[Whazzzup]

dave has come down in price in canada considerably. still to heavy for me but getting tastier. down to 13500 from 17500 at launch

 

[bluecar]

dave has come down in price in canada considerably. still to heavy for me but getting tastier. down to 13500 from 17500 at launch

There's a fair few knocking about for sale on the used market - with Chord's 'zero updates' policy, you're pretty much assured that it will be identical to a new one out of the box

 

[Malcyg]

Hello, I am looking for some advice to solve an issue that arose recently.
I use my M-Dave as DAC for my headphones set up (amp Riviera, via RCA cables) and as DAC and pre for my speakers set up (active ATC, via XLR).

Until recently I had no issues, just making sure that the speakers were powered off when I used the Riviera and viceversa.
Few days ago the ATC started distorting horribly and after some tests, also using another pre, I realized that it was due to the fact that the Riviera was also hooked via RCA (albeit turned off). Unplugging the RCA cables solved the issue for me. Curiously the contrary doesn't happen and I don't need to unplug the XLR cables when I use the Riviera.
How come that before I never experienced this? Any suggestion to avoid distortion without unplugging the Riviera each time? There must be a way because it worked smoothly for a while...
thanks for your ideas...

Try disconnecting all cables from Dave, leave it for a few minutes and then reconnect them all back up again.

 

[BPED]

Try disconnecting all cables from Dave, leave it for a few minutes and then reconnect them all back up again.

Thanks but that didn’t work unfortunately.. the ATC still sound distorted unless I unplugged the RCA out from the Dave.

@Rob Watts , I am using Dave as pre for active ATC (via (XLR) and as DAC for a headphones amp (via RCA). Even if I keep the headphones amp off, the speakers sound distorted. The only solution is to unplug the RCA cable. Is this normal for the Dave? Or should it work normally when connected to different amps (to be used one at the time)? Thanks for clarifying

 

[edwardsean]

In my opinion, the Dave is not exactly a one-box solution. If I didn't want to work on the system, personally, I would be looking at the Bartok with its integrated Network Bridge. The standalone NB is around $5K, so in that sense the Bartok presents a value proposition. As to form factor, the Bartok is an elegant one-box, but it is also a gargantuan one-box. I love the compact form of the Dave and, though I abhor cable clutter, cables allow me to tuck away all the boxes. In my experience, you need those boxes to equal and better a standalone Bartok.

Is it worth the cost and taking on the "part-time job" of upgrading the Dave? That is an intensely personal decision. I can only say that it may be frustrating for all of us, but for some of us, it is also immensely joyful. I like working on the system. I suppose, if I were into cars, I would like taking a wrench to the engine and swapping out carburetors or whatever enthusiasts do.

It is odd that there is the sentiment that this is OCD "nitpicking" over the last 1% of SQ, questioning any scientific basis. I find it odd because there is nothing so unscientific as sitting in a chair and speculating without learning. Science requires either research into the literature or experimentation. Really, you need a cycle of both and that begins with the humility of knowing that you don't know what you don't know.

The Dave is an–amazing–piece of tech. It is hard to actually "improve" on its design, and that requires something like retrofitting a custom power supply. However, you are not exploring its full potential without upgrading the signal you feed it.

Along with other devices, the Innuos Phoenix makes a significant difference. To be clear we are not talking trying to discipline the Dave's internal clock with an external master. That can't be done, and I believe Rob Watts, that it shouldn't be done nor does it need to be done. The technical reasons for the benefit can be debated and it would take a fair amount of engineering savvy to suss it all out. However, empirical experimentation, i.e., I listen to it with and without, tells me it improves SQ by more than a subtle margin. And, I don't know how you would know that without trying and testing. It would be hard to fix an exact percentage, but I know I don't regret the money spent nor would I want to ever remove it from my system.

 

[Ciggavelli]

In my opinion, the Dave is not exactly a one-box solution. If I didn't want to work on the system, personally, I would be looking at the Bartok with its integrated Network Bridge. The standalone NB is around $5K, so in that sense the Bartok presents a value proposition. As to form factor, the Bartok is an elegant one-box, but it is also a gargantuan one-box. I love the compact form of the Dave and, though I abhor cable clutter, cables allow me to tuck away all the boxes. In my experience, you need those boxes to equal and better a standalone Bartok.

Is it worth the cost and taking on the "part-time job" of upgrading the Dave? That is an intensely personal decision. I can only say that it may be frustrating for all of us, but for some of us, it is also immensely joyful. I like working on the system. I suppose, if I were into cars, I would like taking a wrench to the engine and swapping out carburetors or whatever enthusiasts do.

