1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice


Discussion in 'High-end Audio Forum' started by magiccabbage, May 14, 2015.
811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820
822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831
  1. rgs9200m
    I didn't mean to criticize Chord at all, or even their approach.
    In fact, I fully appreciate the fact that they make the latest technology available in standalone form for their buyers and not force them to move on to a new version with the hassle of selling /trading /upgrading.
    I absolutely congratulate Chord for offering flexibility and early improvements.
    This is actually pretty rare in high end audio.

    And I fully agree with your very valid point Triode User, so thanks. I was just thinking the DAVE, as a flagship product (I believe), will have something as intrinsically important as maximum resolution sooner than later.

    Ironically, if the M-Scaler is highly successful (as seems probable from the keen early demand for it), they will almost be forced to bring out a DAVE with M-Scaling from customers (and dealers) demanding it. This may happen even if it was not in their original plans or timelines.

    They won't have time to wait for the design of a DAVE with all sorts of other capabilities that are less urgent than M-Scaling.

    I can easily see this happening. They have to keep up with the other top DAC providers.

    (And what got me thinking about this is that I personally would sure like M-Scaling for my (beloved) DAVE, but I'm staring at my desktop trying to figure out where to fit yet another box.)
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2018
    Aslshark likes this.
  2. Triode User
    I see where you are coming from but unless RW finds a work around he has (I think) previously stated that until the next generation of MScaler chips the current ones are too noisy to put in the same case as Dave.
    miketlse likes this.
  3. JaZZ Contributor
    Most likely it is feasible even with today's technology. I tried to display it with an earlier post, which shows a Hugo₂ placed right above an M-Scaler, with nothing in between. Sadly nobody seems to have got my message: Both devices could just as well be unified into one (outer) case and called a «one-box solution». Just replace the Hugo₂ by a DAVE, additionally arrange the electronics in a way to take less vertical space. Or place them side by side inside one case.
    AndrewOld likes this.
  4. rgs9200m
    Thank you Triode User for your good perspective. I guess I did assume an M-scaling DAVE would require a bigger case (which is fine, since DAVE is very compact currently).
    Thanks to JaZZ too.
  5. GryphonGuy
    The current Blu2/DAVE combo is the best that Rob and Chord can bring to market at the moment, and yes, you can also say Mscaler/DAVE. They have been concentrating on better source-side signals to their DACs and filling perceived holes in the market with differing price-point offerings.

    I don't think you will be seeing a better DAC/pre-amp until the output side of the DACs are brought to market (the so-called DX-amps and the new Bob Cordell consultancy on amplification design) and let's understand that Rob's Davina project (designed to be the best specified ADC on the market in terms of little to no noise floor modulation, low-level signal sampling without audible distortion etc) may show that the current DAC equipment is more than adequate or it may show that a lot more work needs to be done for ideal reproduction of music.

    From publicly available repositories, the Davina project is meant to be testing for the entire 2019 calendar year. So if Davina is commercially viable, it will not be available until mid 2020 at earliest and maybe later still. If it is not commercially viable, then the current DAC equipment will probably stand until the FPGA manufacturers come up with less costly options to try out multipliers of Rob's 1 million TAP pulse-array technologies.

    The Chord Electronics time-line is a very full one and must be very exciting to be working for such a transformational team discovering things about human hearing and electronics that were not thought possible just a few years ago. I am enthused!

    miketlse likes this.
  6. iDesign
    I understand that Chord will never bring a stand-alone M Scaler to the market in the Choral design. However, I would immediately purchase one if they did because I want one that matches the DAVE's enclosure. The Blu Mk II's CD player is not terribly useful for me because I already ripped my CD library and I use TIDAL. I haven't played a CD in years.
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2018
  7. Triode User
    Please only regard my thoughts as musings or ramblings and they could be 100% off target so please take with liberal doses of salt. In all this the only guys who really know what might happen are JF and RW.

