Topic: Audioquest DragonFly v1.0 and v1.2 (Read 9352 times)

Anaxilus. · « **on:** December 19, 2012, 07:30:45 AM »

Audioquest Dragonfly v1.0 (version 1.2 update link at bottom)

We received the AQ DF to compare as both DAC/Amp and DAC to my current personal portable standard, the UHA6S mk2. There was much conjecture by some about this small device representing the basic standard of audible transparency by which all other devices are exercises in palcebo or expectation bias to comfort oft victimized wallets. After listening to the very first track, it's clear to me that the best argument to make is that it is above average for its size and convenience while on the go. I really can't say the price is a selling point as it's almost the same price as my UHA6S. I also think that if IEMs are your primary listening device, the Clip+ actually sounds cleaner and more accurate for much much less money, though it represents a different design/package philosophy and may not be dynamic enough for some pairings and listeners.

For the sake of comparison, I went back to read Stereophile's review of the DF to see how it compared to my impressions. I must say, I'm going to have to diverge from a few comments made by Mr. Dudley and J. Atkinson. I do believe JA was speaking in his typical coded tongue though. Mr. Dudley seems to claim that the tonal balance is as good as any digital source. As they say in England, bollocks! While the FR is flat, Dudley refers to tonal balance with respect to dynamics as well. On a positive note, the DF is a fun, dynamic listen. However, the bass is slightly bloated and flatulent. Don't mistake this as boomy in Monster Beats sense, but more of an unrefined bass that lacks proper enunciation and lingers too long. The resulting cloud mucks up separation and will kill speedy/complex passages. This brings me to JA's double speak about the DF's bass not being well differentiated (confirming my impressions) but likely not being able to differentiate it from the better performing DACPort LX. Well, that's exactly what he did! 'Nuff said. I've owned the DACPort LX, ODAC, Clip+, they all do better at separation, control, and tonal balance then the DF by my ears. The DF does have better dynamics than the Clip+ (my longest standing critique of the Clip+) by a good margin though, it produces a much more powerful and engaging sound but at a cost to low end accuracy. I take it Mr. Dudley has never heard any of these unobtainable, high-end competitors? If ultimate sound balance and resolution are paramount, the DF ranks last amongst those devices above in my experience.

All listening done via PC (JRiver) > USB > DF or UHA6S > Ultimate Ears Reference Monitor

Listening to Hell Freezes Over from the Eagles, particularly Hotel California, the differences are starkly noticeable.

Audioquest Dragonfly

Right away, the sound is a bit grainy which usually denotes a lack of resolution and transparency. This is obvious in a macro sense during audience applause which sounds more like popping bubble wrap rather than fleshy hands slapping together. The micro sense provides an overall impression to listening to 128 or 256-bit MP3s through resolving gear. The device has good sound stage width but there is very little separation and imaging. I hear sounds coming from the notorious blobs without any distinct instruments being imaged. At just over 2:00 into the intro, I can only hear the last two sets of claps before the crowd stops. Treble is fine, doesn't hurt, nor does it overly accentuate or hide Glen Fry's sibilant vocals. Definitely more on the forgiving side but what needs to be there is there. Bass is slightly uncontrolled but in a euphonic way, if that doesn't bother you. Bass is not an overt muddled mess, but enough to offend accuracy nuts used to higher performing gear. Timbre on vocals and strings is good and pleasing considering.

Leckerton UHA6S mk2
(Note, USB input to DAC is the weakest link on this device so let's see how it compares to the DF on the same track.)
(Note 2, I will be using the UHA6S at a slightly lesser volume than the DF to dispel any doubts about gain matching)

Off the bat, the guitar sounds like a guitar rather than a digital device trying to render strings being plucked. Applause sounds more organic and full. The initial bass drop actually extends longer and carries much more texture all the way through. I can hear applause from the audience from about 40 seconds in and all the way past 2 minutes. Far more detail and resolving power going on here. Instruments are properly separated and placed, far better imaging without the congested blob effect. Both provide sound stage width in equal measure. More sibilance from Glenn Frey, but it is actually on the recording and a normal function of human speech which some seem to forget. Much more ambient micro detail and dynamics. There is more air around performers and lingering notes so the music can breathe allowing dynamics to do their crescendo and relaxation exercises. It's like yoga for music; all good devices should possess this character. Less apparent grain offering a more refined overall signature. The DF does have a bit of a sweeter, albeit slightly colored tone, where the UHA6S might seem slightly drier or analytical by direct comparison but not overly so (a function of opamp selection shaping the signature. Some believe this does not exist beyond human imagination, I am not one of them). I am averse to overly artificial dry mids for clarification.

To make the comparison even more stark, one need only add the ODAC or DACPort LX to the front of the UHA6S amp section and the result is even more lopsided.

