My Blu2 arrived earlier in the week and has settled in nicely. I have moved to Chord's stands. I'm not sure that they perform any better but they certainly look very nice.
Happily, Blu2 is better than I remember. The markedly improved dynamic contrasts, both macro and micro, compared against DAVE alone are what immediately grabbed my attention when I first heard it at CES in January and so I was fully expecting this yet upon hearing it for the first time in my system at home, the separation was, nonetheless, eye opening. The leading edge is more incisive and the attack has more weight and yet there is a greater sense of ease and effortlessness. There is also a greater sense of air and space leading to a more dimensional sound stage and improved layering of detail. The tonal bouquet is richer and truer. The overall presentation is considerably smoother and more refined and this is as evident on headphones as it is on speakers. Back in January, I commented that I had never witnessed DAVE so easily brought to its knees and that opinion holds just as true now. It really has become hard to listen to DAVE now without Blu2. Some have suggested the gap between DAVE and BluDave is larger than the gap between DAVE and Mojo and having now done this comparison, I would have to agree.
All was not perfect upon first listen, however. There was a HF harshness that was inescapable. I traced it to the stock BNC SPDIF cables that came with Blu2 because swapping in my cheap $32 Blue Jeans Cables BNC cables immediately resolved some of this harshness. With time, these stock BNC cables have improved somewhat and so I suspect they require break-in. I have a couple sets of High Fidelity Cables (HFC) digital cables at my disposal including a pair of CT-1UR ($9k) and Pro Series ($19k) SPDIF cables. Unfortunately, these HFC cables are RCA-terminated and so I have to make do with RCA-to-BNC adapters although these adapters made by Purist Audio Design seem to be of very high material quality ($600 for 4). Disappointingly, I could not get either set of HFC cables to work and the sampling rate indicator on DAVE's screen just flashes erratically. I'm not yet sure if its the adapters or the HFC cables that are the problem and so this will require further investigation but I suspect it may be an impedance issue. Interestingly, these cables and adapters work fine when I connect a SPDIF source directly into the BNC input of DAVE and the improvement they convey is remarkable in this instance. In the meantime, I had another pair of 75 ohm BNC cables to try from Habst, a German brand that I use for my Mutec REF10 External Master Clock. These 0.5m cables utilize cryo'd high purity silver with extremely heavy shielding and cost me 700 Euros each. The improvement is immediately evident and not at all subtle with respect to a lowered noise floor and improved detail clarity. For sure, a haze has been lifted and It's not even close and furthermore, that HF harshness is now completely gone. Maybe the ferrite filters will work just as well. I expect to order some and if the performance is there, I will be happy not to spend more money on BNC cables. Bottom line, these cables matter. The fact that these cables can be expensive is irrelevant, imo.
Regarding how this improvement that Blu2 brings about compares against the improvement brought about by my purpose-built server with replaced clocks and powered by Paul Hynes' power supplies, I am unable to make this direct comparison at this time as that system is undergoing further modification although I expect to receive it back shortly. Without question, Blu2 brings about an improvement in resolution that cannot be matched and so in this regard, Blu2 is without peer, however, the "buttery smoothness" that caught my attention after replacing 8 clocks in my upstream chain of digital components is
not present to the same degree with Blu2 by itself, that I am sure about. Also, it's very clear to me that CD playback from Blu2 is presently superior to what I am getting from my Mac Mini and Windows laptop connected to Blu2 via USB. Comparing a Diana Krall track played back on CD with Blu2 against the same track ripped to my computer and against the same track streamed from Tidal, there is a definite improvement in smoothness, detail clarity and immediacy from CD playback. This doesn't come as a complete surprise as a direct stream from Blu2's transport to M-scaler occurs without the noise issues inherent in a more complex computer server and without the harmful impact brought about by external cabling. Nonetheless, this disparity among bit-perfect sources suggests to me that my highly modified source
will make a notable difference even with Blu2 in the chain.
