[DaveRedRef-III]

Rob thanks very much for taking the time and energy to explain your findings in detail. I am fascinated by this subject and always want to learn more. I suspect the humble CD may even live up to much of the original hype over the next few years. If you know of a paper on the subject that is worth reading please do let me know btw.

Now that Chord, with your design help Rob, appear to be working towards moving the D/A conversion towards the Speaker OP, it seems to me Chord could easily license a value added Digital product which (if used sparingly) could greatly enhance the audiophiles 'in room' sound delivery. That product being a 64 bit Parametric Mastering EQ. It seems to me there are two major weakness in the chain between what Chord deliver in flat response audio and the consumers ears and that is 1) The idiosyncrisies of a loudspeakers sound fingerprint and 2) The customers own room. For instance I currently use a pair of Sonus Faber Olympica III speakers and they are very accomplished but they are not perfect in a linear frequency sense. I would love to counteract a dip between 2-4 kHz. Equally with a parametric I could take out much bass flab created by room inflections. These frequency problems are commonplace. Particularly bass response. Much of what is achieved in your work Rob is undone with the problems I highlight here. In the past an analogue Parametric would have been a non-starter but a Digital equivalent can be switched in or out in software with zero loss of clarity and can be licensed very cheaply I believe.

When one considers the amount of time an audiophile spends tweaking their sound, even a 5 band Parametric EQ would be an incredibly powerful tool in their hands, not to mention those of industry professionals demoing Chord products. These problems affect every single buyer of your product. Anyway I just thought it was worth making the observation. Food for thought perhaps?

 

[DaveRedRef-III]

On the point of digital parametric mastering EQ's it is also worth noting that a product with this capability would from a commercial sense 'lay waste' to all exponents of 100% DSD up sampling solutions because they would have no way to counter this capability without turning the sound back into PCM. (Another weakness of DSD).

I would imagine any Hifi salesperson with an ability to use such a function properly would easily be able to sell Chord products over a competitor. It would after all allow the tailoring of the best attributes of the product to each individual room. It is not hard to imagine also that someone in the industry will do this at some point if only to gain commercial advantage.

 

[Mython]

I'm not convinced that Chord are necessarily best-placed for the above.
 
That market segment seems to already be being served well by products like the DEQX HDP-4/5,  Trinnov Magnitude, and others
 
 
Or have I misunderstood your proposal, Dave?

 

[CoLdAsSauLt]

...
But what was curious was how easy it was to hear a 330 dB noise shaper against a 360 dB one - but only in terms of depth perception.
...
With Dave I can still hear 100,000 taps increasing to 164,000 taps albeit I can now start to hear the law of diminishing returns. 
...

Robb
 
Thank you for your lengthy response! Could you please share what equipment you use for those listening tests? Thinking along the lines of DaveRedRef-III, I'd think headphones would be the way to go, eliminating interacting room acoustics. On the other hand, each different headphone has such an own character, and is most certainly the biggest influencing factor in my audio-chain determining what I hear in the end... or am I ignorant here? Please enlighten me

 

[DaveRedRef-III]

Mython
For me it doesn't really require a $6400 box with extra connections (and the inevitable loss of clarity that outboard boxes introduce). You will probably recall that in the old days we had tone controls but they disappeared as manufacturers realised there was a cost for all that analogue stuff in the chain - loss of clarity due to additional connections. All I think we need is a professional software parametric mastering eq introduced in the existing DAC software, for instance something like the 64 bit precision tool used for mastering in Cakewalk Sonar. It would need to be a mastering parametric because ordinary mixing EQ plugins tend to be used partly for artistic results on a recording. They will tend to emulate an old reveared analogue unit like a Neve EQ/channel strip (great sound but coloured nonetheless). Whereas mastering eq's tend to be designed in order to maintain exactly the sound that was achieved in the mix but give a balance and clarity to the overall spectrum.
The benefits of being able to use such a tool in your system would be 1) No additional connections, 2) Digital domain retained, 3) address the in-room shortcomings in a professional way 4) can be switched in or out and 5) a very cost effective software solution

It is not so much the speaker shortcomings that matter really, as many people choose their speakers because they favour the frequency fingerprint of a certain brand. Also that fingerprint may change from room to room. If you study some of the sound spectrum findings in Stereophile speaker reviews you will see how the in-room tests often show quite pronounced differences from the manufacturers data and also changes from room to room and from one placement to another. To my mind this would seem a sensible progression for the industry once we have a digital chain right to the speaker OP. When we look at the work Rob has done with DAVE. He will have designed the best product he can for the target retail price. On paper and with headphones it may sound spectacular but I am pretty sure for most people, in-room it will immediately be compromised. I think of it as a little like designing a car for a flat world with just one gear. It ignores the fact that the real world is not flat. Maybe there is a good reason why it cannot be implemented as I describe but I think if such a solution could be implemented well it would have significant commercial benefit for the first company to introduce it because it is such a powerful tool.

