# AudioQuest DragonFly



## Tweaked05

What do you guys think on the AudioQuest DragonFly? I just picked up one for Christmas for use at work. So far it sounds awesome with my earbuds. They are not very high end, but I can definitely hear a difference. Do any of you have one? What is your opinion and experience?


----------



## Sonnie

I think we were suppose to see about getting one of those for review. 

Wayne (AudiocRaver) is our headphone review specialist. We talked about it and I think he thought it would be a good review, but he had about fifty-eleven things on his review plate right now, so it may be a few weeks or more.


----------



## fmw

Tweaked05 said:


> What do you guys think on the AudioQuest DragonFly? I just picked up one for Christmas for use at work. So far it sounds awesome with my earbuds. They are not very high end, but I can definitely hear a difference. Do any of you have one? What is your opinion and experience?


No personal experience here but what I read from others certainly agrees with your assessment.


----------



## AudiocRaver

I hope to do a bunch headphone & headphone amp reviews right after the holidays, Fingers crossed.


----------



## mark62

i have 1 hooked up to my computer, it is a good piece, plenty of gain, sounds great. it has a very low output impedance. i use with Koss Portapros and it really makes a difference. I also use it with a Topping class T amp, and Micca MB42X speakers, sounds great.

also i would disagree with the statement that it isnt very high end, indeed it is a high end piece and a bargain for $99, many people bought them for $250. sure there is better but you will pay for it.


----------



## Tweaked05

I used it at home as well with a pair of Mackie MR5's. That sounded fantastic as well.


----------



## AudiocRaver

High-end, meaning top-performing, does NOT have to be expensive. It is usually not the cheapest, but it can be quite reasonably priced.


----------



## ajinfla

AudiocRaver said:


> High-end, meaning top-performing, does NOT have to be expensive. It is usually not the cheapest, but it can be quite reasonably priced.


I've always viewed "High End" as Humpty Dumpty words. ("When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."). 
Much like "Mid-Fi".
I've seen many a bestowed "High-end" piece, that was anything but a "top" performer.

Regarding the OPs mention, I interpreted that as referencing his earbuds, not the Dragonfly.

cheers


----------



## Tweaked05

ajinfla said:


> I've always viewed "High End" as Humpty Dumpty words. ("When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.").
> Much like "Mid-Fi".
> I've seen many a bestowed "High-end" piece, that was anything but a "top" performer.
> 
> Regarding the OPs mention, I interpreted that as referencing his earbuds, not the Dragonfly.
> 
> cheers


You are correct, I was referring to my headphones as not being very high end. I think they sound fantastic, especially considering I only paid $25 for them.


----------



## admranger

Tweaked05 said:


> You are correct, I was referring to my headphones as not being very high end. I think they sound fantastic, especially considering I only paid $25 for them.


Pronouns. Just say no. 

I figured that was what you meant. Good to hear (ha!) as I am considering buying a DragonFly or similar.


----------



## JoeESP9

At the current $99 price for Version 1 either the Dragonfly or the Schiit Modi @ $99 (not as portable) are a no brainer tossup. The new Version 1.2 Dragonfly @ $149 should be an equally good buy. The HRT Microstreamer @ $189 also deserves a listen.


----------



## Savjac

I have owned the Dragonfly for well over a year and found it to be an incredible bargain. It works very well, sounds very good irrespective of price. I used it mainly as a regular Dac for the main system using Jriver or iTunes from my computer directly to my pre amp from both PC and Mac and it just works. I can't really think of anything overtly negative to say other than using this unit forces one to use an 1/8" plug to rca jacks and it cannot do high resolution files over 96khz. 

Using as a headphone amplifier is the cherry on top of the sundae. 


Not the worst thing to say in my opinion.


----------



## JoeESP9

I don't know about Mac's but for any USB DAC connected to a PC, in order to go higher than 24/96 it requires special drivers. No plug and play if you want higher resolution.


----------



## Tweaked05

JoeESP9 said:


> I don't know about Mac's but for any USB DAC connected to a PC, in order to go higher than 24/96 it requires special drivers. No plug and play if you want higher resolution.


Not necessarily true. Just today I went into my work laptop Itunes and was able to set it to WASAPI 96/24. No downloading of anything required. Also Foobar2000 is really simple, just download the WASAPI driver, install, and restart Foobar. Then go into the preferences and pick WASAPI.


----------



## Savjac

I am sorry if I gave the impression that the limits on the dac were software related. Instead the Dragonfly is hardware limited. The Mac does not need special drivers but this dac is limited by the mfg. 

My replacement da will do 192 and was in need of drivers for the PC but not the Mac. 

Hope that helps.


----------



## Tweaked05

Can you really hear the difference between 96 and 192khz?


----------



## mark62

Tweaked05 said:


> Can you really hear the difference between 96 and 192khz?


in a word "NO". the consensus is that it is useful for recording and mastering recordings, but has no real world benefit for playback.


----------



## Tweaked05

mark62 said:


> in a word "NO". the consensus is that it is useful for recording and mastering recordings, but has no real world benefit for playback.


Yeah, I didn't think so. At 96/24 this thing sounds great.


----------



## Savjac

Tweaked05 said:


> Can you really hear the difference between 96 and 192khz?


Absolutely. 

Now having said that please note that not ALL of the 192hz recordings will sound better than their 96hz versions. Take the Cat Stevens "Tea For The Tillerman" recording which was an excellent recording to begin with, the differences are quite noticeable, same for Norah Jones, "Come Away With Me" and Clapton's "Slow Hand". Others not so much. Many of the classical downloads are 24/176 hz as I believe they are taken as DSD files from the SACD recordings. Those are generally pretty good.

