An exploration of Chord DAVE, MScaler, Qutest, and Holo May, HQPlayer

[sajunky]

As to players other than HQPlayer and sound differences, I do see variety of reviews of various players claiming sound quality differences. Prior to my use of Roon, I ran Audirvana, early on I perceived Roon sound quality inferior to Audirvana.

I agree to the statement given few post before, but lets paraphrase it: all players sound the same, unless they are not bit-perfect. This is what everyone should achieve in first place before trying other options. Unfortunately Roon is not the easiest to enforce bit-perfect playback. It means that in most cases it will sound worse than other players.

A comment regarding software resampling. I tried various options. A free Foobar with SoX give good results, there is no need to use commercial app HQPlayer, differences are minimal. I finally decided to not resample, on my R2R-11 DAC resampling is not beneficial. R2R-11 do not have any internal processing other than ladder calibration in CPLD, there is no sufficient processing power to cheat users with noise shaping or scrabling which is always possible in FPGA, it is good as a reference device. I listen to a music with use of acoustic instruments, with your music result can be different. However it is better to find better mastering version of the same recording than trying to fix mastering errors. Online service providers add watermarking to the stream, it is better to purchase a content from a quality label.

The ultimate test I made using PGGB offline resampler giving billions taps. It is a first time I didn't notice degradation of sound, in fact in A/B tests I wouldn't notice a difference. In other words, no improvements. There is also real-time version as add-on to Foobar, use it if you can afford 30 second delay before playing a first track from the playlist.

A comment regarding using noise shaping. I do not recommend using this option in HQPlayer. It degrade natural properties of the sound, making simplification to the dynamic changes. In result, dominant tone is heard more clean, but what happening in the background becomes less prominent, also leading to the false harmonics in upper frequencies. Noise shaping is mandatory during Delta-Sigma processing, as useful SNR is only 6dB. Moving a noise above is required with all negative consequencies. A minimal noise shaping may smooth a sound with a pleasant effect, in my experience it is always to extensive.

Dithering (srambling technique) is another abused feature (Holo Audio?). Dithering reduce digital errors during upsampling, but what is a reason for dithering when creating 24-bit output? It will help reducing DAC linearity errors, it will look much cleaner on the FFT analyzer. Better sound? ... not sure.

 

[Tugbars]

Upsampling? Not I am aware of. I don't know what you mean by 'forced'.
It is DSP filtering, making it a fake NOS.

I didn't say anything about "true 24-bit dynamic range". There seems to be scrambling technique in place aimed for error randomization. It decrease quantisation noise making more clean FFT picture, but these are static measurements. Dynamic ladder resolution can only suffer in result of such operation. Sonically brings it close to Delta-Sigma converters (smoothed sound). It may cause intermodulation products heard as "sea waves" as reported by some users.

Could you please give us some insights on what makes you think that May is not a NOS dac? May's output truely looks like a NOS dac output, do you have any guidelines on how that can be achieved with DSP filtering?

 

[DJJEZ]

Chord DAVE costs $10,600. Chord Mscaler plus Chord Hugo TT costs $10,300.

Which have you found to sound better?

I realize that the Hugo TT provides up to 9 W of output, while the DAVE provides 1.4 W in 33 ohms, suggesting that the Hugo TT can drive hard-to-drive headphones better.

But how does the sound of the Chord DAVE compare to the sound of the Chord Mscaler plus Hugo TT?

Thanks!

I owned the TT2 before upgrading to DAVE. The TT2 is warmer with a thicker sound where as The Dave is dead neutral. The DAVE is better at everything IMO. It has better imaging, better separation, more Resolution, bigger Soundstage and deeper bass but most of all it just sounds more REAL than the TT2, like you are actualy there sitting with the musicians. It really depends on what sound signature your looking for though. From what i have read the holo may is the best of the TT2 and DAVE together

 

[gancanjam]

I've demoed everything up to the TT2 + mscaler, haven't heard the Dave but probably could if I drove to a much larger city. There's no chance of me being able to demo a Holo May where I live. I know next to nothing about HQ Player, the whole deal sounds sort of confusing the way people talk about it.

I do very much enjoy the Chord house sound though which is why I want the Qutest over the RME

An amplifier can change the sound so comparing just AIO Vs AIO of Dave & TT2 so that I dont add another variable here, Dave is more coherent, more musical, more neutral, more depth, more bass, more resolution, more dynamic, less bright, more macro dynamics, more natural than TT2. So when someone says things like TT2 sounds almost exactly like 90% Dave then please discard those comments

HQplayer is a upsampling software, it works great ONLY with certain DACs, Holo May being one. In simple terms, think about this as another layer of software in your setup to improve resolution of the song. You need to purchase this software for $250 or so. It is equivalent of Mscaler where Mscaler is hardware upsampler while HQplayer is software upsampler

All the best to audition Dave and Holo May !

