CHORD ELECTRONICS DAVE

[miketlse]

Why antithesis? They are two different digital headphones amplifiers, with different sound... Goldmund has DSP, DAC and discrete amplifier, Dave no internal amplifer, but headphone output as the Goldmund has...

DAVE is designed to produce the pure unadulterated sound, and I presume that the Goldmund is designed to use DSP to 'colour' the sound to the owners taste.
 
Some audiophiles like purity, but others like colour - they are both opposite ends of the spectrum, but ' à chacun son goût' . 

 

[Nik]

Goldmund colored sound??? NO, absolutely... I had both... May be the Goldmund sound is typical Swiss sound, a bit sterile... But never colored! Internal DSP is just to read the electrical specs of the headphones you have plugged on it, they are two fantastic different objects!

 

[miketlse]

Goldmund colored sound??? NO, absolutely... I had both... May be the Goldmund sound is typical Swiss sound, a bit sterile... But never colored! Internal DSP is just to read the electrical specs of the headphones you have plugged on it, they are two fantastic different objects!

DSP must surely be doing more than measuring the specs of the headphones (Digital Signal Processing).

 

[Nik]

http://absolutehiend.com/index.php/goldmund-hda-telos-headphone-amplifier.html

... Las but not least, Goldmund innovates again with the first headphone amplifier that is upgradable to match specifically your own Headphone characteristics thanks to its built-in DSP. The Telos Headphone Amplifier will quickly become THE MUST HAVE...

 

[miketlse]

http://absolutehiend.com/index.php/goldmund-hda-telos-headphone-amplifier.html

... Las but not least, Goldmund innovates again with the first headphone amplifier that is upgradable to match specifically your own Headphone characteristics thanks to its built-in DSP. The Telos Headphone Amplifier will quickly become THE MUST HAVE...

 
That explains what the overall system is doing:
 

1. The Goldmund takes the input signal, then uses DSP to tailor (or even add binaural effects) the output signal to suit your headphones. The owners may love the result, but it is very different to the transparent unadulterated sound that is the objective of the DAVE.   

 

[Nik]

Listening both the Dave and the Goldmund I can't say if the Dave is more transparent, may be... But this do not depending by DSP, just by the internal Goldmund amplifer, that Dave do not have... But Goldmund has more power for low sensitive headphones... Positive and negative aspects on both...
Depending by the headphones adopted...
With my Abyss I have opted for another way.... No more Dave, no more Goldmund...

 

[Mediahound]

Chord says you should try not to use some external amplifier with their products because doing so you are getting further away from the excellent DAC and the Chord digital volume control/amp and will lose some resolution. I have definitely noticed this myself with my HugoTT. All an amplifier adds it's it's own sound signature at the expense of some resolution.

There are probably only one or two headphone models in the world where more powerful amp would be needed.

 

[TheAttorney]

  In turn software equalizers all work more or less the same and shouldn't affect transparency in the least, provided you use them for equalizing instead of coloring.

If only this were true, I'd be happy in finding a simple solution to sorting out each headphone's tonal foibles.
But my brief foray into s/w EQ showed me that it can do more harm than good - to the point that I always preferred EQ switched out.
 
This was using  a trial version of DMG's EQuick plugged into JRMC.
Now, DMG is a respected "pro" supplier to recording studios etc. Equick is their simplified, entry level version, but nevertheless costs real money to buy. So I had high hopes for this EQ s/w being transparent - but it wasn't.
 
This was using default setup parameters. Now, I'm prepared to believe that adjusting this and that could have improved transparency to the point I wouldn't notice, but I didn't want to start a whole new journey of faffing around for hours trying to tweak a new type of solution - I already do enough of that with my main rig )

 

[JaZZ]

 

  In turn software equalizers all work more or less the same and shouldn't affect transparency in the least, provided you use them for equalizing instead of coloring.

If only this were true, I'd be happy in finding a simple solution to sorting out each headphone's tonal foibles.
But my brief foray into s/w EQ showed me that it can do more harm than good - to the point that I always preferred EQ switched out.
 