It is odd that there is the sentiment that this is OCD "nitpicking" over the last 1% of SQ, questioning any scientific basis. I find it odd because there is nothing so unscientific as sitting in a chair and speculating without learning. Science requires either research into the literature or experimentation. Really, you need a cycle of both and that begins with the humility of knowing that you don't know what you don't know.

The Dave is an–amazing–piece of tech. It is hard to actually "improve" on its design, and that requires something like retrofitting a custom power supply. However, you are not exploring its full potential without upgrading the signal you feed it.

Along with other devices, the Innuos Phoenix makes a significant difference. To be clear we are not talking trying to discipline the Dave's internal clock with an external master. That can't be done, and I believe Rob Watts, that it shouldn't be done nor does it need to be done. The technical reasons for the benefit can be debated and it would take a fair amount of engineering savvy to suss it all out. However, empirical experimentation, i.e., I listen to it with and without, tells me it improves SQ by more than a subtle margin. And, I don't know how you would know that without trying and testing. It would be hard to fix an exact percentage, but I know I don't regret the money spent nor would I want to ever remove it from my system.

Shhhh....stop making sense. "But, but, but Rob said this, the measurements say that." All the while, they have never tried dedicated servers or reclockers themselves

 

[adrianm]

I find it odd because there is nothing so unscientific as sitting in a chair and speculating without learning. Science requires either research into the literature or experimentation. Really, you need a cycle of both and that begins with the humility of knowing that you don't know what you don't know.

I have been doing both, i just came to different conclusions than you have. I'm asking because i'm still waiting to be proven wrong, or at least be pointed to some valid literature, but like the explanations in this hobby, they seem to be missing.Or hard to find. It's always people shouting "You can't tell me what i'm hearing".Measurements also seem to contradict a lot these opinions, but somehow they're only good for creating the gadgets, after that they're irrelevant.
If your doctor said tomorrow " This Covid vaccine looks good to me, i gave it to a guy yesterday and he's fine.His vitals aren't that good? They're just measurements". Would you take it? Or the guys reading your tire pressure?

The technical reasons for the benefit can be debated and it would take a fair amount of engineering savvy to suss it all out.

I would love to at least hear some of these reasons since jitter has been eliminated, the galvanic isolation should do a good enough job removing the current leakage. Some people said they prefer the Auralic Aries G2 with the Dave for example. Not sure about other streamers but that one has a galvanically isolated usb, just like the Dave. As far as i know 2 galvanically isolated ports create a ground loop. That would introduce noise floor modulation, as i understand it. So the only difference i can see is added distortion. Pleasant or not. If there is something "better " about the way these servers send the ones and zeros i'd really like to know what. The most obvious reason i can think of as to why they sound different is they're using different playback software.

Shhhh....stop making sense. "But, but, but Rob said this, the measurements say that." All the while, they have never tried dedicated servers or reclockers themselves

If you call "It can't be explained but the audio companies say we should keep throwing money at their latest solutions for problems they said we have " making sense...sure.
I find it fascinating how people refuse to believe anything that contradicts their beliefs, even from the guys who create the gear they obsess over. Believe what you will, but measurements are what makes planes fly and the boxes make music. People act like they're some unknowable thing. If the guys from Innuos came out tomorrow and said it's a scam 90% of people wouldn't believe them. Even if it actually does some magical thing that they refuse to explain, the price/performance ratio is laughable.
I have tried a bunch of stuff that led me to believe the source is only relevant if it's introducing jitter/noise.
Including an Auralic Vega G1 streaming dac streaming tidal to itself vs me streaming to it from a 16 inch macbook pro via a 1k usb cable and a 5$ lightning-to-usb adapter. I was there ready to buy a Aries G1, almost convinced by these forums that it's a real thing. Tried for an hour, couldn't spot one difference. And you would think a dac streaming to itself vs a "crappy" laptop with a 5$ adapter would be an ideal test case to show differences.
Also tried the Igalvanic ,made a tiny difference with my non-galvanically isolated dac, i attribute that to ..well..the galvanic isolation. Was hardly noticeable regardless.
Also tried the Dave in the showroom with Naim ND-555 and power supply streaming to it vs a Node2i. The Node sounded a bit worse, sure, but it was connected via coax and the Naim via Usb, lack of galvanic isolation again could easily account for the differences.Plus the playback software, like i said.
Not claiming i know everything, but i do know that confirmation bias is a powerful thing and most self-proclaimed audiophiles are shopaholics who listen to music. Or have a financial interest in said hobby. Most of the people i know who have at least a basic understanding of what's happening are a lot more cynical than i am.

