CHORD ELECTRONICS DAVE

[EVOLVIST]

Marcel,

I think you could, and should, prefer the DAVE for headphone listening, because I doubt there is anything that can touch it, or ever will. That ultra-microscopic window into the music that the DAVE provides, even with a few flavors of TOTL cans makes it the best in the business. In fact, I'm not dogging the DAVE at all.

However, yeah, becoming disillusioned by the concept of transparent/neutral has made me rethink what I want as a listener, sure. Where once I was getting goodebumps by listening to the DAVE with cans, I don't get the same feeling having dropped it into several speaker setups (not including my own, which is a work in progress).

Granted, every system that I've dropped my DAVE into made the system better. It really did, but not necessarily more musical or engaging, just more... Yeah, transparent.

I'm also not saying that I'm getting rid of my DAVE, either. At this moment I'm saying that my priorities have changed, some having to do with moving to speakers, some not.

 

[ray-dude]

Marcel,

I think you could, and should, prefer the DAVE for headphone listening, because I doubt there is anything that can touch it, or ever will. That ultra-microscopic window into the music that the DAVE provides, even with a few flavors of TOTL cans makes it the best in the business. In fact, I'm not dogging the DAVE at all.

However, yeah, becoming disillusioned by the concept of transparent/neutral has made me rethink what I want as a listener, sure. Where once I was getting goodebumps by listening to the DAVE with cans, I don't get the same feeling having dropped it into several speaker setups (not including my own, which is a work in progress).

Granted, everything system that I've dropped my DAVE into made the system better. It really did, but not necessarily more musical or engaging, just more... Yeah, transparent.

I'm also not saying that I'm getting rid of my DAVE, either. At this moment I'm saying that my priorities have changed, some having to do with moving to speakers, some not.

DAVE with headphones and CIEMs has been absolutely intoxicating (like a drug).  After a weekend of fiddling, DAVE in my 2 channel setup has taken a step up, but the goosebumps per minute is WAY behind the experience of DAVE + cans.  
 
Lot more fiddling to do, but I'm grateful to have the reference of my headphones to know what I need to aspire to with my 2 channel setup.  Alas, a LOT easier to optimize headphones than it is to optimize a room/speaker layout
 
If my theory about being room limited holds true, when I get my Hugo2, the answer may be to take the DAVE to the office (where I'm headphones all the time) and leave the H2 at home in my 2 channel setup (95% 2 channel)
 
As they say, 1st world problems

 

[Triode User]

However, the Golden Gate was simply more holographic. So much so, that I'm sitting 10ft away from the speakers, and certain passages shocked me when it felt that I could reach out and touch the sound of an instrument.

Is this the effect of the tubes or the DAC implementation though?

 

[astrostar59]

  I did some search for the Lampizator Golden Gate, and although I know nothing about it apart from some component listing and review excerpts, I'm sure that it sounds great. I just had to see the tubes and the fine (silver-centric) components to think: Yes, that has to sound exceptional.
 
Actually I was going to reply it may have been a case of synergy, with the DAVE as just second best in this configuration, but now I think I understand even your differentiation between «resolving» and «transparent».
 
I think I would nevertheless prefer the DAVE for my sonic ideals, since I'm more or less done with tubes, as much as I like their characteristic. To my ears the DAVE's most striking strength is its imaging of spatial depth – thanks to the fantastic small-signal resolution. The Golden Gate with its even more pronounced depth (as you say) and an (assumed) liquid-smoothness making it more «musical» and ear-friendlier than even a DAVE would most likely be too much ear-friendliness and spectacularity to my taste. I simply cannot imagine that the DAVE's simplicistic output stage, its groundbreakingly low harmonic distortion and noise modulation figures can be beaten when it comes to accuracy and transparency. So it seems the DAVE is not the best DAC for everyone, although better than most nonetheless.
 
However, I don't think transparency is the culprit, rather the way to get there: Combined with ultimate accuracy it may (still) be too much unforgivingness to some ears, although to my pair it is absolutely very, very friendly.
 
(A lot of speculation involved, but I hope you get what I mean.)

Good point. IMO once you get to this level of gear and other components in the system, it becomes how they work together. The endless buying and selling of gear by many in this hobby is for this reason I believe. It is not that various DACs or Amps or Speakers are not any good, it is more about how they work together. I have had all solid state, then part solid state, then all tubes, then again part solid state. And after 20 years of searching around with some mistakes along the way I am convinced I need one component in the chain with tubes. It may be timbre or warmth, or it may be realism, but it seems to work best that way for me.
 
