[HaVoC-28]

Quote:

The Galaxy S was tested against an Audio-gd NFB-12
 
http://dl.project-voodoo.org/RMAA/reports/nfb-12-galaxys-voodoosound-load-hd650.htm
 
it acquitted itself very well apart from crosstalk which while poor is still low enough to probably be no big deal

 
Why jack Splitter and a HD650 for load ? for a correct RMAA there should be nothing in the loop and use Audio GD NFB-12 line out for mesurements .
 
On this configuration it's mesuring the A-GD NFB-12 HP out wich have amplification , Galaxy S don't have such amplification it's much more like a line out . 
 
And even with HD650 is level matching done ?

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

 
Why jack Splitter and a HD650 for load ? for a correct RMAA there should be nothing in the loop and use Audio GD NFB-12 line out for mesurements .
 
On this configuration it's mesuring the A-GD NFB-12 HP out wich have amplification , Galaxy S don't have such amplification it's much more like a line out . 
 
And even with HD650 is level matching done ?

 I suggest you ask at http://project-voodoo.org/ - the folks there should be able to address your questions. My understanding was that the Galaxy S has an amp but detects being connected to line level devices and outputs a fixed level there, however connected to headphones it does not bypass its own amp ?
 
 
More Galaxy S measurements at http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1053978&page=3

 

[derbigpr]

Quote:

 I suggest you ask at http://project-voodoo.org/ - the folks there should be able to address your questions. My understanding was that the Galaxy S has an amp but detects being connected to line level devices and outputs a fixed level there, however connected to headphones it does not bypass its own amp ?

 
 
Regardless of all the theories,  amp + galaxy S sounds as good as that same amp + 800$ DAC. In fact, they sound identical, since even when instantly switching inputs, when both sources are playing the same song, at the same time, at the same volume,  there is no change in sound, it just sounds the same.

 

[derbigpr]

And its no surprise to me that Galaxy S is superior to a 300$ DAC by Audio GD, because it really sounds excellent, by any standard.

 

[Timestretch]

I'm not surprised that a Galaxy S sounds good vs a fancy DAC. But it will be less durable, it sure won't look nearly as cool, and it lacks multiple inputs/outputs and probably can't reliably get a signal through a 50-meter XLR cable, though. Standalone $1000+ DACs might not actually sound that much better than this phone to human ears in most scenarios. If sound is your only concern, then that's great. I think a lot of audiophiles are secretly more interested in the exotic tech, overengineered, fancy gear aspect of the hobby than they are entirely into the simple purity of sound aspect. A mere phone just won't do even if it does sound perfectly transparent.  
  
To make a comparison, a $20 DVD player will play DVDs today just as accurately as a $600 DVD player of the 90s. The new one will be simple and plastic and ugly, though -- the older one probably comes in a much more appealing package. But they'll still play the same movie at the same resolution and your TV won't know the difference. Is a DAC so different?

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

I'm not surprised that a Galaxy S sounds good vs a fancy DAC. But it will be less durable, it sure won't look nearly as cool, and it lacks multiple inputs/outputs and probably can't reliably get a signal through a 50-meter XLR cable, though. Standalone $1000+ DACs might not actually sound that much better than this phone to human ears in most scenarios. If sound is your only concern, then that's great. I think a lot of audiophiles are secretly more interested in the exotic tech, overengineered, fancy gear aspect of the hobby than they are entirely into the simple purity of sound aspect. A mere phone just won't do even if it does sound perfectly transparent.  
  
To make a comparison, a $20 DVD player will play DVDs today just as accurately as a $600 DVD player of the 90s. The new one will be simple and plastic and ugly, though -- the older one probably comes in a much more appealing package. But they'll still play the same movie at the same resolution and your TV won't know the difference. Is a DAC so different?

 
You pays yer money and you takes yer choice. The more telling broader question is: if a $1K DAC is not audibly different from a cellphone how likely is it to be audibly different from a competently engineered $200 DAC ?

 

[derbigpr]

Quote:

 
You pays yer money and you takes yer choice. The more telling broader question is: if a $1K DAC is not audibly different from a cellphone how likely is it to be audibly different from a competently engineered $200 DAC ?