Regarding the obscene cost of certain items, especially cables, once again, you'll find no disagreement from me about how this leaves a bad taste in the mouth although as I evaluate a piece of equipment, I try not to initially factor in cost but rather assess that piece of equipment solely on its merit. If the performance of a component is superior to its competition, what it costs shouldn't change that fact. This audiophile hobby unfortunately is not a rational one. Many here will cry foul that a company like Kubala Sosna can charge $3,500 for a USB cable and get away with it but I'm sure there are many out there that question the wisdom of buying an $11k Chord DAVE when surely, DAVE isn't 3,700x better than the $3 DAC that comes in an iPhone. Even against Hugo 2, DAVE isn't 5x better and so who's spending silly money now? As has been said of audiophiles, "we're all Bozos on this bus." Some will argue that it's ridiculous to look at a cable as equivalent in importance to a component like DAVE or Blu2. I respectfully disagree. The differences I have heard between 2 different sets of analog interconnects in one particular instance was notably greater than the difference between 2 amplifiers made by the same company that were $35,000 apart in price. While no cable by itself can do what DAVE or Blu2 can, neither DAVE nor Blu2 can function without cables and bad cables can definitely hobble any system and so I look at cables not as a finishing touch but as important as any component, especially if resolution and transparency are the goal. I think everything matters and in many systems that I listen to, far too often, it is the cables that are the limiting factor. The problem with this hobby is that it is fueled by one's emotional engagement to an ideal that can never be fully realized and so it leaves us as easy prey for many who are looking to take advantage. At the same time, equipment built to the exacting standards of many audiophiles can be very expensive and so it's not a given that all audio equipment manufacturers are driving Bentleys. I know for a fact that even the owner of HFC can't afford some of his own top level cables (his new Pro Elite RCA interconnects sell for $60k). Sometimes, materials costs are exorbitant.
Regarding who's right and who's wrong, I try to never look at it this way. This is not some competition but rather a reporting of observations. I enjoy friendly and spirited debate among gentlemen (or ladies) and even when I am on the losing end of a debate, I am grateful for the lessons learned and for the perspectives contributed by others. I'd like to think that even with people who don't share my views, at the end of the day, we can share an ale and a laugh. This is, after all, just a hobby. It's never personal. As
@Jawed has wisely stated, we each have different systems and so it shouldn't be unusual that we might hear different things. I have also been fortunate to have access to try many things and because of my curiosity, I often take advantage of my opportunities and so my experience, having listened to several dozen different cables over a broad price range might be different from someone else who perhaps has listened to a fewer number of cables over a narrower price range. I don't claim to have ears that are better than anyone else's but ultimately, it is my ears that I have to answer to regardless of what anyone tells me I should or shouldn't be hearing. If I can't hear a difference, I'm happy to move on but if I can, then I have to decide the significance of that difference and what I'm willing to pay for it. I think we're all the same in this regard and I think we each owe it to ourselves to decide for ourselves.
I'll close by sharing this recent experience as it provides perspective. Not too long ago, I paid a visit to the Magico factory in Hayward, California near San Francisco. Here is a photo of their soon-to-be released M6 speaker. This speaker will sell for $175,000 per pair when released in a few months. For perspective, their Magico Ultimate currently sell for $600k per pair.
I was forbidden from taking photos of their listening room that day as they had gear exposed that they did not want photographed but here is a stock photo that one can find on the internet. This listening room is perhaps among the finest listening rooms in the world with regards to acoustics. It is completely symmetrical and has no parallel walls. As you would imagine, no expense was spared in its design and implementation as this is how they test and voice their speakers:
Being situated in the Bay area, this company is partial to Berkeley DACs which is headquartered nearby. Other electronics include a Baetis Reference music server and pre-amplification and amplification by CH Precision. When they wish to hear just how good their system can sound, they spin vinyl. They don't believe their digital system sounds as good. Having heard both the latest Berkeley Reference 2 and the Baetis Reference music server before, I'm not surprised but if I am to be honest, even DAVE (without Blu2) doesn't sound as good as the very best vinyl presentations that I've heard recently. Regarding their cabling, Magico are not in the cable business and so they have nothing to gain by spending unnecessarily on cables that don't make a difference. This is, after all, their lab. Having discussed this with them, I can also assure you they didn't choose their cabling based on looks nor did they spend only 50£ on cables. In fact, they spent what they thought was necessary to achieve maximum performance from their speakers and the MIT Oracle Matrix SHO speaker cabling they chose sell for about $30k for an 8 foot pair. Just how magnificent did this room sound? It is perhaps the finest audio experience I have ever had with regards to the reproduction of a large orchestral performance at full scale. Despite such high praise, is this system more resolving than what I have at home? With Blu2 and with DAVE directly driving my speakers, I'm not so sure, at least not by every measure. Despite the fact that this system in this room approaches a 7-figure price tag, I did not hear the layering of detail to the degree that I hear in my own system and I believe that such is the compromise you accept when forced to use transparency-robbing megawatt amplifiers. Even the very best outboard amplifiers will never have the full combination of bandwidth, noise floor, speed and dynamic range as DAVE driving speakers directly and so such is the revolution that Rob's upcoming digital amps will introduce. Regardless, if my system is at least as resolving as this system, why shouldn't my system deserve the same consideration in cabling that this system has?
