Jump to content
IGNORED

AudioQuest DragonFly DAC-plus-Headphone-Amp Review


Recommended Posts

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2035[/ATTACH]If for some strange reason you wanted to carry around all of that junk. Apple includes with the new iPhones and iPods a USB-to-Lightning-connector cable. So you could probably have your Posse carry the iPhone, go into the Lightning-to USB-connector cable, plug the giant Dragonfly into the USB end, and then the Pre-amp, Amp, and Speaker Cabinets. This should provide audiophile quality sound to your new portable, 20% thinner, light weight, iPhone5.

 

If you're fond of posting photos, you ought to post one of the Lightning-to-USB connector cable, which will make it immediately obvious why it won't work with the Dragonfly.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
Since Apple did not provide a generic digital signal like computers provide through the USB port through Apple's old dock connector, is there a reason they would provide that on iphones today? Note that they did provide such a signal on the existing/old ipads with the camera kit.

 

The iPhone does provide such a signal. It's used by docks from companies like Wadia and Pure. I imagine a company has to pay Apple in order to build a connector that bypasses the internal DAC and accesses the secret digital sauce.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment

Lightning-Connector-box.jpg

.. post one of the Lightning-to-USB connector cable, which will make it immediately obvious why it won't work with the Dragonfly.
Sorry about that yes of course, my apology.
.. I imagine a company has to pay Apple in order to build a connector that bypasses the internal DAC and accesses the secret digital sauce.
They should all by-pass it now, because there is no internal DAC on the new

iPhone 5, the fifth-generation iPod touch, and seventh-generation iPod Nano?

The Driver smiled when he lost his pursuer...

Link to comment

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2048[/ATTACH]

Sorry about that yes of course, my apology.They should all by-pass it now, because there is no internal DAC on the new

iPhone 5, the fifth-generation iPod touch, and seventh-generation iPod Nano?

 

Not sure, but I think the answer is no.

 

- Just like the old connector, new audiophile devices will have to "authenticate" to the iDevice through the new connector, and Apple controls whether your company's audiophile device can do that.

 

- I wonder whether the digital signal passed by the Lightning connector is pre- or post- internal DAC (I'm guessing there would be one to serve the headphone port). At least one blog mentioned conversion of the signal from analog to digital before being passed through the Lightning connector. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, so I'm skeptical whether it's really so, or just an inaccurate throwaway line from the blogger.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

Pretty close, but even more draconian :)

 

In order for Apple devices to be willing to "let you have" a digital output, you have to include an "Apple license processor" in the dock. This is an actual processor chip that communicates with the Apple device and "tells" it that you are licensed to receive a digital output. From what I hear, the chip itself isn't terribly expensive, and neither is the license, but the process of applying for an actually getting the license is rather a pain.

 

The Wadia was pretty much the only dock out there that had it (and rather expensive at $400) until Pure "took the leap"

 

The iPhone does provide such a signal. It's used by docks from companies like Wadia and Pure. I imagine a company has to pay Apple in order to build a connector that bypasses the internal DAC and accesses the secret digital sauce.
Link to comment

The Dragonfly has a built-in headphone amplifier with limited power.....

 

 

 

What term would you use/how would you describe that functionality if it is not an "amplifier"? AQ's brochure quotes a "maximum driving power" of 150mw, a spec I associate with headphone amps, and several posters in the DAC thread speak of their experiences using the Dragonfly in conjunction with their headphones...but maybe I am not using the correct term.
Link to comment

The iPod (and friends) ALL have an analog output (which is the same as the headphone or line out). This is generally "available" and, of course, it goes through the internal DAC.

 

Anything that doesn't authenticate CANNOT get the digital output from the iPod. They're not dumb enough to put it on the connector. The actual connection with the iPod is pretty much plain old USB.... it just won't give you anything digital unless it has permission.

 

Not sure, but I think the answer is no.

 

- Just like the old connector, new audiophile devices will have to "authenticate" to the iDevice through the new connector, and Apple controls whether your company's audiophile device can do that.

 

- I wonder whether the digital signal passed by the Lightning connector is pre- or post- internal DAC (I'm guessing there would be one to serve the headphone port). At least one blog mentioned conversion of the signal from analog to digital before being passed through the Lightning connector. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, so I'm skeptical whether it's really so, or just an inaccurate throwaway line from the blogger.

Link to comment

You are misunderstanding.... The Apple device sends out a digital signal over USB. There's nothing special about the signal (it is as good or bad as the Apple device is willing to send you.) The Apple "authentication processor" chip does NOTHING except say

"hi, I'm here, it's OK to send digital audio, this guy bought a license". It doesn't process or modify the audio.

 

The iStreamer is a DAC, so you're hearing how good or bad a DAC it is.

 

(I have no idea if the Apple device does any nasty processing on the digital signal, like changing the sample rate, BEFORE it sends it out... if so, there may be configuration options you can change there. (I'll bet the iPhone doesn't have options, but the iPad certainly does.)

 

So, umm, is it safe to assume that the Apple chip I put into my DAC to sell to consumers will pass the pure digital signal with no degradation?

