Headphone Reviews and Discussion - Head-Fi.org
rolli1949
rolli1949
Just wonder is it suitable and worthwhile to use it on my I-Mac desktop (at the moment I use Geek 750 ) ? or is the Mojo a better option or any other device in this price class .I use Roon as music software .
analogsurviver
Micro BL is suitable for Apple/Mac. I am not familiar with either Geek 750 or Mojo, so I can not comment. The choice should be based on hardware to be used with the planned DAC/amp. In my example, with driving AKG K-1000 in mind, any amp with less power just does not cut it, regardless of its other qualities. This is admittedly the extreme case possible, yet entirely true in my example. There are quite a few mentions of micro BL vs mojo vs hugo vs .... - so please search the net. However, if you can compare before the purchase with your own laptop/smartphone and/or your choice of headphones using familiar music material, that is your best option. Happy search !
Hibuckhobby
A very detailed and analytical review. It however, reports little of how the unit sounds.
A couple of concerns/comments:
First, I doubt there are many who would review even a quasi-portable amp with the K1000.
The information, therefore, applies to few who would be considering the amp.
Secondly, using your own recordings is good for you...but you don't indicate which
pieces of music or which artists, so it is nigh to impossible for the reader to garner a
frame of reference.
Still, you provide a very high quality technical review, so you are to be congratulated for that.
A couple of concerns/comments:
First, I doubt there are many who would review even a quasi-portable amp with the K1000.
The information, therefore, applies to few who would be considering the amp.
Secondly, using your own recordings is good for you...but you don't indicate which
pieces of music or which artists, so it is nigh to impossible for the reader to garner a
frame of reference.
Still, you provide a very high quality technical review, so you are to be congratulated for that.
analogsurviver
I have tried to keep the review as neutral as possible - without quoting any recordings that are not ( yet ) commercially available. I did state that I record acoustic music, vocals and choirs in particular - and I have used anything that fits into these categories, from acoustic guitar trough percussion of Varese to Mahler's 2nd - and almost anything in between. I could provide the links to some of my recordings available on YT - but although informative, they are too far removed in SQ from the DSD128 masters to be used in DAC comparison - and because of that, I decided against providing YT links.
Why did I decide to use binaural DSD masters on K-1000, over anything else ? Simply, there is no more direct way to better compare any piece of equipment needed to make and/or reproduce such a recording, DAC included - particularly if the microphones are worn not on artificial, but real human head. One does get to hear - exactly - what was live and what was presented to the mics - because it is the very same thing. And subsequent reproduction can therefore be judged by the first hand experience - at least one such recording has been made while the BL was in my possesssion, compared on all three "DAC"s mentioned - few hours after being recorded. It simply does not get any closer than this .
The links to recordings of others used for the review I did provide should give at least a pointer . Particularly the links to Ken Kreisel recordings - because I did use a few - in their infinitely superiour form to the AIFFs linked, from direct to disk analogue records, straight to analogue input of BL. Some of his recordings can still be regarded as the ultimative reference - exceeding any digital format yet known to man. Maybe DSD256 and up, if and when properly executed.
There is quite enough reference to the differences compared to the original Micro. At least those who are familiar with the K-1000 should be able to understand that what iFi team pulled off with the BL is no small feat. With BL, they brought the original Micro, which was and is clearly inferior to my modified Korg MR-1000, to for all purposes same quality level as my modified MR-1000. Chapeau !
I have tried to avoid "night and day" type of describing the diffrences as a pleague. But make no mistake - the BL is not only at least equal , but most of the time superior to the original micro in every possible way, no matter how described - or documented with objective measurements. For the true objective assesment, a complete set of Audio Precision ( their TOTL unit , something I can only dream about ) measurements would be required - and even then I doubt it would be possible to measure and interpret the results in meaningful correlation to subjective impressions.
I hope the above helps.
Why did I decide to use binaural DSD masters on K-1000, over anything else ? Simply, there is no more direct way to better compare any piece of equipment needed to make and/or reproduce such a recording, DAC included - particularly if the microphones are worn not on artificial, but real human head. One does get to hear - exactly - what was live and what was presented to the mics - because it is the very same thing. And subsequent reproduction can therefore be judged by the first hand experience - at least one such recording has been made while the BL was in my possesssion, compared on all three "DAC"s mentioned - few hours after being recorded. It simply does not get any closer than this .
The links to recordings of others used for the review I did provide should give at least a pointer . Particularly the links to Ken Kreisel recordings - because I did use a few - in their infinitely superiour form to the AIFFs linked, from direct to disk analogue records, straight to analogue input of BL. Some of his recordings can still be regarded as the ultimative reference - exceeding any digital format yet known to man. Maybe DSD256 and up, if and when properly executed.
There is quite enough reference to the differences compared to the original Micro. At least those who are familiar with the K-1000 should be able to understand that what iFi team pulled off with the BL is no small feat. With BL, they brought the original Micro, which was and is clearly inferior to my modified Korg MR-1000, to for all purposes same quality level as my modified MR-1000. Chapeau !
I have tried to avoid "night and day" type of describing the diffrences as a pleague. But make no mistake - the BL is not only at least equal , but most of the time superior to the original micro in every possible way, no matter how described - or documented with objective measurements. For the true objective assesment, a complete set of Audio Precision ( their TOTL unit , something I can only dream about ) measurements would be required - and even then I doubt it would be possible to measure and interpret the results in meaningful correlation to subjective impressions.
I hope the above helps.