The differences are often subtle and tend to show up mostly in decay of instruments and the ease with which the music flows from the system. Hard to describe but once heard cannot be forgotten. 

The one stinker I know of is the Carole King "Tapestry" recording which to my ears is just not good.


----------



## Savjac

mark62 said:


> in a word "NO". the consensus is that it is useful for recording and mastering recordings, but has no real world benefit for playback.


Consensus ??


----------



## mark62

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

"Unfortunately, there is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format. Its playback fidelity is slightly inferior to 16/44.1 or 16/48, and it takes up 6 times the space."


there are quite a few other articles such as this.

also i misspoke on 192 khz being better used for production it is 24 bit. but i have no intent for getting into a debate. this topic could on on just like religion or politics. but, in blind testing i have seen there is no decernable difference. of course when a album is redone in 192 it goes thru a total remaster so that pretty much throws it all out the window. 

IMHO, in most circumstances you would hard pressed to tell a difference all things being equal.


----------



## Savjac

Interesting that the "Consensus" is one person on one site that has been proven wrong time and again, if by no one else than me as I can clearly hear differences. I do like his venture into the outer limits when he says that 192hz will cause trouble with ultrasonics. Now that is interesting to be sure and maybe he should listen to Neil Young, there is after all an expert in sound recording. 

As to the rest you are correct, no reason to discuss as we all look at things differently.






mark62 said:


> http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
> 
> "Unfortunately, there is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format. Its playback fidelity is slightly inferior to 16/44.1 or 16/48, and it takes up 6 times the space."
> 
> 
> there are quite a few other articles such as this.
> 
> also i misspoke on 192 khz being better used for production it is 24 bit. but i have no intent for getting into a debate. this topic could on on just like religion or politics. but, in blind testing i have seen there is no decernable difference. of course when a album is redone in 192 it goes thru a total remaster so that pretty much throws it all out the window.
> 
> IMHO, in most circumstances you would hard pressed to tell a difference all things being equal.


----------



## mark62

Savjac said:


> Interesting that the "Consensus" is one person on one site that has been proven wrong time and again, if by no one else than me as I can clearly hear differences. I do like his venture into the outer limits when he says that 192hz will cause trouble with ultrasonics. Now that is interesting to be sure and maybe he should listen to Neil Young, there is after all an expert in sound recording.
> 
> As to the rest you are correct, no reason to discuss as we all look at things differently.


as i stated this was just 1 example i linked, just google it, and maybe consensus was the wrong word for you. this is a very debatable subject, and you as to your statement clearly seem to think you are the consensus. 

and if you compare recordings that were released in different sampling rates, you can not compare them directly in regards to just the sampling rate as they are remastered.

a good recording is a good recording, it doesnt matter if it is 44.1, 96, or 192.......


----------



## ajinfla

Savjac said:


> Interesting that the "Consensus" is one person on one site that has been proven wrong time and again, if by no one else than me as I can clearly hear differences.


Hi Jack,
First, let me again reiterate, that no one is debating what you "heard". Those *are* your perceptions. They are not debatable! . 
However, they are also not unerring representations of the reality of the soundwaves/soundfield, but simply your purely subjective, uncontrolled, perception of it. Subject to a great deal of human related error, like it or not. 
They do not constitute "proof", that sampling theory/digital is wrong. Proof of that, would require much stronger evidence than "I heard it". The link provided adheres to sampling theory/digital...and on that, there _is_ consensus, amongst the informed, who understand it. This obviously precludes a great many audiophiles, studiophiles, etc, etc.



Savjac said:


> I do like his venture into the outer limits when he says that 192hz will cause trouble with ultrasonics.


He's on pretty solid ground there too, if you need further links (which may prove tough sledding unless you understand Sampling theory), can be provided (Lavry for one).
Let me try to frame it this way, do you think an amp with 0.0001% distortion, is "better", than an amp with 0.01% distortion? That you would hear differences in the "decay of notes" because of this? If not, why?
If you read the article, the author explains in clear language exactly what higher sampling rates get you, namely, lower noise floor, higher dynamic range. That's it. The terms (like "resolution") tend to lead folks to believe there are benefits beyond that (in the soundfield, not psychogenic). This is simply not the case. But if believing is enough to make one "hear" something they find beneficial, I'm all for it. Just limit it to your purely subjective perceptions and do not insist it is a verifiable factor within the soundfield, all will be well.
Insist otherwise and open one's claims up to scrutiny.....



Savjac said:


> he should listen to Neil Young, there is after all an expert in sound recording.


Neil is a great musician, whose ears have been subject to high sound pressures for a long time. That makes him neither an expert in recording, nor an expert in sampling theory unfortunately. His opinions and perceptions are his own. His music however (which I have), is hardly the type that is going to be "limited" by lower dynamic range and noise floor of "lower" sampling rates. Quite the opposite actually.



Savjac said:


> As to the rest you are correct, no reason to discuss as we all look at things differently.


Well, an open forum, is a bad place to "not discuss", things of this nature.

cheers


----------



## Savjac

Thanks AJ

Yep I hears what I hears and can only put that belief forward. I usually do my critical listening with someone else and he actually has better ears than me and heard differences I could not, no they were not blind tests but I controlled the controller to choose songs and he merely told me what he heard. Kinda cool imo.

I believe that the human ear - brain interface as well as the eye - brain and other interfaces are for more sensitive than electronics give it credit for sometimes. In addition, training ourselves in listening tends to help identify things that the average citizen may not hear. I know it sounds hokey but I have a strong believe that the Good Lord gave us much more than we will need at any given time but also provided the ability to learn how to use those gifts if we so choose. Oh well, it is good to have beliefs one way or the other, that is what makes us human. 

