[Beolab]

I agree with you but I think "miles better" is unrealistic for any device.  On it's best day, the DAVE won't be miles better than a Mojo or even a $100 AudioQuest DragonFly (although this depends on how you define "miles") and this occurs for a variety of reasons including the quality of the actual performance, how well it was recorded, mixed and mastered, how good the transfer was and how good your ancillary equipment is.  Just too many potential shackles.  Of course, we never just hear the DAC or the amplifier or the speaker, it's always an interplay of all the components in the chain and so it's important to find the weak links in the chain.  In the same way that your Prion4 headphone cables helped better reveal your Abyss's capabilities, I believe you will find DAVINA and Chord's amps will do the same for the DAVE.

There is also the matter of what I call listener accommodation.  While most of us would probably prefer to sleep in a big luxurious bed, if all that was available was a small simple bed, I believe we all learn to adjust to this small bed and still get a good night's sleep.  I find listening to music to be the same way because what is ultimately most important is the music itself, more so than the quality of the delivery.  For example, let's say I was a fan of the Rolling Stones (which I am) and one of their songs was playing on a low quality AM radio.  I certainly wouldn't turn off the radio since this would be better than no music at all and I would probably find a good level of toe tapping engagement with it and perhaps even sing along.  Would this presentation be much more enjoyable on my better system?  No doubt, but the point is that it is possible to have an engaging and even highly emotional listening experience with low quality gear.  For a true audiophile, it is still more about the music and so just because I own a DAVE doesn't mean that my listening sessions are "miles better" compared to another person who listens to their music off an iPhone. 

Regarding my comparison of the DAVE against the dCS Vivaldi and the Nagra, bear in mind that I believed the DAVE convincingly won the contest as far as resolution, transparency and fidelity, the qualities that I find are most important in a DAC even though this expensive system, I believe, could have been set up much more transparently.  While it's easy to say I wish the DAVE could have been miles better, what does it say about the Nagra, which is 2x more expensive than the DAVE and the dCS, which is nearly 6x more expensive?  Is there any reason to believe the Select II will fare any better?  Even if you felt you preferred the Select II's presentation more for whatever reason, the divide will likely not be great, certainly not worth spending more than 10x the price of the DAVE for a fully loaded Select II.  In my view, for the rational minded person, the DAVE basically makes all the more expensive DACs irrelevant once you factor value into the equation.  Of course, you could make the same argument for the Mojo but once again, high-end audio is not a rational hobby.

As to the individual that might prefer the harmonic nature of the Nagra or the commanding imaging of the Vivaldi to the DAVE, my answer to this is instead of paying more money for these DACs, consider getting a more harmonic amplifier or an amplifier or speakers that image better but don't give up resolution to acheive it.  What @JaZZ has recently opened my eyes to is the world of digital equalization, especially DSP.  I have been playing around with a software product called Acourate, an extremely powerful piece of DSP software created by Dr. Ulrich Brueggemann of Germany.  This software is used by professional sound mixers like Bob Katz and is quite capable of tailoring the sound coming from your headphones or speakers without the degradation that occurs with analog devices like equalizers or preamps.  You can correct for the frequency irregularities of your transducers (for example, you can conform your headphones to the Harman Response Curve).  You can also correct for your room and compensate for unwanted room nodes and with the help of Dr. Brueggemann (or Uli, as he likes to be called), you can make adjustments that suit you.  What I have found is that I can improve my imaging to the extent that it is "pinpoint" just as I heard with the Vivaldi but it defintely comes at the expense of depth, just like I heard with the Vivaldi.  What this offers me are options to tailor my sound back and forth but unlike the Nagra HD or the dCS Vivaldi, you can't create DSP filters that retrieve resolution.  If the DAC couldn't resolve it to begin with, then it's lost forever.  You could create DSP filters that add reverb and therefore, artificial depth but then everything sounds deep which isn't natural.  Even better, Acourate isn't very expensive and included in the price, Uli will help you create your first set of filters.  Highly highly recommended.

I think you read my statement wrongly, what i meant was after John's little funny story about the R2R dac's are just some jittery overpriced atomic clocks built around an old design, then my question is how they can sound so evenly with the DAVE then, because based on the advertise video and John and Rob it should sound much, much better than the rest of the DAC market nevertheless of the technology behind it. But as always the proclaimed results in teory isn't always the same in reality.

 

[EVOLVIST]

Yes, I would like to hear this.