 

[Ciggavelli]

I have been doing both, i just came to different conclusions than you have. I'm asking because i'm still waiting to be proven wrong, or at least be pointed to some valid literature, but like the explanations in this hobby, they seem to be missing.Or hard to find. It's always people shouting "You can't tell me what i'm hearing".Measurements also seem to contradict a lot these opinions, but somehow they're only good for creating the gadgets, after that they're irrelevant.
If your doctor said tomorrow " This Covid vaccine looks good to me, i gave it to a guy yesterday and he's fine.His vitals aren't that good? They're just measurements". Would you take it? Or the guys reading your tire pressure?


I would love to at least hear some of these reasons since jitter has been eliminated, the galvanic isolation should do a good enough job removing the current leakage. Some people said they prefer the Auralic Aries G2 with the Dave for example. Not sure about other streamers but that one has a galvanically isolated usb, just like the Dave. As far as i know 2 galvanically isolated ports create a ground loop. That would introduce noise floor modulation, as i understand it. So the only difference i can see is added distortion. Pleasant or not. If there is something "better " about the way these servers send the ones and zeros i'd really like to know what. The most obvious reason i can think of as to why they sound different is they're using different playback software.



If you call "It can't be explained but the audio companies say we should keep throwing money at their latest solutions for problems they said we have " making sense...sure.
I find it fascinating how people refuse to believe anything that contradicts their beliefs, even from the guys who create the gear they obsess over. Believe what you will, but measurements are what makes planes fly and the boxes make music. People act like they're some unknowable thing. If the guys from Innuos came out tomorrow and said it's a scam 90% of people wouldn't believe them. Even if it actually does some magical thing that they refuse to explain, the price/performance ratio is laughable.
I have tried a bunch of stuff that led me to believe the source is only relevant if it's introducing jitter/noise.
Including an Auralic Vega G1 streaming dac streaming tidal to itself vs me streaming to it from a 16 inch macbook pro via a 1k usb cable and a 5$ lightning-to-usb adapter. I was there ready to buy a Aries G1, almost convinced by these forums that it's a real thing. Tried for an hour, couldn't spot one difference. And you would think a dac streaming to itself vs a "crappy" laptop with a 5$ adapter would be an ideal test case to show differences.
Also tried the Igalvanic ,made a tiny difference with my non-galvanically isolated dac, i attribute that to ..well..the galvanic isolation. Was hardly noticeable regardless.
Also tried the Dave in the showroom with Naim ND-555 and power supply streaming to it vs a Node2i. The Node sounded a bit worse, sure, but it was connected via coax and the Naim via Usb, lack of galvanic isolation again could easily account for the differences.Plus the playback software, like i said.
Not claiming i know everything, but i do know that confirmation bias is a powerful thing and most self-proclaimed audiophiles are shopaholics who listen to music. Or have a financial interest in said hobby. Most of the people i know who have at least a basic understanding of what's happening are a lot more cynical than i am.

Well, count yourself lucky that you can't hear differences. You've saved yourself a good amount of money. For the rest of us, we can hear differences. I've heard differences with "cheap" reclocking tech (Uptone Audio ISO REGEN) and more expensive reclocking with a master clock (Innuos Phoenix). The differences are not small, and I could hear an immediate improvement. I'm far from the only person that has come to this conclusion. From what you just wrote, it appears that you have not tried a reclocker out yet. If/when you do, you may be singing a different tune

 

[adrianm]

From what you just wrote, it appears that you have not tried a reclocker out yet. If/when you do, you may be singing a different tune

I did say i've tried the Igalvanic 3.0, which is also a reclocker. If that data gets reclocked to the Dave's master/usb clock why would it make a difference? I'm not arguing they all sound the same, it just seems to me that the thing that makes them sound different probably isn't the reclocking, it's just the injected noise. So just like tube amps, added distortion. Pleasing or not. To each his own.
As is the custom on these forums, agree to disagree. But i was really hoping for something more than personal impressions, as they clearly contradict mine. Maybe i haven't tested enough stuff out yet, but i've kinda run out of reasons to.

 

[radnor]

In my opinion, the Dave is not exactly a one-box solution. If I didn't want to work on the system, personally, I would be looking at the Bartok with its integrated Network Bridge. The standalone NB is around $5K, so in that sense the Bartok presents a value proposition. As to form factor, the Bartok is an elegant one-box, but it is also a gargantuan one-box. I love the compact form of the Dave and, though I abhor cable clutter, cables allow me to tuck away all the boxes. In my experience, you need those boxes to equal and better a standalone Bartok.

