DAC choice

But that has nothing to do with distortion outputs or profiles. The common definition of synergy in audio is that not all pieces of gear sound equally good with each other, some sound better together than others do. The gear in the chain doesn't change the distortion output of other gear. It seems like English isn't your first language. Perhaps there's a language barrier here.

If what you're saying is that all gear sounds equally good with all other gear, then you might as well buy the cheapest gear you can find for any given component and stick with that.

 

Yes, two or more. We talk about synergy all the time here.

 

Yes I have noticed, hence my response.

 

FWIW, I've been reading @missan 's posts for years and I've always understood what he's talking about. Full disclosure: I speak no Swedish.

 

Thanks. I reckon if I can understand what I´m writing, it´s not a total mess. And I have worked with a US company without any problems.

 

Me too, but the one chaps from Poland the other from Stockholm, maybe there's no synergy there. lol

 

Perhaps you misunderstand the definition of synergy? Is English not your first language?

 

I thought it was but now I'm not so sure.

 

The JJs definitely warmed things up. And it wasn't as minor a change as I would have thought.... Surprisingly. I've put in a lot of time on this setup and I'm enjoying it now. Really brings out the flaws in recordings (both good and bad).

 

Awesome! Different tubes can make a difference, even in hybrid amps. Sometimes the difference can be subtle, sometimes more noticeable.

 

Just a quick follow up for me, been listening to the ifi iDAC2 Micro for a few days now. If you're a bass head looking for something in this $300ish range, I highly recommend it. Tight, controlled, deep and yet well balanced bass. The 25-40hz range is well represented. Wide soundstage, slightly forward/ less deep compared to the Mimby. The pinpoint imaging is not bad though. If Mimby is an 8 in that regard, this is a solid 7. Loss of the magic I heard on certain recordings with the Mimby is worth it to my overall tastes. A little edgy in the treble but it feels more extended. Upsampling to 2x dsd with the iDAC's "Extreme" filter engaged can absolve lot of sins mastering-wise. Bit of a chameleon with DSD playback and PCM having their own set of selectable filters, and a laundry list of accepted formats. Appeals to a tinkerer such as myself. Happy listening!

 

I also did some followup listening to the Kendrick Lamar track on both my PonoPlayer and LH Labs Geek Pulse Xfi. Both DACs use the same Sabre ES9018K2M chip. Both DACs have what I consider a deeper style soundstage and a 3Dish style sound. The Geek Pulse Xfi has a deeper soundstage and more 3D quality than the PonoPlayer.

Neither DAC played the bass in the Kendrick Lamar track the way it was likely intended. The PonoPlayer played the bass stronger and more forward than the Geek Pulse Xfi. The bass still had depth that allowed me to hear that the bass moved forward and back in the soundstage as it played. The bass was just forward enough and strong enough that the music didn't really suffer too much. Still not what I would consider ideal bass for the song. True bass heads would be very disappointed.

The Geek Pulse Xfi played the bass with more depth and the bass ended up much weaker and wimpy. Not good at all. The Geek Pulse Xfi has three different filters that can be selected. Each presented the bass slightly differently. None of them made the bass forward enough or strong enough. I was wishing the Geek Pulse Xfi had an additional filter that had a flatter soundstage.

That Kendrick Lamar track is an interesting test track. DACs with a flatter soundstage do better with that track than DACs that have a deeper or 3Dish style soundstage. My old $99 Schiit Modi (the original Modi) plays that bass the strongest and most proper for this track. An upset for my more expensive DACs.

 

I first got into using that as a demo when I was installing bass treatments. My love of hip-hop was what sent me down that road...when I realized I could have that boom without the mud, I was sold. First I got a proper sub, then room treatments. Then I needed a different amp. And speakers. And so it goes. Now that I've got a semi-passable headphone amp in the iDAC2 I guess the next step is some decent headphones. I like the idea of having something as a second reference, a totally different way of hearing the same material. I guess that's the hobby in a nutshell! Now I just wish I had stayed in school so I could understand some of iFi's marketing on this thing, like this passage:

Not that hip-hop is the only thing I listen to. I'd say 40-50% of my listening is small combo jazz. I've been dipping into the Grateful Dead's Winterland '73 box tonight. I know it was transferred from the tapes with a Pacific Microsonics HDCD A/D converter, and maybe it's the influence of the marketing spiel, but I feel like it I can hear some of that same magic. Certainly I feel I've got my money's worth. even if I can't hope to understand it. I noticed after the fact that a bunch of the Beck albums I was blown away by on the Mimby were also HDCDs—it was gratifying to know I wasn't just imagining the exceptional synergy there...Oops, forget I used the word synergy.

