments (eg commuting).
I expect the designers also thought that people would use the line-out as an input to a preamp, and they could use the preamp to boost the bass instead (using tone controls?).

 

[TimeLord]

When I first started trying to compare the HA-2 and HA-2 SE's respective DACs, I got confused as to what I was hearing. So much so that I introduced the HA-1 as a control; then things became clear.
 
First, the test rig setup: iPhone or PC USB in the case of the HA-1 --> HA-2, HA-2 SE, or HA-1 --> Line out -->  Cavalli Liquid Gold --> Focal Utopia
 
I used ConfidentialMX ft. Becky Hanson - I Started a Joke as the test track. It was a good test track because it incorporates deep bass with delicate female vocals and some fast transients.
 
The first thing I noticed was that the explosions at the beginning of the track are much more composed on the HA-2 than they are on the HA-2 SE. The explosion sounds abrupt and stunted on the SE. I thought "how could that be?" Then I noticed the female vocals which were reaching up into the 3.5 kHz regions at times were not as smooth on the SE. It was like they had ragged edges when I tried to visualize it.
 
That's when I hooked up the HA-1 to see the similarities among the three. This is when it became apparent what Oppo must have been trying to do. The sound signature of the SE was closer to the HA-1 versus how close the HA-2 was to the HA-1. The HA-1 is brighter than the HA-2. Unfortunately, where the HA-1 was able to render the explosions and articulate the vocals, the SE fell short. The HA-2, while not trying to mimic the HA-1, does a good job of rendering the explosions and the vocals in its own way. It's not as airy as the HA-1, but I don't expect it to be either.
 
The HA-2 SE seems to have tried to do what the HA-1 does, but has fallen short and unfortunately is not as good as its predecessor, the HA-2.
 
I mentioned in an earlier post that the HA-2 SE has a quieter amp section than the HA-2. Because the test above isolated the DAC section, I wanted to see if there was a synergy between the new DAC and amp in the HA-2 SE so I tested both the HA-2 and the SE out of their headphone outputs driving the Utopia.
 
The HA-2 SE performed significantly worse than the HA-2. Playing the same track as above, the explosions did not decay well. They were muddy and not well composed. The vocals too were harsher.
 
I wanted to see how other tracks sounded so I tried a track I often use for testing: Kat Edmonson - Summertime.
 
The instrument separation was better on the HA-2 than on the SE. The SE's brighter presentation gives an illusion of more air and its quieter amp is noticeable in the quieter sections of the song where the HA-2's hiss is more audible.
 
Conclusion:
Oppo tried to bring more air and a brighter presentation to the HA-2 SE, but ultimately it did not produce a better product. Based on these results, I cannot recommend the HA-2 SE. I'll be sticking with my HA-2 for my portable listening.
 
 
 

 

[spennyb]

Wow, interesting comparison....at the very least I 'm going to audition the HA-2 ASAP before stock is depleted in favour of the newer model. I have a good relationship with a hi-fi shop in central London who stock the Oppo DACs, I'll try and ascertain whether I could even get lucky with a stock clearance price drop!

 

[sreenisatish]

Conclusion:
Oppo tried to bring more air and a brighter presentation to the HA-2 SE, but ultimately it did not produce a better product. Based on these results, I cannot recommend the HA-2 SE. I'll be sticking with my HA-2 for my portable listening.

How about the DAC section alone? I am planning to use the ha2se as a DAC alone with another dedicated amp. Was wondering if the issues you mentioned were inherent to the DAC or the amp portion.

 

[spennyb]

   
Don't miss the 1st footnote on the page you linked:
 
 
FLAC is not supported.
 
As you concluded, above, in my experience, ALL of the outboard storage products out there that are made for iDevices, can only play files using an included proprietary player.  I suspect, but you would have to test it, that the proprietary player would send S/PDIF to the HA-2's USB A port, no problem. But how polished is the UI of that player?  I'd bet it's a buggy piece of junk. Again, you'll have to test it. Take one for the team and let us know. 

 
Mike

Arggh...great catch Mike, thanks...I had totally missed that. I may still get one "for other stuff"; maybe offload some photos, use it to keep a cache of videos to watch, but looks like I'm going to have to free-up some native capacity in the iPhone for the music.
 
Thanks again
Spencer.