CHORD ELECTRONICS DAVE

[ray-dude]

Did you hear the Pi speaker sitting on top of that sub? The piano black stack? Could a DAVE drive that without a tube amp??? So you mean the Voxativ 9.87 is the powered sub that the Pi sits on top of and they are $10 k each, and how much is the Pi single driver PI speaker each? It looks like that goes down to 20Hz so why even need a sub??

Anyway you lost me with the word sweep. I like the idea of adding a powered sub to my Omega Alnico XRS floor standers driven by my HUGO2. How do you wire it to the HUGO2? Is a powered sub a stand alone speaker that picks up sound from the single driver with a microphone? Sorry I am so ignorant about this stuff as a newby.

Yes, the 9.87's (Pi*Pi) is the combination that has a Pi cabinet sitting on top of a bass unit (in my case, it was the piano black version). The unit I auditioned had the Voxativ AC-4D driver, which is the upgraded driver (basically same specs as the AC-4X driver, but with an extra 1dB of sensitivity). My BluDAVE drover it to room shaking levels with no problem at all. I suspect Hugo2 could driver it to comfortable levels no problem.

In this configuration, the Pi box on top has some dampers in it to cause it to naturally roll off around 100Hz. The bass unit is an active unit (it has a 250W class A/B amplifier built in), and has an equalizer built in. You tune the cross over and bass boost to what works best in your room. In the case of the audition room I was in, the bass unit was set to ~100Hz. Is this this bass unit that takes the response down to a VERY clean 20Hz.

It is possible to buy the bass unit separately (retail ~$10k) and use with any speaker you like. There is also a single driver of the bass unit for less money called the Voxativ Z (usually bundled with the Voxativ Zeth bundle, a more entry level line), but that is still retail $4k. The Voxativ Z has a single 96dB sensitivity driver (vs 2 96dB drivers in the Voxativ PI Dipole Woofer System, which is the bass unit in the 9.87's)

By "sweep" I meant getting a music file that is a frequency sweep from 200Hz down to 20Hz (these are all over the internet, I happen to use one from one of the Chesky discs). As the tone sweeps through the frequency range, I listen and adjust levels and cross over points and phase by ear until that it is as smooth as practical in your room (alas, at the low frequencies, nothing is ever ideal). You can also go the extra mile and get a calibrated microphone and some software that does the sweep and measurements for you, then make adjustments until it is mostly flat. This part of the process that I described would be the same with any subwoofer you're adding to the system. There are different ways to set up a subwoofer and blend with your speakers. I was describing the method I use, but at the end of the day you want have a smooth blend between your sub and your speaker.

If you want to learn more about this, there are lots of resources on the internet. I just saw that 2xHD released a "Audiophile Speaker Setup" disc: https://2xhd.nativedsd.com/albums/2XHDFT1095-audiophile-speaker-setup

If you page through the booklet PDF, there is a section about how your adjust a subwoofer to match your speakers, with some nice figures that highlight what you're trying to do. See:

https://dsd-files.s3.amazonaws.com/2xHD/2XHDFT1095/2XHDFT1095/2XHDFT1095.pdf

To answer your other question, a powered sub is basically a speaker with an amplifier built in. If you connect it to your source (in your case Hugo2 or DAVE), it takes the normal output of the source them amplifies it so the sub can get all the power that it needs. The trick is to set the "volume" level on the sub so that it matches the volume level on your regular speakers (this is the master level of the sub I was mentioned). The next trick is to adjust the sub so it it falls off as the speaker begins to ramp up. The sub can handle all the low frequencies then, and your speakers the other frequencies. The low pass filter helps set where that hand off will be, and the other adjustments let you fine tune it so it is smooth.

Both DAVE and Hugo2 are able to drive your Omega speakers and a sub at the same time (using 2 of the outputs)

 

[tunes]

Yes, the 9.87's (Pi*Pi) is the combination that has a Pi cabinet sitting on top of a bass unit (in my case, it was the piano black person). The unit I auditioned had the Voxativ AC-4D driver, which is the upgraded driver (basically same specs as the AC-4X driver, but with an extra 1dB of sensitivity). My BluDAVE drover it to room shaking levels with no problem at all. I suspect Hugo2 could driver it to comfortable levels no problem.