The Golden Gate is a chameleon as it can run very different tube types, not just makes. So the character can be changes quite a bit. Also as it runs DHT is can be connected to a power amplifier direct and miss out the pre-amplifier, and with that more transparency and speed, less loss basically. Also it can sound different on PCM or DSD (upsampled PCM to DSD).
 
I have not heard the DAVE but respect it must be a superb DAC. If I had the DAVE I would run a tube power amp for sure. It would then give me the ability to tweak the signature to fit the rest of my system. I am not talking transparency alone, more timbre. For example, I have heard top Esoteric and dCS DACs in an all solid state system at dealers, and it was very transparent, but sounded awful IMO, way to cold and 'hifi'. This sort of sound impresses me for 15 minutes, but rapidly hits the buffers. I like to test systems by playing it loud, to realistic levels, and often these system fall apart at that point. And in my mind, a top HP system also highlights quite quickly such failings as (for example) the Stax 009s are so transparent and sensitive, it is all there to hear.
 
So IMO the GG and DAVE are probably equals of different flavours. It is how they fit in the system that makes them either great or truly special.

 

[JaZZ]

Nevertheless, I stick to the notion that a perfect source combined with a perfect amp and perfect speakers (...in perfect acoustics and with perfect recordings...) don't need any artificial euphonization (which not just tube gear is capable of). As little as a live concert (...with acoustic instruments!).

 

[Crgreen]

Frankly, you're better off learning to live with imperfection, Much less disappointing.

 

[JaZZ]

I have certainly learned to live with sonic imperfections during my more than 40 years of dealing with them. The above «analysis» just serves for putting the «need» for tube flavor and the like into perspective. Moreover, once you've learned that there are imperfections that you don't necessarily have to accept, you may gain a new level of sound quality. Since the most striking imperfections reside in the sound transducers, you may have an idea what I'm aiming at.

 

[astrostar59]

  Nevertheless, I stick to the notion that a perfect source combined with a perfect amp and perfect speakers (...in perfect acoustics and with perfect recordings...) don't need any artificial euphonization (which not just tube gear is capable of). As little as a live concert (...with acoustic instruments!).

I get your point. But in real life that never happens. And it is not just about transparency as I tried to say. It is about timbre. I am not convinced a full SS system can cut it with digital front end. Risking a huge angry mob here, but we are supposed to air our opinions for discussion right?
 
Remember fets are switching devices, so unlike tubes, create their own noise and sound signature. And tubes do some things so well, but not all things. This has an effect, and in a DAC + Amp and all the gain stage in those devices, has more and more effect on the signature of the sound if we use SS or tubes right through. My holy grail is balance the best of both. It for example in a speaker setup, opens up possibilities of more speaker designs for SS as opposed to high efficiency 1 or 2 drive unit designs (huge simplification). 
 
And I see the ability to tweak, modify or affect the sound, however we shall call that, as a good thing to have. When I didn't have that ability, I used to spent a lot of time and money (and loss of money) on Audiogon.

 

[JaZZ]

 

  Nevertheless, I stick to the notion that a perfect source combined with a perfect amp and perfect speakers (...in perfect acoustics and with perfect recordings...) don't need any artificial euphonization (which not just tube gear is capable of). As little as a live concert (...with acoustic instruments!).

I get your point. But in real life that never happens. And it is not just about transparency as I tried to say. It is about timbre. I am not convinced a full SS system can cut it with digital front end. Risking a huge angry mob here, but we are supposed to air our opinions for discussion right?
 
Remember fets are switching devices, so unlike tubes, create their own noise and sound signature. And tubes do some things so well, but not all things. This has an effect, and in a DAC + Amp and all the gain stage in those devices, has more and more effect on the signature of the sound if we use SS or tubes right through. My holy grail is balance the best of both. It for example in a speaker setup, opens up possibilities of more speaker designs for SS as opposed to high efficiency 1 or 2 drive unit designs (huge simplification). 
 
And I see the ability to tweak, modify or affect the sound, however we shall call that, as a good thing to have. When I didn't have that ability, I used to spent a lot of time and money (and loss of money) on Audiogon.

 
I agree with you, and I'm not saying transistors sound better than tubes. Indeed they have their own way of corrupting the signal. It's just that my now solid-state headphone amps, as imperfect as they are (very clear when I attach them to the DAVE), leave my tube amp in the dust when it comes to accuracy and naturalness – not necessarily in terms of ear-friendliness, though. And this although the Mapletree EAR++ III (with Black Gates) is the best sounding tube amp I've owned (maybe together with the Earmax Pro). Subjectively, from its fun factor, it is absolutely competitive, though. So you see, my experience with tube amps is limited, that's why I won't draw definitive conclusions anyway. I was mainly responding to your statement that you need some tube gear anywhere within the chain, which strongly hints to «tube flavor».