I think Neil, like Roger Waters, Mark Knopfler, Tom Petty and many other rockers really know how to make recordings that work and sound excellent all the time and they have been in front of many a large rig over the years. No I think Neil, with his buddy Steve Jobs knew what they were on to.


----------



## admranger

So based on the above discussion, if used only for earbuds the DragonFly is probably sufficient, correct? Even nice Grado earbuds?

Right now I don't own anything with more fidelity than a CD, so it's probably a moot point. Eventually, I'll get some software that can upscale, but I'm not there yet.


----------



## spencem44

I do not have this device nor have I heard it, but it has received good reviews. For those interested in getting one, check out AudioAdvisor. They list it in their Winter 2014 clearance catalog for $149 which is $100 off list. I am not affiliated with reviewers or AudioAdvisor...just sayin'


----------



## mark62

admranger said:


> So based on the above discussion, if used only for earbuds the DragonFly is probably sufficient, correct? Even nice Grado earbuds?
> 
> Right now I don't own anything with more fidelity than a CD, so it's probably a moot point. Eventually, I'll get some software that can upscale, but I'm not there yet.


the Dragonfly is more than sufficient for use with most earbuds/headphones, i would think that only high impedance low sensitivity headphones would probably be hard for the dragonfly to drive these type headphones to louder volumes.


----------



## Savjac

Sure, the Dragonfly is great in any system. It sounds very very good and was designed by Gordon Rankin who has always been at the cutting edge of digital. 

Last time I looked at AA they were $99


----------



## spencem44

Hey Jack,
The $99 AA price is for ver. 1.0; the $149 is for ver. 1.2. I don;t know what the differences might be tho'.
Spence


----------



## ajinfla

Savjac said:


> Thanks AJ
> Yep I hears what I hears and can only put that belief forward. I usually do my critical listening with someone else and he actually has better ears than me and heard differences I could not, no they were not blind tests but I controlled the controller to choose songs and he merely told me what he heard. Kinda cool imo.


I hope I'm clear that you could very well be hearing very real changes in the soundfield...as well as no change at all. It is impossible for either you or I to sit here and determine this with your method. You could be listening to discs/files with different content. Or not.
Did you downsample the "Hi Rez" higher sample rate file and compare it to itself at higher sampling rate? I don't know enough about what you are doing to determine whats going on. I do know enough about sampling theory/digital to know what's _not_ going on. That linked article explained in nicely.
For higher sample rates (>44) to be audible, you need specialized equipment and source material with _very_ wide dynamic range and very low noise floor. Sorry, Neil Young does not remotely qualify.



Savjac said:


> I believe that the human ear - brain interface as well as the eye - brain and other interfaces are for more sensitive than electronics give it credit for sometimes.


The opposite is true. Electronics have far greater sensitivity than human senses ever will. Especially when dealing with...recorded/reproduced electro-acoustic signals.



Savjac said:


> In addition, training ourselves in listening tends to help identify things that the average citizen may not hear. I know it sounds hokey but I have a strong believe that the Good Lord gave us much more than we will need at any given time but also provided the ability to learn how to use those gifts if we so choose. Oh well, it is good to have beliefs one way or the other, that is what makes us human.


All that might be true, but it still doesn't negate sampling theory.
That is the crux of the matter here. Btw, I own SACDs. I like some better than their Redbook versions. But I know exactly why.



Savjac said:


> I think Neil, like Roger Waters, Mark Knopfler, Tom Petty and many other rockers really know how to make recordings that work and sound excellent all the time and they have been in front of many a large rig over the years. No I think Neil, with his buddy Steve Jobs knew what they were on to.


I like all those guys, but quite frankly, Redbook ain't ever going to be doing a single one of them an injustice.
Now maybe Mahler or Mussorgsky, with the right recording venue and playback system...maybe.

cheers


----------



## ajinfla

admranger said:


> Right now I don't own anything with more fidelity than a CD


Me neither .

Btw, the Dragonfly was $250 when I first looked at it. Quite a price drop for both new and old


----------



## Audiofool

I think for $99 this is worth trying one out from a site with a good return policy. I know with Amazon you can keep for 30 days and send back only paying the return shipping if you don't like it. I've been working on a HTPC setup in my living room and this would make an inexpensive, compact addition assuming it sounds good.

I'm going to grab a version 1.0 in Feb and give it a listen.


----------



## Savjac

ajinfla said:


> I like all those guys, but quite frankly, Redbook ain't ever going to be doing a single one of them an injustice.
> Now maybe Mahler or Mussorgsky, with the right recording venue and playback system...maybe.
> 
> cheers


I lived in Chicago for most of my life and was lucky enough to hold season tickets to the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and Chicago Opera House for 12 years and was able to hear most everything I chose to except Solti's Ring Series. 
I would love to hear a system that could make me smile like that, would not that be a dream come true ?


----------



## JoeESP9

Savjac said:


> Sure, the Dragonfly is great in any system. It sounds very very good and was designed by Gordon Rankin who has always been at the cutting edge of digital.
> 
> Last time I looked at AA they were $99


Isn't Gordon Rankin the one who got a patent for inventing asynchronous USB connections. I hear he makes a bundle in licensing royalties.


----------



## Savjac

Good question, I dont know the answer. I understand that he has been on top of this stuff for some while and has joined Audioquest to get his usb dac built. 

