[Rob Watts]

The DSD filters in 2 Qute sound much smoother, with better instrument separation and focus than Qute EX DSD filter.
 
Rob

 

[vo_obgyn]

 
+1
I understand that DSD is the 2Qute's most compromised aspect.....

 
Hi HumanMedia,
 
I was wondering, where I can find more info regarding the 2Qute's DSD playback and its compromised aspect? Can you post a review link or something similar. That would help. Thanks in advance.

 

[vo_obgyn]

  The DSD filters in 2 Qute sound much smoother, with better instrument separation and focus than Qute EX DSD filter.
 
Rob

 
Hi Rob, or anyone else for that matter. Forgive me if this has been noted elsewhere, but how does the 2Qute's DSD filter sound compared to the Hugo's DSD filter? I think that the Hugo sounds really good in DSD.

 

[Rob Watts]

Its the same code for Hugo and 2 Qute - the only change is simple control logic, so all of the audio is identical to Hugo. Even the analogue circuitry is the same, as it has the same discrete Class A OP stage too, as this offers lower THD than the op-amp OP stage.
 
Rob 

 

[vo_obgyn]

  Its the same code for Hugo and 2 Qute - the only change is simple control logic, so all of the audio is identical to Hugo. Even the analogue circuitry is the same, as it has the same discrete Class A OP stage too, as this offers lower THD than the op-amp OP stage.
 
Rob 

 
Thanks for the reply Rob. And thanks for your contributions to this forum. I'm using my Hugo for my bedside headphone set-up (see signature). I'm planning on placing an order for the 2Qute DAC soon. I see it placed in my main set-up:
 
Mark Levinson No.37 CD Transport (coax) or Auralic Aries Wireless Streaming Bridge/MacMini (USB) > 2Qute DAC > Mark Levinson No.38S Preamp > Mark Levinson No. 532H Amp > Thiel Audio CS2.4 Speakers
 
vo_obgyn

 

[cas77]

Hello Rob,
to sum up:
2 Qute DAC is as good as Hugo TT DAC and  needs neither a special USB cable nor a linear power supply.
Is it correct?

 

[Rob Watts]

  Hello Rob,
to sum up:
2 Qute DAC is as good as Hugo TT DAC and  needs neither a special USB cable nor a linear power supply.
Is it correct?

No its no way as good as TT, but it is as good as ordinary Hugo. It is better than Hugo with USB when fed from a noisy PC. And you don't need to worry about the PSU, as a car battery feeding 2 Qute has no SQ benefits.
 
TT has better DAC reference components, and this makes it sound much smoother and warmer, with better instrument focus and separation. Technically, this is due to a reduction in noise floor modulation, and it shows in the measurements - THD and noise is some 4dB lower than Hugo/2 Qute at 3v RMS OP. There are some other benefits with TT due to chassis weight, super caps and the extra batteries. And of course TT can replace your pre-amp too, which gives another big step increase in transparency. 
 
Rob

 

[SpiggyTopes]

Hi Rob,
 
I would love to talk myself into the TT on the basis that it would replace my pre amp and drive the power amp directly.
 
But, how then would I connect my other stuff? (wife's karaoke thing, internet radio ...).
 
 
Any ideas?

 

[stef c]

Hi Rob/Head-fiers

I was wondering if you could help. Just purchased the Chord 2Qute which sounds utterly fantastic fed into my Naim Supernait 2. Just really neutral yet exciting. Thoroughly engaging.

I have an Airport Express that I use with the 2Qute, streaming Tidal 16 bit 44.1 KHz files via AirPlay through my iPhone and use a VDH optical lead linking the AE to the 2Qute. The signal is therefore bit perfect apparently as this format is native to AE.

My question is - is this an ideal audiophile set up? Would I have any performance gains from attaching the iPhone directly to the 2Qute via usb or indeed using a MacBook for example via usb?

I seem to be seeing some conflicting information regarding this. I think I'm right in saying that that the 2Qute's clock will all but eliminate jitter from the AE's highly jittery functionality. So if that's the case and I'm feeding it 16 bit 44.1Khz files via AirPlay, won't it be identical to using a fancy alternative digital transport using the same file?

A lot of people here seem to turn their noses up at Airport Express?

 

[otropato]

I forgotten...the  new Chord DAC  not only will have a better electronics system, but most elaborated chassis,electrical system...its well done.
 
Rob,please (its true)...Can you appoint me with  1 unit?Now  I dont have money,but I will.

 

[Rob Watts]

Hi Rob/Head-fiers

I was wondering if you could help. Just purchased the Chord 2Qute which sounds utterly fantastic fed into my Naim Supernait 2. Just really neutral yet exciting. Thoroughly engaging.

I have an Airport Express that I use with the 2Qute, streaming Tidal 16 bit 44.1 KHz files via AirPlay through my iPhone and use a VDH optical lead linking the AE to the 2Qute. The signal is therefore bit perfect apparently as this format is native to AE.

My question is - is this an ideal audiophile set up? Would I have any performance gains from attaching the iPhone directly to the 2Qute via usb or indeed using a MacBook for example via usb?

I seem to be seeing some conflicting information regarding this. I think I'm right in saying that that the 2Qute's clock will all but eliminate jitter from the AE's highly jittery functionality. So if that's the case and I'm feeding it 16 bit 44.1Khz files via AirPlay, won't it be identical to using a fancy alternative digital transport using the same file?

A lot of people here seem to turn their noses up at Airport Express?

The USB input on 2 Qute sounds slightly better than the optical - as the galvanic isolation eliminates RF, and the USB input has timing from 2 Qute's low jitter clock, so I would give it a go and feed the iPhone directly - the USB input draws power from the iPhone, so you may need to keep the iPhone charger connected.
 
Rob 

 

[stef c]

Hi Rob

Thanks very much for your reply. I'm a little confused though. Won't the 2 Qutes low jitter clock be engaged when using optical as well? If not then surely USB is MUCH more preferable when using a poor quality jittery source?

Also I was under the impression that optical was immune to RF interference?

I really hope the low jitter clock works with optical though!!!

 

[dusk]

  No its no way as good as TT, but it is as good as ordinary Hugo. It is better than Hugo with USB when fed from a noisy PC. And you don't need to worry about the PSU, as a car battery feeding 2 Qute has no SQ benefits.
 
TT has better DAC reference components, and this makes it sound much smoother and warmer, with better instrument focus and separation. Technically, this is due to a reduction in noise floor modulation, and it shows in the measurements - THD and noise is some 4dB lower than Hugo/2 Qute at 3v RMS OP. There are some other benefits with TT due to chassis weight, super caps and the extra batteries. And of course TT can replace your pre-amp too, which gives another big step increase in transparency. 
 
Rob

any plans to release a stand alone dac as good as the TT's... or.. better?

 

[cas77]

A very good question !

 

[dallan]

+2