In this configuration, the Pi box on top has some dampers in it to cause it to naturally roll off around 100Hz. The bass unit is an active unit (it has a 250W class A/B amplifier built in), and has an equalizer built in. You tune the cross over and bass boost to what works best in your room. In the case of the audition room I was in, the bass unit was set to ~100Hz. Is this this bass unit that takes the response down to a VERY clean 20Hz.

It is possible to buy the bass unit separately (retail ~$10k) and use with any speaker you like. There is also a single driver of the bass unit for less money called the Voxativ Z (usually bundled with the Voxativ Zeth bundle, a more entry level line), but that is still retail $4k. The Voxativ Z has a single 96dB sensitivity driver (vs 2 96dB drivers in the Voxativ PI Dipole Woofer System, which is the bass unit in the 9.87's)

By "sweep" I meant getting a music file that is a frequency sweep from 200Hz down to 20Hz (these are all over the internet, I happen to use one from one of the Chesky discs). As the tone sweeps through the frequency range, I listen and adjust levels and cross over points and phase by ear until that it is as smooth as practical in your room (alas, at the low frequencies, nothing is ever ideal). You can also go the extra mile and get a calibrated microphone and some software that does the sweep and measurements for you, then make adjustments until it is mostly flat. This part of the process that I described would be the same with any subwoofer you're adding to the system. There are different ways to set up a subwoofer and blend with your speakers. I was describing the method I use, but at the end of the day you want have a smooth blend between your sub and your speaker.

If you want to learn more about this, there are lots of resources on the internet. I just saw that 2xHD released a "Audiophile Speaker Setup" disc: https://2xhd.nativedsd.com/albums/2XHDFT1095-audiophile-speaker-setup

If you page through the booklet PDF, there is a section about how your adjust a subwoofer to match your speakers, with some nice figures that highlight what you're trying to do. See:

https://dsd-files.s3.amazonaws.com/2xHD/2XHDFT1095/2XHDFT1095/2XHDFT1095.pdf

To answer your other question, a powered sub is basically a speaker with an amplifier built in. If you connect it to your source (in your case Hugo2 or DAVE), it takes the normal output of the source them amplifies it so the sub can get all the power that it needs. The trick is to set the "volume" level on the sub so that it matches the volume level on your regular speakers (this is the master level of the sub I was mentioned). The next trick is to adjust the sub so it it falls off as the speaker begins to ramp up. The sub can handle all the low frequencies then, and your speakers the other frequencies. The low pass filter helps set where that hand off will be, and the other adjustments let you fine tune it so it is smooth.

Both DAVE and Hugo2 are able to drive your Omega speakers and a sub at the same time (using 2 of the outputs)

Thanks so much for that detailed explanation but still confused about which output on the CHORD HUGO2 is used for the sub. Right now I use the RCA out direct to the Omega. Would I use one of the headphone out jacks for the sub? Does it matter which channel goes to the sub, left or right? What cable adapter is needed to go from HUGO2 to the SUB??

BTW I am saving up for a DAVE/FUTURE UPSCALER STAND-ALONE AND the 9.87's (Pi*Pi) after child support is over in my retirement.

 

[tunes]

Also, I couldn’t find the audiophile speaker set-up CD you referenced for sale anywhere. Where did you get it??

Thanks

 

[esimms86]

Yes, the 9.87's (Pi*Pi) is the combination that has a Pi cabinet sitting on top of a bass unit (in my case, it was the piano black person).

You meant to say that it was the speaker combo in piano black. Unless this was a take on R2D2, there was no small black person inside the speaker cabinets

 

[ray-dude]

Ha! Corrected, and poster and autocorrect have been appropriately chastised

 

[ray-dude]

Thanks so much for that detailed explanation but still confused about which output on the CHORD HUGO2 is used for the sub. Right now I use the RCA out direct to the Omega. Would I use one of the headphone out jacks for the sub? Does it matter which channel goes to the sub, left or right? What cable adapter is needed to go from HUGO2 to the SUB??

BTW I am saving up for a DAVE/FUTURE UPSCALER STAND-ALONE AND the 9.87's (Pi*Pi) after child support is over in my retirement.

