[audio_1]

I can't understand people questioning the sound quality of the Blu 2 and preferring the Dave on its own. My Dave sounds broken compared to the Dave and Blu 2. The depth, emotion, resolution of the bass, timing, dynamics, everything comes to another level with the Blu 2 and is much more enjoyable. I am using Oyaide 1.2 metre DB-510 BNC cables with 10 x 1 GHz and 10 x 2.5 GHz Wurth ferrites on each cable. I disagree with the Hi-Fi+ review. Bass is deeper but more importantly has texture and is far better resolved than with the Dave on its own. There absolutely no brightness. I only listen at low levels. So the extra dynamics and life make a huge difference for me.

 

[audio_1]

Indeed. Body, solidity of images and depth are strong suits of the better NOS DACs. My LCD4s are warm already so can handle a bit of extra detail without tipping over to brightness though. But my Horn speakers are more revealing and forward, so that may influence my choices. The HP we use is going to obviously reflect our idea of the source and how it performs. My years of love / hate with DS DACs ended when I found NOS DSCs, and have stayed in the bracket for the last 10 years. I haven't heard any other types that convince we to change that opinion. But I would say the DAVE is very convincing regardless.

Has anyone here tried it on a big speaker?

I have Focal Stella Utopias.

 

[Arcabonne]

I’m not sure that comparisons with SACD on a different player would enable any reliable conclusions to be drawn as to what the m-scaler introduces to the chain. The Blu2 is a product that can only really be reviewed by reference to it’s connection to a Chord DAC, ideally the Dave. Although the USB input allows comparison between different file types, personally I think that you can learn most if not all you need to know about the Blu2 by playing CDs (which is what many will be doing) and comparing upsampling turned off with it turned on. Using a different transport might also be telling.

As far as I’m aware, there’s only been one other review of the Blu2, a short review in What Hi-Fi? (https://www.whathifi.com/chord/blu-mkii/review) and a mention of a listening session with it in a column in Hi-Fi News.

As to reviewers’’ choices in music, inevitably what they select will not be to to everyone’s taste but it’s probably more about how a familiar recording can tell them what’s going on, not whether the reader likes the music. And pigeonholes are for the birds.

Indeed, a very fine review of the twin was published in High Fidelity from Poland, n* 159, august 2017.

 

[jlbrach]

amazing how easy it is to throw people off with one review that questions assumptions

 

[rgs9200m]

Thanks audio_1 for that. OK, the M-Scaler is back on my wish list. Those are very nicely written and informative impressions, just what I wanted to hear.
(An congrats on those great speakers, too.)

And, even though I'm still a big EMM fan (especially on SACD, where EMM still has no equal as I hear it), the Chord has TRUTH in vocals and instruments that makes me perk up every time I listen.

The vocals especially have character that just makes me believe this is how the singer sounds in person.

It's not all about the soundstaging to me. And this is without any M-scaling, just DAVE alone.
(And the Hugo TT before this also was mighty fine in this area. That's why I stepped up to a DAVE.)

 

[analogmusic]

Thanks for uploading the link.
Interesting review that tallies with my own experiences during still very limited auditions with headphones and some both ADD and early native 16/44.1 digital recordings of acoustic music.
I have both the Paray on SACD and the Grieg Concerto recording on LP. And yes the Philips LP is a bit soft and woolly and dated and multimic'd in SQ imho.
Nice performance ,although Katia Buniatisvili live at the Proms now up on youtube delivers Grieg's masterpiece more seductively beautiful than ever before to my taste.

The Paray SACD disc on the other hand makes up for its OLD AGE with simpler miking not messing things up as much as Philips did by making sure almost every instrument had its own mic.

But there is no mentioning at all of BLU2 with proper hi res material.

And that is where I still harbour some lingering doubts regarding M-Scaler.

For me to be really tempted by an M-Scaler it has to bring not only 16/44.1 VERY close to the best of current standard hi res.
But also even more importantly sound clearly better with hi res than all other much cheaper DAC upsampling combos/solutions.
And it must improve SQ in ALL of its important aspects of timbre,resolution and transparency not only depth, to make me bite.
For headphone listening I would even stick my neck out and say that in some respects of transparency and soundstage depth some of the low res binaural Proms broadcasts sound clearly more realistic as in the sense of "being there", than most of my,standard stereo, hi res recordings of the same works do via headphones and my Qutest/Benchmark headphone amp combo.
You can't really retrieve information that was never captured in the first place can you?
I'd love to hear from BLU2 owners exactly how much of an improvement BLU2 brings to streaming BBC 3 Proms which has been my main staple for months now with Last Night of the Proms on tonight.
Cheers Christer

There is no need for doubt. The Blu2 Mscaler makes Dave sound much better, and it is also very noticeable with hi-res material and pure DSD recordings.

I can't hear any single recording where Dave alone sounds better than Blu2/Dave.

 

[analogmusic]

I actually compared a CD version of Hanz Zimmer Live on Prague, through Blu2, to the hi-res version of this (which I purchased from Qobuz) alone through Dave.

Well first of all, they were very close, with Blu2 version sounding considerably better in the starting and ending of notes, this is very noticeable on the Superman return begins Piano notes.

As for shift on tonal balance, I could not hear any.

If anything, the bare Dave on some recordings still can sound a little harsh, this is completely gone with Blu2. But this does depend on amplifiers, cables, speakers.

