This is an interesting post and contains lots of points to debate.
It seems you have an issue with the DAVE because it doesn't cost more and that you subscribe to the logic that price is the primary determiner of quality. I think this logic makes sense provided that the cost of a DAC truly went into a specific design that made a difference and not just into the pocket of the DAC company. I spoke to an employee of a certain DAC company over the summer whom I shall not name. They make a "made to order" DAC that fully configured tops out at $180,000 USD and they are content if they only sell 1-2 per year. They make this DAC so that they can have a statement piece to help sell their less expensive DACs (about $30k). In the view of this company, this statement DAC helps elevate their brand. The interesting thing, according to this employee, is that while this statement DAC includes better and much more expensive components, it doesn't really sound much better than their standard DAC, at least this is this person's opinion. Why they charge so much is because they cater primarily to a certain part of the world that would never look at their products unless they charge more and so that's what they do. According to this person, this culture looks primarily at cost as a measure of quality and so this person readily admits that they have a very high-profit margin with each of their DACs in this part of the world because that's the only way they can sell them. Now I haven't listened to their $180k DAC because it's not a DAC they have lying around but I did hear their more standard DAC ($30k) on their speakers in their own factory and was able to compare it to my DAVE and I can tell you the DAVE was better as far as detail retrieval, time resolution, musicality and all the other factors that matter to me.
As for headphone listening, you're correct, it has limitations but if someone wants to fully evaluate the performance of a DAC, you really should listen to both and not just one or the other. Many professional mixers actually work with headphones and not speakers for a reason, because they can be more resolving and more accurate. With headphones, you can hear more of the subtleties of the expression of a voice, for example. Yes, there is no question that speakers can image better, present more realistic depth and soundstage and can be more palpably dynamic but as of today, there is no more transparent listening experience than DAVE direct to headphone. Once again, that will change next year when Chord releases their digital amp that Rob is currently working on and I think only then will people with speaker setups fully understand what transparency means and what the DAVE is truly capable of. I realize some will view this last statement as authoritative or arrogant but I don't know how else to get the point across. Having heard how this sounds in my own speaker setup, it has made a very large difference.
Now, just because this is a headphone forum doesn't mean that all of us here just use headphones and just because a review comes from WBF or elsewhere doesn't make that review any more relevant than a review that comes from Head-Fi. On your post, you state on another extreme high-end community that the Trinity DAC "should trump" all other DACs but this appears to be a speculative comment than one based on actual comparisons. I have followed the Trinity thread for a while now on WBF and for sure, there are many passionate Trinity followers there claiming some of the same things that are being claimed here but there are very few actual head to head comparisons, only speculative or anecdotal comments and actual listening experiences seem to come from audio shows which are not the best way to hear anything. Not having heard the Trinity, I will refrain from comments except to say that a DAC based on a specific "off the shelf" chip will always be confined to the performance characterstics of that chip that even the most talented DAC designer cannot overcome whereas an FPGA DAC like a Chord DAVE or even a Nagra HD or dCS Vivaldi is limited only by the creativity and skill of the designer and the limitations of the FPGA which have recently taken a monumental step forward.
Since it doesn't appear you have much respect for headphone setups, here is one that you might appreciate. It compares the Chord DAVE against the Nagra HD and the dCS Vivaldi and the comparison is made on a high-end speaker setup:
An Aurender W20 ($17.6k) is used as the music server and output is through a Synergistic Research Galileo USB cable ($2k). The dCS Vivaldi ($36k) has the latest firmware update and is coupled with the Vivaldi Upsampler Plus ($22k) and Vivaldi Master Clock ($15k). Mains cables and line conditioning are provided by Shunyata and High Fidelity Cables.
The Nagra HD is the new and improved version which includes their newest coupling condenser, latest generation of DSP processing and their new DC cabling. While I would have preferred to go DAC to amp direct, the dealer preferred to use their Spectral DMC-30SV Reference Preamplifier ($14k) and so that is what we used.
Speakers used were a pair of Wilson Sasha 2 multi-driver speakers ($30k) augmented by a pair of JL Audio Fathom F113V2 subwoofers ($4.5k each). Amplifier used was the Spectral DMA-300 Stereo Reference ($20k). All cabling is Transparent Gen 5 Ultra. As you can see, the room has been treated. How would I rate the sound of the room setup? Very well balanced.
Despite any biases that we as humans share, as with all comparisons, I always try and keep an open and objective mind and it is this same mindset that allowed me to appreciate that the TotalDac was better than my Bricasti and that the DAVE was better than my TotalDac even though deep down, we probably all want what we already have to be better. If I had subscribed to the logic that more expensive must be better, then there really would have been no point to this exercise. I should just write a check for the dCS and call it the day but I have never subscribed to that logic. I think giant slayers are much more common than you think, you just have to carefully listen and compare. As
@Jawed stated, there are inexpensive DACs today (Mojo would be a good example) that are easly as good or better than the best DACs of yesteryear.