Yes, for Hugo2 one headphone jack for speakers, one for sub (on the Hugo2 I believe you can use RCA jack and a headphone jack at the same time, but I haven't personally verified that). On DAVE, plugging into the headphone out disables the RCA and XLR outs, so I use the RCA and XLR outs on the DAVE.

I feel your pain on support and retirement, but decided not to wait (I'm nervous my hearing will be shot by then

 

[simorag]

After about three weeks enjoying the DAVE in combination with the Abyss Phi (for most of the time) and HD800S, I wanted to share my experience so far.



Premise

After lurking (or, better, drooling ) on the DAVE thread for one year, and reading the professional reviews, of course my expectations were huge. Coming from an Audio GD NOS 11 DAC / amp, the price tag ratio of 5x was reinforcing my confidence in a significant improvement of my listening experience, even after discounting the diminishing returns law effects.

At the same time, I was a bit concerned about the capability of the DAVE to drive the Abyss Phi at (or close to) their full potential (it seems there is no consensus about this in the head-fi community), and about the few negatives I read, like for instance some uber-analytical and unforgiving characteristics.

First Impressions

Well, since the very first seconds of listening, I was both relieved and disconcerted. The relief was due to the ease of drive that the DAVE exhibited with the Phi, while I was put out of balance from how different the sound presentation was, compared to what I had experienced before.

It was like an additional light source was added to a scene, thus making the three-dimensional volumes contours, the surface details and color qualities of the objects within that scene much more obvious.

The other immediate effect I got from the DAVE was its astonishing transparency (that old and worn-out visual cliché of the veil removal ...), providing a direct physical connection between me and the musicians or singers.

The combination of the holographic imaging and transparency increase, provided an added sense of realism to all elements of the music, which greatly enhanced my listening involvement since the beginning.

Where before the music was portrayed in a canvas, now it floated free, alive and real in the room

And yes, I mean “room” and not “head”, because with many fortunate recordings, the Phi/DAVE presentation seemed to transcend the physical limitations of a headphone system.

Highlights and Further Impressions

Since that very first impression, I had voraciously rediscovered my music collection, taking some notes of the differences I was hearing, or of the feelings I had on some tracks, passages etc.

Summing up those notes, the best qualities (for my tastes) of the DAVE combined with the Phi and HD800S emerged quickly.

The most striking characteristic of the DAVE to me (after its 3D imaging and transparency) is how it handles transients. Guitar plucks, drums, trumpet attacks are startling.

This exceptional, effortless reproduction of dynamic changes, combined with a glorious presentation of the harmonics and decay following the transient itself makes listening to classical guitar or harpsichord pieces immensely enjoyable, especially with the DAVE/ Phi.

Another highlight is with baroque music, or jazz bands, due to excellent imaging and separation.

The vocals are rich, full of nuances, and the rock-solid focus provided by the DAVE lets you “see” the singer and his / her features (how open is the mouth, how he/she breathes, how the head is turned, how their fingers are placed when they snap them) in your imagination with no effort.

I had noticed some slightly recessed vocals positioning with the Phi + NOS 11, which is not the case anymore with the DAVE.

Also, some sub-optimal detail resolution of which I was blaming the Phi is not there anymore: the noise floor reduction and the ability of the DAVE to capture low level signals is fully delivered to my ears by the Phi (and by the HD800S as well, but with less delicacy and additional background noise).

Another notable difference with respect to my NOS 11 is with the Abyss Phi bass. While the extension seems as deep, the definition is improved significantly. Bass and even sub-bass lines within even complex tracks are much more articulated and defined.

I do not find that the DAVE is unforgiving, actually whatever I have played through the DAVE / Phi combo sounded at least “very good” to my ears, including lossy mp3 files that were barely listenable with the NOS 11 / HD800S rig.

By the way, I am impressed about how much easier is to pick differences between the HD800S and the Abyss Phi with the DAVE.

