CHORD ELECTRONICS DAVE

[FunkyBassMan]

Holo May compare to Dave sounds darker, slower, less resolving and Dave has better and more natural highs. (my audio gears: Aurender N100H, Chord Dave (before Holo May), Denafrips Athena, and active loudspeakers Acon Divus http://analoghifi.sk/acon-divus-mk-ii/

Thanks for that. Ever try hooking up a M-Scaler to both? I can't listen without it now. Would be curious how it works with non-Chord stuff.

 

[griff500]

So

I think Lina has a 48 element array (not dual mono, but neither is Dave), and that's $13k MSRP. At the end of the day, these are all just fancy ways of doing multi bit delta sigma stuff in FPGA, latches and resistor arrays.

So if they are just different ways of doing the same thing are you saying that the number of elements is a deciding factor in sound quality and one product having more means it will sound better than another product that has less? If not then what's your point?

 

[GuiltyRocker]

I think Lina has a 48 element array (not dual mono, but neither is Dave), and that's $13k MSRP. At the end of the day, these are all just fancy ways of doing multi bit delta sigma stuff in FPGA, latches and resistor arrays.

That doesn't compare, pulse array elements are very different than the elements you are describing with dCS, those dCS DACs would compare more to a an R2R DAC, but with software to attempt to remove the looping errors associated with R2R.

 

[chesebert]

That doesn't compare, pulse array elements are very different than the elements you are describing with dCS, those dCS DACs would compare more to a an R2R DAC, but with software to attempt to remove the looping errors associated with R2R.

pulse array is just a marketing term Rob came up with, just like ring dac is dCS marketing speak.

 

[GuiltyRocker]

pulse array is just a marketing term Rob came up with, just like ring dac is dCS marketing speak.

Yea? I wonder why all the other Sigma delta DACs don't have it then

 

[Mediahound]

So Dave has less than 50% of the elements of mid tier dCS ring dac (I think Vivaldi Apex has 96 elements - could be dual mono rather than actually using 96 elements, which would be kind of nuts)? Not impressed in 2023.

Then go buy a dCS and good luck enjoying it. Post in that thread how much you like it.

You're clearly not going to convince anyone here in the DAVE thread that the DAVE sucks, or something. The more you post here essentially saying that, the more it looks like you're just trolling.

 

[569424]

I think Lina has a 48 element array (not dual mono, but neither is Dave), and that's $13k MSRP. At the end of the day, these are all just fancy ways of doing multi bit delta sigma stuff in FPGA, latches and resistor arrays.

Thanks for the info. so if they say what you mentioned doesn't make one DAC better than another, then what objectively separates mojo2 from Dave? Measurement wise they both perform about the exact same. which is very impressive for Mojo2.

 

[chesebert]

Thanks for the info. so if they say what you mentioned doesn't make one DAC better than another, then what objectively separates mojo2 from Dave? Measurement wise they both perform the same. which is very impressive for Mojo2.

I am sure Dave has way better noise and linearity than Mojo2. Dave's problem is its $10 power supply. Once you add the right multi-box power supply and mod the internal, you might as well buy Rossini, DV2 or MPD-8.

 

[griff500]

I am sure Dave has way better noise and linearity than Mojo2. Dave's problem is its $10 power supply. Once you add the right multi-box power supply and mod the internal, you might as well buy Rossini, DV2 or MPD-8.

I’m not sure the maths quite works out there, plus you don’t have to go all-in from the start and if you want to upgrade the power supply then you can do that at a later stage. The Dave sounds excellent as standard. If there’s more to come from upgrading the power supply then that’s great.

 

[GoldenSound]

I think Lina has a 48 element array (not dual mono, but neither is Dave), and that's $13k MSRP. At the end of the day, these are all just fancy ways of doing multi bit delta sigma stuff in FPGA, latches and resistor arrays.

The number of elements in the dCS Ring DAC (Thermometer DAC toplogy) and the number of elements in a Chord DAC (Pulse Array Topology) work fundamentally differently, have entirely different challenges and completely different effects. They cannot be directly compared.

 

[GoldenSound]

pulse array is just a marketing term Rob came up with, just like ring dac is dCS marketing speak.

