[rgs9200m]

   
Based on what i have just read in the Bill Bruford autobiography, you can also say that many old recordings did not receive any DSP from a sound engineer, so there will be some background noise as well. Listen to some jazz recordings and you will hear the chink of glasses or knives, as the audience eats dinner in the music venue, but this was left in the recording because it helps provide context to the jazz performance. Transparent DACs and amps can reveal this detail.
 
In contrast a lot of modern rock recordings receive much DSP by the sound engineer, so that end result is a step removed from a real life performance (in effect the music has become artificial), but all this DSP ensures that the music is enjoyable on lower end kit and mobile phones.

I think this is sad. (Just my 2 cents here.) It's like a journalist photoshopping the pictures. It's almost censorship.

 

[JaZZ]

 

Originally Posted by britneedadvice /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
I have listened to many systems which would be described as 'totally transparent' and I find them hard work!  
Older " poor recorded" just don't sound good on such equipment .

 
I think there are two aspects to this. Older recording can sound better with certain components/headphones because of sound tuning.
 
But sometimes, people feel that transparent systems don't sound good with older recordings but the reality I find is often that the "transparent" DACs are DAC chip based and has noise floor modulation that made the sound harsh and fatiguing. So it would be interesting to see your opinion on Chord DAVE where there is no noise floor modulation. I wonder if you would still find the transparency on older recordings suboptimal.
 
I'm definitely hearing more warts and defects on older classical recordings but I find the listening experience more enjoyable with Chord DAVE because the DAC also captures the timbre of the instruments and sometimes the recording space so much better.

 
I agree with this. I enjoy older or not so good recordings more with DAVE and its outstanding transparency as the latter helps with identifying distortions and noise and discriminating them from the musical information, which makes for a more relaxed listen (and maybe even reveals that the recording isn't that bad once you subtract the unwanted ingredients).

 

[miketlse]

  I think this is sad. (Just my 2 cents here.) It's like a journalist photoshopping the pictures. It's almost censorship.

 
I think Bill Bruford found it sad as well. One reason why he preferred jazz during the second half of his career, was that most performances include improvisation, so any recording was a recording of a particular performance. 
All the DSP in a recording studio results in a 'perfect/clean' copy of the original lyrics/music, but it is near impossible for musicians to reproduce this during a live performance, so in a sense the CD buyer gets music that will always sound very different to any live performance.

 

[maxh22]

  Hmm why not the LX150 for the DAVE, it has double the capacity of the LX75 chip used and is only 30 bucks more a piece.

That's probably going to be used for Dave's successor. Since the FPGA has twice the capacity as the LX75 chip, Rob would have to spend twice as much time writing and optimizing the code. I remember him saying how much of a painstaking process it was when he was writing it was for Dave.

 

[Rotijon]

  That's probably going to be used for Dave's successor. Since the FPGA has twice the capacity as the LX75 chip, Rob what have to spend twice as much writing and optimizing the code. I remember him saying how much of a painstaking process it was when he was writing it was for Dave.

Thats not how programming work.

 

 

[maxh22]

  Thats not how programming work.

 

From what I know, Rob filled the entire FPGA with code so using an FPGA twice as large would require significantly more time writing and optimizing his code. This would have pushed Dave's release date further back.

 

[Mython]

  Hmm why not the LX150 for the DAVE, it has double the capacity of the LX75 chip used and is only 30 bucks more a piece.

 
LX150 may be relatively cheap now, but DAVE was not developed now.
 
 
As I'm sure you realise, prices of silicon chips are continually changing.
 
 
Besides, it's not just about horsepower (although that is a big helper for longer tap lengths)
 
It's also about testing and development of the most effective and most efficient strategies to process the digital signal. These are significant non-linearities in the duration of time necessary to develop the code to load onto any FPGA, whatever processing power it might have.
 
Rob is pushing the frontiers of what is known about audio DAC design and its nuanced influences upon the subjectively-perceived analogue output. This means a great deal of R&D is necessary to try different strategies and maximise the effectiveness of any strategies chosen during that process.
 
 
.

 

[Rob Watts]

   
LX150 may be relatively cheap now, but DAVE was not developed now.
 
 
As I'm sure you realise, prices of silicon chips are continually changing.
 
 
Besides, it's not just about horsepower (although that is a big helper for longer tap lengths)
 
It's also about testing and development of the most effective and most efficient strategies to process the digital signal. These are significant non-linearities in the duration of time necessary to develop the code to load onto any FPGA, whatever processing power it might have.
 
Rob is pushing the frontiers of what is known about audio DAC design and its nuanced influences upon the subjectively-perceived analogue output. This means a great deal of R&D is necessary to try different strategies and maximise the effectiveness of any strategies chosen during that process.
 
 
.

Absolutely - I don't think people realize how much effort goes into developing something like Dave, particularly as every step in the signal path needs to be designed. Dave's first prototype PCB was designed over three years ago, and that was when the decision was made as to which FPGA, based upon price and - much more importantly - availability. FPGA companies have a terrible habit of launching vapor ware, with actual silicon being readily available many years later.
 
As you say, far more important than the size of the FPGA is knowledge - particularly with the comparatively massive FPGA that is in Dave, and this is something that is on-going. In particular, lots of interesting things are waiting to be discovered with the Davina ADC project.
 
Rob
 
Rob

 

[JaZZ]

 

  LX150 may be relatively cheap now, but DAVE was not developed now.
 
As I'm sure you realise, prices of silicon chips are continually changing.
 