Finally, I’d like to mention the Crossfeed (CF) function. I have tried CF via software in the past (Foobar2000 VST plugins, JRiver MC), but was always disappointed. The loss of transparency, soundstage shrinkage and the slight tonal alteration I was hearing were just not acceptable for me. With the DAVE, I am using (moderately) the CF function with tracks where the recording / mastering technique, typically aimed to a speaker presentation, produces and excessive lateralization of the soundstage via headphones. What I am getting is a more realistic headstage and more focused imaging, without the drawbacks I got from my past attempts.

Improvement Areas (?)

So, is the DAVE / Abyss Phi perfect?

Honestly, after the two major upgrades I did to my system over the last three months (Abyss Phi, and now the DAVE), it is hard (or too early) for me to detect obvious deficiencies on my present setup.

This is also because of my limited experience with TOTL equipment, and at this level the limitations of a system become apparent mostly by comparison with better / different configurations, rather than as actual de-facto flaws.

I can say I am still struggling a bit with sibilance, an aspect where the introduction of the DAVE has not helped much, thus indicating that (a) it is in the recordings, (b) it is due to the source, i.e. my PC, or (c) is a characteristic of both HD800S and Abyss Phi.

By recalling my (relatively brief) experience with the LCD-4, where the sibilants were not an issue at all, but the speed and transparency were not to my liking, I would be curious about re-listening again the Audeze with the DAVE: I suspect that for certain tracks (especially vocals) it would be a magical pairing.

Occasionally I am feeling that the bass / sub-bass cleanliness provided by the DAVE has taken away some of the subwoofer-like rumble that I was getting from the Phi with the NOS 11. But in some cases, the bass was a bit overwhelming and out of control with the NOS 11, so the trade-off is more than acceptable.

Next Steps

In the short term, I consider my present source (a Surface 3 Pro laptop with several software tweaks, running on batteries) the most promising area of my system for further improvements. I will be auditioning some good music servers in the next weeks, so I think I’ll have a better idea soon.

Next, even if I haven’t found the DAVE under-driving the Phi, I plan to audition some powerful amps (starting from my NOS 11, ranging to speaker amps) to challenge my current feeling, or to try whether a high-end amp can provide some coloration I may like or other sonic benefits.

I want to close this post with a sincere THANK YOU to the head-fi community. You guys have been extremely helpful in my quest for a headphone-based system that lets me enjoy my music like I thought it was possible only with a high-end loudspeaker-based set-up!

 

[draytonklammer]

Reading stuff like that makes me very excited to see my DAVE arrive.

EDIT: or shall I say, hear it arrive.

 

[xxx1313]

I can say I am still struggling a bit with sibilance, an aspect where the introduction of the DAVE has not helped much, thus indicating that (a) it is in the recordings, (b) it is due to the source, i.e. my PC, or (c) is a characteristic of both HD800S and Abyss Phi.

By recalling my (relatively brief) experience with the LCD-4, where the sibilants were not an issue at all, but the speed and transparency were not to my liking, I would be curious about re-listening again the Audeze with the DAVE: I suspect that for certain tracks (especially vocals) it would be a magical pairing.

Congratulations on your setup!

HD800(S) and Abyss (Phi) tend to be sibilant, imho. If you can live with a smaller soundstage, you might also try the Utopia. Regarding your source, try to eliminate HF noise. AQ Jitterbug and Würth ferrites (2,5 GHz) do really help in this regard and are much cheaper than buying a new source/transport.

 

[Jawed]

It's so easy to take DAVE for granted, it's a pleasure reading a description of why this thing is so awesome.

Well, since the very first seconds of listening, I was both relieved and disconcerted. The relief was due to the ease of drive that the DAVE exhibited with the Phi, while I was put out of balance from how different the sound presentation was, compared to what I had experienced before.

Phi is, perhaps, the headphone I most want to try these days ... so it's encouraging that it works so well.

Also, some sub-optimal detail resolution of which I was blaming the Phi is not there anymore: the noise floor reduction and the ability of the DAVE to capture low level signals is fully delivered to my ears by the Phi (and by the HD800S as well, but with less delicacy and additional background noise).

I'm puzzled by "additional background noise".

DAVE's sound is extraordinarily pure. DACs usually make their own kind of "noise" that goes along with the music, e.g. sometimes this is graininess in a singer's voice. But you should also be hearing more clearly the noise that's in the recording as well as the "atmosphere" of the space where the music was recorded.

