CHORD ELECTRONICS DAVE

[Hifi Boy]

So give an an example of a modular DAC that sounds as good as a non-modular option that is the same price. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Well I don't necessarily need to know that much about DACs to make that argument. I'm not a reviewer and don't have an exhaustive array of DACs at home to be able to give you that info. Besides, a PC vs Mac was a fair comparison which proves my point about modularity.

Being modular is a selling feature and if, according to you, it is the same cost to design and produce, AND it is a market advantage, what is it so rare? Surely everyone would do it. If I had a DAC company, as a capitalist, I know I would. It seems like a easy future income: an endless release of necessary modules. An up-scaling module. An input buffer module. A power filtering module. An MQA module. $$$ Cha-ching $$$! I can see my beach house now!

Well many things are rare. There are less FPGA DACs than regular ones, right? Why isn't everyone making those and doing a good job of it like Chord is? And no, the production price is not the answer, Hugo 2 is probably better than most non-Chord DACs ever released for fraction of the prrice.

Sure, profit margin has nothing to do with with production cost: if it did, we would have more modular designed products.

Not necessarily, tube DACs and amps are great as well but you don't see every company implementing a tube path in their design. Upgradable firmware is great as well, I don't know many people who would contest that, but Chord is a case in point which doesn't provide this feature for their products. Pricing here is not the issue, I think we can both agree on that. Engineering skills are not the issue as well, I mean, for God's sake, it's Rob Watts were taking about.

So what is?

I don't know, since I can't read minds. But I assume it's the proprietary code for the WTA filter. Chord doesn't want anyone to get their greedy hands on it and reverse-engineer it and implement something similar in their products. This filter technology is basically Chord's DAC division's bread and butter.

In short, price of development does not always dictate design decisions.

Dead? Yeah, but sometimes I rise from the grave to give other members a hard time

Yes, I saw you get killed!

 

[MacedonianHero]

So give an an example of a modular DAC that sounds as good as a non-modular option that is the same price. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Being modular is a selling feature and if, according to you, it is the same cost to design and produce, AND it is a market advantage, what is it so rare? Surely everyone would do it. If I had a DAC company, as a capitalist, I know I would. It seems like a easy future income: an endless release of necessary modules. An up-scaling module. An input buffer module. A power filtering module. An MQA module. $$$ Cha-ching $$$! I can see my beach house now!

Sure, profit margin has nothing to do with with production cost: if it did, we would have more modular designed products.

Dead? Yeah, but sometimes I rise from the grave to give other members a hard time

Hey Paul, not sure I kinda still consider the DAVE a modular DAC as there isn't a separate headphone amplifier...the brilliance of Chord's designers were to use the purity of the DAC section to drive headphones without the added distortion/colouration of a separate amplifier. A brilliant solution methinks! Hope you're doing well!

 

[Triode User]

Hey Paul, not sure I kinda still consider the DAVE a modular DAC as there isn't a separate headphone amplifier...the brilliance of Chord's designers were to use the purity of the DAC section to drive headphones without the added distortion/colouration of a separate amplifier. A brilliant solution methinks! Hope you're doing well!

I’m pretty sure Dave does have an amplifier section ie it is not just the dac section driving headphones. In fact that is why Rob Watts suggests the RCA output is best because the XLR output has an extra amplifier stage.

 

[MacedonianHero]

I’m pretty sure Dave does have an amplifier section ie it is not just the dac section driving headphones. In fact that is why Rob Watts suggests the RCA output is best because the XLR output has an extra amplifier stage.

No it doesn't...same for all Chord DACs. Rob recommends the RCA outputs because its a single ended DAC and not dual L and R DAC chipsets.

 

[Triode User]

No it doesn't...same for all Chord DACs. Rob recommends the RCA outputs because its a single ended DAC and not dual L and R DAC chipsets.

I’m not sure I can be bothered to find the post but I’m 100% sure @Rob Watts said that the balanced output on the Dave has additional op amps. Rob, if you are passing through perhaps you might clarify?

 

[Rob Watts]

I’m pretty sure Dave does have an amplifier section ie it is not just the dac section driving headphones. In fact that is why Rob Watts suggests the RCA output is best because the XLR output has an extra amplifier stage.

No it doesn't...same for all Chord DACs. Rob recommends the RCA outputs because its a single ended DAC and not dual L and R DAC chipsets.

You are both in a way correct.

Yes my DAC architecture is very simple, and this accounts (in part) for it's transparency. In a conventional DAC you have, by necessity, a very complex analogue section - a differential architecture, with two current to voltage converters (I to V), differential to single ended converter plus filter, and finally headphone amplifier.

