[OK-Guy]

Ok-guy
Do you know why the Dave cradle has grown longer legs for the HiFi News outing?

Not sure I like that

 
the cradle/stand will come in three different heights to suit individual requirements... the way I see it, stand alone in cradle, stand for Choral range and one for full-sized systems, hence different heights (I'll confirm usages when JF is back next week), hth...

 

[lovethatsound]

Even if I had auditioned the QBD 76 and liked it better, I would never state it be better. That's the thing you don't seem to understand: There are no absolutes in music reproduction. Different people have different sonic ideals and preferences. «Better» is purely subjective.

You may know that John Franks isn't Rob Watts – except maybe in some alternative universes we don't have to take into account here.

Here are some hints that Rob prefers the Hugo to the QBD 76:   link   link   link

Have a look at What Hifis best dacs and remember jaZz the truth is out there.

 

[rkt31]

read the stereophile review of Hugo TT. if someone Google darko dac index there too Hugo TT is in the top league. no wonder before TT smaller Hugo was in the darko dac index top league. it means TT , Hugo and now mojo essentially share same implementation but with different connectivity options considering the use. mojo at such a good price is shure to give other brands some tough time and food for thought to think on the different line than they are currently following. good time ahead for Audiophiles, stereophile and head hi fi'rs. now come to Dave. may be many might prefer different presentation in extreme high end category but one thing is sure that Dave will be as close as possible to the live performance.

 

[lovethatsound]

read the stereophile review of Hugo TT. if someone Google darko dac index there too Hugo TT is in the top league. no wonder before TT smaller Hugo was in the darko dac index top league. it means TT , Hugo and now mojo essentially share same implementation but with different connectivity options considering the use. mojo at such a good price is shure to give other brands some tough time and food for thought to think on the different line than they are currently following. good time ahead for Audiophiles, stereophile and head hi fi'rs. now come to Dave. may be many might prefer different presentation in extreme high end category but one thing is sure that Dave will be as close as possible to the live performance.

No 1s saying the Hugo tt or the Hugo don't sound great,and by the way i own a Hugo it was my 1st Chord Dac,but the QBD 76 is in a different league,and that's why i brought one.

 

[DaveRedRef-III]

I think the obvious market for DAVE will be the classical music genre. I am not in that camp particularly but I think it is already clear that Rob Watts has opened a new door on what can be achieved in audio imaging depth and I suspect will change the whole industry in this respect over time. Because orchestrations are mic'd at distance, DAVE would seem an obvious choice for audiophiles who love classical music. I suspect this was in Rob's mind when designing the superior DSD filter as this is the one genre where DSD has established itself.
 
Can you imagine hearing that level of broad imaging for orchestrations and not falling in love with the realism? For a while I would expect Chord to have a captive market in that space. Classical music will be responsible for the sale of many Dave DACs imo.
 
It will be a harder sell in 'close mic'd genres' of course but that will come down to an assessment of the pure musical delivery I think and we have yet to hear a professional review of those capabilities.
 
Good luck to Chord and Rob Watts. I have to admire them.

 

[JaZZ]

Have a look at What Hifis best dacs and remember jaZz the truth is out there.

 
You don't get it...

There's no truth.
 
However, I'm sure DAVE is a serious candidate for No.1 in different review charts. That doesn't mean it will be the best for everyone.

 

[DaveRedRef-III]

I agree with you Jazz. We all have biases. I favour hearing the vocalist/acoustic guitar/piano in the room and I set my speakers up accordingly. Good imaging and weight can only provide that palpability. A friend of mine likes electrostatics and is 'detail' orientated. He doesn't care too much for 3D imaging or believability. The speed and clarity of electrostatics is undeniable but it doesn't sound 'real' to me. Each to their own.

 

[Hubert H]

I must say that I don't believe that there are no absolutes in music reproduction, there is a reconstruction of the recorded signal that is correct, if there are 2 versions, one or both are not correct. Whether that is possible or how close it can be is another question.
 
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what the encoding medium is as long as it allows a faithful reconstruction of the original sound, warts and all. With the most accurate reproduction, one can always flavour to taste be it with valves, EQ or speakers.
 
H.

 

[JaZZ]

  I agree with you Jazz. We all have biases. I favour hearing the vocalist/acoustic guitar/piano in the room and I set my speakers up accordingly. Good imaging and weight can only provide that palpability. A friend of mine likes electrostatics and is 'detail' orientated. He doesn't care too much for 3D imaging or believability. The speed and clarity of electrostatics is undeniable but it doesn't sound 'real' to me. Each to their own.

 
I'm with you – as much as I like my two electrostats for their clarity, I favor my dynamic headphones (HD 800 and HE1000) for their higher realism (as I hear it).
 

 
I must say that I don't believe that there are no absolutes in music reproduction, there is a reconstruction of the recorded signal that is correct, if there are 2 versions, one or both are not correct. Whether that is possible or how close it can be is another question.
 