Next, testing the DF as a source feeding the Leckerton's amp section. Will removal of attenuation save the DF and tie the match? Here comes the Hail Mary....

Well, adding my mini-mini and the UHA6S to the chain seemed to help a bit. The sound is less grainy and unrefined, also bass balance is a bit better than running the DF alone. However, everything else stands from the imaging to the transparency issues, etc. Now, is this confirmation that adding a superior amp to an inferior amp/product does indeed improve performance? Or is this confirmation that removing attenuation from the DF lets it breathe a bit better?

To find out, I ran the same setup up but brought the volume down to 14% on the DF and cranked the Leckerton's pot to try to volume match. Indeed, Glen Fry's voice became more raspy and grainy sounding like a dry throat. So I'll have to conclude at the very least one or both conditions are the cause of the improvement.

Thus, if you own a Dragonfly, I recommend running it through a superior amp section to get the most out of it. Though this defeats the purpose of it, no?

In conclusion, it seems the DF was able to catch the ball but came up about 5 yards short of the goal line for this comparison. If the DF suits your needs at a price acceptable for you, by all means grab one. However, if you are of the opinion that this device will end the quest for ultimate audio performance, don't fool yourself.

Thanks to longbowbbs for the loaner. Much appreciated!

Updated with v1.2 impressions

http://www.changstar.com/index.php/topic,687.msg60705.html#msg60705

Differences from the original found here:

http://www.audiostream.com/content/audioquest-dragonfly-v12-usb-digital-audio-converter

"Among the improvements, the circuitry between the DAC chip and the analog output stage has been refined to create a more direct signal path, leading to even greater transparency and immediacy. Also, the DAC’s power supply has been fortified, which gives the sound more 'grip' and even greater dynamic contrast."

Hroðulf · « **Reply #1 on:** December 19, 2012, 07:57:46 AM »

Nice read!

Maybe the DF likes an amp load better than a headphone load.

Anaxilus. · « **Reply #2 on:** December 19, 2012, 08:11:51 AM »

Thanks. It seems that way. Sorry you had to read that prior to editing, must be tired. >.<

ultrabike · « **Reply #3 on:** December 19, 2012, 08:14:16 AM »

Nice!

shipsupt · « **Reply #4 on:** December 19, 2012, 08:43:31 AM »

They do say bollocks in England.

kkl10 · « **Reply #5 on:** December 19, 2012, 10:38:01 AM »

Analixus and others who've heard both dacport LX and ODAC,

From your memory of the Dacport LX and ODAC, can you say if there was any sonic difference between them?
And if so what were those differences?

I've read that the ODAC might need an additional source of power besides the USB port on which it is connected to sound as good as it can... is this still true? Isn't 500mA of power enough?
Does the Dacport LX have this issue too?

Hroðulf · « **Reply #6 on:** December 19, 2012, 12:03:13 PM »

The trouble with USB is getting clean power. I'm pretty sure that despite numerous claims about power regulation USB power sets the performance ceiling for these devices.

firev1 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 19, 2012, 04:08:07 PM »

So.... remind me why this product was supposed to be a groundbreaker? At the very least the DF looks pretty sweet.

Tyll Hertsens · « **Reply #8 on:** December 19, 2012, 04:18:41 PM »

Anax, when did you get your DF?

There has been a change since the first run and, to my ears, the second rev does quite a bit better driving headphones correctly.

Sorry to drop this note of confusion in here, but it does seem to be quite a difference to me.

Also sorry I don't know the details, but it does have something to do with better power supply regulation and I think some shift in internal analog levels. Or something like that. Sorry I don't have more details.

longbowbbs · « **Reply #9 on:** December 19, 2012, 04:53:42 PM »

I loaned by DF to Anax for his review. I got it within a few days of release so it is the original model.

The "Groundbreaking" part is more about size and portability. I suspect that those factors led to the outpouring of press support. Also, they generally were excited that a decent audio product could bet mass appeal due to size and simplicity. It is a door opener for the mass market rather than a $250 dCS killer.

Author Topic: Audioquest DragonFly v1.0 and v1.2 (Read 9352 times)

Anaxilus.

Audioquest DragonFly v1.0 and v1.2

Hroðulf

Re: Audioquest DragonFly

Anaxilus.

Re: Audioquest DragonFly

ultrabike

Re: Audioquest DragonFly

shipsupt

Re: Audioquest DragonFly

kkl10

Re: Audioquest DragonFly

Hroðulf

Re: Audioquest DragonFly

firev1

Re: Audioquest DragonFly

Tyll Hertsens

Re: Audioquest DragonFly

longbowbbs

Re: Audioquest DragonFly

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Author Topic: Audioquest DragonFly v1.0 and v1.2 (Read 9352 times)