[gregorio]

[1] You need to search harder. Some very good natural sounding recordings are available in all genres.
[2] Labels like Chesky Records, Water Lily Acoustics, and Mapleshade all pride themselves on the quality of their recordings.
[2a] Engineers David Chesky, Kavi Alexander, and Pierre Sprey, respectively, are all very particular concerning the sound quality of their releases.
[3] Also, a good source of natural sounding classical music, is Nimbus Records. The majority of their releases use a very minimal miking technique, for their Ambisonic recordings.

1. Ah, a reading malfunction! I never said that acoustic classical recordings can't sound natural, I stated that they "don't match the sound of live music". Whether an individual hears/recognises the difference between these two things depends on exactly how the recording was mixed, the quality of the individual's reproduction system and not least, their listening skills!

2. Can you name a classical label that does not pride itself on the quality of their recordings?
2a. Every classical music engineer I've ever met, worked with or heard of is "very particular concerning the sound quality of their releases".

3. "Minimal miking technique" was the preferred option for stereo recording acoustic ensembles up to the beginning of the 1950's, when multi-mic arrays/techniques were developed which could not "match the sound of live music" anywhere near as accurately (as say a Blumlein pair) but provided superior subjective results. And, I'm well aware of ambisonics and quite often use B-Format myself, though never in isolation. That's not to say that minimal mic'ing can't produce very good results, just that in the vast majority of circumstances multi-mic arrays produce superior results. And incidentally, the article to which you linked is not bad but unsurprisingly is written like an advertisement for Ambisonics, the historical time-line is incorrect in places and therefore so too are the assertions based on it and lastly, the article is 24 years out of date.

G

 

[StimpyWan]

1. Ah, a reading malfunction! I never said that acoustic classical recordings can't sound natural, I stated that they "don't match the sound of live music". Whether an individual hears/recognises the difference between these two things depends on exactly how the recording was mixed, the quality of the individual's reproduction system and not least, their listening skills!

Most systems "don't match the sound of live music" either. Nothing new there. But, I try for a system that reproducse live music well. I'm not interested in an "audiophile" set up.

2. Can you name a classical label that does not pride itself on the quality of their recordings?
2a. Every classical music engineer I've ever met, worked with or heard of is "very particular concerning the sound quality of their releases".

Well, 'ya gott'a start somewhere. Just a mention of a few labels, in my experience that try harder than others.

3. "Minimal miking technique" was the preferred option for stereo recording acoustic ensembles up to the beginning of the 1950's, when multi-mic arrays/techniques were developed which could not "match the sound of live music" anywhere near as accurately (as say a Blumlein pair) but provided superior subjective results. And, I'm well aware of ambisonics and quite often use B-Format myself, though never in isolation. That's not to say that minimal mic'ing can't produce very good results, just that in the vast majority of circumstances multi-mic arrays produce superior results. And incidentally, the article to which you linked is not bad but unsurprisingly is written like an advertisement for Ambisonics, the historical time-line is incorrect in places and therefore so too are the assertions based on it and lastly, the article is 24 years out of date.

I guess if pre-50's music can be relevant, so can Ambisonics. Both after the truth in music, and the faithful reproduction of such.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Most systems "don't match the sound of live music" either. Nothing new there.
[2] But, I try for a system that reproducse live music well.
[3] Well, 'ya gott'a start somewhere. Just a mention of a few labels, in my experience that try harder than others.
[4] I guess if pre-50's music can be relevant, so can Ambisonics. Both after the truth in music, and the faithful reproduction of such.

1. Exactly! So we have systems that "don't match the sound of live music" trying to reproduce recordings that "don't match the sound of live music" to start with, hence why I stated that goal is a myth!

2. Firstly, there's relatively very little "live music" recording, many/most of the music recordings described as "natural" and "like being there" are completely manufactured and "there" never even existed and Secondly, what do you mean by "well", hi-fidelity or a personal subjective opinion?

3. How hard do others try? If you don't know, how do you know they try less hard than the few you've mentioned?

4. Clearly that's not true. Pretty much no one is interested in the "truth in music", they're interested in a subjectively pleasing result. How many people are "after" a track that lasts about 6 days and comprises various takes of instruments/voices one at a time or in small sub-groups? What people ARE "after" is a completely artificial/manufactured recording of those individual takes/tracks edited and mixed together that lasts just a few minutes. Even with the relatively tiny acoustic classical music recording market, priority is given to achieving a subjectively pleasing result over the "truth".