I can say I am still struggling a bit with sibilance, an aspect where the introduction of the DAVE has not helped much, thus indicating that (a) it is in the recordings, (b) it is due to the source, i.e. my PC, or (c) is a characteristic of both HD800S and Abyss Phi.

Sibilance should be a problem in 1 out of 1000 pieces of music and then it'll be the recording.

I recommend you try ferrites if you are using USB:

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/does-chord-dave-system-need-a-dcc.809287/#post-13799263

as problematic sibilance is caused by RF noise, which ferrites are very good at solving. DAVE's galvanic isolation isn't strong enough, sadly. You'll probably also notice the bass becomes more powerful sounding and lots of other good things.

If you can try an optical cable from your computer to DAVE, then I strongly recommend you try this cable instead of USB. DAVE comes with an optical cable and you should make sure to disconnect the USB cable from DAVE when you try optical, otherwise the optical cable won't be able to give you the full galvanic isolation.

Now playing: Culture - Jah Pretty Face

 

[simorag]

HD800(S) and Abyss (Phi) tend to be sibilant, imho. If you can live with a smaller soundstage, you might also try the Utopia.

I had a (brief) listening session with the Utopia and I liked them very much. As you noted, the show-stopper for me was the soundstage size. I listen to a lot of classical orchestral music and the HD800S (and even more so the Abyss Phi I purchased later on) do a better job, IMHO, at building an expansive and immersive presentation of that type of music.

AQ Jitterbug and Würth ferrites (2,5 GHz) do really help in this regard and are much cheaper than buying a new source/transport.

I recommend you try ferrites if you are using USB:

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/does-chord-dave-system-need-a-dcc.809287/#post-13799263

As for HF / RF noise, I am using my laptop on battery, and with the Uptone ISORegen (with the galvanic isolation switch set to on) in between the PC and the USB cable.​

I also tried 20x Topsinius ferrite cores with my previous USB cable (Forza Audio Works) and NOS 11, and did not notice a significant effect on sibilants.
I will try again the ferrites with my new USB cable (Phasure Lush), which by itself did a good job in smoothing out sibilance, and report back if I hear some clear benefits this time!

I have come to believe that I am overly sensitive to sibilants, and what is annoying for me may be totally OK for someone else.
For reference, when I listen to Spanish Harlem by Rebecca Pidgeon (which overall is extremely enjoyable and which the DAVE has made even more real than before ) I tend to cringe with some of the S'es .. "There iS a roSe in SpaniSh Harlem ....".

'm puzzled by "additional background noise".

DAVE's sound is extraordinarily pure. DACs usually make their own kind of "noise" that goes along with the music, e.g. sometimes this is graininess in a singer's voice. But you should also be hearing more clearly the noise that's in the recording as well as the "atmosphere" of the space where the music was recorded.

What I wanted to say is that the DAVE has noticeably increased the overall blackness of the background (and this perhaps plays a role at why we find it so transparent), thus making very small details and contrast in the music much more apparent with respect to my previous DAC. I find this feature even more striking via the Abyss Phi compared to the HD800S, which has also benefited by the DAVE a lot in terms of transparency and purity, but with some tracks it shows a spurious background noise (like the old hiss on cassette tapes) which is not audible to me via Phi.

I have noticed this when I compared the HD800S and the LCD-4 as well, and I thought at the time that the HD800S were showing this noise just because of better resolution and transparency, and the LCD-4, which I actually found veiled and overly thick with some recordings, were filtering out these "signals" due to some inferior technicality with this specific sonic performance.

Now, I am puzzled as well, because the Abyss Phi are by no means less resolving, detailed and transparent than the HD800S to my ears, and able to faithfully render the "atmosphere" with those recordings where ambience is well captured, but still they seem to "mask" these actually undesired noise effectively without making me loosing anything in the music.

This happens with very few recordings, and I need to go back and find a specific track or two to share with you so to be more specific.

If you can try an optical cable from your computer to DAVE, then I strongly recommend you try this cable instead of USB. DAVE comes with an optical cable and you should make sure to disconnect the USB cable from DAVE when you try optical, otherwise the optical cable won't be able to give you the full galvanic isolation.