Get in line. I think that Smyth Research has done a fairly poor job at marketing the A16. I would have at least been on Head-Fi, day and night, answering questions and pushing this thing along with their Kickstarter program.

I might be wrong, but it really seems like a person wouldn't be able to order one today and get it until a year from now...or more.

As for the DAVE being less than miles away from other DACs (ever how one measures a mile), I think you've been exposed to too many magnets.

 

[Jawed]

2) Were they connected directly to the headphone outputs or other output on the Dave?

2)  I designed my tube buffer to have a special "super" bypass mode with RCA in and speaker binding posts out.  I used Furutech's best connectors and UP-OCC grade Neotech solid core silver wiring to connect the two.  A pair of High Fidelity Cables CT-1 Reference RCA interconnects go from DAVE to the input of this box and a pair High Fidelity Cables CT-1 Ultimate speaker cables connect from the binding posts of the box and directly to my speakers. 

It seems you are using the RCA outputs on the back of DAVE to drive your speakers. Surely the headphone output, which has much more available power, would be preferable?

Also, inflicting all these spurious connections twixt DAVE and speakers must be harming the music. Admittedly, it's harder to wire up two speaker cables into a TRS jack, but headphone cable is all you need. The headphone cable has to be split along its entire length and then you'll need to fix speaker plugs on the ends that normally go into the headphones.

Perhaps you have a headphone cable you can sacrifice for this purpose that'll still sound good enough?

 

[Deftone]

   
I had to give Davina a short break, as I have been very busy finishing off the new Blu for a show later this month. But I am back onto Davina now, so I hope to finish the PCB by the end of (this!) October.
 
For sure I will publish copies of test recordings, together with some files that are experimental (one Davina set up one way, another Davina a different way both fed the same mic feed) so we can all hear the difference.
 
Rob

 
excellent
 

 

[jlbrach]

Received my dave today and have been giving it a spin this evening...coming from the TT I didnt know exactly what to expect given that i loved the TT...that said,so far i am very impressed....incredible detail and space ,listening to each instrument in its place so clearly is a kick...this is very early obvious with no burn in etc but so far it is indeed a step up from the TT which aint easy.....the one thing i do not like is the confusing menus,lousy manual and general difficulty navigating around the Dave....Chord makes magnificent products at very high price points but their design and manual in many cases leave much to be desired....that said it sounds so damn good

 

[romaz]

It seems you are using the RCA outputs on the back of DAVE to drive your speakers. Surely the headphone output, which has much more available power, would be preferable?

Also, inflicting all these spurious connections twixt DAVE and speakers must be harming the music. Admittedly, it's harder to wire up two speaker cables into a TRS jack, but headphone cable is all you need. The headphone cable has to be split along its entire length and then you'll need to fix speaker plugs on the ends that normally go into the headphones.

Perhaps you have a headphone cable you can sacrifice for this purpose that'll still sound good enough?

No, RCA output and headphone output are equivalent with regards to power output, impedance, etc.  They are one and the same.  I sought Rob's counsel about all of this before proceeding.  He said the only thing to avoid was a 4-ohm load and so I proceeded with his blessing.
 
You could certainly create a cable that goes from TRS jack to two speaker cables.  A spare headphone cable could work but it would be easier to start from scratch with raw materials so that you have exactly the length you need.  You also need to have the right soldering skills.  One of the reasons I chose to go RCA interconnects > speaker cables is because I already own these cables made by HFC and they are the best I have ever heard, much better than my Spore4 headphone cable.  I also prefer using the RCA outputs instead because it's cleaner to do it this way (wires are all in the back of the DAVE) and to give me the flexibility of using my headphones without having to unplug anything.  It's also easier to buy high-quality RCA connectors than high-quality 6.35mm jacks.  The best 6.35mm jacks from Furutech or Eidolic, for example, are rhodium-plated brass or some other impure alloy whereas Furutech's best RCA adapters are milled from OCC copper, cryo'd and then coated with rhodium.  These connections are also lower mass and less resonant.
 
With any preamp, these spurious connections that go from XLR or RCA to some other format is what routinely happens.  Talk to any preamp or cable builder and they won't blink an eye if you ask for this kind of device.  An example of a cable that branches off this way would be a Y-cable that you can buy off the shelf for subwoofers but those cables are of very low quality.  Anyway, when done right, there is no harm to the music and I can assure you, if I detected any type of backward step in SQ, I wouldn't stick with it.  This is easily the most revealing sound I have ever heard.

