[Rob Watts]

What setting did you guys prefer for the cross feed with headphones?

If Robb Watts could explain what cross feed 0-4 do? I would really appreciate it.

I been playing with Dave directly to a pass lab xa30.5 + speakers. Just moved it back to headphone setup. Haven't gotten to play around much yet.

0 is no crossfeed; 1 is min, 3 is max. It is the same as Hugo.
 
Rob

 

[JaZZ]

What setting did you guys prefer for the cross feed with headphones?

If Robb Watts could explain what cross feed 0-4 do? I would really appreciate it.

I been playing with Dave directly to a pass lab xa30.5 + speakers. Just moved it back to headphone setup. Haven't gotten to play around much yet.

 
Hi Hiyono
 
Roughly spoken, crossfeed monophonizes low frequencies – the lower, the more crosstalk between the channels, up to 100%. Stage 1 has the lowest low-pass frequency for the crosstalk, stage 3 the highest – it's meant for the most critical recordings (see below).
 
As you may have noticed, crossfeed only works with headphones. The reason is that 99.9% of the recordings people listen to through DAVE are made for a reproduction through speakers. They're not completely compatible with headphones, although most may be used to the flaws introduced by the mismatch. In the real world it's impossible to hear low frequencies just in one ear. Now almost all recordings contain such one-sided low-frequency signals. They lead to an irritation of the brain or more precisely the auditory cortex. Crossfeed can almost perfectly compensate for that. That doesn't mean the recording is now perfectly compatible to headphone listening, since recordings made for speakers are supposed to be listened in a somewhat reverberative listening room, so they will sound drier than intended when heard through headphones. But the intimacy created that way is a trademark of headphones and not necessarily a bad thing if you like it.
 
Recordings specifically for headphones do exist – they're called binaural recordings. Among the few I've heard I haven't found one that was really convincing to my ears, though. A general weakness is the lack of perceived frontal sound impact. That may be my ears, since others have reported different experiences.
 

I don't use the cross feed, prefer the sound as it is☺

 
Hi lovethatsound
 
Well, it you like it that way! I can't listen without crossfeed anymore – but that has a lot to do with some strange hearing problems. However, in my book listening with crossfeed engaged is more true to the original sound (except for binaural recordings).

 

[Beolab]

Hi Hiyono

Roughly spoken, crossfeed monophonizes low frequencies – the lower, the more crosstalk between the channels, up to 100%. Stage 1 has the lowest low-pass frequency for the crosstalk, stage 3 the highest – it's meant for the most critical recordings (see below).

As you may have noticed, crossfeed only works with headphones. The reason is that 99.9% of the recordings people listen to through DAVE are made for a reproduction through speakers. They're not completely compatible with headphones, although most may be used to the flaws introduced by the mismatch. In the real world it's impossible to hear low frequencies just in one ear. Now almost all recordings contain such one-sided low-frequency signals. They lead to an irritation of the brain or more precisely the auditory cortex. Crossfeed can almost perfectly compensate for that. That doesn't mean the recording is now perfectly compatible to headphone listening, since recordings made for speakers are supposed to be listened in a somewhat reverberative listening room, so they will sound drier than intended when heard through headphones. But the intimacy created that way is a trademark of headphones and not necessarily a bad thing if you like it.

Recordings specifically for headphones do exist – they're called binaural recordings. Among the few I've heard I haven't found one that was really convincing to my ears, though. A general weakness is the lack of perceived frontal sound impact. That may be my ears, since others have reported different experiences.


Hi lovethatsound

Well, it you like it that way! I can't listen without crossfeed anymore – but that has a lot to do with some strange hearing problems. However, in my book listening with crossfeed engaged is more true to the original sound (except for binaural recordings).

Great info!

Are you using cross-feed 1 or 3 most of the time?

 

[bmichels]

Will finally audition DAVE tomorrow  

.
 
I will bring HE-1000 & HE-X and...my magic cable "2 x XLR 3 Pins-->HE-plugs" to try (don't tell this to Rob

)

 

[Rob Watts]

I am not listening....
 
Actually, production Dave now has short circuit protection resistors installed on the balanced XLR, so it absolutely won't drive headphones! It didn't have the current drive either for headphones too.
 
As to cross-feed - I prefer 3, its closer to loudspeaker perspective.
 
Rob

 

[lovethatsound]

Will finally audition DAVE tomorrow   .