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what the encoding medium is as long as it allows a faithful reconstruction of the original sound, warts and all. With the most accurate reproduction, one can always flavour to taste be it with valves, EQ or speakers.

 
Yes, measuring data would be a welcome tool for realizing which component is most accurate. But those from DACs and amps can't be used for that purpose. The perceived sonic differences simply aren't reflected in them. Add to this component synergy which makes it possible that two less accurate components may sound more accurate than two more accurate components.

 

[smial1966]

Right, I now understand that the cradle is an accessory, but £1,500. REALLY?!? £1,500 for effectively a small metal stand. Or does this cradle do something to enhance DAVE's performance that's not patently obvious? Whilst I admire Chord for pushing the digital boundaries and have a DAVE on pre-order, I do think that charging £1,500 for a basic cradle/stand is blatant profiteering.

Chord have never included the price of stands with any of their products, so not really a shocker to those familiar with the Brand... also, there's a couple of different stand options available if memory serves me right, hth...

[/quote]

 

[Hubert H]

   
Add to this component synergy which makes it possible that two less accurate components may sound more accurate than two more accurate components.

 
I think that's a long shot Jazz and unlikely. The source needs to be the most accurate and move on from there. Granted, pushing a perfect source through an amplifier made with rusty barbed wire and variable components will sound worse than 2 less accuarate components but that's nothing to do with system synergy, just a bad component in the chain.
 
Besides, I'm idealizing, although the point that two different sounds can be the same as the original can not be the case, one true reconstruction, no?
 
H.

 

[JaZZ]

 

   
Add to this component synergy which makes it possible that two less accurate components may sound more accurate than two more accurate components.

 
I think that's a long shot Jazz and unlikely. The source needs to be the most accurate and move on from there. Granted, pushing a perfect source through an amplifier made with rusty barbed wire and variable components will sound worse than 2 less accuarate components but that's nothing to do with system synergy, just a bad component in the chain.
 
Besides, I'm idealizing, although the point that two different sounds can be the same as the original can not be the case, one true reconstruction, no?

 
A reconstruction with a reall-world electronics component is just an approach to accuracy and never perfect. That's why two different sounding components may be equally accurate, be it that one person rates them that way or two persons rate them contrary in terms of accuracy.
 
Synergy is an important component in real-world music reproduction. The different characteristics of the notorious imperfections of real-world electronics may indeed lead to the above quoted scenario. Your approach does suffer from idealizing. And my scerario suffers from the lack of comparable data, because it's theoretical – since it's virtually impossible to attribute measuring data to perceived sonic characteristics (at least with passably accurate gear). The most descriptive case would be the combination of a DAC with a treble boost and an amp with a treble roll-off, compared to a DAC and an amp with just slight treble roll-offs each.

 

[Hubert H]

Yes, but my point is that the first part of that chain must be as accurate as possible, as you quite often say, you can't recover what isn't there or improve the source by adding other components. So, the above is a flat DAC output and an amp with a slight treble roll-off vs a DAC that adds treble and an amp that removes it. I'll have the former every time.
 
It'd be nice for the CERN engineers to build an amplifier and DAC, with Rob's sauce, and their superconducting materials though.
 
Do bear in mind though Jazz, I think that your posts are among the few that are always worth reading
 
H.

 

[Sonic77]

Right, I now understand that the cradle is an accessory, but £1,500. REALLY?!? £1,500 for effectively a small metal stand. Or does this cradle do something to enhance DAVE's performance that's not patently obvious? Whilst I admire Chord for pushing the digital boundaries and have a DAVE on pre-order, I do think that charging £1,500 for a basic cradle/stand is blatant profiteering.

Chord have never included the price of stands with any of their products, so not really a shocker to those familiar with the Brand... also, there's a couple of different stand options available if memory serves me right, hth...

[/quote]

SSShhhhhhhh, what you trying to do? Ruin the little metal table business?

 

 

[Beolab]

I think the obvious market for DAVE will be the classical music genre. I am not in that camp particularly but I think it is already clear that Rob Watts has opened a new door on what can be achieved in audio imaging depth and I suspect will change the whole industry in this respect over time. Because orchestrations are mic'd at distance, DAVE would seem an obvious choice for audiophiles who love classical music. I suspect this was in Rob's mind when designing the superior DSD filter as this is the one genre where DSD has established itself.

Can you imagine hearing that level of broad imaging for orchestrations and not falling in love with the realism? For a while I would expect Chord to have a captive market in that space. Classical music will be responsible for the sale of many Dave DACs imo.

It will be a harder sell in 'close mic'd genres' of course but that will come down to an assessment of the pure musical delivery I think and we have yet to hear a professional review of those capabilities.

Good luck to Chord and Rob Watts. I have to admire them.

Have you heard the DAVE yet, or is this just assumptions based on what you have read and on Rob Watts statements that it is more suitable for classical music ?