 
 
Well, Galaxy S is not just any cellphone. Its got an exellent DAC inside from Wolfson that is put in many pretty expensive DAC's or CD players. About the 200$ vs 1000$ DAC differences....well, not much different. And when you think about, there is not much in sound that CAN be different, apart from colorations added to it.

 

[proton007]

Quote:

 
 
Well, Galaxy S is not just any cellphone. Its got an exellent DAC inside from Wolfson that is put in many pretty expensive DAC's or CD players. About the 200$ vs 1000$ DAC differences....well, not much different. And when you think about, there is not much in sound that CAN be different, apart from colorations added to it.

 
Most electronic chips come with a reference design. Meaning if you follow the design, you'll get the rated performance. Whether the manufacturer can do something to go beyond that performance depends on the technical/design expertise. So my theory is that the cost here is a pretty gray area. You don't really know what you're paying for.

 

[mikeaj]

Wolfson (and really, are they that much better than alternatives?) or not, keep in mind that the audio chips in cell phones and the like are designs optimized for low power consumption.  They're trading off performance to get you better battery life.  Don't forget that they're also jam-packed inside a device with all kinds of noisy digital and RF electronics nearby.  Even supposing the audio chip designer does a great job, the handset manufacturer has a different reality and set of priorities to work with.

 

[proton007]

Quote:

Wolfson (and really, are they that much better than alternatives?) or not, keep in mind that the audio chips in cell phones and the like are designs optimized for low power consumption.  They're trading off performance to get you better battery life.  Don't forget that they're also jam-packed inside a device with all kinds of noisy digital and RF electronics nearby.  Even supposing the audio chip designer does a great job, the handset manufacturer has a different reality and set of priorities to work with.

 
So considering that the phone is an inferior environment for any DAC, how should we interpret this finding no difference between a phone and a 1K external dac? 
Is the phone well designed, or the external DAC poorly designed?

 

[derbigpr]

Quote:

Wolfson (and really, are they that much better than alternatives?) or not, keep in mind that the audio chips in cell phones and the like are designs optimized for low power consumption.  They're trading off performance to get you better battery life.  Don't forget that they're also jam-packed inside a device with all kinds of noisy digital and RF electronics nearby.  Even supposing the audio chip designer does a great job, the handset manufacturer has a different reality and set of priorities to work with.

 
 
All completely irrelevant for final performance.

 

[stv014]

Quote:

Wow, Audio-gd measurements are pathetic, even for a $200 DAC.

 
While I do suspect it is not as good as advertised (for example, the mid-bass boost on the frequency response looks too high for the claimed 2 Ohm output impedance), it is quite possible that the measurements are incorrect. In particular, the noise and dynamic range results are worse than a reasonably decent onboard codec, and show significant amount of interference. I think there was a ground loop between the computer and the NFB-12 (a very common issue with sound card based measurements), and that was responsible for some of the poor results.

 

[stv014]

Quote:

Is the phone well designed, or the external DAC poorly designed?

 
 There are plenty of poorly designed and very overpriced "audiophile" products, unfortunately. But if people buy these, why not sell them ?

 

[derbigpr]

Quote:

 
While I do suspect it is not as good as advertised (for example, the mid-bass boost on the frequency response looks too high for the claimed 2 Ohm output impedance), it is quite possible that the measurements are incorrect. In particular, the noise and dynamic range results are worse than a reasonably decent onboard codec, and show significant amount of interference. I think there was a ground loop between the computer and the NFB-12 (a very common issue with sound card based measurements), and that was responsible for some of the poor results.

 
 
Or maybe Audio GD is selling graphite at a price of a diamond. Why not sell something that is realistically worth $50 for 300? Same as a high end manufacturers sell stuff thats worth 500$ for 3000-4000.

 

[stv014]

Quote:

Or maybe Audio GD is selling graphite at a price of a diamond. Why not sell something that is realistically worth $50 for 300? Same as a high end manufacturers sell stuff thats worth 500$ for 3000-4000.

 
That is not unlikely, but I still suspect the measurements are wrong as well. The noise spectrum shown on the graphs does look like computer ground noise. See also the graphs here, these show the problem using two sound cards in the same PC.