Review and Measurements of Chord Mojo DAC and Amp

[Jimster480]

I experienced similar finding on Topping vs Mojo. I only use the Dacs at line level in my system, The portable thing is dead and over with great sounding smartphones. I removed the battery on the Mojo permanently. When I turn it on it does not remenber the volume setting , nearly killed my speakers. I hate the looks of it with those stupid colored marbles, but you know what ? It sound better than any of my 4 Toppings way better actualy.

What toppings do you have? "Sounds better"? Have you ever done real ABX testing? Because unless you have some ancient toppings that have just OK performance; I don't see how you would be able to tell the difference between any of the DACs at all. Nevermind one "sounding way better actually".

 

[Simon P]

I don't have Topping DACs but have a Cambridge DACmagic 100 with a Wolfson chip. The Mojo 1 sounds quite analogue-like. It lacks a lot of the harshness many hear in digital audio. There's an organic wholeness to the sound. It conveys vocal and instrumental textures well on the whole. There's a real sense of reserved sophistication and cohesion. I noticed this the minute I used it. At the same time it lacks bass slam and definition, and can sound a little languid. It rounds the rasp of trumpet and sax a little. It also does give the impression of lacking soundstage width at first. On my cheap setup with PC audio, the Mojo is the most listenable. I can't get it to work properly at 192 though; cracks and pops.
DACs don't all sound the same, IMO.
If you want everything, there's top notch all-analogue....

 

[Veri]

I don't have Topping DACs but have a Cambridge DACmagic 100 with a Wolfson chip. The Mojo 1 sounds quite analogue-like. It lacks a lot of the harshness many hear in digital audio. There's an organic wholeness to the sound. It conveys vocal and instrumental textures well on the whole. There's a real sense of reserved sophistication and cohesion. I noticed this the minute I used it. At the same time it lacks bass slam and definition, and can sound a little languid. It rounds the rasp of trumpet and sax a little. It also does give the impression of lacking soundstage width at first.

Right......
And then there's other people comparing Mojo:

Just my 2 cents to add for the C200. I had previously been using a chord mojo for headphone listening (Monoprice 1060c open back mod). The C200 absolutely demolished it.

Listening to Peter Gabriel 4 (an early CD pressing converted to flac) presented me with an intricately layered soundstage with sonic cues I had never heard before. What was most striking though was how main vocals were anchored to the centre - with space and depth around them. There‘s been few hardware changes in my 40 years of hifi pursuence that created such an improvement. This was one of them.

It's almost like anecdotal listening comparisons don't mean a damn and are heavily influenced by bias, mood, having just purchased a new thing, ...
Thank God we can have objective data of these devices, right

 

[Frank Dernie]

I don't have Topping DACs but have a Cambridge DACmagic 100 with a Wolfson chip. The Mojo 1 sounds quite analogue-like. It lacks a lot of the harshness many hear in digital audio. There's an organic wholeness to the sound. It conveys vocal and instrumental textures well on the whole. There's a real sense of reserved sophistication and cohesion. I noticed this the minute I used it. At the same time it lacks bass slam and definition, and can sound a little languid. It rounds the rasp of trumpet and sax a little. It also does give the impression of lacking soundstage width at first. On my cheap setup with PC audio, the Mojo is the most listenable. I can't get it to work properly at 192 though; cracks and pops.
DACs don't all sound the same, IMO.
If you want everything, there's top notch all-analogue....

I have top notch analogue, Goldmund Reference, T3f arm Ortofon A90, also 3 others from EMT, Roksan and B&O.

I also own a plethora of DACs from dCS, Chord, Metric Halo, Resolution Audio, Goldmund, SMSL and RME.

I find all 4 turntables sound different to each other.

When I level match compared some of the DACs all the differences I thought I heard turned out not to exist.

What was audible though was the effect of reconstruction filters, when they were switchable like on the dCS, but with the normal filter they were all the same sounding. I do know people who prefer the sound with an inaccurate reconstruction filter, I don’t.

I wish I had learned this years ago, I would have saved a lot of money.

Whether the turntable sounds better or digital depends far more on the actual recording, not the medium, IME.
I have superb CDs and awful ones.
I have superb LPs and awful ones.

The reality is that sound quality is much more dependant on the source recording than DACs and good turntables.