May I comment on your signature...
Acoustat Speakers were a revelation for me many years ago and I have not heard them since really. I was on the west side of Chicago visiting an audio store of sorts, well it was Quintessence and the store was still in the lower level of their home. Anyway, they had a pair of Acoustats, 2+2 I believe, they were real tall and were driven by the new at the time, conrad-johnson premier one and two with a Pink Triangle table. I was truly amazed at the huge and powerful sound coming from those 2 speakers, unbelievable soundstage depth and width. We mainly listened to classical and I swear I could hear the space between the musicians rows so good was this presentation. I will never forget...


----------



## admranger

Savjac said:


> I think Neil, like Roger Waters, Mark Knopfler, Tom Petty and many other rockers really know how to make recordings that work and sound excellent all the time and they have been in front of many a large rig over the years. No I think Neil, with his buddy Steve Jobs knew what they were on to.


Those artists all used or currently own ATC speakers (in studio and home) and had fantastic producers/engineers. Might have something to do with it. :T


----------



## Tweaked05

Wow, I didn't realize that my thread would generate this much buzz. 

Well to update this thread, yesterday I upgraded my earphones from Monster Tron T3 earbuds which I got last year for $25 at Frys on clearance, to a set of Bowers and Wilkins C5 IEM's. I must say that these IEM's are awesome, however when I plug them into the DragonFly, they truly come alive.


----------



## mark62

Tweaked05 said:


> Wow, I didn't realize that my thread would generate this much buzz.
> 
> Well to update this thread, yesterday I upgraded my earphones from Monster Tron T3 earbuds which I got last year for $25 at Frys on clearance, to a set of Bowers and Wilkins C5 IEM's. I must say that these IEM's are awesome, however when I plug them into the DragonFly, they truly come alive.



Good deal!


----------



## admranger

Tweaked05 said:


> Wow, I didn't realize that my thread would generate this much buzz.
> 
> Well to update this thread, yesterday I upgraded my earphones from Monster Tron T3 earbuds which I got last year for $25 at Frys on clearance, to a set of Bowers and Wilkins C5 IEM's. I must say that these IEM's are awesome, however when I plug them into the DragonFly, they truly come alive.


Cool! Glad the new earbuds worked out for you. I'm looking for a new set to replace my Klipsh Image S4i ear buds. How good at blocking out noise are the C5 IEMs?


----------



## Tweaked05

admranger said:


> Cool! Glad the new earbuds worked out for you. I'm looking for a new set to replace my Klipsh Image S4i ear buds. How good at blocking out noise are the C5 IEMs?


When listening at even moderate volumes, I can't hear anything. At low volumes or music paused, I have to strain to hear someone I'm talking to.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Lots of fun discussion here on subjective vs. objective matters. Agreeing with A.J., when we know what to measure, electronics seem to beat ears every time. Savjac's question seems to be, "Do we always know what to measure?" The scientist in me likes to believe we can find a way to measure anything that can be subjectively experienced (just talking about audio here). The musician in me believes otherwise. The two have a great time one-up-ing each other, as well as keeping each other honest.

There will be some fun blind testing done at Sonnie's place next week on amplifiers. Maybe we can spend a few minutes on sample rate/resolution. Start with a HQ 24/192 track, downsample it to 24/96, 24/48, 16/48, 16/44.1 etc. see if we can hear a difference in a controlled environment. No guarantees, but maybe we can sneak it into the agenda.


----------



## Savjac

I have a true problem in that I do not understand electronics as well as I do mechanical issues. It seems, if I can visualize how something works, I can work with it very well, it just makes sense. If I cannot visualize it, such as a CPU or maybe even normal electricity passing through things and interacting so as to create other things. Sometimes I just think its magic and nothing more. I mean how can a teeny tiny little silicon wafer with no moving parts be so helpful and frustrating at the same time ?

I like the quote by Einstein when he postulated that Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted. I use that with measurements of all things audio and video as well. So to me I feel that the one thing that really counts, is how I personally interact with what the equipment is doing for me as there seems to be no machine or piece of equipment that can do that. And yes you are correct, do we really know what to measure especially since it is not in the stars for all of us to experience the same thing from any given item. How do you measure for all of the variables involved in one human let alone billions. 

There was a movie that came out a good many years ago that was called, The Gods Must Be Crazy. An airplane flies over a remote village that has not yet been introduced to modern science and/or every day objects outside of their area of life. They believe all is well in part because they survive and as yet they have nothing to compare their lot in life to. As this plane flies over the locals, a coke bottle is tossed out the window and falls only to bonk off the head of indigenous person who believes this could be a punishment or a gift from heaven. How the story plays out is very funny and yet very true. What does one make of something they have never experienced before ? Imagine trying to explain something as simple as a can of soup and what to do with it let alone a watch or computer. 

So it is with this thought in mind that I do not discount electronic testing, but rather, I believe it must go hand in hand with one experiencing first hand the item in question. Doubtless many will disagree with me but in my admittedly non technical mind, it seems that if we can readily agree that changing components in a pre-amp would make an audible difference, why would we not believe that changing some components in a basic amp make a difference. Both are designed to change a signal from very low level to a higher level. Now many say the pre-amp is designed to allow for the tailoring of sound, I would have to say, nay nay. Just like an amplifier, a pre amp is designed by whomever does that to sound in a way the designer feels it should. Modern receivers are designed more and more to allow big changes to be allowed but this is as a result of the buying public making demands, unlike many years ago where most changes were limited. An amplifier will be voiced by the designed based upon their perception of what sounds right or wrong. For many years we would have different sounding electronics based upon the part of the world in which they were designed. Far Eastern areas tended to be brighter or less comforting if you will and Europe tended toward a dead center line of quality in small items that can sound brilliant in a smaller band of frequency. America on the other hand loved nice warm sound, big sound, loud sound and things went in that direction but as I look back we even had different sounds based on the coast they were designed. It seems obvious to me at least that by being able to change a thing by replacing component A or B or ZZZ, the sound of said thing should change as well and while the main purpose of said thing is to make music in all its complications, it would seem unlikely to me that they could all sound the same. As such, I think with training and time, we can all hear some differences. An inexperienced person walking into a music store to buy their first guitar has no clue what is good for them until they learn to play a bit. Yes they may be swayed by reviews or by their favorite guitarist, but what will become their everyday guitar and will make them long to pick it up and play it may not be known for a long time. Further, like most things, that guitar bought today, may actually change as it grows with the player. I know of no tests that can predict what someone will like and what will work for that person other than to just play em. 

