[hiImGrant]

Yeah... that doesn't say much unless you try.

Considering it’s literally part of what they’re interface was designed to deal with, I’m not compelled to experiment.

 

[394216]

Thank god their xlr pyst cable is out of stock in the website, I might have grabbed modius + pyst by now.

Now all I do is wait for comparisons with bifrost 2.

 

[j0val]

Thank god their xlr pyst cable is out of stock in the website, I might have grabbed modius + pyst by now.

Now all I do is wait for comparisons with bifrost 2.

Modius is still great even compared to BF2. I didn't notice a huge leap in SQ as the price would imply. BF2 is still technically superior, but the Modius is an incredible value.

 

[394216]

Modius is still great even compared to BF2. I didn't notice a huge leap in SQ as the price would imply. BF2 is still technically superior, but the Modius is an incredible value.

But bf2 was listed with dacs costing 4 figures! I dunno, but I don't have 4-figure headphones and amps (yet) to pair it with.

Anyway, I might try modius first and get bf2 if the need/want arises.

 

[j0val]

But bf2 was listed with dacs costing 4 figures! I dunno, but I don't have 4-figure headphones and amps (yet) to pair it with.

Anyway, I might try modius first and get bf2 if the need/want arises.

Others might have a different experience. I could definitely hear a difference between the two. BF2 was fuller sounding and smoother yet detailed. I'm not saying the BF2 isn't worth it (I'm sticking with it over the Modius), but the Modius is a very good value.

 

[hiImGrant]

Others might have a different experience. I could definitely hear a difference between the two. BF2 was fuller sounding and smoother yet detailed. I'm not saying the BF2 isn't worth it (I'm sticking with it over the Modius), but the Modius is a very good value.

I agree with this assessment.

 

[394216]

So if I'm gonna be using LCD-2F and T1.2, would you think I would benefit from getting BF2 instead of Modius?

 

[j0val]

So if I'm gonna be using LCD-2F and T1.2, would you think I would benefit from getting BF2 instead of Modius?

I'll have to do some more listening with my LCD2F. Personally, I got the BF2 so I can just be done with it. I know that a year or so down the line, I would be contemplating on getting the Bifrost because of how well it's received.

 

[bigjako]

I wanted to provide an update for those of you who helped me out a couple weeks back when I got my Modius as my first non-dongle amp or dac. I ran into the USB sleep issue but Schiit went above and beyond to address to the point I don't even remember it as an issue. I was originally focused on the Modius supporting my IEM usage but as I got deeper into this new hobby/obsession, I've added a few headphones to the mix and I will probably be headphone focused until the days of offices return (even then I'll bring a damp/amp combo and a closed back). These headphones, particularly on my Modius-THX 789 combo, give me goose bumps regularly.

I'm also obsessed with finding good deals and have made a few open-boxed / used purchases in the last 3 weeks that I'm planning to pair/complement the Medius with. I have a Little Dot Mkii coming next week, bought used, with upgraded tubes. Intended use as the dirtier complement to the THX 789. I *think* I can run it through the pass connections, to have two amps coming from one DAC, but we'll see. I bought some used HD6XXs and plan to use that with the Little Dot, but I also got some open box Sundaras delivered today (I think they will become my daytime cans) and I was really impressed - albeit without a lot of historical reference. As someone who considers myself to be treble sensitive, I don't see the Sundaras as harsh or bright (my best reference for bright is the Tin T3, which I returned because I appreciated it but it hurt after 30 mins). They are not syrupy and rich but they're kind of amazing. I like the 6XX's but the Sundaras do some of what it does levels better.

The thing that has blown me away the most has been the Audioquest Nighthawks. I came into the hobby obsessing over neutrality and hating on Beats (even without knowing the alternative) but have steered over to bassy, syrupy, woody timbre and tonality. I think I made my last purchase (in months, I hope) today - a $106 open-box Meze Neo - which should give me a different interpretation of bassy compared to the Nighthawks (literally, my nightcans). I will say that after getting the Sundaras today and direct-comparing them to the HD6XXs, I then put them up against the Nighthawks and my brain audio basically just short-circuited and I had to stop, they just weren't directly comparable in real time and I built up some auditory shield to handle the decompression between those worlds.

Anyways I thought I should update the thread with my Modius experiences. Regular discovery and amazement.

Edit: to say the Nighthawks are my Nightcans.

 

[hodgjy]

Modius is still great even compared to BF2. I didn't notice a huge leap in SQ as the price would imply. BF2 is still technically superior, but the Modius is an incredible value.

I'm not picking on you at all, so please don't take it that way. Your post just reminded me a huge misconception in the audio world regarding sound reproduction from digital sources. I quoted your post just to give context to where my post was going. Nothing to do with your post, really.

Differences in digital sound reproduction are always subtle, and it usually takes very trained ears, very good amplification, and very good transducers to hear the differences. This is where the notion of "huge differences must come from big price hikes." When it comes to digital sound reproduction, even the cheap dac in an Android phone will come to about 95% the fidelity of an uber expensive dac that was cryo treated with frozen unicorn tears by some monks in a far away land.

The nervosa and psychosis in the audio world is how to achieve that last 5% of improvement, and prices add up quick. You quickly run into the wall of diminishing returns. People will spend thousands upon thousands of dollars in this quest. And further complicating matters is confirmation bias. They need to emotionally justify their purchase.

Another part of the problem is reviewers discuss these very small differences in large and absolute terms. For example, they'll say dac A has a much wider sound stage than dac B but in reality the differences are very small. Going from 95% to 96% fidelity is pretty difficulty to do, and probably very expensive, so this is why it is described as a "massive difference" even though it is quite small in overall magnitude. Adding to this overall problem is most systems aren't revealing enough to discern such small differences in downstream gear. Differences in transducers are far more influential in producing different sounds than digital sources. The ability to hear differences in an elite speaker system is far greater than in a mid-fi, let alone elite, headphone system.