This was using  a trial version of DMG's EQuick plugged into JRMC.
Now, DMG is a respected "pro" supplier to recording studios etc. Equick is their simplified, entry level version, but nevertheless costs real money to buy. So I had high hopes for this EQ s/w being transparent - but it wasn't.
 
This was using default setup parameters. Now, I'm prepared to believe that adjusting this and that could have improved transparency to the point I wouldn't notice, but I didn't want to start a whole new journey of faffing around for hours trying to tweak a new type of solution - I already do enough of that with my main rig )

 
That's not my experience at all – and I occupy myself intensively and extensively with eqalizing since quite a while. But it's true that it requires a lot of patience, the first quick results are oftentimes disappointing. And the wrong curves may very well produce colorations leading to reduced transparency. Since transparency is not least a function of optimally reduced masking effects caused by dominating frequency bands relative to underrepresented frequency bands. Of course harmonic distortion is one of the main causes of lacking transparency, but no software equalizer should introduce any (apart from clipping, which can easily be avoided).

 

[Music Alchemist]

  If only this were true, I'd be happy in finding a simple solution to sorting out each headphone's tonal foibles.
But my brief foray into s/w EQ showed me that it can do more harm than good - to the point that I always preferred EQ switched out.
 
This was using  a trial version of DMG's EQuick plugged into JRMC.
Now, DMG is a respected "pro" supplier to recording studios etc. Equick is their simplified, entry level version, but nevertheless costs real money to buy. So I had high hopes for this EQ s/w being transparent - but it wasn't.
 
This was using default setup parameters. Now, I'm prepared to believe that adjusting this and that could have improved transparency to the point I wouldn't notice, but I didn't want to start a whole new journey of faffing around for hours trying to tweak a new type of solution - I already do enough of that with my main rig )

 
Proponents of equalization (including myself) recommend doing it the right way: adjusting the exact amount for every frequency to attain the most accurate frequency response. (And usually cutting frequencies instead of boosting.) To be fair, this requires many hours of hard work. There are far more ways of doing it wrong and ruining the sound, especially if you don't know what you're doing. Using default parameters (whatever that means) is pointless too. There is software like Sonarworks that can instantly apply specific settings for specific headphones to make them follow a certain compensation curve...but it's a proprietary one that, in my opinion, should only be used as a starting point. Anyway, other methods to alter the frequency response (like using a tube amp with colored tubes that may also add harmonic distortion) don't compare at all to effective equalization. (Which, again, would involve the highest degree of accuracy for all frequencies.) It's like comparing throwing paint at a wall to composing a masterpiece with a fine-tipped brush.

 

[TheAttorney]

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about getting thr EQ parameters wrong - I can successfully adjust the frequency curve to any tonal charateristics I want.
I'm talking about a loss of transparency simply by activating the equalizer. I can demonstrate this to myself by keeping the EQ more or less flat and I can still hear a drop in SQ when it's activated.
 
By "default parameters", I mean that pro EQ s/w has all sorts of settings that have nothig to do with adjustiing the frequency response - it's about the way the app processes the signal in the background. I can't remember any now in detail, but to give an idea of the type of thing I'm talking about, they may include such parameters as "buffer size", "latency" etc.
I lurked on pro forums for a while to know that the pro users claim all sorts of such adjustments can improve SQ. And they also claim that their prefered s/w package sounded better than other s/w packages. All in all, it sounded very involved to me, so i didn't pursue any further. I didn't want to study for a degree on this topic - just use something that works out the box!
 
It's possible thatthe issue was in the interface between JRMC and EQuick. But again, too much faff to find out.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Just to be clear, I'm not talking about getting thr EQ parameters wrong - I can successfully adjust the frequency curve to any tonal charateristics I want.
I'm talking about a loss of transparency simply by activating the equalizer. I can demonstrate this to myself by keeping the EQ more or less flat and I can still hear a drop in SQ when it's activated.
 