How do we measure to ensure we will please fiftyleven people when we really cannot easily measure what those fiftyleven people like ? I would even bet that what those fiftyleven people like today may not be the same in 10 years, how does one measure for that. I dunno. 

So my theory is, just get in there and use these electronic items as they were designed to be used, listen, listen, listen, what is more important than that ? If one cannot hear a difference off hand, that does not mean a difference does not exist, it merely means said person cannot hear it. 

But I could be wrong.....Nah :innocent:


----------



## Savjac

AudiocRaver said:


> There will be some fun blind testing done at Sonnie's place next week on amplifiers. Maybe we can spend a few minutes on sample rate/resolution. Start with a HQ 24/192 track, down-sample it to 24/96, 24/48, 16/48, 16/44.1 etc. see if we can hear a difference in a controlled environment. No guarantees, but maybe we can sneak it into the agenda.


I am not sure that down-sampling would work and will look to see your results. What I did, and will probably get into trouble for it, is I would buy an album at 24/96 and my friend who also participated in this experiment would be the 24/192 and vice versa. We would then load them onto the hard drive of one computer and one person would be at the controls, one would listen. Interesting results and so far I can say without reservation that.......well I cant give it away now can I. 

What I can say is that I am not sure I can tell the difference between a PC and a Mac playing the same files, my hearing does not seem to be as acute as others. I have found that the Mac is more reliable in that it rarely hung up during playback. 

Looking forward to your findings.


----------



## ajinfla

Too lengthy a post to cover it all, but...



Savjac said:


> I have a true problem in that I do not understand electronics as well as I do mechanical issues.


You don't have to understand electronics. Most audiophiles don't and never will. As an end user, all that should matter, is you enjoy the electronics. Leave the in depth understanding to designers (hopefully).
The biggest problem of misunderstanding amongst audiophiles, is psychology, subjectivity and objectivity. They are constantly conflated.
Try understanding, that your perceptions may have nothing whatsoever to do with electronics. Don't put the cart before the horse. First determine the source of what you think you perceive lays. _Then_, maybe, start chasing electronic culprits.



Savjac said:


> If one cannot hear a difference off hand, that does not mean a difference does not exist, it merely means said person cannot hear it.


Quite true. But make sure you clearly define what "hear" means in the context you used it.

cheers


----------



## ajinfla

Savjac said:


> I am not sure that down-sampling would work


It's the only way to isolate "sampling" (aka "resolution") as the culprit.
Otherwise, like you're doing, you are introducing way too many variables and confounders, to conclude anything about what was heard.

cheers


----------



## Savjac

Maybe AJ, I would think that would be a good part of an experiment to be sure. If we are recording from a source to 192 say, we should then also record from the original source to 96. By doing it this way, we are only changing the sample rate and essentially nothing else.
If we take a first generation 192 bit rate and then down sample, we have changed the use of the original recordings and as such, that should not be quite as valid. 

It seems cleaner to me to use the same original source only.


----------



## JoeESP9

Savjac said:


> Maybe AJ, I would think that would be a good part of an experiment to be sure. If we are recording from a source to 192 say, we should then also record from the original source to 96. By doing it this way, we are only changing the sample rate and essentially nothing else.
> If we take a first generation 192 bit rate and then down sample, we have changed the use of the original recordings and as such, that should not be quite as valid.
> 
> It seems cleaner to me to use the same original source only.


It depends what the source is. If the source is only CD quality (16/44) recording at a higher resolution can't possibly have any benefit. You need to have a source with higher resolution than whatever you're recording to.

Taking a DSD (direct stream digital) or 30IPS (tape) source and coding/recoding it to 24/96, 24/48, 24/192, 24/88 and 16/44 would be a reasonable comparison.


----------



## Savjac

Yep Joe, that is what I am speaking to. 
No need to use a lesser resolution to try and go higher, but if the original tape or digital feed can be used to make different high res versions that in my opinion would be valid.


----------



## ajinfla

Savjac said:


> If we are recording from a source to 192 say, we should then also record from the original source to 96.


Either way is fine, the key being of course, that one can differentiate the files under controlled listening (ears only), thus eliminating the confounders.
Any idea whether the files you compared were both originals, or a downsampled version?


----------



## Savjac

The samples I used came from HD Tracks when they used to offer a choice, I would assume that they both came from the original but I know I should not assume. I did not do any manipulation once they were down loaded to the computer so at the least, I feel I gave it my best shot.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Someone starts with a high-speed / high-res file and downsamples. There are different routines for accomplishing it, but who is to say which is right or better or if a difference is audible? The differences _should_ lie in the range of dithering or below. Admittedly, _should_ does not always become reality.

In a slightly different direction, one concept I question is that a difference - electronic, mechanical, whatever - will sound different. An aspect of any design is determining the variables that matter and making most of them matter less (through design), hopefully not at all. The material of a speaker cone matters a lot more to the sound than the size of a solder joint on a circuit board, which matters way more than the size of the screw holding down the feed wire in the electric service box, which matters way more than... you get the idea. Isolating the most significant variables to adjustments or selections is the designer's job, and there can be a lot of ways to get to the same sonic result.