G

 

[StimpyWan]

1. Exactly! So we have systems that "don't match the sound of live music" trying to reproduce recordings that "don't match the sound of live music" to start with, hence why I stated that goal is a myth!
2. Firstly, there's relatively very little "live music" recording, many/most of the music recordings described as "natural" and "like being there" are completely manufactured and "there" never even existed and Secondly, what do you mean by "well", hi-fidelity or a personal subjective opinion?
3. How hard do others try? If you don't know, how do you know they try less hard than the few you've mentioned?
4. Clearly that's not true. Pretty much no one is interested in the "truth in music", they're interested in a subjectively pleasing result. How many people are "after" a track that lasts about 6 days and comprises various takes of instruments/voices one at a time or in small sub-groups? What people ARE "after" is a completely artificial/manufactured recording of those individual takes/tracks edited and mixed together that lasts just a few minutes. Even with the relatively tiny acoustic classical music recording market, priority is given to achieving a subjectively pleasing result over the "truth".

01) Hurrah, we agree...!

02) In your experience. In your opinion. That doesn't mean that applies to all recordings.

03) Again, like you, in my own personal experience, which is no less valid than another's. That from years of working with various mastering houses, and hearing thousands of recordings. Most with engineering notes, describing the sessions. Plus, personally interfacing with many of those mastering engineers too. Many artists as well, providing first hand information of the recording, while discussing their mastering needs.

04) Again, in your experience. I feel you paint to too broad a stroke. I know members of various bands, and many record in as live a manner as possible. While that may be due to necessity, with budgetary concerns, the end results are still valid. Even an amateur musician, with whom I work, was very proud of his latest recordings. He and his band recorded the approximately 45 minute piece live. I believe it was a 4-piece band, doing prog-rock improve material. Very atmospheric, recorded in a large warehouse space. An enjoyable performance, that was very well done. So, I do believe we are coming full circle, and veering towards a more minimalist approach. Hopefully, getting away from the "loudness wars" at the same time. A long time coming.

 

[Runrunsmithfly]

So I think the Modi multibit is a great a little DAC, for $250 it's really hard to beat. I had a Bifrost multibit and I really couldn't tell much difference between the Modi multibit and Bifrost multibit when it came down to the sound. I also had a Modi 3 and Bifrost 4490. They've good DACs and the Modi 3 is a heck of deal for the money. But they really didn't deliver what I wanted in the long run.
I am intrigued by the Modius and the price is right so I'm leaning towards buying one.

 

[fqdhlyc]

I had Bifrost 4490 and wonder if it can compete with Modius since the used price is around $200 as well.

 

[StimpyWan]

So I think the Modi multibit is a great a little DAC, for $250 it's really hard to beat. I had a Bifrost multibit and I really couldn't tell much difference between the Modi multibit and Bifrost multibit when it came down to the sound. I also had a Modi 3 and Bifrost 4490. They've good DACs and the Modi 3 is a heck of deal for the money. But they really didn't deliver what I wanted in the long run.
I am intrigued by the Modius and the price is right so I'm leaning towards buying one.

In my experience, the Delta Sigma DACs have a strong family resemblance. Just better performance as you go up the line. So, if the others didn't work, I'm not sure if the Modius would be a huge improvement? But, it's a sweet sounding DAC for the money, and cheap enough to not be much of a risk.

Good luck.

 

[Runrunsmithfly]

In my experience, the Delta Sigma DACs have a strong family resemblance. Just better performance as you go up the line. So, if the others didn't work, I'm not sure if the Modius would be a huge improvement? But, it's a sweet sounding DAC for the money, and cheap enough to not be much of a risk.

Good luck.

Thanks for your reply. I think it's worth a try just to mix things up a bit. Schiit has the return policy or I'm sure I could sell it with no problems. I'm curious about the differences between the Modi 3 or Bifrost 4490 and the Modius. I like the reviews that I've read so far.

 

[StimpyWan]

Thanks for your reply. I think it's worth a try just to mix things up a bit. Schiit has the return policy or I'm sure I could sell it with no problems. I'm curious about the differences between the Modi 3 or Bifrost 4490 and the Modius. I like the reviews that I've read so far.