 

My experience with the iStreamer says otherwise.

Link to comment
You are misunderstanding.... The Apple device sends out a digital signal over USB. There's nothing special about the signal (it is as good or bad as the Apple device is willing to send you.) The Apple "authentication processor" chip does NOTHING except say "hi, I'm here, it's OK to send digital audio, this guy bought a license". It doesn't process or modify the audio. The iStreamer is a DAC, so you're hearing how good or bad a DAC it is. (I have no idea if the Apple device does any nasty processing on the digital signal, like changing the sample rate, BEFORE it sends it out... if so, there may be configuration options you can change there. (I'll bet the iPhone doesn't have options, but the iPad certainly does.)

 

The reason I ask is because the $200 iStreamer (DAC only) sounds quite inferior to the $130 Headstreamer DAC plus "amp" made by the same company.

Link to comment

Cables, arggghhhhh.

 

The Dragonfly has asnch-USB, which means that it re-clocks the incoming signal using its own clock. This means that, after the data comes in off the wire, the DF keeps those ones and zeros, throws away the clock that came with the data, and generates a nice new clean clock. Assuming that it works as intended, then it is in charge of "how the data gets there". If the ones and zeros are indeed correct, and you throw away anything else that can possibly make any difference, then there can't possibly be a real difference between cables. (That's assuming the cable isn't so bad that it actually loses ones or zeros, and assuming that the DF works as advertised.) Of course, since nothing is perfect, it may NOT do that 100.0% perfectly.

 

Now, the analog cable coming OUT of the DF could make a big difference....

(in fact, it seems rather fussy about that, which is a design flaw).

 

There are various 6" USB extension cables available from various places (Amazon has several in the $5 to $10 range).

I would STRONGLY advise a double-blind listening test before spending more than that.

(Or, better yet, Google for Audioquest and how they trick people into buying overpriced cables.....)

 

Sumflow,

 

Yes the DragonFly does have a headphone/line amplifier with analog volume control.

 

All, cables make a difference. Just because the 1's and 0's get there does not mean that the way the get there is correct. I think the DragonTail was released to production last week so you should see it available soon. I am sure there are others available as well and they may not make a difference or they may.

 

Thanks

Gordon

Link to comment

No, actually it makes perfect sense. If the Lightning doesn't have the Apple license chip, then they are probably taking the analog output and converting it BACK into digital..... which obviates any advantages you might get by using a digital signal.

(But it would allow you to plug that analog input into a DAC if that's your real goal...)

Odds are they aren't doing a great job of A-D for $30....

 

Not sure, but I think the answer is no.

 

- Just like the old connector, new audiophile devices will have to "authenticate" to the iDevice through the new connector, and Apple controls whether your company's audiophile device can do that.

 

- I wonder whether the digital signal passed by the Lightning connector is pre- or post- internal DAC (I'm guessing there would be one to serve the headphone port). At least one blog mentioned conversion of the signal from analog to digital before being passed through the Lightning connector. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, so I'm skeptical whether it's really so, or just an inaccurate throwaway line from the blogger.

Link to comment

I have a Headstreamer, but not one of the others, and I don't do Mac.....

 

However, I'm inclined to wonder what you're using for source material.

I suspect that your Apple devices may simply not be putting out good audio....

 

The iStreamer ONLY supports 32k, 44.1k, and 48k at 16 bits (which, I believe, is all that Apple is willing to give you).

The HeadStreamer supports up to 96/24.

(Although 44.1/16 should sound like a CD if it isn't being ruined somehow.)

However, an iPod or whatever is likely using compression (like AAC), which pretty much ruins the sound quality.

Having a nice clean digital quality output of what starts out as a poor quality digital file won't gain you much.

The iPhone isn't actually "an audiophile quality signal source" either :)

You really need to compare them on similar sources - in terms of quality (which won't be easy).

 

I would honestly expect the two HRT devices to sound rather similar - with similar inputs.

 

 

The reason I ask is because the $200 iStreamer (DAC only) sounds quite inferior to the $130 Headstreamer DAC plus "amp" made by the same company.
Link to comment

Your problem isn't the Dragonfly. Your problem is WASAPI... and your drivers. On some PCs, WASAPI simply has trouble running certain DACs. (You couldn't have been using WASAPI on Windows XP because XP doesn't do WASAPI - WASAPI is a Windows 7 "thing"; you were using something else - like KS.) WASAPI gives you control over output bit rate, and works very well - when it works. DS lets the PC re-sample the bit rate (you can't stop it), so you can't get bit-perfect output without manually fiddling with settings when you play different files, but DS seems to work more often, more reliably, with more DACs, on more PCs. You will find that the situation varies with different DACs and different PCs. In principle you can troubleshoot things to find out where the actual problem is with WASAPI, but it's easier to just pick one that works well and go with it.

 

Some USB DACs are also known to distort when playing (full scale) music because the DAC chip is running at a reduced voltage.

(Since it only happens with WASAPI, though, it's almost certainly that.)