    I do get that but for many of us playing a CD on Blu2 is outright the best quality sound and outperforms a ripped version. Also, don't forget that from Chords perspective there are some markets around the world where the use of CDs is still very strong. Just as an aside, I do find the act of playing CDs more pleasurable than selecting a ripped file and I tend to listen to whole CDs rather that flitting here and there in my ripped library. But that is another debate.
  8. dac64
    This does remind me of table manner, joke aside.
  9. iDesign
    All fair points. I have one of the largest known private collections of rare and out of print classical recordings in the US (particularly in works for the violin) and a good bit of those albums are CDs. So the Blu Mk II does make some sense for me. However, I ripped most of my collection and rarely play compact discs-- I only do so when the track/album info is a mess in Roon and Audirvana off my server. I will purchase the Blu Mk II at some point but I'm not over the edge just yet and my dealer isn't coy in trying to sell it to me.
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2018
  10. dac64
    Even though I have an isolated ripping system, I still heard slight differences between with/without ground boxes, non/battery-powered to the external drive.

    My best guess is to get a blu2 to compare with the ripped files.
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2018
  11. AndrewOld
    One product that is imaginable, though not necessarily sensible, is a DAVE without the upsampling and inputs that are now handled by the MScaler. ie a DAC-only DAVE. Who knows, maybe it could go in an M Scaler type box. You could call it an AndyDAC. It would be an upgrade for MScaler/Hugo or MScaler/TT2 owners. If it could go in less expensive casework and perhaps exploit newer FPGAs it might even be a worthwhile amount less expensive.
    Clive101 likes this.
  12. musickid
    CD is still very large in se asia china japan etc so chord must have done extremely well there with blu2 chinese businessmen with money to spend i imagine would cherish the blu/dave with their love of classical recordings.

    Does AndyDac employ the new andromeda star system fpga and have a wife called Mandydac?
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2018
    Triode User and AndrewOld like this.
  13. simorag
    This is about the crossfeed (CF) function of the DAVE (when used with headphones, of course).

    I always appreciated this functionality, but I used to set it to its lowest level (1 out of 3). I did some tests initially, but I was somewhat influenced by not being a fan of DSP in general and by having not liked the CF function I tried in the past with various software implementations (Foobar, JRiver, Roon), so I decided to use also the DAVE implementation moderately.

    Things changed about 1 month ago when I was a bit annoyed by a jazz recording where the trumpet was blowing just into my right ear. I switched to crossfeed=3 and the instruments positioning in space (including the fastidious trumpet) instantly took a more realistic arrangement.

    Then I tried several other recordings (mainly classical, vocals, jazz), and the benefits - while varying depending on the recording itself - were consistent. So I decided to switch to CF=3 as my daily driver and stayed like that ever since. Now I use CF=0 only with binaural recordings.

    After living with CF=3 for a while, I find it now really hard to go back to CF=0 or CF=1. The difference is striking now, much more than when I was just doing short A/B tests. The main advantages are:

    - more focused imaging (CF=0 sounds blurred in comparison)
    - better soundstage depth, both in terms of music layering and in terms of overall location with respect to the listener (with CF=0 you are surrounded by music sometimes, in an unnatural way)
    - better left-to-right instrument placing and separation
    - more realistic instruments / vocalist sizing (with CF=0 they feel oversized)

    The overall result is that it is easier to forget you are wearing headphones, and the illusion of attending a live event is just more effective :)

    As usual, YMMV!

    Last edited: Sep 17, 2018
    Aslshark, onsionsi, musickid and 5 others like this.
  14. TheAttorney
    I also use CF=3 as my default setting now, although CF=2 is also ok if the recording is helped by a touch more width (at the expense of depth).

    Remember that increasing the CF also increases bass boost (up to about 2db for CF=3).so the somewhat smoother and less fatiguing end result is not just because of the more natural way the left/right soundwaves reach your ears - it's also because the frequency response has literally changed.

    Having got used to DAVE's CF over a long period, I now find that switching it off sounds completely broken, although this affects some recordings (and headphones) more than others.
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2018
    simorag likes this.
  15. Arcabonne
    Dear all, today my Dave has started to emit strange noises, either alone or connected to the Blue. I changed the cables, but the noise remained. It's like a rain of ticking, like the noise of hail falling on a glass. I'm very worried, I'm in Italy, far from assistance. Do you have any idea about the causes? Thanks in advance.
811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820
822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831

Share This Page