The Bifrost 4490 is a very good DAC. Better bass impact than the Modi 3 or Modius. Though, I think the Modius has better treble response. Not brighter, more treble detail. Slightly better bass timbre too. And if using USB in, much better with the new Unison feature.

 

[Runrunsmithfly]

I wonder if it's even worth buying if you have the modi already, because they both seem almost too similar

You're probably right. It's kind of funny because I've been listening to a deck I recently picked up with a TDA1541A S1 in it and I haven't even been using the Modi multibit that much. I like Schiit products and I when i see a DAC for a couple of hundred bucks I automatically want to try it.

 

[audiobomber]

I did not take the time to respond to your post to change your mind (which seems clearly made up and is, at least, consistent with posts of yours I've seen in other threads. Maybe though, just maybe, there are reasonable people who have different opinions and experience than you do? And even if you are right and a $2 dac sounds the same as what we choose to buy, why does that matter to you?

Enjoying music is an experience. And if we want to spend $200, or $500 or $2000 on a DAC and we enjoy the music more that way (even if it is just a placebo or expectation bias) the bottom line is we ENJOY the music more that way. I also enjoy learning about the science and engineering and different approaches to music reproduction and how it may affect what I perceive. And I agree that SOME vendors make questionable claims and use bad science, but certainly not all. At the end of the day though, this hobby, at least for me, is about loving music and sharing the joy of that with others who love music too. So how about we share what we know, what we perceive and what we experience without prosletyzing or name calling or trying to 'get people on our side'? Respecting that others may see and experience things differently than we do.

My wife loves music (and is a musician) but doesn't really care about 'accurate' sound and is happy listening to an Amazon echo. Should I tell her she is wrong to enjoy that and bring out charts and graphs to show her how what she is listening to doesn't have the right frequency response? Or should I be glad that she is a fellow music lover and finds joy and pleasure in her experience? And if I enjoy a different sound and value things about music reproduction that bring me pleasure that she doesn't care about - should she tell me I am wrong and should just be happy with the echo?
Why would either of us want to take the joy of music away from the other?

There is something you are not getting. Some people, like gregorio, are only here to piss in others' Cheerios. That is their joy.

 

[MarkSubsonik]

Can't wait to have my first listen tomorrow morning! Just had time to plug everything in and turn on before heading to work tonight Just upgraded from Modi 3 + Magni Heresy. Will report my findings soontime.

 

[MarkSubsonik]

Who's got different USB A to micro USB cable? I just realized I don't have any really. Ideally need a 3 to 4 footer that doesn't cost more than the dac. Does belkin make anything good? How long is the supplied cable ?

I ordered a Wireworld Ultraviolet 8 for my Modius. It was only $45 for 0.6m. Can't tell you how good it is yet as it has just shipped but here's a link:

https://soundapproach.com/wireworld-ultraviolet-8-u2am-usb-2-0-a-to-micro-b-digital-cable.html

 

[gregorio]

01) Hurrah, we agree...!

02) In your experience. In your opinion. That doesn't mean that applies to all recordings.

03) Again, like you, in my own personal experience, which is no less valid than another's.

04) Again, in your experience. I feel you paint to too broad a stroke.
[4a] I know members of various bands, and many record in as live a manner as possible.
While that may be due to necessity, with budgetary concerns, the end results are still valid. Even an amateur musician, with whom I work, was very proud of his latest recordings. He and his band recorded the approximately 45 minute piece live. I believe it was a 4-piece band, doing prog-rock improve material. Very atmospheric, recorded in a large warehouse space. An enjoyable performance, that was very well done. So, I do believe we are coming full circle, and veering towards a more minimalist approach. Hopefully, getting away from the "loudness wars" at the same time. A long time coming.

1. Then why argue?

2. Again, NO, it's not my opinion, it's the objective facts/history and it's even mentioned in the article you yourself linked to: "Pop music, in the meantime, was evolving a totally different way of working, which came eventually to require an infinity of souces and an infinity of tracks on which to record them". Even by the 1970's, how many commercial recording studios did not have or use multi-track recorders, how many don't today? The production techniques of Spectre, Martin and various others which came to dominate and even define pop genres, all required multiple mics/inputs and "manufacturing". And clearly, I did NOT state "all" recordings, I stated the vast majority.