 

[Crgreen]

Since life is imperfect, a bit of colour can make it more bearable - mankind cannot stand too much reality.And I've been to some amplified gigs where a bit of tube warmth would have been welcome.

The debate between theoretical accuracy and musical engagement has gone on since hi-fi was invented. Ultimately, it's a matter of taste and preferences, so there's can't be a winner.

I'm waiting to hear reports of what the m-scaler does with DAVE before deciding whether to take the plunge.

 

[EVOLVIST]

Is this the effect of the tubes or the DAC implementation though?

It's difficult to say. My gut tells me a bit if both leads to a whole lot of results. This model had the 101d tube, which I'm not familiar with, and the 300B tubes which I'm a little familiar with. No HP output of course.

 

[JaZZ]

Since life is imperfect, a bit of colour can make it more bearable - mankind cannot stand too much reality.And I've been to some amplified gigs where a bit of tube warmth would have been welcome.

The debate between theoretical accuracy and musical engagement has gone on since hi-fi was invented. Ultimately, it's a matter of taste and preferences, so there's can't be a winner.

I'm waiting to hear reports of what the m-scaler does with DAVE before deciding whether to take the plunge.

 
I'm not against shaping the sound to one's own liking at all – even do it myself in the form of my personal crossfeed and some other manipulations if need be. However, sacrificing transparency and accuracy by doing so is a sacrilege in my personal book, as it reduces listening pleasure and musicality. So if there are ways to overcome the need for euphonic colorations, I'm all for them. At the same time I wonder why others cheerfully ignore them, without knowing what they miss.

 

[Crgreen]

Sacrilege? Some things in life are sacred, but I'm not sure hi-fi is amongst them.

 

[adyc]

Heh. Well, I'm not going to shortchange "transparency" as a concept. In practice, though, what is transparent to one person might not be the same to another, as we are all on our own quests to reach audio Nirvana.

I've switched my focus to more Resolving & Musical, as opposed to Transparent and Neutral. It's not that you can't have both, but the former, I believe, are less of concepts than the latter.

A few days ago, my buddy - the same guy I replicated his speaker choice, in the Andra IIs (his room has been treated; mine has not) - dropped a fully loaded Lampizator Golden Gate into his system. Instead of his wonky Class D amp, I brought over the TToby as the amp of choice.

Well, versus the DAVE, which I also had on hand, we were very hard pressed to declare a winner with timbre accuracy, timing, instrument separation and speed. However, the Golden Gate was simply more holographic. So much so, that I'm sitting 10ft away from the speakers, and certain passages shocked me when it felt that I could reach out and touch the sound of an instrument. It was like turning on a light bulb in the room.

I then swapped out his $600 speaker cables for my $100 pair of Blue Jean cables. No difference. None that anybody could detect.

Yes, with the DAVE in-line it was extraordinary, too, only the massive amount of depth that was there seemed like 2D depth, as if the deep sound was a photo of the instrument, recessed in the sound field, opposed to the actual instrument.

I'm not saying that the DAVE sounded dead, only that the Golden Gate sounded more musical, for better or for worse, in the grand scheme of things.

Later we put his Class D amp back in, and it imparted a veil over the Lampi just as it did the DAVE.

I don't know. This is merely an anecdote. I know that the Chord DAVE is the best DAC on the planet for listening to headphones. Otherwise, now that I've changed focus, I'm not sure what else the DAVE is when it comes to speaker reproduction.

EDIT: to change screw-ups from typing on my phone.

Here is my experience. I only listen to speakers and no headphone. I had Lampi GG for a long time. I found the sound is colour and not involving. So I bought DAVE. I had both DACs in my system and compare them in depth. There is simply no competition. DAVE completely KO GG in terms of everything: depth, accuracy, dynamics and most importantly to me musical. DAVE always draws me to the music. GG sound is uninteresting.

I want to stress that this is my experience and maybe it is system synergy. I had many expensive DACs in my system before. These DACs come and go until I found DAVE. My DAC search has stopped. To me, DAVE is the best DAC on the planet. There is nothing come close.

I found that I need long time listening before I can make any judgements. I would say that your favourable experiences on GG maybe due to their colouring. You may draw different conclusions if you listen to GG for a few weeks or more.

 

[JaZZ]

Sacrilege? Some things in life are sacred, but I'm not sure hi-fi is amongst them.

 
I added «in my personal book» – for clarification: when it comes to my own music-listening practice. Of course the term is a hyperbole meant to make the statement more striking.
 
You're being quite a bit nitpicking and lack a sense of humour...