Unfortunately my laptop does not seem to have an optical output. Furthermore, my DSD music collection is quickly growing, and I cannot play those dsf files via optical

 

[Triode User]

Furthermore, my DSD music collection is quickly growing,

Have a search for Maestro Rob Watts view on DSD . . . . . .

 

[simorag]

Haha, yes I have read numerous Rob Watts posts on this matter, and I realize he is firmly on the PCM camp.

However, that same person must have designed the DSD+ mode for the DAVE for a reason , and I find some of the dsf files of my collection are extremely enjoyable (even if a bit on the soft side, which on the other hand is a good balsam for my sibilant sensitivity).

By downloading all the available tracks from here:
http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html

I compared PCM (DAVE in PCM+) and DSD (DAVE in DSD+) versions and in the majority of cases (but not all) I liked the DSD128 or DSD256 more.

 

[Clive101]

I can say I am still struggling a bit with sibilance, an aspect where the introduction of the DAVE has not helped much, thus indicating that (a) it is in the recordings, (b) it is due to the source, i.e. my PC, or (c) is a characteristic of both HD800S and Abyss Phi.

I have come to believe that I am overly sensitive to sibilants, and what is annoying for me may be totally OK for someone else.

Sibilance well I had the same problem, I have a speaker and headphone system, firstly I changed from a PC to a mid level HiFi server and then a cleaner power supply all helped with noise but I was still having what you described, cables helped further, finally I put it down to some recordings...?

I still think Dave can be a little bright (sometimes) but I put that down to the way I my ears work ..! Moving forwards, when the M-Scaler (finally gets released) I hope it will soften Dave, looking at the posts it seems to be a big improvement over Dave.

I may try the DaveBlu2 prior to release or dare I say it jump ship to the PS Direct Steam which looking at the feed back seems to compare (close 2nd, equal or preferred by some people on this forum) with DaveBlu2, so my thinking is Dave vs PS DS may possibly be even closer..? I have yet to try..?

I have noticed this when I compared the HD800S and the LCD-4 as well, and I thought at the time that the HD800S were showing this noise just because of better resolution and transparency, and the LCD-4, which I actually found veiled and overly thick with some recordings, were filtering out these "signals" due to some inferior technicality with this specific sonic performance.

HD800s and the LCD-4, I found the LCD4 (with my ears) perfect with Dave, yes they are dark but seem to tone down Dave.

The LCD-4 ( 200 ohm ) needed weeks of burn in almost sent mine back but now would not sell them even at full retail. Initially, I had no detail ( magic ) in the low volumes and had to listen at higher volume to get them to work.

I found the HD800s too bright for me, but we all differ no right or wrong answer.

I wonder if the LCD-4 you had were fully burnt in..?

 

[simorag]

Yes, the LCD-4 I had on loan for a week were, according to the dealer, fully broken in (a demo unit they had since a year or so).
But as you said, the pairing with the DAVE could change a lot my overall impressions of the LCD-4, and this is why I am indeed curious about re-listening to them. Vocals should be wonderfully seductive!

However, when I tried the LCD-4, I found my toes tapping a lot less than with my HD800S. Some drums solo, or fast paced jazz or big-band pieces sounded almost boring in comparison.

With DAVE and Abyss Phi this is not the case at all. Drums for example have a visceral impact that is almost shocking at times. The speed of the DAVE and the slam of the Phi are spectacular with this kind of tracks!

Actually, I am still trying to resist to the idea of having to use multiple headphones depending on music, mood etc..

With the HD800S (which I will put on sale soon) I was fidgeting with EQ for adjusting their sound signature to my liking based on the type of music and / or the recording quality, and still was annoyed by the treble at times, and lacking sub-bass (20-40Hz) oomph.

The Phi have fixed most issues, going very close to reaching a mix of the best qualities of HD800S, LCD4 and Utopia IMHO, with no need for EQ or other tweaks. I can listen at full enjoyment to basically everything, from baroque to heavy metal, with no sense of something lacking, and much more so as the DAVE entered the rig.

Yet, there is this nasty residual sibilance, and before I give up to blaming the Phi or HD800S, I will rather prefer to try some other routes ... starting at the "source" of the problem