[adrianm]

For a dedicated high performance Chord power supply designed by Rob Watts!

They should just contract Sean , double the price of Dave and call it a day. Curious how many units of that would be sold.

 

[adrianm]

How about a state of the art fpga that can handle 1m tap upscaling and the other filters, dual optical inputs and 2 dc connectors on the rear for those who want to experiment!

The noise would be inside the chassis so not sure what optical would accomplish.

 

[sm60]

It amazes me that people who have never heard the Sean Jacobs DC4 or ARC6 power supply powering a Dave have such strong views about it! I imagine the reason that the Dave comes as standard with an off the shelf compact 3 rail switching power supply is space and cost considerations. Dave was probably designed to fit in the standard Chord Choral enclosure. Hopefully Dave 2 will come with a power supply commensurate with it's full performance potential. Dual optical inputs for the new Mscaler would also eliminate about 90% of the upgrades and comments on this forum.

It’s not like I can walk into Home Depot or Best Buy or Amazon and order a $10K external power supply for the Dave. It’s a specialty item ordered from the UK and you can’t audition it at home without buying it. You risk frying your $10K DAC if you mess up the installation. And even if everything goes right, you’ve doubled the price of your DAC, which is already obsolete.

Just for kicks, for $500, I bought a Topping D90 DAC from Audiogon. Without getting into the subjective aspects of the sound of the Dave vs Topping D90, objectively the Topping measures better with state of the art measurements (check AudioScience measurements and compare with Stereophile‘s measurements of Dave). Plus the Topping handles codecs like DSD 512, which is beyond the capability of Dave.

I’m not implying the Topping is better than the Dave, just saying that in the DAC world, things move quickly and a state of the art DAC from a few years ago may soon become hopelessly obsolete (e.g., see what happens in the home theater world when 10 grand receivers become worthless because they don’t resolve Dolby Pro Blah Blah or Atmos Super Duper).

 

[Ciggavelli]

It’s not like I can walk into Home Depot or Best Buy or Amazon and order a $10K external power supply for the Dave. It’s a specialty item ordered from the UK and you can’t audition it at home without buying it. You risk frying your $10K DAC if you mess up the installation. And even if everything goes right, you’ve doubled the price of your DAC, which is already obsolete.

Just for kicks, for $500, I bought a Topping D90 DAC from Audiogon. Without getting into the subjective aspects of the sound of the Dave vs Topping D90, objectively the Topping measures better with state of the art measurements (check AudioScience measurements and compare with Stereophile‘s measurements of Dave). Plus the Topping handles codecs like DSD 512, which is beyond the capability of Dave.

I’m not implying the Topping is better than the Dave, just saying that in the DAC world, things move quickly and a state of the art DAC from a few years ago may soon become hopelessly obsolete (e.g., see what happens in the home theater world when 10 grand receivers become worthless because they don’t resolve Dolby Pro Blah Blah or Atmos Super Duper).

Is the DAVE obsolete though?

It doesn’t allow for MQA files, but I believe that was a purposeful design decision. I don’t care about DSD, but I guess that’s behind the times

 

[adrianm]

Atmos Super Duper).

Atmos Super Duper is AMAZING.
I completely agree, Dolby Atmos is amazing compared to classic surround. And i'm willing to bet in 5-10 years object based audio will improve imaging and soundstage so much that Dave or Vivaldi or whatever high end dacs we have now won't compete with Airpods playing back a properly recorded track in the new medium. There is a smarter way of doing things.
Of course during our lifetimes most of the music we'll listen to will still be cd quality, but there will be newer dacs that also support new mediums. So modifying Dave or whatever else just feels like burned cash from my perspective as well .
Sony and Apple are already pushing object based audio, how long do you really think it will take?

 

[The Jester]

All down to mastering, I remember an interview with Alan Parsons saying he’d like to master some things to 5.1 surround but that was a while back now, since then there has been “Pure Audio” Blu-Ray discs but it’ll need mainstream acceptance for title availability not to go the way of SACD, 2 channel stereo mixed on studio monitors is how CD, the resurgence in Vinyl, and just about all music online is made, even with the popularity of headphones I can’t recall seeing anything “Mastered for headphones”, so obsolescence of 2 channel equipment could be a long way off yet …

 

[QuantumKat]

It’s not like I can walk into Home Depot or Best Buy or Amazon and order a $10K external power supply for the Dave. It’s a specialty item ordered from the UK and you can’t audition it at home without buying it. You risk frying your $10K DAC if you mess up the installation. And even if everything goes right, you’ve doubled the price of your DAC, which is already obsolete.