By "default parameters", I mean that pro EQ s/w has all sorts of settings that have nothig to do with adjustiing the frequency response - it's about the way the app processes the signal in the background. I can't remember any now in detail, but to give an idea of the type of thing I'm talking about, they may include such parameters as "buffer size", "latency" etc.
I lurked on pro forums for a while to know that the pro users claim all sorts of such adjustments can improve SQ. And they also claim that their prefered s/w package sounded better than other s/w packages. All in all, it sounded very involved to me, so i didn't pursue any further. I didn't want to study for a degree on this topic - just use something that works out the box!
 
It's possible thatthe issue was in the interface between JRMC and EQuick. But again, too much faff to find out.

 
Ah, I see. I'm sure there are some EQ programs that could interfere with things more than others. But I also believe that some programs don't interfere at all. I mean, even the basic tone controls in foobar2000 don't change the sound when set to flat and compared to having the plugin deactivated. I can understand the aversion to EQ, at any rate. It just involves more effort than most are willing to invest in.

 

[JaZZ]

 

  Just to be clear, I'm not talking about getting thr EQ parameters wrong - I can successfully adjust the frequency curve to any tonal charateristics I want.
I'm talking about a loss of transparency simply by activating the equalizer. I can demonstrate this to myself by keeping the EQ more or less flat and I can still hear a drop in SQ when it's activated.
 
By "default parameters", I mean that pro EQ s/w has all sorts of settings that have nothig to do with adjustiing the frequency response - it's about the way the app processes the signal in the background. I can't remember any now in detail, but to give an idea of the type of thing I'm talking about, they may include such parameters as "buffer size", "latency" etc.
I lurked on pro forums for a while to know that the pro users claim all sorts of such adjustments can improve SQ. And they also claim that their prefered s/w package sounded better than other s/w packages. All in all, it sounded very involved to me, so i didn't pursue any further. I didn't want to study for a degree on this topic - just use something that works out the box!
 
It's possible thatthe issue was in the interface between JRMC and EQuick. But again, too much faff to find out.

 
Ah, I see. I'm sure there are some EQ programs that could interfere with things more than others. But I also believe that some programs don't interfere at all. I mean, even the basic tone controls in foobar2000 don't change the sound when set to flat and compared to having the plugin deactivated. I can understand the aversion to EQ, at any rate. It just involves more effort than most are willing to invest in.

 
Exactly! That's my experience as well. Also with xnor's foobar2000 EQ plugin. The same with the equalizers in my FiiOs X3 Ii and X5 II. I can imagine that some «Pro» equalizers (which I never tried) may be prone to this, rather than simple ones. After all the complex computer processing itself could cause interferences. But why care about latency (e.g.) in pure audio playback! Well, I certainly don't want the DAVE's phenomenal transparency to be compromized! I wouldn't tolerate if any EQ would do that.

 

[DaveRedRef-III]

It is interesting to see, despite the recording industry completely eschewing analogue Graphic Equalisers (and subsequently therefore software GE's by default) because it was universally acknowledged that GE's destroyed phase, that they have been resurrected in software form for audiophiles. (Maybe the software equivalent isn't as destructive?) I must admit I wouldn't touch a GE but only because I have grown up with Parametrics and hi and lo pass filters because they were less damaging. I would recommend parametrics if they are commercially available as they can be very powerful and focussed solutions once a person is experienced with them. As Alchemist mentions earlier, a subtractive discipline is usually more likely to deliver clean results (as in less likely to unwittingly affect frequencies that you were already happy with).

Are there any Parametric and hi/lo pass filter software options out there right right now just out of interest? If not I suspect there may be a commercial opportunity in that vacuum.

 

[Music Alchemist]

Are there any Parametric and hi/lo pass filter software options out there right right now just out of interest? If not I suspect there may be a commercial opportunity in that vacuum.

 
Pretty much any digital audiophile who is serious about EQ uses parametric equalizers. Two free ones are Equalizer APO and Electri-Q.