 

Working out how we can guess or claim how we think an artist intended for an instrument to sound...tricky.

 

Indeed! For me, the sound I'm looking for on a track like that is in the context of decades and 1000s of hours of listening to the genre so (and I don't mean any disrespect to you on this note @Ham Sandwich, I enjoy reading your thoughts on all this) I do take any such suppositions with a grain of salt. I have a vague idea what I want to hear, that's all I can go by.

 

I mean I guess it bears mentioning that when it comes to Kendrick Lamar ... this is music where a not-insignificant number of people are playing it back with 6x12" subs in the trunk. All bets are off when it comes to playing it on a hifi.

 

A lot of serious music fans with good hi-fi's will be listening to it as well-it's a pretty decent recording by modern standards-I've heard a lot worse productions from rock bands probably closer to what audiophiles will buy.......

 

What specific track?

 

"Wesley's Theory" on To Pimp A Butterfly.

 

My take on the bass-if we are talking about the really deep bass part-is that it's meant to be chaotic-it's not playing in synch and I would be shocked if it's not meant to be random-towards the end it starts to knit in with the drums......I have no idea obviously what KL meant but I would suggest the fact the bass is not playing or generated in any conventional sense in relation to the track (and it is wavy too) that it is an entirely intentional effect.

On my system the bass does sound to some extent "disembodied" from the track but you can hear 3D aspects in the track overall (layered vocals, keyboard lines)-it's a track with a lot happening after the "radio effect" intro but I think a lot of the bass effect is to do with what is recorded (in terms of notes and lack of form) rather than how it is recorded. I'm not sure I hear the bass move in the soundstage but I'd need to focus on it a lot because of the nature of what is played which either continues to change throughout the song or is just difficult for the brain to follow due to the chaotic nature of the playing.

Why you hear the track and conclude it is not intended is beyond me when the rest of the record has pretty conventional bass....

 

Yeah my original comments were very much related to the really deep bass parts and more importantly the overlapping of the two. The track is produced by Flying Lotus and features George Clinton, not exactly lightweights when it comes to the bottom end! It wasn't the only track I felt the Mimby came up short on. Another example that comes to mind is a section of Miles Davis' Jack Johnson where two electric bass lines are overlapping. To me it just didn't have the defined punch and differentiation I was looking for. Even something relatively standard like the electric bass on "Stuff", opening track of Miles in the Sky (Japan SRCS 9711), where a dynamic, melodic line drops to a whisper and rises again. As it reached its lowest volume the bass lost distinctness, lost that sense of fingers on strings, and at it's highest volume didn't have the tight punchiness. I realize that saying all this opens me up to another rebuttal but .. to reiterate... it's ok to not like something

 

So was a a Kanye West album from a few years ago. No point buying it if you can't hack the music though.

Me? Julie Feeney is a better barometer of what modern recordings can do. Try her Pages album.

 

I think you've sort of took how this developed completely out of context.

HS raised the issue of this album's production-I already owned the album-I'm saying in the context of modern releases whilst not perfect the KL record stands up in a good system better than a lot of bigger artists releases have in recent years. I like the music, I like the record.

I put music first so that's how I buy sometimes I hear very well produced music-in genres that make no sense-compressed to death-I would state the last Julia Holter record and Craig Armstrong's one as two records that show that.

At no stage did I say or would I say KL is a barometer for what modern production can do. However you have to accept there is a lot of audiophile rated and related music that has put the cart in front of the horse. I put music first. Nobody's going to listen to anything they don't like. I would have thought obvious.

Julie Feeney is not for me, Pages is quite a few years old now -she has one after that-is that not well produced?

 

As ever, you're making an argument where none exists and making a fair old reach to grasp at straws.

Julie does indeed have an album out since Pages, which I also have. I especially like Pages however.

As for the KW album, the reference was a modern recording that sounded good. I merely pointed out another that enjoyed good reviews from an audio quality perspective and from a similar genre. It wasn't a statement about what you think is or isn't a great modern recording (something which is beyond my care, no offence).

That. Was. It.

 

Yup your usual style you make a completely irrelevant point out of context baring no relationship to the initial debate. You stir it, you get pulled and you throw your arms up in horror.

You've really got to laugh at your last line where you state you have no care about what I think is a great modern recording but you were prepared to butt into something to tell us what you think is......what an ego.
I'd like to see your response if I said try this album.....I mean you don't care what I think but you are prepared to tell me what I should try.

Grasping at straws? It wasn't me that went off in a tangent........two men a bar arguing about a horse you walk in holding a pineapple and say look at this.