I will bring HE-1000 & HE-X and...my magic cable "2 x XLR 3 Pins-->HE-plugs" to try (don't tell this to Rob )

Hope you enjoy it bmichels.Your magic cable won't do you any good by the waybut Dave will still sound great out of the headphone jack

 

[m0nster]

  I am not listening....
 
Actually, production Dave now has short circuit protection resistors installed on the balanced XLR, so it absolutely won't drive headphones! It didn't have the current drive either for headphones too.
 
As to cross-feed - I prefer 3, its closer to loudspeaker perspective.
 
Rob

 
Sounds like the engineer came out on top once again

I think it's very cool how you participate in the discussion and how patient you answer questions! So thank you for Dave an sticking around here, Rob

 

[JaZZ]

Great info!

Are you using cross-feed 1 or 3 most of the time?

 
I don't use DAVE's crossfeed, but my own. All newly acquired recordings get crossfeeded before listening to them. As mentioned, my ears can't bear listening without crossfeed anymore. I use 5 intensities, number 3 (standard nowadays) sounds similar to DAVE's crossfeed 3.
 
Since Hugo and now with DAVE I could renounce the effort if it were just for listening at home. But I listen to music also on the go and during jogging, therefore it still makes sense – with my FiiO players (of which the X5 II is the center of my home system around DAVE). The Hugo is too bulky for that purpose (and the Mojo doesn't sound better than X5 II or X3 II alone for my taste; moreover it doesn't do crossfeed).

 

[Mython]

  Since Hugo and now with DAVE I could renounce the effort if it were just for listening at home. But I listen to music also on the go and during jogging, therefore it still makes sense – with my FiiO players (of which the X5 II is the center of my home system around DAVE). The Hugo is too bulky for that purpose (and the Mojo doesn't sound better than X5 II or X3 II alone for my taste; moreover it doesn't do crossfeed).

 
If I see someone jogging with a pair of HE-1000s or HD-800s, I'll be sure to tap them on the shoulder and ask to see the DAVE they have in their rucksack, crammed-in alongside a big power-pack and DC-AC-inverter!

 

[yamuling]

I bought my DAVE last week. Very exciting with the SQ paired with ATC Sca-2 preamp and ATC 50ASLT. Soon become the best DAC I ever have. 
 
One question, I heard from here digital pre inside DAVE should be very transparent. I tried DAVE XLR output direct to ATC 50ASLT. Again the same as other DAC direct linking, its sound a bit thick, slow, low control power so a bit pity. Perfect SQ again when add the preamp.
 
1, Any special setting shoud do with the ATC speaker or power amp? I saw HIFI show having DAVE ATC combinition, too. I tried -25dB to -45dB, will it be too low setting for DAVE?
 
2, If I use the preamp for future, should I use RCA to preamp and let preamp change signal to balanced XLR to speakers? As I heard Chord prefer RCA.
 
3, Any power cable or Usb cable suggestion for DAVE？ I'm now using the cables with DAVE and have better SQ when direct linking. Tried ENTREQ Challenger serials and AIM cable, quite big difference again. They are suitable for the former DAC. A bit confused now. 
 
Thx for any suggestions
 
ADD：Finally I found another powercord to be much better for this system when direct linking

 

[ecwl]

  I got my DAVE last week. Very exciting with the SQ paired with ATC Sca-2 preamp and ATC 50ASLT. Soon become the best DAC I ever have. 
 
One question, I heard from here digital pre inside DAVE should be very transparent. I tried DAVE XLR output direct to ATC 50ASLT. Again the same as other DAC direct linking, its sound thick, slow, no control power so a bit pity. Perfect SQ again when add the preamp.
 
Questions:
 
1, Any special setting shoud do with the ATC speaker or power amp? I saw HIFI show having DAVE ATC combinition, too. I tried -25dB to -40dB, will it be too low setting for DAVE?
 
2, If I use the preamp for future, should I use RCA to preamp and let preamp change signal to balanced XLR to speakers? As I heard Chord prefer RCA.
 
3, Any power cable or Usb cable suggestion for DAVE？ I'm now using the cables with DAVE and have better SQ when direct linking. Tried ENTREQ Challenger serials and AIM cable, quite big difference again. They are suitable for the former DAC. A bit confused now. 
 
