[zek4u]

Conversion to digital for vinyl just seems wrong but Darko doesn’t seem to mind. That and the 3.5mm input and no way to integrate headphones kept me with seperates and Chord. Think my Harbeths with the 2qute has better tonality, timbre, etc. Hugo 2 or Qutest on the way soon.

 

[Matez]

I got mine in today. I'm waiting to pass any serious judgements, but so far it's positive. The Qutest feels very substantial and looks even better in person. Very classy. For today though, I'm stuck using it only with the iCan SE. I forgot that I don't have any spare RCA cables so I had to order some more and they should be here tomorrow. I've been using a Y-cable with the Mojo, which I can use with the 3.5mm input on the iCan for the time being. I'm more looking forward to trying the Qutest with the Massdrop CTH when the cables arrive tomorrow. I preferred the CTH of the iCan with the Mojo, so I suspect it may be the same with the Qutest.

I also made the mistake of using it first with the iUSB, then going back to the stock supply. I definitely prefer the iUSB with it. It seems to give a little more clarity and resolution that pushes it closer to what I remember the Dave sounding like.

Compared to the Mojo, it's a noticeable improvement. Better bass definition, separation, air, and dynamics. The more prominent treble on the Qutest will require some adjustment, but I've found the green filter to help tame that a bit. Again, very early impressions from about 3 or so hours of listening. More will come later.

Nice impressions. In general would you say that Qutest sounds more substantial and less ethereal in comparison to Mojo?

 

[jayz]

Conversion to digital for vinyl just seems wrong but Darko doesn’t seem to mind. That and the 3.5mm input and no way to integrate headphones kept me with seperates and Chord. Think my Harbeths with the 2qute has better tonality, timbre, etc. Hugo 2 or Qutest on the way soon.

The issue with professional reviews is that they rarely talk in absolute terms. With LS50, Darko is probably comparing against other similar speakers i.e. its immediate competition.

Also have to say I absolutely like active speakers but for some reason I hear a metallic resonance with KEF uniq drivers affecting both the top-end and upper mids but I know the LS50s in particular is a success story for KEF.

 

[Skampmeister]

Never understood to hype around the LS50, never been a fan.

 

[Clemmaster]

You can bypass the KEF DAC.

No, you can't.

Using external DAC does not bypass the internal DAC, the analog signal first goes through an ADC and is digitized at high sampling rate, for minimum loss of fidelity.

 

[stickboy85]

Well we can't all be wrong...

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/kef-ls50-wireless-internal-vs-external-dac

 

[JWahl]

Nice impressions. In general would you say that Qutest sounds more substantial and less ethereal in comparison to Mojo?

Honestly, I'm finding the Qutest to be more ethereal and airy overall, but that characteristic can be tweaked slightly with the filter options. I personally found the Mojo to lean a bit warm or mid-range centered without being overly mushy. With the orange and red filters, it sounds a little like a gutsier Mojo but loses some of the superior transient attacks of the white and green filters. I never really found the Mojo to be particularly airy myself, at least in comparison to the Schiit Gungnir MB and Yggdrasil I owned previously. It could be that the ethereal quality of the Mojo you describe is the weakness in the lower bass, on which the Qutest does improve, but the more prominent Treble of the Qutest makes it airier, with more defined textures on instruments which rely on high frequency harmonics for texture (think snare drums, or violins).

I'm liking it more as I listen, especially now that I've had some time using the Massdrop CTH with it. I think this will be my "Goldilocks" DAC for awhile. Is it perfect? No. It doesn't have the authoritative deep bass of the Schiit multibits I've owned, though bass depth and impact is improved from the Mojo. What does seem counter-intuitive though, is that despite the more ethereal character of the Qutest, the transient response allows it to portray rhythmic nuances in music very well. I'd say that the transient response is the biggest improvement I notice over the Mojo. Lots of Head bobbing and toe tapping going on. At least some of that is the CTH, but that aspect seems even better with the Qutest than the Mojo. This is part of why I waited for the Qutest over the Hugo 2. I sometimes prefer the character that certain amps add.

I really like it as a total package, considering what it does relative to its physical size. The Yggdrasil sounds great, but is also physically massive for a desktop setup. It all fits nicely on this desktop shelf I bought. The iUSB is on the very bottom, with my overkill RF ferrite choke on the power cable with 4 turns.



You'll have to forgive the weird fish-eye effect. Only the wide-angle camera on my phone is working correctly at the moment.