Because my DAC's are discrete components, I can make a single ended DAC; also, the filtering is very simple, as the OP of the DAC is at 104MHz and fully digitally filtered, so out of band noise is several orders of magnitude smaller than usual, so I can have very simple analogue filtering. What I do is combine the I to V, filtering and headphone drive into one single amp section; and in terms of actual components in the direct signal path we end up with only two resistors and two capacitors with one amplifier. This makes the conversion path from analogue to digital extremely short and simple, and this in part accounts for my DAC's sounding so very transparent. This is why when you use Mojo/Hugo/Dave driving efficient loudspeakers directly you get such extraordinary transparency, with depth perception that is actually stunning - and why the power pulse array will be so exciting, as this technology also has very simple and direct path from digital to analogue.

But of course for Dave's balanced outputs you need a negative signal as well as a positive one; and the negative signal comes from an additional inverting amplifier.

 

[Triode User]

You are both in a way correct.

Yes my DAC architecture is very simple, and this accounts (in part) for it's transparency. In a conventional DAC you have, by necessity, a very complex analogue section - a differential architecture, with two current to voltage converters (I to V), differential to single ended converter plus filter, and finally headphone amplifier.

Because my DAC's are discrete components, I can make a single ended DAC; also, the filtering is very simple, as the OP of the DAC is at 104MHz and fully digitally filtered, so out of band noise is several orders of magnitude smaller than usual, so I can have very simple analogue filtering. What I do is combine the I to V, filtering and headphone drive into one single amp section; and in terms of actual components in the direct signal path we end up with only two resistors and two capacitors with one amplifier. This makes the conversion path from analogue to digital extremely short and simple, and this in part accounts for my DAC's sounding so very transparent. This is why when you use Mojo/Hugo/Dave driving efficient loudspeakers directly you get such extraordinary transparency, with depth perception that is actually stunning - and why the power pulse array will be so exciting, as this technology also has very simple and direct path from digital to analogue.

But of course for Dave's balanced outputs you need a negative signal as well as a positive one; and the negative signal comes from an additional inverting amplifier.

Rob, Thanks as usual.
I think you are being kind to me, I would have put me as being half right.

 

[MacedonianHero]

You are both in a way correct.

Yes my DAC architecture is very simple, and this accounts (in part) for it's transparency. In a conventional DAC you have, by necessity, a very complex analogue section - a differential architecture, with two current to voltage converters (I to V), differential to single ended converter plus filter, and finally headphone amplifier.

Because my DAC's are discrete components, I can make a single ended DAC; also, the filtering is very simple, as the OP of the DAC is at 104MHz and fully digitally filtered, so out of band noise is several orders of magnitude smaller than usual, so I can have very simple analogue filtering. What I do is combine the I to V, filtering and headphone drive into one single amp section; and in terms of actual components in the direct signal path we end up with only two resistors and two capacitors with one amplifier. This makes the conversion path from analogue to digital extremely short and simple, and this in part accounts for my DAC's sounding so very transparent. This is why when you use Mojo/Hugo/Dave driving efficient loudspeakers directly you get such extraordinary transparency, with depth perception that is actually stunning - and why the power pulse array will be so exciting, as this technology also has very simple and direct path from digital to analogue.

But of course for Dave's balanced outputs you need a negative signal as well as a positive one; and the negative signal comes from an additional inverting amplifier.

Thanks Rob for a very thorough explanation!

 

[xiaobao0707]

So my Dave is arriving today finally to HK. I do have one question for veteran Dave lovers here about streaming. I use Tidal a lot but from what i read Rob doesn't really buy in the concept of MQS.

I can live with that for now with the Hugo 2, but with Dave I would love to have absolutely the best. Will Qobuz be a better streaming choice? Thanks guys.

 

[Triode User]

So my Dave is arriving today finally to HK. I do have one question for veteran Dave lovers here about streaming. I use Tidal a lot but from what i read Rob doesn't really buy in the concept of MQS.

I can live with that for now with the Hugo 2, but with Dave I would love to have absolutely the best. Will Qobuz be a better streaming choice? Thanks guys.

I use Tidal HiFi which sounds great and don’t even think about MQA.

 

[rgs9200m]

OK, I finally got around to trying my DAVE with my DSD files from several of my discs and I really like the results.
I notice the great hallmarks of SACD that I am familiar with: no more glare with any headphone or music, more solid/detailed bass, and images and vocals really stand out more and are better defined, but not aggressively, just naturally.
The DSD mode of DAVE is quite good. There is just more there there and is a step up resolution and and with less digital fatigue than the standard versions in my experiments so far.

I need to do some more testing with more discs to get a better feel for this, but so far, so good.
I have not seen much reporting on DAVE in DSD mode, so I thought I would report my impressions here. (And this Legends/Get It On classic rock collection disc from Audio Fidelity; they have a few of these in a series.They're really nice.)

