Latest Thread Images

Resonessence Labs Concero discussion/review thead
Aug 20, 2013 at 9:50 PM Post #1,008 of 2,480
Quote:
flysweep said:
  Nice impressions, Tom.. quick... hide my wallet!
Click to expand...

 
Haha, yes --- I need to hide my own as well! I love using USB-powered DAC/amps, and this blows away everything else I've tried in this category. It's a focused product that doesn't give people more additional functionality than a coax-out, but it really shouldn't be a problem at all --- this thing is truly remarkable and most portable laptop/desktop users shouldn't need to be pining for more functionality, honestly. I don't think it'll do justice to power hungry units, but then again, I don't think it was designed for that purpose. For its intended feature set, I think the HP is peerless.
 
Aug 21, 2013 at 10:40 AM Post #1,010 of 2,480
my lesson in being an "audiophile" is go straight for the top, my first DAC was a Audioengine D1, man that thing is junk, and built up from there wasting $$ when i desired "better" sound.

Just get a Concero HP, your set knowing your at the top.
 
Aug 21, 2013 at 11:53 AM Post #1,011 of 2,480
Quote:
belisk said:
my lesson in being an "audiophile" is go straight for the top, my first DAC was a Audioengine D1, man that thing is junk, and built up from there wasting $$ when i desired "better" sound.

Just get a Concero HP, your set knowing your at the top.
Click to expand...

So good synergy with the HD800?  The HD was described as a little more neutral/cold than the original Concero.  Anyone have the experience that this holds true with the HP?  
 
Aug 21, 2013 at 12:38 PM Post #1,012 of 2,480
Has anyone noticed, that certain media players are able to use filters and others cant. While playing the exact same files.
 
Aug 21, 2013 at 1:51 PM Post #1,014 of 2,480
I wrote a 'review', or just my opinion comparing a stock Concero vs a stock Concero HD here : http://www.head-fi.org/t/634760/resonessence-labs-concero-discussion-review-thead/855#post_9644671 mainly focusing on the price difference and whether the upgrade was justified.
 
As most know here the stock versions of both have different output voltages amongst other things. The Concero being 1.2v the Concero HD being 2.0v. In order to do a proper comparison it is pretty important to get the volume levels to match, or at least be very close. I came up with a simple system were I was able to pretty closely match the volumes up and was pretty pleased with the results. I posted my findings in that above 'review'. Since returning the HD and having to order a standard Concero I was asked if I would like to test a Concero and a Concero HD but this time with the output being the exact same, no fiddling around, no close enough. I thought why the hell not, at least I can definitively confirm my findings now and resume my peaceful listening sessions not worrying about the dreaded upgrade bug ! So I said yes, please send me both. I will send back the defeated !
 
In my original 'review', I was pretty convinced that the original Concero was a better value. Not that the HD was bad or inferior but that the difference in price was not necessarily justified for me. So when I finally got both units in, I eagerly set them up on different computers and let them basically run in for about 60 hours straight. I didn't perceive that much of a 'break-in' period previously so I thought letting them run for 2 1/2 days was sufficient enough.
 
I started out with the HD at 1.2v because with certain albums I was already very familiar with the original Concero sound or at least I thought I was. The good thing was I had an original Concero to turn to when I needed to ! After a considerable amount of time with the HD I noted a few changes for the better. Generally speaking a greater presence, a much wider sound stage and an added layer of depth if you will. I do not mean depth as in bass, although the bass seems more controlled and deep. I mainly perceived it as if a ever so slight layer of dust had been washed off and everything seemed cleaner and more accurate. In certain busy moments on songs, I would feel like the HD was presenting a much clearer presentation. I thought to myself this can't be, I was so confident in how highly I regarded the original Concero. So I plugged it in and started to do some direct a/b testing. Not only were my new findings confirmed, it was so abundantly clear that when directly compared at the same output the HD is a far superior product.
 
After reaching out to Mark about the possibility of keeping the HD with the lower output voltage he basically said it was not going to be something they are planning on doing and that I should think about upgrading the firmware which will set the output back to the stock 2.0. I was apprehensive to do that because I thought the lower output was one of the bigger factors into why I was so happy with the Original but since I was going to have to upgrade it at some point I went ahead and did it. After a few minor adjustments in the ouput I am more than pleased with the stock HD and the higher output voltage. Mark attributed alot of this change in my opinion of the HD to the changes in firmware that have happened since I first owned the HD. he said alot of bugs were fixed and alot of things were optimized and it is a much better performing unit now. So anyone who hasn't updated to the newest 2.2 firmware I would HIGHLY recommend you do so, it is very easy to do. You can find it here along with simple instructions : http://resonessencelabs.com/software-updates-for-concero/
 
There is no doubt in my mind that the Concero HD competes with dac's above its price range. In my experiences trying almost 10 dacs under 1500 bucks and a half dozen above that. You would have to get well above 2k to easily defeat the HD and even then it would put up a real fight. It absolutely represents a true value, and in this market finding a product that meets its price point in performance is rare. To find one that supercedes it as much as the Concero does is an amazing achievement. I just wish everyone could directly compare the 2 models like I was fortunate enough to do. Take my word, I not only believe the price is justified now, I think it is a necessary upgrade for original owners.
 
I wrote this in one shot so I am sorry if it is longwinded or hard to read or redundant at times.
Props to Mark and everyone at the RLabs team, and thanks for giving me the opportunity to properly test these 2 amazing devices.
 
Aug 21, 2013 at 4:05 PM Post #1,016 of 2,480
Seems to finally be a real confirmation that the HD is indeed superior.  Why did it take this long! (not poking at kcee specifically)
 
*edit* I genuinely don't mean to come off apprehensive or argumentative with the above statement... just to be on the safe side.
 
Aug 21, 2013 at 4:40 PM Post #1,017 of 2,480
Quote:
townyj said:
Has anyone noticed, that certain media players are able to use filters and others cant. While playing the exact same files.
Click to expand...

 
You may have missed it because this thread is moving fast, but this was discussed a page or two ago: the selectable filtering/upsampling can only be applied to 44.1kHz and 48kHz material. Higher resolution tracks don't need it as they already have a higher native sample rate. If your media player let's you apply filtering to a track with a sample rate above 48kHz, then it's doing some type of added processing to downconvert the signal. You don't want that. Make sure there are no filters or anything else engaged. You want a native, bitperfect output. Once you achieve that, all media players should perform the same way.
 
Aug 21, 2013 at 5:03 PM Post #1,018 of 2,480
Great write up kcee.
 
Just had one question for you. Was your original Concero running the old 2.0 version or the new 2.2 when doing your comparison? Also did you notice an improvement in sound for the Original Concero after the updating to the 2.2 over the 2.0 or was it mainly and improvement for the HD?
 
Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top