Besides, it's not just about horsepower (although that is a big helper for longer tap lengths)
 
It's also about testing and development of the most effective and most efficient strategies to process the digital signal. These are significant non-linearities in the duration of time necessary to develop the code to load onto any FPGA, whatever processing power it might have.
 
Rob is pushing the frontiers of what is known about audio DAC design and its nuanced influences upon the subjectively-perceived analogue output. This means a great deal of R&D is necessary to try different strategies and maximise the effectiveness of any strategies chosen during that process.

Absolutely - I don't think people realize how much effort goes into developing something like Dave, particularly as every step in the signal path needs to be designed. Dave's first prototype PCB was designed over three years ago, and that was when the decision was made as to which FPGA, based upon price and - much more importantly - availability. FPGA companies have a terrible habit of launching vapor ware, with actual silicon being readily available many years later.
 
As you say, far more important than the size of the FPGA is knowledge - particularly with the comparatively massive FPGA that is in Dave, and this is something that is on-going. In particular, lots of interesting things are waiting to be discovered with the Davina ADC project.

 
Looking forward to it!

 

 

[Mython]

 

   
Based on what i have just read in the Bill Bruford autobiography, you can also say that many old recordings did not receive any DSP from a sound engineer, so there will be some background noise as well. Listen to some jazz recordings and you will hear the chink of glasses or knives, as the audience eats dinner in the music venue, but this was left in the recording because it helps provide context to the jazz performance. Transparent DACs and amps can reveal this detail.
 
In contrast a lot of modern rock recordings receive much DSP by the sound engineer, so that end result is a step removed from a real life performance (in effect the music has become artificial), but all this DSP ensures that the music is enjoyable on lower end kit and mobile phones.

I think this is sad. (Just my 2 cents here.) It's like a journalist photoshopping the pictures. It's almost censorship.

 
There are some great American electric-blues recordings, from the 1970s, that unabashedly include environmental sounds, aplenty.
 
 
One good example is (Peter Green &) Fleetwood Mac's Live in Boston: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abg4CQgCyD0
 
PS: see if you can tell how much the soup of the day is, while Buddy Guy and Albert Collins are dueling, without looking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBufdMML41I

 
Someone scraping plates clean, in the middle of this Robben Ford performance, but it's all part of the atmosphere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5_KR2DOCDE
 
 
Gotta get me a DAVE some day, so I can put a magnifying glass on the details hidden in these, and so many other, recordings.

 

[TheAttorney]

The 2nd part of PF's DAVE review, plus lots of ROB W's comments here:
 
           http://positive-feedback.com/interviews/chord-dave-part-2-interview/

 

[miketlse]

   
There are some great American electric-blues recordings, from the 1970s, that unabashedly include environmental sounds, aplenty.
 
 
One good example is (Peter Green &) Fleetwood Mac's Live in Boston: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abg4CQgCyD0
 
PS: see if you can tell how much the soup of the day is, while Buddy Guy and Albert Collins are dueling, without looking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBufdMML41I

 
Someone scraping plates clean, in the middle of this Robben Ford performance, but it's all part of the atmosphere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5_KR2DOCDE
 
 
Gotta get me a DAVE some day, so I can put a magnifying glass on the details hidden in these, and so many other, recordings.

 
In the same vein, this pair of CDs recorded at Charlie Hadens 50th birthday party/meal contain tracks with the sound of knives and glasses - the recording is very revealing using the Mojo, but I can only dream how it may sound using DAVE. I will have to wait for Mython to get his DAVE and then review the result on this thread. 

 
https://www.amazon.fr/Private-Collection-Charlie-Haden/dp/B0039TD75Y

 

[miketlse]

   
There are some great American electric-blues recordings, from the 1970s, that unabashedly include environmental sounds, aplenty.
 
 
One good example is (Peter Green &) Fleetwood Mac's Live in Boston: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abg4CQgCyD0
 
PS: see if you can tell how much the soup of the day is, while Buddy Guy and Albert Collins are dueling, without looking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBufdMML41I

 
Someone scraping plates clean, in the middle of this Robben Ford performance, but it's all part of the atmosphere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5_KR2DOCDE
 
 
Gotta get me a DAVE some day, so I can put a magnifying glass on the details hidden in these, and so many other, recordings.

 
I listened to the Fleetwood Mac track, and then was reminded of Albatross.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oSlZMe2WIo     On this peter green version, the close miking allows you to hear the fingers moving along the fret.
 
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAefTj7GXwQ      On this recording by another musician, you can hear real delicate detail with the percussion

 

[Sunya]

romaz, I may have missed it, but do you still have the Bricasti M1? Curious what you think of it compared to Dave.

 

[romaz]

  romaz, I may have missed it, but do you still have the Bricasti M1? Curious what you think of it compared to Dave.

No, my Bricasti M1 is long gone.  It is a highly resolving DAC and excels in its ability to present transient information.  When I first heard this DAC, I marveled at the wonderful detail and the precise and incisive attack, especially with string instruments and so I found it especially good for large orchestral music.  A warm and romantic DAC, it is not, and some may find its presentation overly caffeinated for their tastes.  It is drier in its presentation compared to the smoother liquidity of the DAVE.  The DAVE has a much blacker background and against this quieter background, it can hit harder than the M1.  While the M1 is known for its rich detail, the DAVE does it better and layers it better.  Sound stage depth is good but I have not heard any DAC do it as well as the DAVE.  While the M1 is a very good DAC, to my ears, the DAVE outperforms it in every metric that is important to me.