 

[rkt31]

highly underrated but almost always effective is the toe in technique of speakers which almost completely eliminate the room interaction of speakers. if one can't make walls slanting then make the speakers fire at an angle. exact toe in needs experiment. the correct toe in is what which gives best balance between bass and treble. more than required for in will cause Treble sounding hard, less toe in will cause bass boom.

 

[DaveRedRef-III]

Rkt31
Yes I agree speaker placement and setup can have a profound affect on sound performance, though there are limits of course, depending on room size and speaker size. Sonus Faber speakers are designed for optimal performance when toe'd in to face the listener btw. Their natural stance is also leaning backwards so I would guess they too would agree with your observations on setup.

Regarding DAVE, I see Chord are continuing to show the product on a pretty hectic schedule around the globe. Let's hope some more personal reviews will be forthcoming.

It was interesting to hear in an interview recently that Chord had been asked by studios to turn their technology to producing A-D converters too. Even the best converters used by studios seem to me digital in their sound. I do not think Rob would have much trouble bettering their capability. It is not as noticeable when used on a whole mix for mastering purposes but if you double track a vocal at 88.2 or 96 kHz 24 bit for instance the result is rather grainy and metallic sounding. Very unnatural to my ears. On tape the effect of double tracking a vocal is desirable. (I am sure most will be aware that George Martin used it well for Beatles vocals). unfortunately current industry A-D converters seem to show their shortcomings in this respect. If Rob wanted to show the industry how good his A-D converters are, when they are finished, imo this would be a good way to grandstand them against their competitors.

 

[Kakki]

I heard Dave in Tokyo International Audio Show 2015 and I was quite impressed by the sound.
The sound was more real than anything I heard in the past... with the deepest depth in the sound stage.
(We did listening test for Dave with a power-amp and speakers connected. I could not test the headphone out.)
 
We also did a comparison with Hugo TT using the exact same set up, just replacing Dave with Hugo TT.
The result was very shocking... I myself own a Hugo (not TT) and know how well it can re-produce the sound stage.
But... hearing Hugo TT after Dave, I found that even TT sounded much more vague in re-producing the sound stage and sounded more artificial.
 
(One thing that Hugo TT sounded better was the sound smoothness like silk but I don't know if this is because of the lower noise coming from the batteries in TT or Dave sounded just too real and re-produced the sources more precisely)
 
One thing I noticed was that Dave re-produced naturally recorded source so real and well...
But because Dave re-produced sounds so real... separately recorded and processed musics (like typical rocks and popular musics) sounded like collaged.
Cutting and pasting differently recorded sound pieces. (that is actually how those kind of musics are created...)
 
Anyway, my experience is just a short-time listening in a very unique environment and may not represent general opinions.
Would appreciate more opinions from others.

 

[DaveRedRef-III]

Kakki
Thanks very much for the feedback.
 
DAVE really does sound like it could be a game changing product and I haven't been quite so buzzed at the prospect of auditioning a piece of hifi for years.

 

[rkt31]

even Hugo with a good power amp reproduces even the minutest change in recording volume and pitch etc. you can even listen when the singer moved slightly away from mic or slightest off beating of the singer.

 

[Raika]

The batteries on hugo make it sound soft and lightweight, can we see Hugo 2 but with more taps and specifications like dave for headphones ? .

 

[Sonic77]

Question for Chord Audio. What will the Chord DAVE DAC  retail for in US dollars? I always see it in British pounds, thanks.

 

[OK-Guy]

 
Question for Chord Audio. What will the Chord DAVE DAC  retail for in US dollars? I always see it in British pounds, thanks.

 
I've found the most accurate way to convert GB-Pounds > US-Dollars is to use a online converter... I use XE Currency Converter it gives you 'live' exchange rates, takes 2secs to convert, hth.
 
Link: http://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/

 

[Sonic77]

   
I've found the most accurate way to convert GB-Pounds > US-Dollars is to use a online converter... I use XE Currency Converter it gives you 'live' exchange rates, takes 2secs to convert, hth.
 
Link: http://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/

So there is no set price? It's whatever the current exchange rate? In other words the price will fluctuate from day to day? And what is the price again in pounds? Thanks.

 

[Beolab]

@Rob Watts

Almost every other HighEnd DAC maker incl MSB are using femto master/output clocks for zero jitter and often do a re-clocking of the signal with a very precise sound as a result, but i have never heard what type of clocks you are using??

Is it femto grade clocks or better in the DAVE for example?


As a side note:

Have a MSB Analog DAC with ultra stable femto clocks on a audition against the
Chord Hugo and QBD76 on max buffer, and its a big improvment against the Hugo in fact!

Its clearly the weakest in my setup, but the QBD76 holding up pretty good against the MSB, but sounding a bit sweeter than the MSB and a bit more bassy and bit less transparent.