The only unfortunate thing is that I can't test it with my Elear since the driver is busted and I'm waiting on an RMA from my dealer. Impressions are only with my modded HD-650 (removed spider with some strategic sorbothane peices applied)

I'm most likely going to stick with this for awhile. Though, I might look into the Liquid Platinum or Lyr 3 for amp upgrades in the future, or the Clear for headphone upgrades. I really need to get out to another meet in the future.

 

[Skampmeister]

Is it perfect?

Do let us know when you find one that is indeed, perfect

 

[JWahl]

Do let us know when you find one that is indeed, perfect

Ha, for sure. In all seriousness though, my greater point is that everything has some kind of compromises. The sound of the Yggdrasil is fairly close to "perfect" for my taste, but as I said, it's physically massive, and a little pricey. The Dave probably gets closer to sonic perfection, but its compromise is that most people will never be able to afford one. For me, the Qutest is an ideal set of compromises. It's expensive but still attainable. It's compact. It's sound is, or get's really close to what I would describe as summit-fi (I'm still working that out).

On that latter point, I intend to do some more listening next week using the stock power supply so I can get a more accurate picture of baseline capabilities. I don't want to overstate what I'm hearing because of the tweaks. I'm also continuing to let it run-in in case that makes any difference. If anything though, it may be my CTH that is still "burning-in" since it has a tube and some electrolytic caps.

 

[Zzt231gr]

Greetings from Greece!

First post and a few days lurker of this thread.

I am about to buy a dac,being between Gumby and Qutest.Sound quality is the factor and build quality comes second.

JWahl,your answer will help me tremendously ;IIRC you are stating that Qutest is almost the same in sound quality as Yggy?Quality wise comparison?

 

[JWahl]

Greetings from Greece!

First post and a few days lurker of this thread.

I am about to buy a dac,being between Gumby and Qutest.Sound quality is the factor and build quality comes second.

JWahl,your answer will help me tremendously ;IIRC you are stating that Qutest is almost the same in sound quality as Yggy?Quality wise comparison?

I'm hesitant to make a direct comparison with the Yggy, because it's been over 2 years since I owned it, and when I did it was with different amp and headphones. That being said, on sound alone, I'd probably still prefer the Yggy slightly. I think the Yggy is more sonically well-rounded. The Gumby is a little different because it has a warmer overall signature than both, but the strength that I find with the Gumby is that its very well rounded and doesn't really do anything "wrong" per se. It's a safe choice in regard to equipment pairing. Both of the Schiit DACs tend to have better bass depth and detail, but that's one of their strengths. Depending on a person's tastes or other equipment, they may find the Qutest or even the Yggy to be too bright or aggressive, though I don't think that's the case myself.

The other reason I wanted to wait a bit longer before making more definitive statements, is the difference with the stock supply, and using the iUSB. I went back to the stock a second time today. While we're well into diminishing returns on DACs, I'm currently thinking that if I did not have the iUSB, I might have ended up deciding to sell the Qutest. It is a somewhat subtle difference, but enough to push the Qutest into what I would consider to be the next tier up. EU prices are of course a different value proposition, but in USD I'd probably be willing to pay no more than $1500 for Qutest in stock form. With the iUSB (at $200) I think it is just worth the money together ($2100 U.S. combined retail). Given the EU prices on Schiit products, the Qutest + iUSB or similar would probably be a better value.

I realize that is kind of bold statement, which is why I wanted to wait a little longer to say for sure, but that is how I'm leaning right now. The iUSB isn't a night and day difference, but it's just enough to bring out some of qualities that I expect from a truly high-end DAC. Without it, the Qutest seems a bit flatter in soundstage presentation, with less distinct microdynamics, and a certain "grayish" haze going on with the texture and timbre range of the treble. Please note however, that my house is likely a mess of RFI, with lots of cell phones, tablets, computers, and other wifi connected devices, which the iUSB likely cleans up on both the USB power and signal lines for the Qutest. Less polluted homes may fair better.

 

[wasupdog]

if i'm not mistaken you can use a schiit eitr which is the same concept as the iusb? I saw that some people were using it with a mojo and had slight but noticeable improvements. that was definitely the case using it with my yggy.

 

[JWahl]

if i'm not mistaken you can use a schiit eitr which is the same concept as the iusb? I saw that some people were using it with a mojo and had slight but noticeable improvements. that was definitely the case using it with my yggy.

Sort of. The Eitr is a USB to SPDIF converter, although an effective one from what I've read. With the Qutest, the DAC power would still be from its 5V micro USB port if using the Eitr. I have the power-only and signal outputs of the iUSB feeding the power and signal inputs on the Qutest separately.

