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.
858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867
869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878
  1. PhenixS1970
    Hi All. Picking up my DAVE at the dealer on Friday. My source is a BlueSound Node 2. Good to go with the stock optical cable or worthwhile to invest in a compatible optical cable? Thanks in advance for your feedback :)
    jbrownson likes this.
  2. iDesign
    The supplied TOSLINK cable is made by Pro-Signal and it costs $2.27.
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2019
  3. PhenixS1970
    Thank you for your reply :) Am wondering if there are any performance gains with a more $ cable. I have an Audioquest Diamond optical but I read that it's performance is limited to 96 due to socket incompatibility.
  4. koven Contributor
    I used a Lifatec cable successfully in the past, doesn't break the bank either: http://www.lifatec.com/toslink2.html
    Torq, Deftone and PhenixS1970 like this.
  5. PhenixS1970
    Thank you very much for the recommendation, koven.
  6. PhenixS1970
    Any other recommendations for a high quality optical cable to use with a BlueSound Node2 ? Mainstream brands are easier to score on short notice as I'm in Europe :wink:.
  7. Paul Bjernklo
    Kabeldirekt from amazon is normally recommended as Rob W himself use (Edit: used?) one of their cables he said (their optical). I have one to my Chromecast Audio. I also have a Sysconcept 24/192 from Canada from my CD transport that arrived quickly and is cheaper than lifatec I think but have not compared (but sounds much better to me than the stock cable I got for my Hugo 2) others say that QED Reference Quartz glass cable is best... but again not cheap. Maybe try the Kabeldirekt first as so cheap and then consider alternatives?
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2019
    miketlse likes this.
  8. PhenixS1970
    Thank you very much for the info Paul. It’s nice to get some options here :)

    I just puchased the KabelDirekt Pro cable and will be delivered before I pick up DAVE. Indeed a no brainer $ to give a try. Been reading up on this very educational thread and my understanding is that all that matters is getting a good fit to ensure 192 but there is no need for bling bling cables soundwise. DAVE will sort it ou soundwise :)
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2019
    musickid and Paul Bjernklo like this.
  9. Galm
    Quick question that google didn't help much with, should the HF Filter be on or off when listening to 16 bit 44.1 to 24 bit 96KHz audio? This is m scaled if that matters.

    Basically when should the HF Filter be on and does it matter?
  10. lovethatsound
    IF you're using the Dave by it's self,then the hf filter should be on,according to Rob.If m- scaled it should be off .
    Galm likes this.
  11. ecwl
    Rob watts actually answered this in the past. If the signal is M-scaled, you shouldn’t hear a difference with HF filter turned on or off for 16 bit 44kHz signals. However, for 96kHz signals, HF filter turned on would filter out some noise/signal above 20kHz. Even though that noise would not be audible, once it gets into your DAC/preamp/amp analog circuitry, it can increase noise in the audible range and make the sound brighter and harsher. This is why Rob Watts recommends turning HF filter on when listening to high-resolution music.

    I leave my HF filter on all the time. That said, you should listen and see what you prefer.
  12. Foxman50
    Two posts, polar opposite replies. You have to love forums
  13. JaZZ Contributor
    In fact I can hear a (minimal) difference also with 44.1 kHz recordings and M Scaler in the chain. It's the result of the ~1 dB drop-off at 20 kHz with its smooth slope.

    It's easy: lovethatsound's memory is playing tricks on him. According to Rob the M Scaler doesn't make the HF filter obsolete, as it accurately reproduces all ultrasonic artifacts in a recording.
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2019
  14. ecwl
    @lovethatsound was correct as it was Rob Watts recommendation when Blu2 was released. But if you look at Rob Watts newer posts in the M-Scaler forum, he has changed his mind and recommended people to use HF filter at least for high resolution materials. In fact, oddly, he has not re-commented lately whether he still thinks there is no difference with or without the filter with 44kHz material.
  15. Triode User
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2019
    josh358 and Thenewguy007 like this.
858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867
869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878

Share This Page