Is it worth the cost and taking on the "part-time job" of upgrading the Dave? That is an intensely personal decision. I can only say that it may be frustrating for all of us, but for some of us, it is also immensely joyful. I like working on the system. I suppose, if I were into cars, I would like taking a wrench to the engine and swapping out carburetors or whatever enthusiasts do.

It is odd that there is the sentiment that this is OCD "nitpicking" over the last 1% of SQ, questioning any scientific basis. I find it odd because there is nothing so unscientific as sitting in a chair and speculating without learning. Science requires either research into the literature or experimentation. Really, you need a cycle of both and that begins with the humility of knowing that you don't know what you don't know.

The Dave is an–amazing–piece of tech. It is hard to actually "improve" on its design, and that requires something like retrofitting a custom power supply. However, you are not exploring its full potential without upgrading the signal you feed it.

Along with other devices, the Innuos Phoenix makes a significant difference. To be clear we are not talking trying to discipline the Dave's internal clock with an external master. That can't be done, and I believe Rob Watts, that it shouldn't be done nor does it need to be done. The technical reasons for the benefit can be debated and it would take a fair amount of engineering savvy to suss it all out. However, empirical experimentation, i.e., I listen to it with and without, tells me it improves SQ by more than a subtle margin. And, I don't know how you would know that without trying and testing. It would be hard to fix an exact percentage, but I know I don't regret the money spent nor would I want to ever remove it from my system.

so I will have my Dave on friday... will be selling my TT2... and using the mscaler and SOTM stack and ROON NUC...

from my research it seems that with the appropriate stack added to mDave it is indeed better than Bartok.... I will find out as I will be taking a Bartok on loan and comparing. I plan to film the shootout on youtube with a Female friend that has no skin in game as the host and tester... her ears are way better than mine... the video will focus on music alone... no measurements etc.... simply which sounds best.

 

[Ciggavelli]

I did say i've tried the Igalvanic 3.0, which is also a reclocker. If that data gets reclocked to the Dave's master/usb clock why would it make a difference? I'm not arguing they all sound the same, it just seems to me that the thing that makes them sound different probably isn't the reclocking, it's just the injected noise. So just like tube amps, added distortion. Pleasing or not. To each his own.
As is the custom on these forums, agree to disagree. But i was really hoping for something more than personal impressions, as they clearly contradict mine. Maybe i haven't tested enough stuff out yet, but i've kinda run out of reasons to.

With reclocking, the power supply is also important. I don't know why, and I don't know how, but adding a linear power supply to a reclocker makes everything sound so much better. The Uptone ISO Regen has a LPS1.2 PSU, and the Innuos Phoenix has a linear power supply with 3 separate lanes. The improved power supply appears to make the most difference

 

[Triode User]

With reclocking, the power supply is also important. I don't know why, and I don't know how, but adding a linear power supply to a reclocker makes everything sound so much better. The Uptone ISO Regen has a LPS1.2 PSU, and the Innuos Phoenix has a linear power supply with 3 separate lanes. The improved power supply appears to make the most difference

That is my suspicion as well.

 

[adrianm]

With reclocking, the power supply is also important. I don't know why, and I don't know how, but adding a linear power supply to a reclocker makes everything sound so much better. The Uptone ISO Regen has a LPS1.2 PSU, and the Innuos Phoenix has a linear power supply with 3 separate lanes. The improved power supply appears to make the most difference

Well that would diminish the noise injected so it does make sense. Still horrible bang for buck though. And it just means the Dac's galvanic isolation isn't that great to begin with.

 

[adrianm]

So say it's the power that's causing the whole mess, a well designed laptop (mac) running on batteries should be just as good as a high end server. Do you find this to be the case?

 

[Ciggavelli]

Well that would diminish the noise injected so it does make sense. Still horrible bang for buck though. And it just means the Dac's galvanic isolation isn't that great to begin with.

If you’re at all curious, I always tell people to try the UpTone Audio ISO Regen with their LPS1.2 psu. It’s $695 and comes with a 30 day money back guarantee. I too was skeptical of reclockers, so I tried that out because if I didn’t like it, I could just return it, and it wasn’t too much money upfront (compared to other reclockers). I was very impressed with it.

https://uptoneaudio.com/products/iso-regen?variant=37469467788

Because the ISO Regen was such an improvement, I bought the Innuos Phoenix (which is even better)