Did you liked TT + Mscaler ? Just good or blown away ?

 

[sajunky]

Could you please give us some insights on what makes you think that May is not a NOS dac? May's output truely looks like a NOS dac output, do you have any guidelines on how that can be achieved with DSP filtering?

It means that a clock frequency is unchanged, but there is a lot of internal digital processing in this DAC altering sound. It is all made to achieve better measurements, randomize ladder errors, dithering, things like that. Good for marketing. Better sound? Not really, simplified sound - yes, Holo Audio DAC is proven to sound more similar to Delta-Sigma DACs.

NOS DAC accept non-processed sound, it is done the best in recording studios. Of course there is no oversampling. During oversampling some DSP processing is required which include digital filtering. In NOS DAC digital filtering is not required. Just a simple analog low pass filter. What happen when a presence of digital filtering is detected in so called NOS mode? It is a cheat. It is not NOS DAC. It is Holo May/Springs.

 

[Rukley]

An amplifier can change the sound so comparing just AIO Vs AIO of Dave & TT2 so that I dont add another variable here, Dave is more coherent, more musical, more neutral, more depth, more bass, more resolution, more dynamic, less bright, more macro dynamics, more natural than TT2. So when someone says things like TT2 sounds almost exactly like 90% Dave then please discard those comments

HQplayer is a upsampling software, it works great ONLY with certain DACs, Holo May being one. In simple terms, think about this as another layer of software in your setup to improve resolution of the song. You need to purchase this software for $250 or so. It is equivalent of Mscaler where Mscaler is hardware upsampler while HQplayer is software upsampler

All the best to audition Dave and Holo May !

Did you liked TT + Mscaler ? Just good or blown away ?

I appreciate the insights and explanations. The TT2 and M scaler were very impressive. It's probably the best experience I've had listening to headphones yet and was by and large better than anything else Id heard up till that point. They didn't have a Dave on hand at the time I demoed but I spent about an hour and a half spread across three different sets of cans with it.

 

[thecrow]

Chord DAVE costs $10,600. Chord Mscaler plus Chord Hugo TT costs $10,300.

Which have you found to sound better?

I realize that the Hugo TT provides up to 9 W of output, while the DAVE provides 1.4 W in 33 ohms, suggesting that the Hugo TT can drive hard-to-drive headphones better.

But how does the sound of the Chord DAVE compare to the sound of the Chord Mscaler plus Hugo TT?

Thanks!

There’s also this for some info between the two

 

[arnaud]

It means that a clock frequency is unchanged, but there is a lot of internal digital processing in this DAC altering sound. It is all made to achieve better measurements, randomize ladder errors, dithering, things like that. Good for marketing. Better sound? Not really, simplified sound - yes, Holo Audio DAC is proven to sound more similar to Delta-Sigma DACs.

NOS DAC accept non-processed sound, it is done the best in recording studios. Of course there is no oversampling. During oversampling some DSP processing is required which include digital filtering. In NOS DAC digital filtering is not required. Just a simple analog low pass filter. What happen when a presence of digital filtering is detected in so called NOS mode? It is a cheat. It is not NOS DAC. It is Holo May/Springs.

You're suggesting dithering / noise shaping (I can't understand the difference btw, I just thought noise shaping was way to applying dithering in a least intrusive manner as far as audibility) is marketing? Then, why are recording studio actually making use of these techniques? What you write is self-contradictory. As if the vast majority of recordings aren't heavily processed, this is pure BS from your part, again with absolutely zero evidence to prove your point.

Also, you are suggesting Holo Audio is cheating or lying re Non Over Sampling but it is indeed what holo does and they pretend nothing else. What you're suggesting is that it's not bit perfect until the I/V reconstruction filter, that's a different story in my book and no different than any other means of correcting errors with parallel DACs etc. We're beating a dead horse but I find noise shaping way less intrusive than ringing introduced by oversampling filters so, in my experience, Holo just sounds amazing in Non Oversampling Mode, whatever their method is to compensate for discrete resistors accuracy etc.

You're still just as biased as day 1, you're on a cruisade to discredit Holo and any of its followers. Please stop misleading people.