I've started with things like Carole King, the Doors, the Moody Blues, Grand Funk, and the Guess Who.

As far as I know, you can't do this via streaming (or even downloading). So this is a real treat for me.

The saturation and deep texture is pretty amazing. I'm listening to Tapestry by Carole King as I write here, and the reverb and saturation of the piano and other instruments and the flow of the vocals just stands out as so full of life with real touchable shape, size, and depth of field. And there is sweetness and impact and gobs of little details I do not hear in the regular redbook version. There is ambiance galore.

Bass is especially great, much cleaner, with any muddiness or boom or opaqueness or overhang basically gone.

It's all basically more clarity without fatigue.

I was listening to Manfred Mann's Blinded By The Light, and suddenly a piano starts clanging and I just say, Jeez, what is that? It's startling and real, like I haven't heard a piano note like that in long time, just in an ordinary pop song.

Well, I shouldn't say there is no glare ever, but vs. the glare in the same recording in non-DSD, it's just not nearly as painful or making me want to reach for the JRiver equalizer screen. So far, I've done no EQ at all with my DSD files with DAVE. (I usually use EQ for one thing only, reducing digital glare.)

I know Rob is not a big fan of SACD, but he sure has done a nice job of interpreting and presenting it.
I've been listening with my ZMF Eikon and Auteur.

So if you haven't tried out your DAVE in DSD mode, I think you should give it a try to see what DAVE can do.

 

[xiaobao0707]

I use Tidal HiFi which sounds great and don’t even think about MQA.

Thanks Triode!

 

[AndrewOld]

So my Dave is arriving today finally to HK. I do have one question for veteran Dave lovers here about streaming. I use Tidal a lot but from what i read Rob doesn't really buy in the concept of MQS.

I can live with that for now with the Hugo 2, but with Dave I would love to have absolutely the best. Will Qobuz be a better streaming choice? Thanks guys.

I have been using Qobuz (with a DAVE) for quite a long time. I started off with a monthly cd quality subscription to see how well i got on with it, and then upgraded to Sublime+ a while back so I can now stream in hi res. The choice is fantastic, especially if you are into classical and jazz, you aren’t even dependent on your internet speed because you can download and listen offline (without buying) if you want, access to sleeve notes is excellent. Browsing and searching and discovery is quite good too. I wish there was more flexibility in organising favourites and playlists, but I am sure it will come. The hires you get with Qobuz is genuine hires, unlike MQA which I think is mumbojumbo. If you can stream a 24/96 master directly what possible advantage can MQA give you, since it is lossy? I have also tried Tidal but couldn’t get on with the interface at all. The lack of clarity, or should I say honesty, over MQA really puts me off. ymmv.

 

[Triode User]

I have been using Qobuz (with a DAVE) for quite a long time. I started off with a monthly cd quality subscription to see how well i got on with it, and then upgraded to Sublime+ a while back so I can now stream in hi res. The choice is fantastic, especially if you are into classical and jazz, you aren’t even dependent on your internet speed because you can download and listen offline (without buying) if you want, access to sleeve notes is excellent. Browsing and searching and discovery is quite good too. I wish there was more flexibility in organising favourites and playlists, but I am sure it will come. The hires you get with Qobuz is genuine hires, unlike MQA which I think is mumbojumbo. If you can stream a 24/96 master directly what possible advantage can MQA give you, since it is lossy? I have also tried Tidal but couldn’t get on with the interface at all. The lack of clarity, or should I say honesty, over MQA really puts me off. ymmv.

Thanks for those comments, I might have a look at Qobuz myself.

 

[astrostar59]

I have been using Qobuz (with a DAVE) for quite a long time. I started off with a monthly cd quality subscription to see how well i got on with it, and then upgraded to Sublime+ a while back so I can now stream in hi res. The choice is fantastic, especially if you are into classical and jazz, you aren’t even dependent on your internet speed because you can download and listen offline (without buying) if you want, access to sleeve notes is excellent. Browsing and searching and discovery is quite good too. I wish there was more flexibility in organising favourites and playlists, but I am sure it will come. The hires you get with Qobuz is genuine hires, unlike MQA which I think is mumbojumbo. If you can stream a 24/96 master directly what possible advantage can MQA give you, since it is lossy? I have also tried Tidal but couldn’t get on with the interface at all. The lack of clarity, or should I say honesty, over MQA really puts me off. ymmv.

On Tidal, if you use the Tidal app is it poor, bad sound quality and fiddly interface. I access it inside Audirvana+ 3 and it sounds much better, as good as Redbook on y hard drive. Some high res is better as well. Classic on Tidal is not so hot, poor library so far and annoying way to search titles. I just hope Tidal keeps afloat as rumours they are in difficulties. We need more competition to drive the subscription prices down IMO.