 

[Simon P]

Right......
And then there's other people comparing Mojo:



It's almost like anecdotal listening comparisons don't mean a damn and are heavily influenced by bias, mood, having just purchased a new thing, ...
Thank God we can have objective data of these devices, right

It's clearly subjective, yes, if you accept, as I do, that there are differences. Whether hte differences, if real, are important to you, is entirely up to you. DAC filters are obviously going to affect the waveform out. That bit is objective.

 

[Simon P]

I have top notch analogue, Goldmund Reference, T3f arm Ortofon A90, also 3 others from EMT, Roksan and B&O.

I also own a plethora of DACs from dCS, Chord, Metric Halo, Resolution Audio, Goldmund, SMSL and RME.

I find all 4 turntables sound different to each other.

When I level match compared some of the DACs all the differences I thought I heard turned out not to exist.

What was audible though was the effect of reconstruction filters, when they were switchable like on the dCS, but with the normal filter they were all the same sounding. I do know people who prefer the sound with an inaccurate reconstruction filter, I don’t.

I wish I had learned this years ago, I would have saved a lot of money.

Whether the turntable sounds better or digital depends far more on the actual recording, not the medium, IME.
I have superb CDs and awful ones.
I have superb LPs and awful ones.

The reality is that sound quality is much more dependant on the source recording than DACs and good turntables.

The recording usually swamps out other factors I agree. Delta sigma dacs are going to handle the time domain signal differently from one another. All digital audio is an approximation in the time domain. Rob Watts is correct in saying a time-long sinc brickwall is the technically correct filter.

 

[Frank Dernie]

The recording usually swamps out other factors I agree. Delta sigma dacs are going to handle the time domain signal differently from one another. All digital audio is an approximation in the time domain. Rob Watts is correct in saying a time-long sinc brickwall is the technically correct filter.

What is technically correct and what is necessary are often two different things.
Making something to a tolerance higher than needed for it to function properly just shows ignorance - I learned this from my old mentor Keith Duckworth.
Knowledge allows one to know where supreme accuracy is needed and where economy of effort won’t influence performance.

There are a couple of people making software which give theoretical improvements way beyond human detection. I take my hat off to them but their effort is pointless for everything other than marketing to the ignorant.

IMHO of course.

 

[Els]

What toppings do you have? "Sounds better"? Have you ever done real ABX testing? Because unless you have some ancient toppings that have just OK performance; I don't see how you would be able to tell the difference between any of the DACs at all. Nevermind one "sounding way better actually".

D50s E30 D10. Ancient? In my main system I use The RME Dac because of It's features, I am not interested in ABX testing, I listen to music. I just commented that in my secondary system when I installed the Mojo after many months of listening with the Topping I noticed an improvement. Not Gospel, not rocket science. By the way the Mojo IS ancient. Have a look at the video from A British Audiophile. The Toppings is good, the Chord Mojo is good the RME is good . Like it or not, they have a diferent sound signature.

 

[Veri]

The Toppings is good, the Chord Mojo is good the RME is good .

Agreed.

Like it or not, they have a diferent sound signature.

That remains to be seen....

 

[BDWoody]

Whether hte differences, if real, are important to you, is entirely up to you.

What if the differences aren't real, but imagined? Then you are making non-existent differences important, which many here are trying to avoid.

If you want everything, there's top notch all-analogue....

If by everything you mean increased noise distortion and cost, then absolutely. I have a few decent turntables and hundreds of records, but there isn't anything inherently magical or superior.

 

[Simon P]

What if the differences aren't real, but imagined? Then you are making non-existent differences important, which many here are trying to avoid.



If by everything you mean increased noise distortion and cost, then absolutely. I have a few decent turntables and hundreds of records, but there isn't anything inherently magical or superior.

What if you're not imagining it? If it doesn't matter to you, it doesn't matter to you.

Nothing magical, but digital at any point loses something. That's my long term view. It's got better, especially at the recording end. If your vinyl is digitally mastered, though, I'd have to agree your vinyl chain is just an effects unit. It's subjective again so very little point arguing about it. Find something you like. For me at present that is the Mojo on PC streaming and an old Denon high end SACD player, which, dare I say it, I prefer to the same fed into the Mojo via optical!

 

[BDWoody]

What if you're not imagining it? If it doesn't matter to you, it doesn't matter to you.

If not a single person on the planet can provide the evidence that it ISN'T imagination, I feel safe.

Nothing magical, but digital at any point loses something. That's my long term view.

Do you understand sampling theory? That's another good place to start sorting all this out.

 

[Killingbeans]

It's clearly subjective, yes, if you accept, as I do, that there are differences. Whether hte differences, if real, are important to you, is entirely up to you.

Sure, there might be some people who don't mind throwing thousands of dollars at gear just to experience the power of the placebo effect, but I'd be amazed if those are the majority. At the very least we should work hard at getting a good picture of the causes and effects, so those who seek actual performance have a chance of navigating through the anecdotes.

 

[Simon P]

If not a single person on the planet can provide the evidence that it ISN'T imagination, I feel safe.




Do you understand sampling theory? That's another good place to start sorting all this out.

I hope I understand sampling theory, yes. I designed electronics for the first/second generation digital telephony and contiguous digital transmission over microwave!

At the same time I was comparing early CD to high end analogue.

There's plenty to go wrong in there. But does it matter? If you're happy with digital, why argue?

 

[BDWoody]

There's plenty to go wrong in there. But does it matter? If you're happy with digital, why argue?

Asking for evidence isn't arguing.

So have you tried your comparisons with blind level matched controls?

Edit: just saw this...

No controls, no blind tests, sorry, don't have that level of commitment at the moment.

Maybe try that next time. Repeated claims will just get repeated challenges.

 

[SIY]

I hope I understand sampling theory, yes.

"Hope."

 

[Killingbeans]

If you're happy with digital, why argue?

Because 3rd parties looking for reliable information won't find it if we don't. Your and my happiness is only important to the two of us, and it doesn't shine a light on anything.

 

[Simon P]

Maths is an attempt to describe reality. It has failed pretty badly. Look up the cosmological constant problem aka the vacuum energy problem! Mathematical proofs are actually a problematic area. Read up on it. Having said that, sampling criteria are obviously at the very least a very useable approximation to reality.

The video. Not bad, but...dither does not sort out low bit depth in the time domain to any significant degree, it just hides it for averaging frequency domain measurements. Nyquist considers how to reconstruct a perfectly brickwall filtered analogue signal. There is no such thing: you can't listen to one. You can't make the filter. Even if it was essentially the same as the original signal, you still have the problem of time domain errors which get nicely averaged out by your fast fourier processing when observed in the frequency domain.

I don't believe fast blind tests prove much beyond a certain point, by definition you are looking at minor differences.

On audio, if you use science only, you'll get a certain outcome. If you use subjectivity you'll get another. I think there's a degree of validity to both and so do the vast majority of gear engineers.

I find that electronics which all measures pretty well compared to speakers can make or break the desired outcome of an enjoyable audio system, based on repeated day-to-day usage. If you don't, I'm fine with that. But I've been listening for long enough to know what I think.

I don't mind repeated challenges. Just don't expect to convince me.

 

[Els]

Right......
And then there's other people comparing Mojo:



It's almost like anecdotal listening comparisons don't mean a damn and are heavily influenced by bias, mood, having just purchased a new thing, ...
Thank God we can have objective data of these devices, right

The first part of your statement is correct, and it applies to fine cuisine and fine wines as well. When I am in a bad mood I can't stand my brother or my dog; When I am in a good mood they are cool.
As an exemple the folks at Shiit audio spent their entire career trying to improve their products; Their cheap 100 Dollar Dac does the job, why do they make several more expensive products? Just to rip you off , come on....There are hundreds of good measuring Dacs out there. Archimago, definently a objectivist measurement guy, reviewed a 5 Dollar Dac that measured well. L'ets all buy that one and be done with it.

 

[Sokel]

Let me be a little heretic here:
All examples of people sharing opinions about differences are solely by musical content.
I would suspect that sometimes we have to consider not only SINAD at 1Khz at full output,but other measurements who vary amongst devices where SINAD falls rapidly.
Like SINAD vs level and SINAD vs freq.

If we consider the measurements and the levels someone is normally listening to music the results easily falls to the point of graphs that SINAD is 20-30db worst and thus well in the audible range.
Have you ever calculated the SINAD of a whole system playing at-18db to -12db average (a nice recording not to go to extremes).
I suspect that the result will be surprising.