[boxerlc]

Have you tried Optical? That way you get RF noise isolation.

The best way is to try all three yourself though. Generally you are looking for the least bright sound and darkest sound as this indicates the least RF noise on the system.

I tried the new U16 bridge and Allo Digione with qutest, the USB output is always better. I'm wondering if better bridge would make a difference, that's why I'm asking that question, to avoid going to a wrong path. Thank you for your reply.

 

[Triode User]

I tried the new U16 bridge and Allo Digione with qutest, the USB output is always better. I'm wondering if better bridge would make a difference, that's why I'm asking that question, to avoid going to a wrong path. Thank you for your reply.

It depends on what you mean by 'better'. It is easy to think a digital source is better because it gives more depth or soundstage or detail or realism etc etc but all of these are just RF noise artifacts and the source is in reality worse. Always look for the darkest, least bright sound. So if the bridge is quieter for RF noise output then it may well be better.

 

[Lodwales81]

I have the sotm sms 200 with a dedicated power supply and it made a big difference for me in sound quality, when I try and switch back to optical the sound seems lifeless.

 

[Triode User]

I have the sotm sms 200 with a dedicated power supply and it made a big difference for me in sound quality, when I try and switch back to optical the sound seems lifeless.

Hmmn, by my standards it may be that the ‘lifeless’ optical is in fact the better signal. Just think where the ‘life’ is coming from with the sotm sms 200 with dedicated power supply. It is not altering the digital signal. The ‘life’ may therefore be RF noise, possibly even from the dedicated power supply.

 

[Nik74]

A few months ago someone here likened RF noise characteristics to MSG in food. I thought it was spot on. As in who doesn't like the odd Chinatown meal with a bit of msg to make food taste 'better'? If you get your palate used to the artificial richness, trying more refined cuisine might initially taste bland in comparison. Similarly wiht sonics , you can get used to RF and end up missing it when it is not there but it is worth training your ears to be able to hear the difference. I m grateful for people on these forums that pointed this out to me when I was making my comparisons and considered the switch.
And when discernment is there, you can always enjoy both paths

 

[boxerlc]

It depends on what you mean by 'better'. It is easy to think a digital source is better because it gives more depth or soundstage or detail or realism etc etc but all of these are just RF noise artifacts and the source is in reality worse. Always look for the darkest, least bright sound. So if the bridge is quieter for RF noise output then it may well be better.

By better I mean wider and deeper sound stage, more delicate image and better transparency. The sound of the USB input also sounds more relaxed.

 

[boxerlc]

A few months ago someone here likened RF noise characteristics to MSG in food. I thought it was spot on. As in who doesn't like the odd Chinatown meal with a bit of msg to make food taste 'better'? If you get your palate used to the artificial richness, trying more refined cuisine might initially taste bland in comparison. Similarly wiht sonics , you can get used to RF and end up missing it when it is not there but it is worth training your ears to be able to hear the difference. I m grateful for people on these forums that pointed this out to me when I was making my comparisons and considered the switch.
And when discernment is there, you can always enjoy both paths

I don't think MSG is a good metaphor for RF noise. Because MSG is a just another kind of sodium that is used to add a flavor called 'umami'. It is no better or worse than salt, it's only used to balance the flavor. You can use it to make healthy and delicious food, but if you add it too much, it will help develop high blood pressure. On the other hand, RF noise is just noise, you don't want any amount of it. So I will link msg to equalizer and RF noise to the dirt in your food, it's not clean, but might add some texture to you food.

 

[Triode User]

I don't think MSG is a good metaphor for RF noise. Because MSG is a just another kind of sodium that is used to add a flavor called 'umami'. It is no better or worse than salt, it's only used to balance the flavor. You can use it to make healthy and delicious food, but if you add it too much, it will help develop high blood pressure. On the other hand, RF noise is just noise, you don't want any amount of it. So I will link msg to equalizer and RF noise to the dirt in your food, it's not clean, but might add some texture to you food.

I love it. RF noise is like dirt in your food, it's not clean, but might add some texture to your food.
Hilarious and accurate as well. Excellent.