 

[Currawong]

I agree to the statement given few post before, but lets paraphrase it: all players sound the same, unless they are not bit-perfect. This is what everyone should achieve in first place before trying other options. Unfortunately Roon is not the easiest to enforce bit-perfect playback. It means that in most cases it will sound worse than other players.

A comment regarding software resampling. I tried various options. A free Foobar with SoX give good results, there is no need to use commercial app HQPlayer, differences are minimal. I finally decided to not resample, on my R2R-11 DAC resampling is not beneficial. R2R-11 do not have any internal processing other than ladder calibration in CPLD, there is no sufficient processing power to cheat users with noise shaping or scrabling which is always possible in FPGA, it is good as a reference device. I listen to a music with use of acoustic instruments, with your music result can be different. However it is better to find better mastering version of the same recording than trying to fix mastering errors. Online service providers add watermarking to the stream, it is better to purchase a content from a quality label.

The ultimate test I made using PGGB offline resampler giving billions taps. It is a first time I didn't notice degradation of sound, in fact in A/B tests I wouldn't notice a difference. In other words, no improvements. There is also real-time version as add-on to Foobar, use it if you can afford 30 second delay before playing a first track from the playlist.

A comment regarding using noise shaping. I do not recommend using this option in HQPlayer. It degrade natural properties of the sound, making simplification to the dynamic changes. In result, dominant tone is heard more clean, but what happening in the background becomes less prominent, also leading to the false harmonics in upper frequencies. Noise shaping is mandatory during Delta-Sigma processing, as useful SNR is only 6dB. Moving a noise above is required with all negative consequencies. A minimal noise shaping may smooth a sound with a pleasant effect, in my experience it is always to extensive.

Dithering (srambling technique) is another abused feature (Holo Audio?). Dithering reduce digital errors during upsampling, but what is a reason for dithering when creating 24-bit output? It will help reducing DAC linearity errors, it will look much cleaner on the FFT analyzer. Better sound? ... not sure.

Why the heck are you talking about your experiences with a $350 DAC/amp, when the discussion here is about components and systems that cost up to 30x that amount? Do you think you can contribute knowledge and experience when you're using vastly different equipment?

It means that a clock frequency is unchanged, but there is a lot of internal digital processing in this DAC altering sound. It is all made to achieve better measurements, randomize ladder errors, dithering, things like that. Good for marketing. Better sound? Not really, simplified sound - yes, Holo Audio DAC is proven to sound more similar to Delta-Sigma DACs.

NOS DAC accept non-processed sound, it is done the best in recording studios. Of course there is no oversampling. During oversampling some DSP processing is required which include digital filtering. In NOS DAC digital filtering is not required. Just a simple analog low pass filter. What happen when a presence of digital filtering is detected in so called NOS mode? It is a cheat. It is not NOS DAC. It is Holo May/Springs.

Why are you talking about how a product sounds which you have zero experience with? Why are you talking about the technicalities of a product you've never had in your possession, never tested, never listened with and basically have no idea about beyond what you've read online?

I don't know what you mean by "NOS DAC accept non-processed sound, it is done the best in recording studios." but unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by this, recording studios do NOT use NOS DACs.

From the Posting Guidelines:

Please don't recommend or post reviews of equipment you don't own or otherwise don't have a reasonable amount of familiarity. You wouldn't recommend someone a car you've never driven or suggest someone live in a country you haven't been to, so recommending headphones and equipment you haven't owned or used is unhelpful. Even if you've seen the same comments about something from a dozen members, save discussion of that if you're intending to buy it yourself. Likewise, People use the reviews in the Head Gear section to decide what product to buy, and brief impressions or comments by people who don't own a product (or at least haven't had it in their possession for a sufficient amount of time) are unhelpful.

Honestly, why are you here? Before writing an angry reply, consider not replying any more here, and instead chat in threads about products you actually own.

 

[sajunky]

Why the heck are you talking about your experiences with a $350 DAC/amp, when the discussion here is about components and systems that cost up to 30x that amount? Do you think you can contribute knowledge and experience when you're using vastly different equipment?

It is a classic derogatory statement without basis. There is one English word for such kind of response, at the moment escapes me.

R2R-11 use the same DA-8 ladder modules as in more expensive R-1 and R-28. A difference is in quality of power supply, differential decoding and number of features. Sound properties are exactly the same as in more expensive models, just less refined. Oscilators on my R2R-11 are upgraded to the fem-to parts, so sound degradation due to jitter increase with high sample rates should not be detrimental, affecting a jugment.