Of course this is real world where nothing is perfect. But where differences of significance are many orders of magnitude, it gets hard to believe that the screw size in the electric service box can be heard as easily as the speaker cone material, and there are aspects in an amplifier design that are approaching that level of sonic significance, yet people claim to be able to hear them. A component can be performing a vital electrical function and be sonically invisible - until it fails, then you hear the difference in dead silence or oscillation or digital chaos.

That said, ears and measurements should/can/do work together, neither will ever obsolete the other (I sincerely hope). The science of the design can be an important filter / sanity check of what the more audible variables in an amplifier should be.


----------



## noirx7

This thread has evolved from a discussion of the DragonFly to one on audio quality, which I think is great. The DragonFly was the first product I learned about that would offer high quality audio at an affordable price. Because of it I purchased the Light Harmonics GeekOut for the Kickstarter price of $99. 

But all discussion of hardware is really in the interest of good music and I think that it is wonderful that we are at a turning point when even Sony is moving to better audio reproduction and that with this renewed focus both high res audio AND improved recording practices will lead to a Renaissance of really good music.


----------



## Savjac

AudiocRaver said:


> Of course this is real world where nothing is perfect. But where differences of significance are many orders of magnitude, it gets hard to believe that the screw size in the electric service box can be heard as easily as the speaker cone material, and there are aspects in an amplifier design that are approaching that level of sonic significance, yet people claim to be able to hear them. A component can be performing a vital electrical function and be sonically invisible - until it fails, then you hear the difference in dead silence or oscillation or digital chaos.
> 
> That said, ears and measurements should/can/do work together, neither will ever obsolete the other (I sincerely hope). The science of the design can be an important filter / sanity check of what the more audible variables in an amplifier should be.


 
I think I would put forth that we may not be speaking to Orders of Magnitude here, or there. We are speaking to differences howsoever caused and/or detected. I am told it is the small things that make the difference and obviously that is more of a saying, but truth lies therein. 

If we were to experience something in the very short term, there is a grand possibility that we may feel all is well with said thing. If after some time has elapsed, say 2 or 3 weeks and said thing is still on the upper shelf of goodness, we may say, this is indeed a good thing and can stick around. But lets say after a couple days we start hearing squeaks, rattles, odd sounds, maybe one light does not come on or any of a dozen other happenings occur, that item slated for the top shelf has become annoying. This is kind of like dating actually now that I think about it, ever watch or see the play Chicago ?

I feel that the most troubling issues are not an order of magnitude, but of not being what we like or want. In the case of the difference in bit sizes, I do not know why there are differences. I was under the belief that as long as we start with a bed of 24 bits, all else being equal, we should be good to go. I have heard the difference between 24/96 and 24/192 but it was subtle to be sure, nothing glaring and I could easily live with either. My problem now lies within the resolution of the playback system. Would a very high resolution playback system show up these differences much more dramatically ? One would think, but it is something I may never know in person.


I am so sorry for taking things off track. Please move my posts or delete them as the mods see fit.


----------



## AudiocRaver

No need to delete anything, but we should probably get back to the Dragonfly!

Love talkin' with you, Jack!


----------



## Savjac

AudiocRaver said:


> No need to delete anything, but we should probably get back to the Dragonfly!
> 
> Love talkin' with you, Jack!


Thank You kind sir, and I You !!! You humble me.

I hope we can continue for a good long time.


----------



## Tweaked05

I really do appreciate all the discussion here. This is how we all learn. I think there are definitely situations where something such as the Dragonfly would not be very beneficial, however in situations such as mine where I use it at work with my Lenovo laptop, it makes quite a bit of difference. However, the DAC by itself with standard cheap desktop speakers would also do no good. If you are going to do it, also get a good pair headphones or earbuds.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Yes, the "weakest link" view, also referred to as the _Theory of Constraints._ Improve the weakest link in the chain, and then the new weakest link starts to bug you! Some of us (probably you) have a pretty good "that's good enough" threshold that tells us when to stop. Some of us are never satisfied.......................


----------



## Sonnie

AudioQuest never responded on my request to review the DragonFly. :huh:


----------



## Tweaked05

Sonnie said:


> AudioQuest never responded on my request to review the DragonFly. :huh:


That's too bad. I may be willing to part with mine for a period of time for you to review.


----------



## Audiofool

Yeah I'd love to get a HTS review of one before I pick one up. The price so low that I may have to roll the dice and grab one anyway.


----------



## Sonnie

Surely we can get one... maybe they are at CES and just too busy to respond right now.


----------



## Savjac

The dac is good enough that you cannot go wrong for the price of the old one especially.

One word of caution, make sure your OS will work with the USB dacs, not all of the PC OS's out there will work out of the box and may need a software upload from Audioquest. If you have a Mac or Windows 8.1 then they work without any issues upfront. This is especially true if you are doing HD playback such as 24/96. 

My Windows 7 machine works, my Windows 8.1 works with no downloads as does my Mac. 

If using with headphones and no headphone amplifier, make sure your cans are relatively efficient. 

It may sound daunting but in reality it is not and it will make good sound.


----------



## JoeESP9

USB DACs work just fine with Windows 7, 32 or 64 bit versions, Home Premium and Pro.


----------



## Tweaked05

JoeESP9 said:


> USB DACs work just fine with Windows 7, 32 or 64 bit versions, Home Premium and Pro.


I have read that the Dragonfly doesn't work with Windows Vista and I think Linux, but does just fine with all others.