 

[tunes]

Throw in this one so it is comprehensive:


I understand it enhances the timbre and is very analogue like.

Can the hamsters charge your cell phone so you can be off the grid?

 

[betula]

Is there any 2Qute owner (or previous 2Qute owner) who upgraded to the Qutest?

To my experience Chord builds the best DACs. The transparency, separation, spaciousness, dynamics, control, speed, tightness, details are just outstanding.
I am pretty much on a budget, £500 is quite a step for me. At the moment I use a 2Qute to my Questyle CMA-600i. 2Qute vastly improves the built in DAC of the 600i.
I also use an iFi iPurifier 3 which adds extra cleanliness and air to the picture. I simply can't listen without this tiny device anymore.

I am very happy with my current system, but you know, you constantly look for improvements in this hobby.

My question after describing my circumstances is whether the upgrade to the Qutest really worth it sound-wise? I heard it is not that far from 2Qute. Especially if I further clean the signal with the iPurifier 3 I guess. Any thoughts from someone who knows both 2Qute and Qutest? (I also have to add I paid only £500 for my 2Qute. Therefore upgrading to the Qutest would mean paying more than double for any sonic improvements.)

 

[boxerlc]

Is there any 2Qute owner (or previous 2Qute owner) who upgraded to the Qutest?

To my experience Chord builds the best DACs. The transparency, separation, spaciousness, dynamics, control, speed, tightness, details are just outstanding.
I am pretty much on a budget, £500 is quite a step for me. At the moment I use a 2Qute to my Questyle CMA-600i. 2Qute vastly improves the built in DAC of the 600i.
I also use an iFi iPurifier 3 which adds extra cleanliness and air to the picture. I simply can't listen without this tiny device anymore.

I am very happy with my current system, but you know, you constantly look for improvements in this hobby.

My question after describing my circumstances is whether the upgrade to the Qutest really worth it sound-wise? I heard it is not that far from 2Qute. Especially if I further clean the signal with the iPurifier 3 I guess. Any thoughts from someone who knows both 2Qute and Qutest? (I also have to add I paid only £500 for my 2Qute. Therefore upgrading to the Qutest would mean paying more than double for any sonic improvements.)

I had a 2qute and than change it to qutest. I didn't own both at the same time, so I couldn't really compare them. I will say the sound signature is still the same and I don't hear night and day difference in performance.

You get double the taps but not necessarily double the sound quality. I think the biggest improvement come from the build quality and supported sample rate. It feels like a safe but not very big upgrade for me.

 

[Nik74]

I ll agree with @boxerlc on this. I have a Hugo which employs the same DAC stage as your 2 Qute - as Qutest is the same DAC as Hugo2- and recently got the Qutest. I compared them extensively and yes there is a marked difference in sound quality but it is not night and day. If you are happy with your set up and are on a budget right now, I d save the ££. On the other hand if you have been bitten by the upgrade bug, there are dealers that might give you a good part exchange rate for your 2Qute and you might not have to spend much more than £500 for the Qutest.
What headphones/speakers are you using?

 

[betula]

I ll agree with @boxerlc on this. I have a Hugo which employs the same DAC stage as your 2 Qute - as Qutest is the same DAC as Hugo2- and recently got the Qutest. I compared them extensively and yes there is a marked difference in sound quality but it is not night and day. If you are happy with your set up and are on a budget right now, I d save the ££. On the other hand if you have been bitten by the upgrade bug, there are dealers that might give you a good part exchange rate for your 2Qute and you might not have to spend much more than £500 for the Qutest.
What headphones/speakers are you using?

I am running a LCD-2C at the moment. I just need that bass extension and punch with my mostly bass-centric modern music. I prefer the 2C vs the Clear which I also owned.

 

[Nik74]

Sounds like a very pleasing set up

 

[betula]

Sounds like a very pleasing set up

It is indeed. Combining the extension, punch, slam and authority of Audeze bass with the most possible clarity, tightness and cleanliness coming from the 2Qute. The 600i gives the current (and power) and makes this clear and punchy, powerful picture a bit smoother, sweeter and more awesome. I am a very happy camper at the moment, especially if I am looking at the price/performance ratio of my system.