Thx for any suggestion

If the sound is better through the ATC preamp, you should try using the power cable for the ATC preamp on the Chord DAVE and then use the Chord DAVE digital preamp directly. I ran into the same problem when I was bypassing my Sanders preamp with the Chord QBD76HDSD. The first time I tried it, Frey 2 was plugged into Sanders and Heimdall 2 was in the Chord and bypassing the Sanders preamp made the sound anemic. . Somehow, I figured it out so I plugged the Frey 2 into the Chord and I got the benefit of bypassing the preamp and the dynamics were restored with improved transparency. 

 

[Christer]

  My reference loudspeakers is unusual; its made by Velour a small German company. I do not think they are made any more. The speakers had very good sound-stage depth, with an excellent bass for a relatively small loudspeaker. Headphones - Noble K10, Audeze, and Nighthawks. The majority of the listening tests was on loudspeakers.
 
Rob

Surprising to read that you  are not using something  truly full range as a reference for speakers.
Imho, the most transparent and realistic sound for hi res  large scale classical recordings are electrostatic speakers. 
All traditional  "box speakers" I have heard sound more coloured than electrostatic speakers again imho.
Regarding headphones I am not familiar with Noble K10 ,but I have heard some Audeze and I would like to audition their LCD4 before deciding to upgrade from my current HD800.
Are you using  the LCD4?
I was really tempted to get the HE1000 in Singapore last week it sounded great both via Dave Hugo and Mojo, but there were some issues with really complex orchestral tutti at full blast ie fff level ,where my HD 800 taking a step back sounded more open and resolved.
But the HE 1000 was oh so sweet on a lot of classical with good inner detail even at very low levels.
Getting to that point which you asked me about in the other post.
Apart from really bad overmic'd multic'd where  hi res can actually sound worse than low res 16/44.1. But  in most other cases hi res 24/96 and  DSD sounds  clearly better smoother and generally more realistic than  even 24/44.1 to my ears and and the  recording engineers/producers conductors I have talked to regarding 16/44.1 compared to higher res. No one in the past 15 years I believe records at lowly!! 16/44.1.
Why skip so much of the music?
If you only sample now and then at rates that computers of 30 years ago could handle of course you are going to miss a lot of what has happened between the  too few samples taken!
16/44.1 is still a delivery format, but luckily only that. No one records 16/44.1 even in the pop industry any longer I think?
And the difference is not only that loud passages sound less artificial and DIGITAL but that ppp also  sounds smoother and has more body when hi res is properly mic'd and done well.
Yes it can sound worse too. But only when  you let the pop  approach destroy the sound.
Unfortunately even   some  classical labels do compromise balance and SQ  for  boombox owners.
Quoting an engineer/producer I know who has worked with classical since the days of analogue" WE immediately heard something was wrong with digital although we were told it was perfect. Not until the introduction of 24/96 and now DSD does it sound good again."
Morten Lindberg of 2L told me that he could live with 20 bits but not anything less than 24/96 sampling-wise and he too works on a daily basis with live versus recorded. I don't but have been to enough sessions and many ,many live concerts and rehearsals and  for me hi res and DSD was the only thing that made me listen to digital music on a regular basis.
The only  classical pro I know who  argued that bits are more important than sampling rate has been Robert von Bahr the owner of BIS records who long claimed that 24/44.1 was enough. But now they record at 24/96. IMO the results are obvious. 24/96 with the same miking from Singapore  for example sounds clearly smoother and more as the live sound in the hall than the earlier 24/44.1 to me.
In other words everything else equal, hi res  almost always sounds better and more realistic   to me.
I have recently discovered a classical label that records most projects in DXD and releases at anything from DXD to 24/96 and also DSD 256 down to 64.
The label is Challenge Classics and they make some of the most natural and best sounding classical recordings on the market judging from the  recordings I have heard from them.Their Bruckner 1 sounded sublimely natural via Dave.
Superbly natural well balanced  takes of orchestras playing in a real live acoustic that "challenges" some of the  old majors like DGG and Decca
that  far too often seem to mic things for the pop crowd and boom boxer owners, these days.
And although only done in DSD 64 Jared Sacks  who also works on an almost daily basis and prefers working in  DSD and balance in analogue at sessions thus being maybe the only one actually taking full advantage of DSD 64 avoiding adding up more DSD noise at mixing desk.His recent Mahler 9 sounds clearly  better and ,more like the real thing than any 16/44.1 I have ever heard.
I hope he will  make more recordings at DSD 256 in the future.
He did a test comparison recording between DSD 64 and 256 recently.
I know you are no fan of DSD. But it sure sounds better than 16/44,.1 in spite of all its noise/resolution problems to my ears.
16/44.1 belongs to history imo.
I think it is possibly time to put DSD 64 there too.
Both formats were compromises made for lacking physical disc capacities no longer needed.
As a photographer I  too know I can interpolate missing information up to a certain level but then pixels become visible.With low res audio" the audio pixels"are sometimes painfully audible to me. I always use a full frame hi res digital camera instead of a  compact camera with a  small sensor when I want the very best result technically possible.
16/44.1 has puny little sensor .
I also  am aware that the bandwith limited audio signal can be recovered in theory. But why settle for  bandwith limited when the original live signal is not bandwith limited?Triangle and some  other percussion instruments of a symphony orchestra  have harmonics up to 90 to 100khz if I remember correctly.
The only genre that matters to me personally is  acoustic music and that genre deserves the best we can get.There is still a wide gap betwen the real thing and difgital audio imho. And 16/44.1 is, good as it can sound on less demanding material,is far from the best imo.
Yes it sounds better than before via Hugo but still not good enough for me.
And none of the music  I listen to is recorded  at16/44.1, so why would I bother with it?
I did not listen to any 16/44.1 via Dave.
I don't own more than a handful of rbcds but a couple of hundred SACDs. And more than five hundred LPs and over 2 gigabytes of hi res music.
Cheers Chris