 

[Crgreen]

Just to be clear, if Davina is the answer, what exactly is the question?

 

[romaz]

Just to be clear, if Davina is the answer, what exactly is the question?

That the recordings we are hearing today are sorely compromised because of the limitations of all current ADCs and are preventing the DAVE from being even more transparent.

 

[ubs28]

That the recordings we are hearing today are sorely compromised because of the limitations of all current ADCs and are preventing the DAVE from being even more transparent.

But recordings are also very poorly engineered with adding alot of brightness and compression / limiting. My Access Virus TI synthesizer doesn't sound anywhere as bright for example when I hear it in a final mix of a recording usually.

 

[Crgreen]

That the recordings we are hearing today are sorely compromised because of the limitations of all current ADCs and are preventing the DAVE from being even more transparent.

Good news, for the next generation. In the meantime, the rest of us will be playing mostly compromised recordings of the music we love. Even assuming that Davina is a complete success - and I hope it is - and is taken up by most if not all, recording studios, this is likely to result in only a very small percentage of the music I listen to. Obviously, if you make your own recordings, it's a different matter.

 

[TheAttorney]

I don't feel we should get unduly depressed about the state of today's ADC limitations.
 
Much the same ADC solutions can result in fantastic SQ or terrible SQ - depending on the recording/mixing/mastering techniques employed. Meaning that the latter processes have a hugely bigger impact on the end result. So even with Davina in place (eventually), it will be wasted if the recording/mixing/mastering continue to mess it up big time.
 
So to follow on from ubs28's point, I think the term "recordings...are sorely compromised because of the limitations of all current ADCs" is somewhat overstating the case.
Any further increase in transparency in any part of the recording chain is, of course, a good thing, but I'm not holding my breath on this particular improvement

 

[DaveRedRef-III]

Did Rob mention where Chord are showing the new Blu CD player in October?

I know many feel that CD replay is dead but I think we will see a lot more out of the red book protocol over the next few years. Rob has proved with Dave that the industry was failing to rebuilding the sound wave properly. We have probably only been listening to something like 20% of what was captured on CD and that was via pretty ordinary ADC's. 44,100 samples per second is a lot of information and I have not given up on red book yet. Particularly as the hires availability is still woeful.

 

[Mython]

Did Rob mention where Chord are showing the new Blu CD player in October?

I know many feel that CD replay is dead but I think we will see a lot more out of the red book protocol over the next few years. Rob has proved with Dave that the industry was failing to rebuilding the sound wave properly. We have probably only been listening to something like 20% of what was captured on CD and that was via pretty ordinary ADC's. 44,100 samples per second is a lot of information and I have not given up on red book yet. Particularly as the hires availability is still woeful.

 
 
I agree, in principal, although environmental concerns may kill off CD as a format, even if the convenience and instantaneous gratification of digital downloads fails to put the final nail in Compact Discs coffin.
 
It's a pity that Davina did not appear prior to CD waning in production, as I am personally a fan of CD, but I, like yourself, have a decent library of old CDs that will still improve in performance at the DAC end of the chain, with Rob's WTA tech.

 

[DaveRedRef-III]

Hi Mython
I am not even convinced top rate streaming of Red book is as good as Red Book from a top rate CD player yet. I am certainly hanging on to my CD's because as you say, new tech is validating it year after year. Besides I doubt I could find 10% of it on hires.

Anyway looks like this must be the show they anticipate launching the Blu 2
http://www.hifinews.co.uk/editorial/page.asp?p=1173

 

[esimms86]

I agree, in principal, although environmental concerns may kill off CD as a format, even if the convenience and instantaneous gratification of digital downloads fails to put the final nail in Compact Discs coffin.

It's a pity that Davina did not appear prior to CD waning in production, as I am personally a fan of CD, but I, like yourself, have a decent library of old CDs that will still improve in performance at the DAC end of the chain, with Rob's WTA tech.

Streaming is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that will be the death knell for CDs. And even though the majority of listeners are happy (at least for now) with MP3 quality, streaming offers Red book and MQA quality as further enticement. Digital downloads take a major back seat to streaming in this equation.

Regarding CD transports, the question is how much do they improve upon the sound quality of well done CD rips. I have not heard a CD transport so I can't weigh in on that one. Also, are there still improvements to be made in CD ripping software?