 

 

 

More info. I could not get the Audioengine D1 to distort no matter which of the 3 volume controls were used as the reducer. Tested on Windows XP and Win7-64. During these tests I was using the WASAPI (event) speakers - Dragonfly or Audioengine D1 output selection.

 

So Dragonfly had the problem with WASAPI on both O/S's, and so on the Win7-64 system I changed the output back to DS : Speakers (soundcard) and that cured the problem.

Link to comment
Your problem isn't the Dragonfly. Your problem is WASAPI... and your drivers. On some PCs, WASAPI simply has trouble running certain DACs. (You couldn't have been using WASAPI on Windows XP because XP doesn't do WASAPI - WASAPI is a Windows 7 "thing"; you were using something else - like KS.) WASAPI gives you control over output bit rate, and works very well - when it works. DS lets the PC re-sample the bit rate (you can't stop it), so you can't get bit-perfect output without manually fiddling with settings when you play different files, but DS seems to work more often, more reliably, with more DACs, on more PCs. You will find that the situation varies with different DACs and different PCs. In principle you can troubleshoot things to find out where the actual problem is with WASAPI, but it's easier to just pick one that works well and go with it.

Some USB DACs are also known to distort when playing (full scale) music because the DAC chip is running at a reduced voltage.

(Since it only happens with WASAPI, though, it's almost certainly that.)

 

You have it partly right - the problem isn't (probably) WASAPI, but the distortion occurred equally on Win7 and WinXP.

Link to comment
I have a Headstreamer, but not one of the others, and I don't do Mac.....However, I'm inclined to wonder what you're using for source material.

I suspect that your Apple devices may simply not be putting out good audio....

The iStreamer ONLY supports 32k, 44.1k, and 48k at 16 bits (which, I believe, is all that Apple is willing to give you). The HeadStreamer supports up to 96/24.

(Although 44.1/16 should sound like a CD if it isn't being ruined somehow.)

However, an iPod or whatever is likely using compression (like AAC), which pretty much ruins the sound quality. Having a nice clean digital quality output of what starts out as a poor quality digital file won't gain you much.

The iPhone isn't actually "an audiophile quality signal source" either :)

You really need to compare them on similar sources - in terms of quality (which won't be easy). I would honestly expect the two HRT devices to sound rather similar - with similar inputs.

 

I took all that into consideration for my tests. Used 320k CBR MP3's that I converted from 96k WAV files in both cases, from i-device and desktop. So the source was the same and the only difference was the USB out and the DAC. The bottom line is, if the iStreamer sounds worse than the desktop playing the same tracks, then the iStreamer is a failure as a true DAC in my opinion. I haven't read any confirmation anywhere about this, or that compares i-device DAC's to see if any of them are equal to regular USB DAC's when playing the same tracks (jailbroken i-devices just make things more complicated and harder to qualify).

Link to comment

In that case, no.

 

USB DACs in general also have a problem in that USB only provides a 5V supply.

 

Either the DAC maker has to use some sort of DC-DC converter to step it up (which can lead to noise issues and draws significant current), or they are stuck with a limited maximum signal level. The phones that I've used with the DF were all low impedance (52 Ohm AKGs), so wouldn't be looking for much voltage. Higher impedance phones would need higher drive levels, which could be a problem for the Dragonfly. I've heard of several USB powered DACs having this issue.

 

Likewise, I've also heard it claimed that some DACs (notably the Wolfson) "do well" on low drive voltages, while others do not.

Assuming that the PCs in question are fast enough to put out a clean signal, then it sounds like the DF itself is simply unable to

 

The Stereophile review noted that their first test model clipped at full-scale, but that a later replacement did not.

Maybe you should try and find out the vintage on yours.....

 

AudioQuest DragonFly USB D/A converter Measurements | Stereophile.com

 

 

You have it partly right - the problem isn't (probably) WASAPI, but the distortion occurred equally on Win7 and WinXP.
Link to comment

You need some context here....

 

It's quite possible that a bad cable could make jitter worse, which could very well make a big difference in sound - but only if the USB device in question is NOT asynchronous mode (that's why asynch mode is better). An asynchronous mode device is supposed to re-clock the data, thus removing any possible contribution from the cable. Since the Dragonfly IS asynchronous mode USB, assuming it's working right it should be totally immune to any differences between cables (unless the cable is so bad that data is actually not making it through). Now, if you're talking about running analog through that skinny little cable, it's a whole different matter.

 

 

 

In a private dem, I auditioned the difference made by substituting an AudioQuest Forest iPod–USB cable ($35) for Apple's ubiquitous white cable. Oh my (God)!

 

Given that the standard iPod cable costs $25 as a replacement, the extra $10 buys you so much more music, it was scary. ~John Atkinson

Link to comment

The Stereophile review notes that version 1 and 2 have no significant difference, which is not surprising given no headphones were attached. Because no headphones were used, volume was not an issue.

 

I did a rather long comparison of the Dragonfly to the Headstreamer and Audioengine D1, using Emily Palen's Inevitability of Water (96k WAV) mostly, and found they sound essentially the same. Using that track, the difference in "air" and width/depth of image are easy to judge compared to inferior amps.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...