CHORD ELECTRONICS DAVE

[number1sixerfan]

Don’t forget that many (most?) people use the Dave in a speaker system and that therefore almost inevitably an amplifier is required. Of course one could use say a TT2 to drive appropriate speakers direct but to my ears a Dave plus my Pass Labs amps is more transparent than the TT2 direct in a speaker system.

Yea that's not lost on me at all. I mentioned that in a prior post on here long ago, along with the fact that ultimately that it had to be designed with that use case in mind. I do focus more on headphones as that's what I use it with and know that's what most here do as well, but it's definitely not lost on me.

 

[MarkusBarkus]

...as a datapoint: I use Dave/SJdc4/Denefrips Gaia to power Omega SAM speakers direct in a second system. Sounds good. Works fine.

 

[ObjectiveSubjectivist]

Since there is no actual QBD (old chord top dac) topic on the head fi I assume that this is the most proper place to share this one.
Lately I found some measurements (using apx555) of QBD76. And keeping in mind that this dac is from 2008 (!) the performance is just very very good even by today standards.
I bet that back in the day it was SOTA.
Some of the high end stuff that cost much more cannot match this even today. This is just impressive stuff.
https://www.l7audiolab.com/f/measurements-of-chord-qbd76hd/

 

[Jawed]

@Rob Watts from the article linked above there is this multi-tone test result:

I'm just wondering if this is a way to demonstrate good noise floor modulation performance in your DACs?

 

[ecwl]

Since there is no actual QBD (old chord top dac) topic on the head fi I assume that this is the most proper place to share this one.
Lately I found some measurements (using apx555) of QBD76. And keeping in mind that this dac is from 2008 (!) the performance is just very very good even by today standards.
I bet that back in the day it was SOTA.
Some of the high end stuff that cost much more cannot match this even today. This is just impressive stuff.
https://www.l7audiolab.com/f/measurements-of-chord-qbd76hd/

I had the QBD76 and then upgraded it to the QBD76HDSD version. I was so impressed by it that when DAVE was announced, I just asked my dealer to order it without even listening to it because I just knew it was going to be something special. And listening to Durufle's organ music last night, DAVE still is extremely impressive.

 

[ObjectiveSubjectivist]

I had the QBD76 and then upgraded it to the QBD76HDSD version. I was so impressed by it that when DAVE was announced, I just asked my dealer to order it without even listening to it because I just knew it was going to be something special. And listening to Durufle's organ music last night, DAVE still is extremely impressive.

No wonder, Rob means business.
I hope to audition QBD someday.

 

[ecwl]

No wonder, Rob means business.
I hope to audition QBD someday.

Meh. QBD was great for its time. But from a practical perspective:
1. QBD76 has no digital volume control
2. It has 3V output that can't be attenuated
3. The USB implementation was much more problematic (although in hindsight, I should have used the Toslink input more)
But the biggest issues were:
1. In general, even the Qutest sounds better than QBD76 except for...
2. The QBD76 has 16 elements pulse array DAC so I find that QBD76 beats Qutest only in soundstage depth.
By modern Chord standards, QBD76 doesn't have enough tap lengths to do the proper upsampling to ensure great timing accuracy, and it doesn't have a high-order enough noise shaper to get the microdetails as nice as the modern Qutest/Hugo 2.
I think life is too short to waste time listening to inferior DACs. QBD76 is a great historical monument to what Rob Watts was able to achieve with the technology at the time. But I don't think it's worth seeking one out just to have a listen.

 

[ObjectiveSubjectivist]

Meh. QBD was great for its time. But from a practical perspective:
1. QBD76 has no digital volume control
2. It has 3V output that can't be attenuated
3. The USB implementation was much more problematic (although in hindsight, I should have used the Toslink input more)
But the biggest issues were:
1. In general, even the Qutest sounds better than QBD76 except for...
2. The QBD76 has 16 elements pulse array DAC so I find that QBD76 beats Qutest only in soundstage depth.
By modern Chord standards, QBD76 doesn't have enough tap lengths to do the proper upsampling to ensure great timing accuracy, and it doesn't have a high-order enough noise shaper to get the microdetails as nice as the modern Qutest/Hugo 2.
I think life is too short to waste time listening to inferior DACs. QBD76 is a great historical monument to what Rob Watts was able to achieve with the technology at the time. But I don't think it's worth seeking one out just to have a listen.