----------



## Savjac

I think truth can be found in all of these answers in that my particular machine worked fine with the fly whereas my best buddy could not get it to work at anything above 16/44. I have a Dell and he has a Toshiba, with both machines originally running windows 7. We could not for the life of us figure out why one would and one would not, but it is the way of things.

Ultimately when he moved up to Win 8.1, voila instant fix. Maybe the newer version of the Fly handles that or maybe the newest DL from Audioquest handles that, I am unsure of the answer. 

I bought a new dac and gave him the Fly and it is serving him well to this day.


----------



## mark62

Tweaked05 said:


> I have read that the Dragonfly doesn't work with Windows Vista and I think Linux, but does just fine with all others.



i have it running on linux and no problems here.


----------



## AudiocRaver

The reasons a DAC will work with one OS or even on one computer and not another can be a mystery. I recently tried to get a fiio E10 working on this lowly Acer Aspire and it would only output digital garbage. E7 and E17 both worked like a charm, E10 - no go.

I have many headphones to use for such a review but only one OS - Window 7 64bit.


----------



## Savjac

It seems that there may be an architecture problem is some makes/models and not others, in other words, its not universal as you so rightly mention.

One thing I have found out that was not apparent to me early on, is that quite often the USB circuits are tied in to other operations or bits of hardware. For example, Apple on occasion has not only powered the USB circuit but also the backlit keyboard on the same electrical feed. So as the keyboard lights went on and off the sound got interrupted momentarily. PC does the same thing on occasion so it might be good to find a USB outlet that is not encumbered by other operations. This way all signal and voltages can be dedicated to the music server/Dac. 

Also Tweaked is correct, this DAC does not work on Vista


----------



## admranger

probably a silly question, but is any software required to be installed prior to using the dragonfly? The reason I ask is that I can't add any software on my work computer, but I'd like to bring in CDs to listen to in the future, and it seems like adding a DAC would be a good idea for better sound.


----------



## Tweaked05

The DragonFly installs it's own driver when you plug it in, but other than that, no special software needed.


----------



## yluko

When i first read about it I was thinking if you just want a DAC, why not plug into the digital out of the soundcard instead of going to USB? Or do most laptops not have a digital out on them. I only have the generic soundcard on my desktop and having that go to a DAC out of it massively improved the sound.


----------



## AudiocRaver

Few laptops have SPDIF output. The only digital output very common on laptops is HDMI, which tends to be set up to work primarily for connection to a monitor or TV or AVR.


----------



## rab-byte

Sonnie said:


> Surely we can get one... maybe they are at CES and just too busy to respond right now.


I think there's a 2nd gen. out or up coming. DragonFly2 or some such. 

I can say I've listened to the first gen and it did lift the SQ, not sure if it was the headphone amp section or the DAC that did the major lifting but I will say it's something I'd like to take with me when I travel. Listened on a pair or Grado SR80i so I'm guessing it's the amp that helped out more.


----------



## Savjac

AudiocRaver said:


> Few laptops have SPDIF output. The only digital output very common on laptops is HDMI, which tends to be set up to work primarily for connection to a monitor or TV or AVR.



All of my laptops here north of the Mason Dixon have toslink outputs as well. One of the headphone jacks usually doubles as a toslink or in the case of Mac where there is only one jack, it does both.


----------



## prerich

Savjac said:


> All of my laptops here north of the Mason Dixon have toslink outputs as well. One of the headphone jacks usually doubles as a toslink or in the case of Mac where there is only one jack, it does both.


Good call - you are correct sir!!!!


----------



## Tweaked05

I'll have to check the specs on my laptop. It's about 7 years old so it may not have a toslink.


----------



## rab-byte

I know many desktop sound cards can have their audio out double as spdif. Not so sure about laptops though. In theory all it would take is a driver.


----------



## Sonnie

I have two headphone outputs on my laptop, but not sure if one is Toslink capable.

Something like this: www.parts-express.com/toslink-to-mini-optical-adapter--180-968


----------



## rab-byte

Sonnie said:


> I have two headphone outputs on my laptop, but not sure if one is Toslink capable. Something like this: www.parts-express.com/toslink-to-mini-optical-adapter--180-968


Yes like that. Works on my Mac wonderfully but only PCM.

Edit: never mind DD can pass


----------



## jon96789

I got a Dragonfly in November... I can tell you the audio is far superior than what a computer can do. I talked to an AudioQuest representative back then and he mentioned that the Dragonfly has issues with Windows Vista and Windows 8 as well. He hoped they would resolve the Windows 8 issue but had no updates regarding Windows Vista.

AudioQuest claims to have refined the circuitry between the DAC chip and the analogue output stage, as well as improving the power supply. Users should be able to tell the difference by looking at the mini plug port. The older model is black and the newer one is supposed to be a lighter gray (although I have not been able to verify that)...


----------



## yluko

I know they are also made for recording and a bit bulkier but allot of people I know have gotten used to listening to the focusrite forte or the apogee duet and bring them with them just to use for headphones.


----------



## admranger

Sonnie said:


> I have two headphone outputs on my laptop, but not sure if one is Toslink capable.
> 
> Something like this: www.parts-express.com/toslink-to-mini-optical-adapter--180-968


Heh. I've had one of those in a shopping cart for a while. Just need to find some other stuff to buy to get my "free" shipping.:spend:

Can't wait to try it out once I get it.


----------



## Savjac

Yes exactly what is needed, however, may I also recommend the mini adapter with a flexible shaft ?

Monoprice mini to full size toslink cable. This was there is no great amount of force trying to bend everything at the computer.