The pulse array is a genuinely different DAC topology. Ring DAC is a marketing term for thermometer DAC though dCS has done quite extensive development on the software side to randomise linearity error which does seem to work very well.
When it comes to delta-sigma designs, the hardware side and the software side are both critical. The maths behind it is not at all simple and how you operate the converter can make enormous differences to various areas of behaviour.

dCS seems to primarily focus on randomising signal correlated linearity error, which it does very well.
Chord primarily focuses on timing accuracy and reduction of quantization noise, which they do very well.
Different DAC manufacturers prioritise different things. Marketing always plays a part, but with both these companies there is plenty of genuine advances in both the hardware itself and the maths that drives it.

 

[chesebert]

The number of elements in the dCS Ring DAC (Thermometer DAC toplogy) and the number of elements in a Chord DAC (Pulse Array Topology) work fundamentally differently, have entirely different challenges and completely different effects. They cannot be directly compared.

Don't they all just use multi bits to reduce noise and increase linearity - solving some delta sigma issues? The implementation may be different but general concept is the same.

 

[GoldenSound]

Don't they all just use multi bits to reduce noise and increase linearity - solving some delta sigma issues? The implementation may be different but general concept is the same.

Not really no. Linearity groups together all sorts of issues and you can address specific types of nonlinearity such as harmonic distortion (or to go down further, specific types/orders of harmonic distortion but not others) but in doing so suffer tradeoffs in other areas like noise or how certain behaviours become signal correlated.
Pretty much all modern DACs are multibit, there are very few true 1-bit DACs remaining as the challenges associated with it are significant. But even on absolutely identical hardware, just changing how the modulator works in order to prioritise different things will change the behaviour of the DAC. Delta-sigma is a maths-driven process and you really can't tell much about a DAC just by looking at the hardware, or even by static measurements. More dynamic testing or exploration of the theory is required.

dCS, Chord, ESS, AKM, and just about everyone else is doing multibit and are taking different approaches to address the issues they feel are important, but they're not all taking the same approach and they all have different advantages and tradeoffs.

For example dCS seeks to reduce signal-correlated behaviour, potentially at the expense of increasing random noise/error.
ESS seeks to reduce some specific types of signal-correlated behaviour, they've gone to great lengths to eliminate changes in performance vs DC offset for example. But at the expense seemingly of increased higher order harmonics.
Chord aims to prioritise transient reconstruction/timing and they do that very well, but potentially at the expense of higher 2nd order harmonic distortion for example compared to some other designs.

dCS doesn't provide too much info about their underlying processes unfortunately, though Rob luckily goes into significant detail both on head-fi and in talks and interviews. (I will be posting his DAC topology talk on YT soon, it has a lot of content relating to this discussion and the challenges facing certain types of DAC topology).
There is no perfect DAC, and there is no free lunch in terms of how you make one to reduce various issues. You have to make tradeoffs and have to pick the things you feel are important. As a result, different DAC manufacturers have DACs that behave and sound different because they're all doing things very differently even if on the surface the hardware might look similar, but under the hood the maths is incredibly different. Hell just ask people how much of a difference the 'V2' dCS mapper made to their DAC.

I should add that for transparency, I don't own a DAVE, but personally I think Chord is doing a better job than others in many ways, primarily because Rob isn't letting available compute power get in the way of the designs. Other manufacturers are seemingly not as willing to use more powerful (and more expensive) FPGAs and ASICs to allow for higher performance processing. But Chord are. And at the end of the day, whilst you can't have a perfect DAC, more processing power does mean that you can sacrifice less in sound quality or objective results.

 

[chesebert]

Here is where it all started - a UK government grant of all things: http://www.acoustica.org.uk/DPA/images/23290.pdf

 

[GuiltyRocker]

The pulse array is a genuinely different DAC topology. Ring DAC is a marketing term for thermometer DAC though dCS has done quite extensive development on the software side to randomise linearity error which does seem to work very well.
When it comes to delta-sigma designs, the hardware side and the software side are both critical. The maths behind it is not at all simple and how you operate the converter can make enormous differences to various areas of behaviour.

dCS seems to primarily focus on randomising signal correlated linearity error, which it does very well.
Chord primarily focuses on timing accuracy and reduction of quantization noise, which they do very well.
Different DAC manufacturers prioritise different things. Marketing always plays a part, but with both these companies there is plenty of genuine advances in both the hardware itself and the maths that drives it.

Again, you show your knowledge and your expertise. Keep it up Golden.