Just for kicks, for $500, I bought a Topping D90 DAC from Audiogon. Without getting into the subjective aspects of the sound of the Dave vs Topping D90, objectively the Topping measures better with state of the art measurements (check AudioScience measurements and compare with Stereophile‘s measurements of Dave). Plus the Topping handles codecs like DSD 512, which is beyond the capability of Dave.

I’m not implying the Topping is better than the Dave, just saying that in the DAC world, things move quickly and a state of the art DAC from a few years ago may soon become hopelessly obsolete (e.g., see what happens in the home theater world when 10 grand receivers become worthless because they don’t resolve Dolby Pro Blah Blah or Atmos Super Duper).

Did the Topping sound much different than the Dave? I'm curious about the ASR measurement vs subjective experience contrast if there is any.

 

[goodvibes]

Atmos Super Duper is AMAZING.
I completely agree, Dolby Atmos is amazing compared to classic surround. And i'm willing to bet in 5-10 years object based audio will improve imaging and soundstage so much that Dave or Vivaldi or whatever high end dacs we have now won't compete with Airpods playing back a properly recorded track in the new medium. There is a smarter way of doing things.
Of course during our lifetimes most of the music we'll listen to will still be cd quality, but there will be newer dacs that also support new mediums. So modifying Dave or whatever else just feels like burned cash from my perspective as well .
Sony and Apple are already pushing object based audio, how long do you really think it will take?

Nope. If you prefer sound effects, fine, but I'll get my goosebumps from the what music can emote before being 'processed'. Hard enough to provide goose bump factor without 'enhancing' things for a format so if you don't get it, I understand. This idea that things are so much better is silly. I could listen to a source. electronics and speakers from 25 years ago that would be hard to beat today. Quad speakers, Naim 72/250 electronics with a Linn table/Tandberg or Nagra deck as source would more than hold it's own today. Why would the next 5 years be any different. Things that were ever genuinely good as opposed to just being a popular flavor of a period will always be good. The more you 'enhance' a product, like trying to make earphones image like speakers, the further away you'll get from the performers message.

 

[Sampajanna]

I understand the criticism that the DC4 is expensive or one doesn't want to void warranty and open the Dave. I understand the argument against further investing in a product you may one day sell for much less. I am sure many of us will one day have other better dacs. What is silly is comments on the SQ of the DC4 from those who have never heard it. The fact is that it is a big improvement. Whether it is worth it in terms of hassle, long-term investment, etc. is a personal decision for each of us, but the difference is not subtle and is very positive.

 

[sm60]

I understand the criticism that the DC4 is expensive or one doesn't want to void warranty and open the Dave. I understand the argument against further investing in a product you may one day sell for much less. I am sure many of us will one day have other better dacs. What is silly is comments on the SQ of the DC4 from those who have never heard it. The fact is that it is a big improvement. Whether it is worth it in terms of hassle, long-term investment, etc. is a personal decision for each of us, but the difference is not subtle and is very positive.

I respect your choice. It’s a subjective assessment, not a “fact” as you claim, but that’s what being an audiophile is all about. I have no issues with your choice.

As I’m typing this, I’m listening to a reissued 180gm mono LP album recording of Frank Sinatra called “In the wee small hours”, recorded in 1954-1955 and considered one of his greatest albums. I’m hearing this LP played back on a Technics SP -10 Mk2 direct drive table with a mono Miyajima cartridge. I can subjectively claim that on a great mono album like this one, the Miyajima blows away the latest DSD blah played back on the Dave.

There’s something so tangible and real about true mono LP recordings played back on a true mono cartridge. It’s hard to quantify but it’s my subjective assessment. Frank Sinatra’s voice fills the room with a presence and realism that I don’t hear from even the best digital remastering. And unfortunately the ham handed digital remastering of Sinatra’s great recordings have not been kind to his marvelous voice. So, you want to hear Sinatra at his best, vinyl is your nirvana. Much the same is true of The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Ella Fitzgerald, John Coltrane, Duke Ellington and countless other great singers and artists who recorded in the golden years of the gramophone from 1930-1970s. So I chose vinyl over digital for the most faithful rendition of this great music. No upgrade to Dave is going to fix the horrible remastering of analog classics in my view.