Yes I understand.
Nevertheless current price could be kinda "low" and it could be a interesting choice for seconds or third system in home

 

[Progisus]

Yes I understand.
Nevertheless current price could be kinda "low" and it could be a interesting choice for seconds or third system in home

The TT1 is a good bargain and one smooth sounding dac. The fact that it is battery powered negates the power supply upgrades and the super caps make for a great headphone amp. I use it in a second system.

 

[ecwl]

Yes I understand.
Nevertheless current price could be kinda "low" and it could be a interesting choice for seconds or third system in home

Except you could also get a used Qutest instead if you're going to buy used at a discount.
With the QBD76, you need to make sure your pre-amp is capable of handling the high 3V/6V output from QBD76 without clipping whereas with Qutest, you can turn it down to 1V/2V. And Qutest has a better USB implementation. To me, a used Qutest would be a more interesting choice than a used QBD76 for a second/third system in the home.

 

[Triode User]

Except you could also get a used Qutest instead if you're going to buy used at a discount.
With the QBD76, you need to make sure your pre-amp is capable of handling the high 3V/6V output from QBD76 without clipping whereas with Qutest, you can turn it down to 1V/2V. And Qutest has a better USB implementation. To me, a used Qutest would be a more interesting choice than a used QBD76 for a second/third system in the home.

Yes, the Qutest second hand is remarkable value and gets my vote for a second system. Indeed that is what I did.

 

[TheMiddleSky]

Interesting, I just heard QBD as well few days ago.

At first I also think that QBD is far by relevant by today standard (13/14 years old DAC!).

So I hooked it to Formula S, then play some songs with Abyss Diana V2. What a pleasant surprise, sound is flowing nicely. So I changed to Qutest that on paper should be better. Turn out Qutest perform a little bit cooler, drier, smaller soundstage. Detail is great, but the "lively" feeling is rather much less here.

Then I decided to use my TT2 as source, as I felt QBD was actually more relax and kind of warmer sounding of chord product, so TT would be an ideal competitor. Result is no contest, TT2 perform even fuller body, with easy-to-notice better micro detail. TT2 slight wider in term of soundstage, but height and depth are clearly better on TT2.

I think QBD still nice and relevant DAC till today, but of course the original price is kind of overprice now. Not sure what's the price in second hand market though. If it has the same price as Qutest, then I will choose QBD.

 

[ecwl]

Interesting, I just heard QBD as well few days ago.

At first I also think that QBD is far by relevant by today standard (13/14 years old DAC!).

So I hooked it to Formula S, then play some songs with Abyss Diana V2. What a pleasant surprise, sound is flowing nicely. So I changed to Qutest that on paper should be better. Turn out Qutest perform a little bit cooler, drier, smaller soundstage. Detail is great, but the "lively" feeling is rather much less here.

Then I decided to use my TT2 as source, as I felt QBD was actually more relax and kind of warmer sounding of chord product, so TT would be an ideal competitor. Result is no contest, TT2 perform even fuller body, with easy-to-notice better micro detail. TT2 slight wider in term of soundstage, but height and depth are clearly better on TT2.

I think QBD still nice and relevant DAC till today, but of course the original price is kind of overprice now. Not sure what's the price in second hand market though. If it has the same price as Qutest, then I will choose QBD.

To me, this is a perfect issue about QBD. So the Formula S input sensitivity is 1000mV. Now, it's possible that it won't clip with a 3V input signal. But ideally, based on the specifications, you would want to set Qutest to 1V (or even 2V) and then crank the volume of the Formula S to get the optimal sound rather than risk clipping and run Qutest/QBD at 3V.

I have to acknowledge I haven't done a direct A/B test between QBD76HDSD and Qutest. But of the systems where I'm certain there is no clipping, I prefer Qutest over QBD76.

As a total aside about how I think the 3V decision for Chord is problematic. Even Chord's own Anni asks you to set the Qutest to 2V output, instead of 3V. There are simply many preamp/amp that clip at >2V (and sadly sometimes even at 1V).

 

[nwavesailor]

Tonight was the first night with the Dave + Ms in place of the TT2/ Ms and using the Bigger Ben. It is a very different sound, full yet relaxed and with very nice detail and claity.
It has a more intimate presentation than the TT2. It feels like you are closer to being in the venue or recording studio.
I used the LCD-5 tonight and looking at the Sus and perhaps the P tomorrow night.

 

[CBR954RR]

Over the last couple of days I've had on loan WAVE Storm Reference cables between MScaler / Dave, I won't be returning these cables!!