Separate names with a comma.
It would go something like this
Since so many 'high-end audiophiles' think with their wallet first, their eyes second, their ears third, and their emotions a poor fourth, I think we all know that the way to silence all the nay-sayers would be for Rob & John to charge $200k for DAVE.
(JOKE, John & Rob - thankyou for not playing the high-end price-gouging game, and please don't be tempted to! )
Go to www.soundgalleries.com and then click on "Articles."
Except the article recommended a DSD setting which would be fine for a "native" DSD DAC but suboptimal for Chord Mojo according to the Computer Audiophile forum discussion. So we are back to what is the best PCM setting. According to the HQPlayer website (without downloading the program), there are
8 linear phase
5 minimum phase
3 impulse optimal
2 closed form
Dithers and noise-shapers:
4 noise shapers
Moreover, each of the filters and noise-shapers have their own settings. Don't get me wrong, I strongly suspect HQPlayer is great. But mainly for the tweakers... It's almost like asking Rob Watts to let us run a computer program so that we can sync with the Chord DAVE and tweak the FPGA so that we can choose our own WTA algorithm and noise shaper.
Very nice! Particularly looking forward to the comparison v your turntable....
I'm sure some folks would be interested in whether you find that the DAVE is sensitive to the Aurender W20. In other words, could you compare the DAVE with both the W20 and a stock computer and note what differences, if any, you find?
ecwl, I don't at all dispute what you've said, however, Miska has designed hqplayer to be used by people with a significantly higher than average amount of computer expertise and the link I cited is the only place I know of on the web that gives any kind of primer on using hqp.
Will definitely try Dave direct to the Grypon monoblocks,should be an interesting comparison, I use Vertere HB cables throughout my system and will be trying different power cables with Dave. Any fellow headfiers in HK interested in listening to the Dave, please PM me.
Nothing, just running in with different modes (DAC/digital pre/headphone) and outputs on Dave as it may be connected to my systems in various ways.
Yes, comparing different sources (W20, Macbook, ipad pro, K01X, AK380 Cu) to the Dave with different input options (USB/optical/AES) is in the plan.
I have been using the Hugo for my portable setup since it first came out and right out from the box Dave bears a familiar sound signature, with better staging, resolution and micro details. Impressive!
I haven't thought of it that way - thinking in terms of Q - but it makes sense and is a good way of looking at it.
But the first stage WTA filter is way better than 0.04dB - that's a symptom of other filters (notably the analogue ones). Looking at the results from the actual filter used in the FPGA (quantized coefficients) the frequency response is +0.000003 dB at 23 kHz (48 KHz sample rate). Its still within +/- 0.3 dB at 23.970 kHz - so that is only 30 Hz away from the critical FS/2 point.
I do not think people appreciate how sophisticated Dave's DSP actually is; with 166 DSP cores running in parallel, it works out at a staggering 0.1 Tera instructions per second (TIPS) and that's just the WTA filtering - the further interpolation, filtering and noise shaping is getting on for another 0.1 TIPS.
But the point I am trying to make is that impulse response is not a good way of looking at filter performance, as we are talking about using an illegal non bandwidth limited signal. And people make the mistake that a small amount of ringing is a good thing and is evidence of good time domain performance - when it is not. When I talk about time domain performance I am talking about how well the filter reconstructs the timing of the original and you can have a low amount of ringing that has quite good timing, against a longer ringing filter that is actually worse timing. Of course, an infinite amount of ringing with an ideal sinc response will perfectly reproduce a bandwidth limited signal with no changes whatsoever - and this is what high end audio is supposed to be about. I can gain a much more accurate predictor of sound quality just looking at the total output using 0 dBFS random noise. In short talking about ringing is a red herring.
The main effect I noticed with Hugo and Mojo (and hopefully Dave sometime soon if I can audition this in Dubai), is the free flow of music.
There seems to be no stress of listening to music on Hugo and Mojo, it just flows, like analog recordings and live music.
Whatever the engineering is, at the end of the day, a DAC has to perform musically, and I am very happy with musical performance of Hugo and Mojo.
Other than Piano notes being very clear, I am also noticing that drums have that impact, I guess the starting and ending of notes is clear and not blurred anymore so much easier to hear and enjoy snare drums.
DAVE offers even much more of this very quality.
Total agreed with you jaZZ
Yes, but DAVE requires much larger pockets, in more ways than one!
That's impressive indeed. And I'm glad that the (filter) theory matches the sonic impression I get from DAVE – and vice-versa.
Actually it's strange that FM radio never suffered from the sterile sound attributed to digital recordings, despite being dependent on a very similar steep low-pass filter for suppressing the pilot tones carrying the two stereo channels. And I'm rather sure that the FM technology produces a lot of modulation noise as well. I've always suspected the reason for the warmth of FM sound (as opposed to the coldness of – particularly early – digital recordings) might be that these components – filter resonance and modulation noise – are masked by a generally high level of harmonic distortion. Whereas the «clean» digital recordings make these shortcomings blatantly obvious.
Sad, but true! Let's hope we won't become too elitist with our DAVEs – possibly the best digital source and headphone amp on the planet to date!