----------



## bkeeler10

AudiocRaver said:


> There will be some fun blind testing done at Sonnie's place next week on amplifiers. Maybe we can spend a few minutes on sample rate/resolution. Start with a HQ 24/192 track, downsample it to 24/96, 24/48, 16/48, 16/44.1 etc. see if we can hear a difference in a controlled environment. No guarantees, but maybe we can sneak it into the agenda.


I assume by now this amplifier evaluation is complete. So are you guys planning on doing a write-up of your experiences and findings? I would be curious to see what you came up with -- always looking for more input on the old do-all-amplifiers-sound-the-same debate. If you're doing double-blind tests, that is especially interesting.

Of course, also interested in any music file comparisons you might have been able to do.


----------



## Savjac

bkeeler10 said:


> Of course, also interested in any music file comparisons you might have been able to do.


Well recorded music sounds better sonically than badly recorded music. 

Did that sound insightful ?? 

The first Blue Oyster Cult album was recorded very badly
The first Elton John album released in the US was recorded very well.

I think I need to stay out of the cold more......:joke:


----------



## roger1014

Just to add my 2 cents worth... I am trying out many different headphones to see if there is any difference between my "SOUL by Ludacris SL99 High-Def Sound Isolation In-Ear Headphones" and some over the ears headphones. So far I have tried the Sennheiser HD 598 Headphones, the Philips O'Neill CRASH Virtually Indestructible Over-Ear Headphones and the Philips Fidelio X1/28 Premium Over-Ear Headphones! Bottom line is that with all these headphones, the DRAGONFLY V1.2 USB DAC does improve the sound quality! At least I can hear a difference, and my hearing is not what it use to be, especially on the low end ... more defined and not muddy or bloated.


----------



## rab-byte

roger1014 said:


> Just to add my 2 cents worth... I am trying out many different headphones to see if there is any difference between my "SOUL by Ludacris SL99 High-Def Sound Isolation In-Ear Headphones" and some over the ears headphones. So far I have tried the Sennheiser HD 598 Headphones, the Philips O'Neill CRASH Virtually Indestructible Over-Ear Headphones and the Philips Fidelio X1/28 Premium Over-Ear Headphones! Bottom line is that with all these headphones, the DRAGONFLY V1.2 USB DAC does improve the sound quality! At least I can hear a difference, and my hearing is not what it use to be, especially on the low end ... more defined and not muddy or bloated.


celebrity headphones rarely live up to the hype. often going from in-ear to on ear/over ear will give you a very nice lift in sound quality. Are these new headphones for travel or home use?


----------



## admranger

rab-byte said:


> celebrity headphones rarely live up to the hype. often going from in-ear to on ear/*over ear *will give you a very nice lift in sound quality. Are these new headphones for travel or home use?


I have seen this before, but I have no idea what it means. :scratch: 

I'm assuming you run the cables over your ear, but I have no idea why that would give me better sound from an in ear headphone. :huh: Edumacate me please! :help:


----------



## rab-byte

In Ear: pushed into the ear










On Ear: rests on the ear










Over Ear: sits around the ear


----------



## JoeESP9

Any of the three different types can sound good. It's hard to tell which ones are the best for you without auditioning them. 

There is one thing you can pretty much count on; most celebrity endorsed headphones are usually premium priced (because of the endorsement) and not very good sound wise.


----------



## rab-byte

JoeESP9 said:


> Any of the three different types can sound good. It's hard to tell which ones are the best for you without auditioning them. There is one thing you can pretty much count on; most celebrity endorsed headphones are usually premium priced (because of the endorsement) and not very good sound wise.


Very true. You can't usually audition in-ears in most stores. On ear more often but typically you have to buy and return. 

:Just adding a little more detail:


----------



## admranger

rab-byte said:


> In Ear: pushed into the ear
> View attachment 46243
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Ear: rests on the ear
> View attachment 46244
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over Ear: sits around the ear
> View attachment 46245


Ok. 

What I meant is that I've seen on some of the headphone sites talk about in ear worn "over the ear", so I assume they are talking about the wires. Something about reducing the interference picked up through the cable. I haven't tried it yet, but it sounds odd...not that there's anything wrong with that.


----------



## rab-byte

admranger said:


> Ok. What I meant is that I've seen on some of the headphone sites talk about in ear worn "over the ear", so I assume they are talking about the wires. Something about reducing the interference picked up through the cable. I haven't tried it yet, but it sounds odd...not that there's anything wrong with that.


I'd only believe that if their headphones had a slight short in them...maybe?!?

Crazy is crazy but hey if it works for you...


----------



## JoeESP9

I've noticed noise through the cable when using in ear models. The noise is mechanical and caused by head and body movement. Snaking the cord over the ears seems to lessen some of that by minimizing cable movement.


----------



## Tweaked05

It seems my thread has turned into a headphone discussion. Interesting. Well on that note, I'm extremely pleased with my B&W C5's.


----------



## nordraw

How do you use this Dragon fly? Have you tried it with computer speakers on a desktop system or just with the head phones.


----------



## Tweaked05

I have used it at work with my desktop speakers but they are your typical $10 , and nothing could really make them sound better.


----------



## nordraw

Ok great. I was wondering how it would make decent desk top speakers sound. I am thinking about getting one.


----------



## mark62

nordraw said:


> How do you use this Dragon fly? Have you tried it with computer speakers on a desktop system or just with the head phones.


It is the best $100 you could spend for your desktop speakers.


----------



## roger1014

rab-byte said:


> celebrity headphones rarely live up to the hype. often going from in-ear to on ear/over ear will give you a very nice lift in sound quality. Are these new headphones for travel or home use?[/QUOT
> 
> All I want to point out, in this thread, is that I can hear a difference , in a good way, while using the Dragonfly DAC!


----------



## nordraw

Thanks for the input. I might just try it out.


----------