So, I decided to invest in vinyl rather than upgrade my Dave. Others may make a different decision. For me investing in vinyl is not just about hearing the music as the artists expected you to hear them, but also about choice. I can sample many releases of the same classic album, and I’m not stuck with whatever Tidal or Qobuz dishes out.

 

[Sampajanna]

I respect your choice. It’s a subjective assessment, not a “fact” as you claim, but that’s what being an audiophile is all about. I have no issues with your choice.

As I’m typing this, I’m listening to a reissued 180gm mono LP album recording of Frank Sinatra called “In the wee small hours”, recorded in 1954-1955 and considered one of his greatest albums. I’m hearing this LP played back on a Technics SP -10 Mk2 direct drive table with a mono Miyajima cartridge. I can subjectively claim that on a great mono album like this one, the Miyajima blows away the latest DSD blah played back on the Dave.

There’s something so tangible and real about true mono LP recordings played back on a true mono cartridge. It’s hard to quantify but it’s my subjective assessment. Frank Sinatra’s voice fills the room with a presence and realism that I don’t hear from even the best digital remastering. And unfortunately the ham handed digital remastering of Sinatra’s great recordings have not been kind to his marvelous voice. So, you want to hear Sinatra at his best, vinyl is your nirvana. Much the same is true of The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Ella Fitzgerald, John Coltrane, Duke Ellington and countless other great singers and artists who recorded in the golden years of the gramophone from 1930-1970s. So I chose vinyl over digital for the most faithful rendition of this great music. No upgrade to Dave is going to fix the horrible remastering of analog classics in my view.

So, I decided to invest in vinyl rather than upgrade my Dave. Others may make a different decision. For me investing in vinyl is not just about hearing the music as the artists expected you to hear them, but also about choice. I can sample many releases of the same classic album, and I’m not stuck with whatever Tidal or Qobuz dishes out.

Respect this, indeed.and you are right that some subjectivity is always there In all things audio. I haven’t yet ventured into vinyl, but have thought about it for sure.

 

[Progisus]

From what I have read, most modern vinyl pressings are made from digital masters.

 

[adrianm]

Nope. If you prefer sound effects, fine, but I'll get my goosebumps from the what music can emote before being 'processed'. Hard enough to provide goose bump factor without 'enhancing' things for a format so if you don't get it, I understand. This idea that things are so much better is silly. I could listen to a source. electronics and speakers from 25 years ago that would be hard to beat today. Quad speakers, Naim 72/250 electronics with a Linn table/Tandberg or Nagra deck as source would more than hold it's own today. Why would the next 5 years be any different. Things that were ever genuinely good as opposed to just being a popular flavor of a period will always be good. The more you 'enhance' a product, like trying to make earphones image like speakers, the further away you'll get from the performers message.

Maybe I'm biased as a programmer in thinking you can program everything to be better. We're already deep in digital audio, but it feels outdated at this point. DSP makes cheap noise cancelling headphones sound much better than whatever closed back flagship you want in a noisy environment.
It's about the right tool for the right job, It's not about "enhancing" anything. Object based programming creates data models of real objects and has them behave as real objects would.
In movies at least, 7.1 is just an approximation of what it would sound like to have a car moving through your living room. You can hear some sounds from the front and some sounds from the back after it passes by. In a well made Atmos it sounds like an actual object is passing in front of you and generating the sounds, not the speakers. There's definition and physicality to it.
And this isn't just theory : this new Sony 360 reality audio system everyone is raving about uses just 4 physical speakers (very flexible in their positioning) to simulate 12 virtual speakers generating an immersive experience shockingly close to having all the physical speakers.
https://electronics.sony.com/audio/soundbars/all-soundbars/p/hta9
And you can get this experience for the price of a high end cable, so I'm wary about dumping more money in this medium.
Not to mention it's already optimized for streaming, available, and it only continue to get better. Stuff will always sound best in their original medium as opposed to trying to "enhance it " , but a lot of people will not want to go to the length that @sm60 is going to . I don't want to have 3 sets of equipment for different formats.
Half the time when i look at my desk i just want to sell everything, get a Bartok and call it a day, worse as it may be. And i definitely see myself doing that before going the custom psu route for example.

 

[AndrewOld]

Maybe I'm biased as a programmer in thinking you can program everything to be better. We're already deep in digital audio, but it feels outdated at this point. DSP makes cheap noise cancelling headphones sound much better than whatever closed back flagship you want in a noisy environment.
It's about the right tool for the right job, It's not about "enhancing" anything. Object based programming creates data models of real objects and has them behave as real objects would.
In movies at least, 7.1 is just an approximation of what it would sound like to have a car moving through your living room. You can hear some sounds from the front and some sounds from the back after it passes by. In a well made Atmos it sounds like an actual object is passing in front of you and generating the sounds, not the speakers. There's definition and physicality to it.
And this isn't just theory : this new Sony 360 reality audio system everyone is raving about uses just 4 physical speakers (very flexible in their positioning) to simulate 12 virtual speakers generating an immersive experience shockingly close to having all the physical speakers.
https://electronics.sony.com/audio/soundbars/all-soundbars/p/hta9
And you can get this experience for the price of a high end cable, so I'm wary about dumping more money in this medium.
Not to mention it's already optimized for streaming, available, and it only continue to get better. Stuff will always sound best in their original medium as opposed to trying to "enhance it " , but a lot of people will not want to go to the length that @sm60 is going to . I don't want to have 3 sets of equipment for different formats.
Half the time when i look at my desk i just want to sell everything, get a Bartok and call it a day, worse as it may be. And i definitely see myself doing that before going the custom psu route for example.I

I agree, object based audio has fantastic potential. Encode objects in space and then let a replay system of arbitrary complexity work out what best to do with them.

 

[goodvibes]

Maybe I'm biased as a programmer in thinking you can program everything to be better. We're already deep in digital audio, but it feels outdated at this point. DSP makes cheap noise cancelling headphones sound much better than whatever closed back flagship you want in a noisy environment.
It's about the right tool for the right job, It's not about "enhancing" anything. Object based programming creates data models of real objects and has them behave as real objects would.
In movies at least, 7.1 is just an approximation of what it would sound like to have a car moving through your living room. You can hear some sounds from the front and some sounds from the back after it passes by. In a well made Atmos it sounds like an actual object is passing in front of you and generating the sounds, not the speakers. There's definition and physicality to it.
And this isn't just theory : this new Sony 360 reality audio system everyone is raving about uses just 4 physical speakers (very flexible in their positioning) to simulate 12 virtual speakers generating an immersive experience shockingly close to having all the physical speakers.
https://electronics.sony.com/audio/soundbars/all-soundbars/p/hta9
And you can get this experience for the price of a high end cable, so I'm wary about dumping more money in this medium.
Not to mention it's already optimized for streaming, available, and it only continue to get better. Stuff will always sound best in their original medium as opposed to trying to "enhance it " , but a lot of people will not want to go to the length that @sm60 is going to . I don't want to have 3 sets of equipment for different formats.
Half the time when i look at my desk i just want to sell everything, get a Bartok and call it a day, worse as it may be. And i definitely see myself doing that before going the custom psu route for example.

I agree DSP can make things more interesting/closer to accurate on systems that need the help but that Sony system absolutely ruins the message of a proper 2 channel recording. Not saying you need to agree but any surround system creates an effect as opposed to recovers a stereo recording. More than 2 channel music which is hard enough to get right, tends to rob proper dynamic contrast. To each his own but a talented Jazz/classical quartet is a mess on something like that Sony system. I guarantee you that most here have never heard a properly setup 2 ch system, without additional speakers in room (running or not) and with a good enough source to get it... and I mean this, there's nothing wrong with that, It's still fun and we don't know what we don't know, but it leads to less than stellar assumptions.

As for the Sony system, I never felt the need for more than 5 speakers and a sub in a surround system, 4, really but I get why some want a speaker for vocals. If your speakers have a believable phase curve that is constant to all 4 speakers, it should be able to recreate almost any space with the correct media. One plane can create height is recorded properly. Our ears don't have vertical receptor. That said, I've never heard a surround system that gives me goosebumps on more simply/honestly recorded acoustic material.

I know many will disagree and I won't belabor this. Just thought I'd give a counter position.