As for the assessment of transparency, I would agree with @Zare. How do you know a piece of equipment is truly transparent unless you were at the actual performance? As I have detailed in the past, I have my own high quality (16/44 and 24/192 PCM) 2-mic recordings that were made either in my home or at our local performance venue where I was present at the performance and I know exactly how these performances should sound. I generally use some of these recordings in my comparisons but in my haste to get to this dealership on time, I left that USB memory stick at home and so I was limited to other recordings. People who know me know that I have a preference for unamplified acoustical recordings. I also believe they are much more challenging for DACs to faithfully reproduce and so 2/3 tracks I chose are these kinds of recordings. These were the recordings that were used and I know them well:
1. Magnificat, Trondheim Solistene (24/352.8 PCM), track 10 (Songs of the Universal)
2. Allegri Miserere, The Tallis Scholars (24/96 PCM), track 1 (Miserere mel Deus)
3. Hunter, Morgan James (16/44 PCM), track 1 (Call My Name)
Nagra HD DAC + MPS ($25k)
First of all, each of the DACs in this comparison are FPGA DACs although by no means do they sound anywhere the same. At this level of equipment, I expected each DAC to sound wonderful in their own right and the Nagra HD was no exception. This DAC upsamples PCM to 2x DSD and so that characteristic softness of DSD was readily evident. With its tube output stage, there is an evident harmonic that is very pleasing with vocals. I expected it to sound a touch warm but it was actually quite neutral. This DAC had very good dimensionality with nice apparent air and depth. It is also the more forgiving DAC. The Hunter track was especially chosen because this track can sound bright and even a bit harsh in some systems and the Nagra rendered it beautifully. This was the first DAC I listened to and in isolation, I thought it was wonderful in this particular system.
dCS Vivaldi + upsampler + clock ($73k)
I listened to the Vivaldi second. It was immediately more resolving than the Nagra. Where the Nagra can be described as an easy listen and very emotive, the Vivaldi commands attenton as it is more forward sounding. This is the imaging champ of the group. If the upsampler is used to upsample to DXD, the sound has a mechanical precision to it that will not suit all tastes although if you choose to upsample to DSD, I suppose the outcome will be softer at the cost of resolution although I did not have a chance to try it. Either way, the expensive upsampler gives the owner options. This reference room is the room where this DAC normally is kept and you could tell that the room was tailored for it. It sounded magnificent in this system with wonderful tonal body and a commanding presence. If I have a complaint, it is with the pinpoint imaging I heard when upsampled to DXD. To me, it isn't natural to hear an instrument precisely in a certain location. A true live sound is more diffuse. The Vivaldi has different DSP filters and we played around with a couple of them and I could hear a slight change and so I suppose there is a setting that would sound more natural but this certainly comes down to personal preference. The biggest complaint I have with the Vivaldi is that it sounds flat. Not pancake flat but flatter than the Nagra and we couldn't improve it with the fitlers we listened to although we didn't listen to all of them. Not such a big deal with the studio vocal but easily heard with the two acoustical tracks.
Chord DAVE ($13.3k)
I listened to the DAVE last. Once again, there was an immediate difference. In a properly revealing system, I contend that you could easily blind test these three DACs. Had I been able to test these DACs without the preamp, I suspect the differences might have even been greater. The most immediate attribute I could hear was speed. The DAVE is a very fast and agile DAC and upon inital comparison, some might consider the DAVE as thin sounding compared to the dCS but there is much more to it than this. If the Vivaldi is George Foreman than the DAVE is Muhammad Ali. "Float like a butterfly and sting like a bee." Not that the DAVE can't hit hard because it can but where this quality matters is with dynamic contrasts as they seemed more pronounced with the DAVE. The way it goes from loud to soft and soft to loud was simply better. While violins en masse had more meat with the Vivaldi, with the DAVE they had more control. Where the Vivaldi has this more robust tonal body which can be very appealing, I figured out toward the end of our session after back and forth listening that this is because the Vivaldi coalesces details together. This became especially evident on the Magnificat track. With the DAVE, you could tell many violins were playing at once and since performers can never be in perfect synch, you can hear subtle differences in timing. When I attend the symphony, I routinely hear this and am accepting of it. With the Vivaldi, it appeared as if all the performers were in perfect synch as all you could hear was this single solid harmonic tone and while this is pleasant to hear, I found it to be inaccurate. The DAVE simply finesses and layers details better than the others. As far as depth, the DAVE
easily presented the best depth of the three. If I had a quibble with the DAVE compared to the Vivaldi, I wished the DAVE had a bit more focus. For studio vocal tracks, I could see the appeal but I suspect with aftermarket software DSP, this focus can be achieved.
Once again, these are not absolute statements of fact, only one person's opinion of how these DACs compared in this high end setup. To be honest, I could see myself owning either of these DACs and finding endless hours of enjoyment but if there is one DAC that retrieves details better and presents them in proper timing better, it is the DAVE. As for musicality, that is always a subjective quality and I suspect there are some that will prefer any one of these DACs to the other two but as far as my sensibilties go, I prefer the DAC that provides me the most information and that is the DAVE.