 

[Zzt231gr]

I'm hesitant to make a direct comparison with the Yggy, because it's been over 2 years since I owned it, and when I did it was with different amp and headphones. That being said, on sound alone, I'd probably still prefer the Yggy slightly. I think the Yggy is more sonically well-rounded. The Gumby is a little different because it has a warmer overall signature than both, but the strength that I find with the Gumby is that its very well rounded and doesn't really do anything "wrong" per se. It's a safe choice in regard to equipment pairing. Both of the Schiit DACs tend to have better bass depth and detail, but that's one of their strengths. Depending on a person's tastes or other equipment, they may find the Qutest or even the Yggy to be too bright or aggressive, though I don't think that's the case myself.

The other reason I wanted to wait a bit longer before making more definitive statements, is the difference with the stock supply, and using the iUSB. I went back to the stock a second time today. While we're well into diminishing returns on DACs, I'm currently thinking that if I did not have the iUSB, I might have ended up deciding to sell the Qutest. It is a somewhat subtle difference, but enough to push the Qutest into what I would consider to be the next tier up. EU prices are of course a different value proposition, but in USD I'd probably be willing to pay no more than $1500 for Qutest in stock form. With the iUSB (at $200) I think it is just worth the money together ($2100 U.S. combined retail). Given the EU prices on Schiit products, the Qutest + iUSB or similar would probably be a better value.

I realize that is kind of bold statement, which is why I wanted to wait a little longer to say for sure, but that is how I'm leaning right now. The iUSB isn't a night and day difference, but it's just enough to bring out some of qualities that I expect from a truly high-end DAC. Without it, the Qutest seems a bit flatter in soundstage presentation, with less distinct microdynamics, and a certain "grayish" haze going on with the texture and timbre range of the treble. Please note however, that my house is likely a mess of RFI, with lots of cell phones, tablets, computers, and other wifi connected devices, which the iUSB likely cleans up on both the USB power and signal lines for the Qutest. Less polluted homes may fair better.

Thank you for your detailed answer.But to be clear,between Qutest and Gungnir Multibit,which one do you find as an overall sonic winner?Bear in mind that I will be feeding the dac via a transport and I will be listening through speakers-only.

Also,my inhouse power is pretty clean.But are you saying Mr Watts is wrong for declaring that aftermarket PSUs don't make a difference ?

 

[Hummer25]

Qutest up and running last night. This was used with a Laptop running Audirvana. It is certainly a solid well engineered DAC and set up was a very straightforward. Although it has a strange ergonomic interface it is simple to learn and use. It was easily found by the various front end systems I was using and technically performed very well. The solid build quality helps with plugging cables in and and out but this is still a very small unit which means rather than just plugging stuff in you tend to pick the unit up and connect cables which makes it a bit like a portable device. you could certainly have this on your desk top which is useful.

Having listened to DAVE and m-scaler a lot, the Qutest had a lot to live up to as DAVE is my benchmark for how digital audio should be handled and sound. The Qutest is not DAVE but its DNA is similar. It gets you a long way up the ladder to DAVE so i would say it gives you 75% of DAVEs performance but with an m-scaler this could be closer?

Overall impressions. This is a smooth sounding but detailed DAC. Vocals sound natural and instruments have fairly good tonal quality. Some of the top end does sound a little subdued but in a good way. Soundstage is reasonably extended and has some depth but certainly not in DAVE league. I can concur with JWahl that soundstage can sound a little flat, I think its a bit 2D rather than 3D. I also noticed when playing music with a complex mix it seemed to highlight either the vocals or the instruments but not both at the same time, your attention was drawn to one or the other. I had a play with the filters but felt in my system they all took something away rather than added so left in on the neutral filter. One more overall impression was how there seemed to be an homogenous handling of whatever material I played through the Qutest. Yes there were distinctions between MP3 (Handled very well), CD quality and 24bit recordings but there was a certain signature to the sound? This may have been how Audirvana sounds rather than the DAC?

These first impressions were using my Laptop, later I will use a different system with a music server. I will post up my impressions of this set up with Qutest later. However I was very impressed with the performance the Qutest gave with the Laptop and would very much recommend it as a DAC as it allowed you to listen to music in a non fatiguing way for long periods of time. It gave very good insight into the recordings but I felt I could do with just a little more bite and acoustic information. This is probably because mentally I am comparing it with DAVE which is a little unfair.

Just a last thought, compared to HUGO it is a big leap and easily out performs it with a much more relaxed and spacious performance. Qutest sounds more natural and analogue compared to HUGO and does not have any digital sounding artefacts, it sounds smoother and closer to analogue than digital which in my book is very good.