It is an ideal equipment for testing, as Audio GD cannot cheat, scramble data, as there is no physically such hardware present. Upper level DACs have FPGAs, but Audio GD decided to not cheat NOS mode in order to improve measurements. Sound quality is an absolute priority. As a proof, read a current discussion in the high-end section which mode is prefered amoung Audio GD users, starting from here.

Why are you talking about how a product sounds which you have zero experience with? Why are you talking about the technicalities of a product you've never had in your possession, never tested, never listened with and basically have no idea about beyond what you've read online?

I don't know what you mean by "NOS DAC accept non-processed sound, it is done the best in recording studios." but unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by this, recording studios do NOT use NOS DACs.

I see, you have a review team stamp and you are above. This is another derogatory assumption. I have a long-time experience with high end equipment and owned some for years. I know what methods vendors use to push their product. High-end audio history is full of such examples. It is just a coincidence that at the moment (and age) I cannot afford to rebuild my gear. So in future, please avoid to speak from such position, especially when you make a statement like in a second part.

I have no really response to the second part, it blows me away. Recording studios use better DACs and monitoring equipment than you have. Don't try to teach me in this matter. It was my part-time job in my early years.

 

[sajunky]

You're suggesting dithering / noise shaping (I can't understand the difference btw, I just thought noise shaping was way to applying dithering in a least intrusive manner as far as audibility) is marketing? Then, why are recording studio actually making use of these techniques? What you write is self-contradictory.

Noise shaping is a different things to dithering, but it is off topic. Nothing is contradictory. Some operations are needed, by example dithering is required when mastering to CD. When mastering to the final 24-bit product, dithering is less important, it can be even left without dithering. A general rule is to use dithering only once on the end of production process. Multiple dithering can only deteriorate sound, as this operation cost in loss of resolution every time is applied. Once mastering is done in studios, there is no need for further processing. NOS DAC take such source without any further processing.

Also, you are suggesting Holo Audio is cheating or lying re Non Over Sampling but it is indeed what holo does and they pretend nothing else.

I am suggesting that Holo Audio use extensive processing in so called "NOS mode". Sea waves (some people can hear) is a strong indication of using modulation techniques. There is a proof that digital filtering is used in so called "NOS mode". It is a marketing cheat. It not NOS.

 

[RustyGates]

Noise shaping is a different things to dithering, but it is off topic. Nothing is contradictory. Some operations are needed, by example dithering is required when mastering to CD. When mastering to the final 24-bit product, dithering is less important, it can be even left without dithering. A general rule is to use dithering only once on the end of production process. Multiple dithering can only deteriorate sound, as this operation cost in loss of resolution every time is applied. Once mastering is done in studios, there is no need for further processing. NOS DAC take such source without any further processing.


I am suggesting that Holo Audio use extensive processing in so called "NOS mode". Sea waves (some people can hear) is a strong indication of using modulation techniques. There is a proof that digital filtering is used in so called "NOS mode". It is a marketing cheat. It not NOS.

The problem here is you're suggesting that, but you're not providing evidence to prove that. The May has a measured time domain response which is very much NOS.

I am not a NOS guy at all, but my definition of NOS = No Oversampling = No Digital Filtering (other than Zero-order hold, which is not filtering at all). That is all it is.

 

[sajunky]

The problem here is you're suggesting that, but you're not providing evidence to prove that. The May has a measured time domain response which is very much NOS.

I am not a NOS guy at all, but my definition of NOS = No Oversampling = No Digital Filtering (other than Zero-order hold, which is not filtering at all). That is all it is.

Of course as for a definition. May pulse response looks like NOS, but it has a hint of pre-ringing. It gives a suspicion that Digital filter is used, but profiled to hide excesive ringing. When it is done such way, it indicate that it is done not for sound quality in mind, as sonic characteristic of such filter is poor. At that moment there is no proof that digital filter is used and JA provided a vague explanation to the cause of pre-ringing. However a proof for digital filtering is given later in a form that only professionals can read.

 

[Tubewin]

Of course as for a definition. May pulse response looks like NOS, but it has a hint of pre-ringing. It gives a suspicion that Digital filter is used, but profiled to hide excesive ringing. When it is done such way, it indicate that it is done not for sound quality in mind, as sonic characteristic of such filter is poor. At that moment there is no proof that digital filter is used and JA provided a vague explanation to the cause of pre-ringing. However a proof for digital filtering is given later in a form that only professionals can read.

So you have no proof you can show?

 

[sajunky]

So you have no proof you can show?

There is a proof, JA brought it in. I am trying to promote constructive thinking. Those who find it, will have real satisfation. I'm giving you a hint now. Look at the figure #(?) JA tried to take your attention the most without dropping a bomb.