Things quickly get away from us and snowball. Differences in dacs are subtle, and these differences may not be audible in some systems. Unless someone is willing to greatly expand their budget, there's not much sense in over-spending on a dac. And going from a $200 dac to a $700 one is not a huge increase. Going to $8000 or more is a huge increase, and the rest of the system better be capable of resolving any differences in d to a conversion.

 

[HumdrumPenguin]

I'm not picking on you at all, so please don't take it that way. Your post just reminded me a huge misconception in the audio world regarding sound reproduction from digital sources. I quoted your post just to give context to where my post was going. Nothing to do with your post, really.

Differences in digital sound reproduction are always subtle, and it usually takes very trained ears, very good amplification, and very good transducers to hear the differences. This is where the notion of "huge differences must come from big price hikes." When it comes to digital sound reproduction, even the cheap dac in an Android phone will come to about 95% the fidelity of an uber expensive dac that was cryo treated with frozen unicorn tears by some monks in a far away land.

The nervosa and psychosis in the audio world is how to achieve that last 5% of improvement, and prices add up quick. You quickly run into the wall of diminishing returns. People will spend thousands upon thousands of dollars in this quest. And further complicating matters is confirmation bias. They need to emotionally justify their purchase.

Another part of the problem is reviewers discuss these very small differences in large and absolute terms. For example, they'll say dac A has a much wider sound stage than dac B but in reality the differences are very small. Going from 95% to 96% fidelity is pretty difficulty to do, and probably very expensive, so this is why it is described as a "massive difference" even though it is quite small in overall magnitude. Adding to this overall problem is most systems aren't revealing enough to discern such small differences in downstream gear. Differences in transducers are far more influential in producing different sounds than digital sources. The ability to hear differences in an elite speaker system is far greater than in a mid-fi, let alone elite, headphone system.

Things quickly get away from us and snowball. Differences in dacs are subtle, and these differences may not be audible in some systems. Unless someone is willing to greatly expand their budget, there's not much sense in over-spending on a dac. And going from a $200 dac to a $700 one is not a huge increase. Going to $8000 or more is a huge increase, and the rest of the system better be capable of resolving any differences in d to a conversion.

The difference between the built in dac card with the AK4490 on the Asgard 3 (100 dollars), the SMSL M100 (100 dollars), and the Bifrost 2 (700 dollars) are to me very easy to spot on a blind test. I'm someone that always attribute "guessing" to anything I'm not sure about. That's really not the case I experienced with the above dacs. That said, I've also heard dacs in very different price categories that sound the same (again, if I can't clearly distinguish, I treat them as being the same). I think it really depends what you are comparing. I wouldn't care much about the price difference, unless we're talking about real crap that was horribly built.

 

[HumdrumPenguin]

The thing that has blown me away the most has been the Audioquest Nighthawks. I came into the hobby obsessing over neutrality and hating on Beats (even without knowing the alternative) but have steered over to bassy, syrupy, woody timbre and tonality.

Dude, ZMF Aeolus.

 

[hodgjy]

The difference between the built in dac card with the AK4490 on the Asgard 3 (100 dollars), the SMSL M100 (100 dollars), and the Bifrost 2 (700 dollars) are to me very easy to spot on a blind test. I'm someone that always attribute "guessing" to anything I'm not sure about. That's really not the case I experienced with the above dacs. That said, I've also heard dacs in very different price categories that sound the same (again, if I can't clearly distinguish, I treat them as being the same). I think it really depends what you are comparing. I wouldn't care much about the price difference, unless we're talking about real crap that was horribly built.

I neglected to mention another issue earlier that have have clarified my points even more. Processors/components/etc. can commit two sins during audio reproduction: they can add to the signal or they could take away from the signal. These differences are also audible with different degrees of audibility. So, yes, dacs can sound different, but those differences may not improve fidelity. People may like these differences, but that's not what I was talking about when going from 95% to 96% fidelity. As you go up the price ladder, the assumption is the gear adds less and removes less from the signal. In my opinion, even though I really like Schiit gear, I don't consider them the highest in high fidelity. Their gear is all colored to various degrees. Schiit multibit dacs have a distinct coloration compared to their DS siblings. Many people like this coloration, but it doesn't mean it's a more accurate rendering of the recording than DS.

 

[HumdrumPenguin]

I neglected to mention another issue earlier that have have clarified my points even more. Processors/components/etc. can commit two sins during audio reproduction: they can add to the signal or they could take away from the signal. These differences are also audible with different degrees of audibility. So, yes, dacs can sound different, but those differences may not improve fidelity. People may like these differences, but that's not what I was talking about when going from 95% to 96% fidelity. As you go up the price latter, the assumption is the gear adds less and removes less from the signal. In my opinion, even though I really like Schiit gear, I don't consider them the highest in high fidelity. Their gear is all colored to various degrees. Schiit multibit dacs have a distinct coloration compared to their DS siblings. Many people like this coloration, but it doesn't mean it's a more accurate rendering of the recording than DS.

I see what you mean. Yeah, if that’s the case, I like the coloration from the Bifrost 2 then.

 

[hodgjy]

I see what you mean. Yeah, if that’s the case, I like the coloration from the Bifrost 2 then.

I like the Schiit multibit sound a lot, too. However, with my Senn HD 650s, the warmness can be too much of a good thing, so that's why I got Modius--it's more open and a little cooler.