 

[lovethatsound]

Hi Christer
Try using cardas clear cable with your hd800,it could save you alot of money.

 

[buson160man]

 I did get a brief listen to the dave at the chiunify meet with a cavalli amp . It did sound excellent but it would be interesting to hear it against the dcs super ring dac combo. Of course that set up cost over a a hundred thousand which  would not be a fair comparison.

 

[Mython]

From CanJam Singapore 2016 Impressions (February 20-21, 2016) thread:
 
 

Originally Posted by tassardar /img/forum/go_quote.gif

 

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

 

Amp for the Shangri-La. Since the headphone looks exactly like a HE1000 so no pics for it. It sounds great, very nice vocals and positioning of sound. But the hall is really noisy so could not tell much more.
 

The WA8. I call it transportable
 

Versus the CDM. Its heavier then it looks. Sound wise thicker mids, stronger bass and a more laid back vocal range. I quite like it really. And very good blacks even on IEM.
 

The Chord Dave. Tested it out with my KSE1500 using rca to stereo. Really good details, punch in the mids and all round enjoyable signature. The greatest improvement was those small little bass rumble within the tracks thats mixed with the vocals. Its all clearly heard today. Great stuff!
 

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

 

The Abyss. Impression was its good. I put it at just below the HE1000 personally. Want to try it again in the future in a better condition.
 

The full metal jackets. Was investigating the difference between the old Angie and new Angie II. Its slightly smaller in dimensions. Sound wise a touch better clarity and a little less warm at the same setting on the knobs. Unsure if its the cable as I didnt go round swapping with my personal Angie.
 

SR-009. Definitely one of the best in production headphone. Fast, punchy, great clarity and lots of air. Though I felt the soundstage is a little small, everything else is just great. Use to be totally pricey but today with all the new headphones similar or even out pricing it, this is quite a good deal.
 

The Opus player. I thought it was great. Very nice controlled bass and a little on the neutral side. For 599 usd, running android with balanced out, I thought it was great. But note the Onkyo DAP cost around the same but way bigger. Also it has a rather terrible screen. Non IPS, terrible viewing angle but hey we are head-fi so its all good. 
 

Meze Classic 99. Im really impressed with it at just 300 (with additional 20% off canjam). Its sub bass rumble is really good, clarity is still maintained and nice vocals. However tracks with many quick drum beats can get all jumbled up.
 

IEMS from Music Sanctuary. Tried the Zeus, felt it was very reference but the universals has some sort of 'sss' sound whenever it peaks. They did say the customs are much better. The most suprising find is the HUM which they recommended me to try. Quite like its smoothness, warmth and well controlled bass.
 

The Codex. Pity I cant try it fully.
 

The Orpheus. Great sounding thing after so many years. Maybe its too noisy but the bass is a little lacking compared to the other 2 electrostats.
 

 

The Blue Hawaii amp with SR007. Tried it out with SR-009 and it was great. Improved mids with a touch of warmth and smoothness. Things felt more lively with more power in the vocals and bass. I actually preferred this setup to the other 2 electrostats (at least in the canjam condition).