MonoRice 1X USB DAC – grand theft audio?

monorice-x1_4

“It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation.” – Herman Melville


The MonoRice 1X USB DAC (US$59) and headphone amplifier looks more like a thumb drive than many of its competitors. It’s a device to soup up the sound quality of headphones (or hi-fi) connecting to your Mac or PC (but not smartphone).

Listen to a nice recording – preferably one that’s been losslessly compressed – and compare it to the output of your average smartphone or laptop and you’ll hear more clarity on Lou Reed and John Cale’s Songs for Drella, better dynamics from Redshape’s Square and, most notably, more resolution from the bouncy art-pop of Django Django’s “Default”.

Next to the MonoRice 1X, the 3.5mm headphone output on a 2014 Apple MacBook Air (11”) sounds somewhat muddy.

Comparing the MonoRice 1X with the twice costly but now discontinued AudioQuest DragonFly v1.2 (US$149), the former can’t quite match the latter’s more relaxed repose and spacious headstage. I paired both with the great arbiters of IEM audio truth, Campfire Audio’s Andromeda, to conclude that the DragonFly v1.2 sounds considerably smoother and W I D E R on headstaging than the Monny-Come-Lately.

In-hand, the AudioQuest v1.2’s rubberised skin and overall build quality feels much nicer than hard plastic of the 1X. Its illuminated DragonFly logo aces the 1X’s more plane Jane twin LEDs.

No mind. The MonoRice offering sells for almost one third of the price of the DragonFly v1.2 and just over half that of its successor, the DragonFly Black (review here), with which it fails to compete on almost every level.

However, despite its audible shortcomings, it’s safe to conclude that the 1X offers price commensurate performance.

monorice-x1_1

So who’s complaining? AudioQuest is who.

Like any DragonFly, the MonoRice 1X demands no additional software drivers in order to decode PCM streams up to 24bit/96kHz. Neither does it handle DSD.

Pop the hood on the 1X though and the similarities become more questionable. MonoRice specify a Texas Instruments’ TAS1020B for USB reception and an ESS Labs Sabre 9023 for D/A conversion. Just like the DragonFly v1.2.

How do we know this? A MonoRice customer took his 1X apart and posted the results to IMGUR with the title “Teardown of MonoRice 1X USB DAC Headphone Amp, exactly same hardware as the Audioquest DragonFly 1.2 for half the price!”

These claimed similarities were confirmed when the AudioQuest press team put those teardown snaps next to their own shots of the DragonFly v1.2’s internal board layout.

df-cf-side-by-side

No doubt feeling somewhat aggrieved, the Californian tech- (née cable-) company subsequently issued a press release warning customers of the FakeFly’s existence.

“Will the real DragonFly® please stand up?” its title rhetorically asked.

“It has recently come to light that a counterfeit version of the guts of DragonFly v1.2 is inside multiple brands of Made In China small USB DACs.”

“It is important to note the authentic versions of all DragonFlys, as with all of the new AudioQuest “Digital Critters,” are manufactured in Ohio, USA.”

For Statesiders wanting to make their country great again, the choice is easy: buying the DragonFly is a vote for American jobs. The MonoRice 1X is Made in China.

I bought a MonoRice 1X to ensure DAR coverage went beyond the press release. (You’ve already read my findings on its audible performance and outward aesthetics).

“Not only are the internals of these other DACs illegal copies, they are not exact copies…”, continued AudioQuest’s press release.

‘Illegal’ is a curious word choice when discussing components available to any hardware manufacturer. This IP copycatting can be suggested…but not 100% proven.

Time to further shore up the case against these would be copycat/s.

Regular readers will know that 21st century D/A conversion isn’t just a matter of hardware but also software. For their DragonFly series, AudioQuest are a fully paid-up licensee of Gordon Rankin’s Streamlength code.

Rankin’s work is considered by many as instrumental in moving USB audio thinking from adaptive to asynchronous USB – where the DAC, not the upstream computer, controls the audio data clock. “The tail no longer wags the dog!”, quips Rankin’s USBdacs.com.

Other Streamlength licensees include Berkley Audio, Ayre Acoustics, Grace Audio Design and Halide. Note the absence of MonoRice.

When licensed, Rankin’s Streamlength code sits on the DAC’s USB receiver chip; in the case of the v1.2 DragonFly, that’s a TAS1020B for which, recalling an exchange between Rankin and myself at CES 2016, the Streamlength code is encrypted.

No way that MonoRice would copy that, even if they wanted to, right?

monorice-x1-5

On the surface it appears that both the DragonFly v1.2 and MonoRice 1X introduce themselves to OS X as distinctly separate entities: ‘AudioQuest DragonFly’ and ‘MonoRice 1X USB DAC’ are the descriptors appearing in the sound preferences panel of an 11” MacBook Air.

It’s in the system information panel that the plot takes a sketchier turn: the DragonFly v1.2 announces its vendor ID – allocated by the USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF) to AudioQuest – as ‘0x21b4’.

Quoting from the USB IF FAQ:

“Vendor IDs (VIDs) are owned by the vendor company and are assigned and maintained by the USB-IF only.”

In the same sys-info panel, the v1.2’s product ID is shown as ‘0x0081’.

monorice-x1-6

Back to the USB-IF’s FAQ: “Product IDs (PIDs) are assigned by each vendor as they see fit; the USB-IF recommends each vendor set up a coordinated allocation scheme for PIDs so different teams don’t inadvertently choose the same PID for different products. Duplicate numbers may cause driver error.”