3. Whether your personal experience is more or less "valid than another's" of course entirely depends on the extent of your experience (and knowledge) and that of others. However, that's irrelevant anyway because you're not pitting your experience against mine but against the historical facts of the evolution of music/sound recording. And, I did not even mention my personal experience, I asked "How hard do others try? If you don't know, how do you know they try less hard than the few you've mentioned?".

4. Yet again, it is not my experience, it's the historical facts.
4a. "In as live a manner as possible" is still NOT anything like "matching the sound of live music". Did the "various bands" use multiple mics on the drumkit, another on the vocals, others for each of the electric guitar/s and bass or did they just use "minimal mic'ing", say a stereo pair to capture everything together, including the PA and acoustics of the warehouse? If it's the former, then it's still largely "manufactured" and does not "match the sound of live music". If it's the latter, then it would be impossible to achieve a "valid" (balanced) mix. Either way, the vast majority of commercial music recordings are "manufactured", in DAWs/studios.

There is something you are not getting. Some people, like gregorio, are only here to piss in others' Cheerios. That is their joy.

I'm here to present the actual objective/historical facts, that's my "joy". If that pisses "in others' Cheerios" because their Cheerios contradict the actual facts (IE. Are false assertions) then so be it. And why would anyone consider that a bad thing, unless they wanted to promote false facts/marketing over the actual facts?

G

 

[Wyville]

Some Initial Impressions from SE Out:

Chain: MacBook (Jriver) > Modius (SE) > EC BW2 > HD800 (SDR+ Mods)

Sonics:
- From a high level, this is a very nice DAC for $200. No serious flaws or oddities.
- The DAC’s highlight is the presentation and the resolution. It separates instruments very well in a large and airy stage. The placement of the presentation is also ideal, being neither forward nor pushed back.
- Depth, layering and imaging precision is what you can expect for a $200 device. Which is, not TOTL, but definitely not underwhelming.
- The bass is a touch prominent in the mix. It slams decently well. Definitely not limp dick like Hugo2’s bass. But the bass attack is a bit blunted, and the bass resolution once again, is what you can expect from a $200 device.
- Midrange and treble is where I start to nitpick. While the tone is warm, the timbre leaves a bit to be desired. This is due to the midrange sounding soft and treble having a bit of glare.
- While there is not much to complain about the microdynamics in the midrange, the macrodynamics is well, not macro enough. The midrange also lacks some body/fullness. As a result, the midrange instruments and voices sound soft and not palpable.
- The treble itself isn’t bright or strident, but it has a certain glare to it. The thing about glare is, it doesn’t expose itself as sharpness or brightness. But it ends up messing the timbre, making it more digital sounding than analog.
- The soft mids sandwiched between the prominent bass and the treble glare, makes the sound come across as a slight V shaped signature.
- I am unable to test the Bal XLR out now, as I don’t have any amp to go Bal in. But I am curious to test it someday, as it seems to addresses the very issues I mentioned.
- It’s a solid DAC for $200. While I am not sure if it’s the DAC you need, it’s a DAC that makes sense for $200.

Background:
My current benchmark for DACs is my Cayin N8 (2x AK4497), which may be an exception to the AKM velvet sound, because there is nothing velvet about its sound. It’s punchy and visceral, yet smooth in the treble. So it’s a very engaging sound that is free of fatigue. Its macrodynamics are not just good, but one of its forte. The mids are full bodied and palpable, and the timbre is more correct/convincing and on the analog side. Bass might not hit as hard as Yggdrasil/C2 but hits harder than the Modius. Stage is larger, deeper and airier than the Modius, with a darker background and a more precise imaging. It’s smoother, yet resolves more details. It has this tendency to boost the microdynamics a tiny bit, but for some reason I seem to like it. It has a sense of realism that I haven’t experienced on any other DAC in my chain. I have had plenty of ‘one-more-song’ moments with it.

All that said, I will not recommend the N8 given its price, durability and the shameful 1-Yr warranty. So I have been searching for a proper desktop DAC that gives me the pleasure like how the N8 does. I have been trying get hold of a Bifrost 2. I can’t buy it from Schiit directly given the high import duty. I’m waiting for my local dealer to start carrying it. One more DAC that has caught my attention recently is the Forssell DAC.

Thanks for sharing some thoughts! Glad you think it is a solid DAC for the price point and I hope you can get your hands on the Bifrost 2 soon.