Some speakers are tuned to make CD version through "normal dacs" sound pleasant.

One track which Blu2 is very superior to Dave alone, is the Guns and Roses track Patience.

Listen to this on Dave, and it is good, but then on Blu2, it is a lot more musical, more feeling in the music....

There's just more resolution and information that blu2 extracts due to the million taps.

I also notice some blurring of notes on Dave, which one starts to notice when Blu2 is taken out from the combo, with Blu2 it is a lot more clearer and well less fatigue, as there is less for the brain to sort out to enjoy the music.

Like the very best turntables in the world, the rest of the system should be worthy of such a superior Digital source.

If not enjoying Blu, check the power supply, mains block, cables, ferrites, speaker cables, amplifier, there could be a weak link somewhere, but no way is the Blu2 at fault.

 

[rgs9200m]

Thanks analogmusic for all those great impressions. So you have found that Blu2 with a DSD recording is actually better ("very noticeable") than DSD+ mode through DAVE direct?
Thanks again.

 

[Crgreen]

Thanks analogmusic for all those great impressions. So you have found that Blu2 with a DSD recording is actually better ("very noticeable") than DSD+ mode through DAVE direct?
Thanks again.

No, as I understand it, he compared a CD played through the Blu2 via BNC into the Dave with a hi-res version of the same recording (presumably PCM) into the Dave.

Other comparisons available would have been the hi-res version into the Dave vs hi-res into the Blu2, CD via the Blu2 vs files ripped from the CD via Blu2, and ripped files into the Dave vs ripped files via the Blu2.

 

[Triode User]

Just to say that although I posted the link to the HiFi Plus review I now have to confess that I didn’t read it. Shock, horror!

Anyway, I wanted to thank @analogmusic for his comments on the Blu2 but do I understand correctly that you were comparing a Hi Res file played through Dave alone to a CD (ie 44.1 KHz) through Blu2? That is a bit unfair. Did you then try the Hi Res version through Blu2 compared to the HiRes version through Dave alone?

 

[analogmusic]

Not that unfair, the Blu2 upscales to 705 KHZ bit rate, so why not ? That is the purpose of Blu2 !

The the hi-res through blu2 was the best, as compared to hi-res alone on Blu2

DSD filter on Blu2 is better than the one in Dave (although I will admit I didn't try switch to the DSD + filter on Dave, will have to re-do this when I get the chance)

Of course one should buy the hi-res version if available, but if not, the Blu2 does a very good job of upscaling up to hi-res file sound.

The usual caveat does apply, a hi-res version of a bad recording will still be.... a bad recording....

 

[audio_1]

Like the very best turntables in the world, the rest of the system should be worthy of such a superior Digital source.

If not enjoying Blu, check the power supply, mains block, cables, ferrites, speaker cables, amplifier, there could be a weak link somewhere, but no way is the Blu2 at fault.

I fully agree. The Dave and Blu 2 sounded terrible at the Munich High end show this year. They were connected with American cables incorporating huge compensation networks that obviously completely killed the sound. They sounded so good the previous year that i purchased both of them. Phase coherent, fast, wide bandwidth amplification, cables and speakers are required to hear what they are capable of. The Dave should ideally be used in pre-amp mode and connected directly to a single ended power amplifier. These generally sound better due to the simpler circuit design.

 

[Crgreen]

Just to say that although I posted the link to the HiFi Plus review I now have to confess that I didn’t read it. Shock, horror!

Anyway, I wanted to thank @analogmusic for his comments on the Blu2 but do I understand correctly that you were comparing a Hi Res file played through Dave alone to a CD (ie 44.1 KHz) through Blu2? That is a bit unfair. Did you then try the Hi Res version through Blu2 compared to the HiRes version through Dave alone?

As a matter of interest, why didn’t you read it? It only takes a few minutes, about as long as posting a link to it.

 

[Crgreen]

Not that unfair, the Blu2 upscales to 705 KHZ bit rate, so why not ? That is the purpose of Blu2 !

The the hi-res through blu2 was the best, as compared to hi-res alone on Blu2

DSD filter on Blu2 is better than the one in Dave (although I will admit I didn't try switch to the DSD + filter on Dave, will have to re-do this when I get the chance)

Of course one should buy the hi-res version if available, but if not, the Blu2 does a very good job of upscaling up to hi-res file sound.

The usual caveat does apply, a hi-res version of a bad recording will still be.... a bad recording....

It depends on the purpose of the comparison, but if the purpose is to consider what the Blu2 introduces to the chain, the better comparison would be to eliminate as many variables as possible and use the same source into the Blu2 and the Dave.

 

[Crgreen]

I fully agree. The Dave and Blu 2 sounded terrible at the Munich High end show this year. They were connected with American cables incorporating huge compensation networks that obviously completely killed the sound. They sounded so good the previous year that i purchased both of them. Phase coherent, fast, wide bandwidth amplification, cables and speakers are required to hear what they are capable of. The Dave should ideally be used in pre-amp mode and connected directly to a single ended power amplifier. These generally sound better due to the simpler circuit design.

I’ve compared the BluDave against the Dave using the headphone output of the Dave and employing different BNC cables and power leads. The results have been the same each time - glare and reduced bass with the Blu2. Of course, other equipment can affect what’s going on, but that doesn’t mean that it will, and in such tests I often used just CD and with nothing else connected.