Plug in the MonoRice 1X and we would expect its product and/or vendor IDs to be different.

And yet, they are not. Viewed from OS X’s sys-info panel, both the 1X’s vendor ID and product ID are identical to AudioQuest’s. And despite showing a distinct manufacturer name and serial number, the MonoRice 1X’s version field reads ‘v1.20’. If that doesn’t cast serious doubt as to the originality of MonoRice’s own USB code, I’ll eat my DAC.

monorice-x1-7

The evidence strongly suggests that MonoRice have not only gone some way to ape the DragonFly’s hardware configuration but that they have also (somehow) cracked the Texas Instruments’ on-chip encryption to lift Rankin’s Streamlength code lock, stock and two smoking barrels. DAC design done, no R&D required.  

A Streamlength credit previously seen on the company’s product page has since been removed.

Not every American will be moved by the argument of ‘Made in the USA’. I get that. For overseas buyers, it’s probably irrelevant.

However, do we not have a responsibility to resist the lower pricing of copycat manufacturers – no doubt a direct result of skipping out on software licensing costs – and who, one might argue, offer zero innovation of their own and are almost certainly profiting from the sale of stolen intellectual property?

Further information: Nope

moby_dick

Written by John H. Darko

John lives in Berlin, Germany. He derives an income from the ad revenues of DAR. John is also a very occasional staff writer for Stereophile, 6moons and TONEAudio.

Twitter: DarkoAudio
Instagram: DarkoAudio
Facebook: DAR

18 Comments

Leave a Reply
  1. MonoRice also sounds suspiciously similar to [redacted]- just saying. Perhaps [redacted] has grounds for trademark infringement?

  2. Thank you John for detailed investigation… [redacted]…if so Audioquest can have bit easier path to defend itself as [redacted] is based in US. As a manufacturer I am sympathetic with those being ripped off their intellectual property by unscrupulous bastards.

  3. Hmm just went to the redacted website and there it is available right in USA…thought it was sold only in Asia or Alibaba. It’s going to be interesting if Audioquest decide to act.

  4. This is what makes DAR more then just gear review site for audio-junkies, thank you for adding your own due diligence to the effort. Articles that cover the world around the gear are just as relevant to me as the gear it self.

  5. this kind of thing really makes me angry. I own a DF Red and its an awesome product. This other company should be ashamed of themselves. Do your own damn work and make your own product. Don’t steal from someone else.

  6. “However, do we not have a responsibility to resist the lower pricing of copycat manufacturers – no doubt a direct result of skipping out on software licensing costs – and who, one might argue, offer zero innovation of their own and are almost certainly profiting from the sale of stolen intellectual property?”

    I’ll offer the dissenting opinion. Copying like this encourages innovation rather then impedes it. Copies encourage manufacturers to make new products to stay ahead of the game.

    There’s an argument that Audioquest is losing money, but are they really? When the Dragonfly came out it received a ton of positive press and there is no doubt that they sold enough to recoup cost and make a healthy profit. There is also an assumption that the consumer would have bought a Dragonfly if the copy didn’t exist but that is dubious. The person that buys an X1 was never an Audioquest customer to begin with. Especially since knowledge of the internals was blind.

    Companies should figure how to make their products not worth copying. Schiit is a good example. The Fulla DAC/AMP is priced at $79 and is probably not worth reverse engineering. Same thing with almost every other product in their line. In fact they torpedoed a few of my DIY projects because the price for making the item was basically the same as the similar Schiit item.

      • It’s still copying, albeit copying something illegally according to certain IP laws. Regardless of legality the end result is still innovating to remain competitive. Many industries like fashion or food have nearly zero IP protections and have no problems with being dynamic.

        • Gael not sure what you do but it is simply not right to copy, borrow or steal ideas from others. In technology the processes/expenses are much more involved than in fashion or food industry. That saying I don’t think Coca Cola would be pleased if someone copied, borrow or steal their recipes. Don’t think you would be pleased if someone took your work and made their own.

          • I actually would be happy if someone replicated what I do. I’m a scientist and this is how science works, you take ideas that other people developed and you build on them. You should still credit the original person or else it’s plagiarism but outside that it’s fine. At worst, Monorice plaigerised their work.

            And yes, I do practice what I preach. Any software or hardware I develop will be open source or in the public domain if I can help it.

            Speaking of tech, Linux works that way and is in just about every major electrical appliance you can think of. Developing Linux is not cheap, but there are ways to monetize without IP. Arduino based electronics are the same way.

    • Also it’s bit disingenuous for Audioquest to call it a counterfeit. Counterfeit is where you try to pass off the product as an actual Dragonfly DAC. From what I see they aren’t even trying to do that. They copied the inside but not the outside. A true counterfeit would do it the other way.

      • It works both ways and both ways it’s counterfeit. Yes the shell is different but the technology is presumably the same. It’s like putting same fragrance in a different bottle. Hence counterfeit.

        • You know that putting the same product in a different bottle is a normal practice, right? A lot of the times store brands buy the excess of a major brand and sell it at a lower price. They do this because they don’t want to devalue the price of their brand while still being able to sell their stock.

          And you’re right, I don’t think coke would be pleased if some took their recipe. But so what? Coke just wants to maintain their monopoly. I’m sure the first person that made hamburgers wasn’t keen on someone taking his idea either. That being said, Coke is more of a brand, not a product. Someone trying to sell Coke without using the name would have a hard time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *