[DJW50]

Are you using BNC connectors?

No USB

 

[Crgreen]

I have an Aries G2.1 as a Roon endpoint, feeding an Innuos Phoenix USB reclocker, going into the Dave. Given that Dave’s onboard upsampling is likely to be superior I don’t engage any upsampling in either Roon or on the G2.1 - vanilla source all the way to the Dave. To my ears that results in greater transparency, at least in my setup using Meze Elite headphones which are pretty revealing.

 

[DJW50]

I have an Aries G2.1 as a Roon endpoint, feeding an Innuos Phoenix USB reclocker, going into the Dave. Given that Dave’s onboard upsampling is likely to be superior I don’t engage any upsampling in either Roon or on the G2.1 - vanilla source all the way to the Dave. To my ears that results in greater transparency, at least in my setup using Meze Elite headphones which are pretty revealing.

Do you go through a USB connection into the DAVE?

 

[Crgreen]

Yes, the only way from the Phoenix USB reclocker.

 

[DJW50]

Yes, the only way from the Phoenix USB reclocker.

I did wonder if going through the USB missed the DAVE's on board sampler. Not that I had a clue about that anyway or much else on the technical side. I'm just an ageing musician with a liking for decent HiFi.

 

[Crgreen]

My understanding is that Dave upsamples through all its inputs, other than possibly the dual BNC inputs from an mscaler, which does the upsampling.

 

[GuiltyRocker]

My understanding is that Dave upsamples through all its inputs, other than possibly the dual BNC inputs from an mscaler, which does the upsampling.

That is correct, the WTA filters do up sample within the unit on all inputs except dual BNC because the HMS has a better up sampling filter.

 

[ufospls2]

DAVE is back after 4 years and warming up

 

[DJW50]

My understanding is that Dave upsamples through all its inputs, other than possibly the dual BNC inputs from an mscaler, which does the upsampling.

So would it be fair to assume that I'd be better off just feeding the DAVE the original 44kHz 16 bit material and letting the DAVE upsample that on it's way to the Pathos as the DAVE s has a superior upsampled to the Auralic?
I have messed around for hours with the Qutest trying to determine what is the better sound option.

 

[Crgreen]

Yes, that would be my recommendation: keep the digital signal in its native format and let the DAVE handle upsampling.

 

[kawhia]

DAVE is back after 4 years and warming up

Holy smokes. Don’t ever drop this amp on you foot… nice.
Edit: which Dac did you use in the interim?

 

[ufospls2]

Holy smokes. Don’t ever drop this amp on you foot… nice.
Edit: which Dac did you use in the interim?

Rockna Wavelight, Schiit Yggdrasil A2/Unison, iFi Pro iDSD Signature all for various amounts of time.

 

[Crgreen]

Holy smokes. Don’t ever drop this amp on you foot… nice.
Edit: which Dac did you use in the interim?

Boulder by name and boulder by nature?

 

[LucyWu]

So would it be fair to assume that I'd be better off just feeding the DAVE the original 44kHz 16 bit material and letting the DAVE upsample that on it's way to the Pathos as the DAVE s has a superior upsampled to the Auralic?
I have messed around for hours with the Qutest trying to determine what is the better sound option.

Hi again

The main reason for spending on the Dave is it's internal upsampling. It uses a custom designed, highly refined filter that aims to reproduce what Rob Watts has identified as key characteristics of sound reproduction with very high accuracy.There's a lot of material where Rob explains this so I won't try to replicate that here. Suffice it to say that if the sound Chord dacs appeals then it is best to just feed the Dave with non-upsampled material and let the dac do the work.It's the result of thousands of hours of refinement, which with the best will in the world, the Auralic can't hope to match.

Same probably goes for the Mola Mola dac. It internally upsamples everything to a high level also.

The Qutest is a good dac but for a number of technical differences (which reflect in the relative pricing) the Dave is capable of much better sound. Many people find all Chord dacs work better with optical or SPDIF input. The USB input is convenient but prone to noise which shows up as a sharpness in the sound which many people don't get along with and attribute it to the dac being "bright" or "thin" sounding, which is definitely isn't the case.

 

[DJW50]

Hi again

The main reason for spending on the Dave is it's internal upsampling. It uses a custom designed, highly refined filter that aims to reproduce what Rob Watts has identified as key characteristics of sound reproduction with very high accuracy.There's a lot of material where Rob explains this so I won't try to replicate that here. Suffice it to say that if the sound Chord dacs appeals then it is best to just feed the Dave with non-upsampled material and let the dac do the work.It's the result of thousands of hours of refinement, which with the best will in the world, the Auralic can't hope to match.

Same probably goes for the Mola Mola dac. It internally upsamples everything to a high level also.

The Qutest is a good dac but for a number of technical differences (which reflect in the relative pricing) the Dave is capable of much better sound. Many people find all Chord dacs work better with optical or SPDIF input. The USB input is convenient but prone to noise which shows up as a sharpness in the sound which many people don't get along with and attribute it to the dac being "bright" or "thin" sounding, which is definitely isn't the case.

Thanks again for your helpful advice. I have been trying the DAVE and the Mola Mola with the basic setting on the Auralic. Once I decide on what one I will buy I will need to sit down and have a good re-listen because up to the other day I'd been feeding both with the upsampled signal from the Auralic and really enjoying it.
I can't honestly say that on the few 'go-to' tracks I always use I do not notice any difference between the upsampled Auralic content and the non upsampled content going into either but I'm always open to ideas.
One thing is obvious though the DAVE seems to be able to put the music content into more defined 'packets' in the overall mix, and these packets within the content whether they are a drum or guitar just seem to be more detailed. I don't want to raise the old cliche but I am hearing very small details that were obviously always there but seem to be more obvious now.