[Ross]

the debate is pretty funny since rob watts himself pretty clearly and without ambiguity says the dave is the best dac he has made

I'm not sure it's a "debate". Having owned both, I know which one I prefer, and that's not up for debate. I know some other people (who I have corresponded with privately) who have moved from a DAVE to a TT2 for the same reasons, and their preference is also not up for debate. Plenty of people still prefer the DAVE, and that is also fine.

In many ways, DAVE probably is a better DAC. It is just burdened with a somewhat anemic output stage, and many - such as me - prefer the more dynamic, fuller sound of the TT2. But I can understand why others may prefer the more "transparent", somewhat ethereal sound of the DAVE.

A DAC is more than just the conversion/filter technology. The power supply and output stage are also critical to its final sound, and I think this - particularly the latter - is where personal preference comes into play. Rob Watts may well consider the DAVE his best DAC using the criteria he has set himself. But not everyone has the same criteria, and for some of us, the TT2 is the "better" DAC because it better suits our preferences and the way we use it.

 

[Amberlamps]

the debate is pretty funny since rob watts himself pretty clearly and without ambiguity says the dave is the best dac he has made

I’m not debating, just because TT2 doesn’t sound as transparent as Dave, it doesn’t mean it’s not as good as Dave, or better than it.

Rob can’t exactly come on headfi and say “TT2 is better than Dave”, as he would get a punch in the face by John for destroying Dave sales.

Rob also has to keep both camps happy whilst keeping sales up for both devices.

I’m not Rob, but I have a feeling that he might, if asked, say that TT2 is the better device overall. That doesn’t mean it’s sound is better than Dave’s, it could just be the better device because of it’s upgraded abilities. People are always moaning about how Dave can’t drive Susvara and the likes.

Plus, this is what I don’t get, why does Rob’s dac’s all have to sound like Dave, whose to say that TT2 doesn’t have the better more realistic sound ?

Just because Dave sounds like it does, maybe it’s not realistic. Maybe what Dave owners are hearing is in fact an unrealistic sound, clear yes, realistic, possibly not ?

Maybe TT2 is the more realistic dac of the two when it comes to SQ, maybe Dave owners have gotten used to an unrealistic sound and now don’t know what real music is supposed to sound like ?

No two companies dac’s sound the same, even when they are using the same chip, so which companies sound is the correct sound ?

In the end, all that matters is how much enjoyment we get from whatever device it is that we have.

I get lots of enjoyment from TT2 and I’m sure I would get lots of enjoyment from Dave also.

 

[musickid]

I remember listening to a slavonic dance by Dvorak through Dave and headphones at Sonority Design and i can honestly say the 4 minutes disappeared into thin air. I have never been so utterly gripped through audio equipment. However when a HMS is added to TT2 underlying musicality springs to life that may not be present in dave solo. For me it's simple dave+hms wins. For those who can afford.

 

[Deftone]

Imagine an MScaler + a version of DAVE that has TT2s power, then there would be no arguments to what takes the top spot.

 

[racebit]

personal preference comes into play. Rob Watts may well consider the DAVE his best DAC using the criteria he has set himself. But not everyone has the same criteria, and for some of us, the TT2 is the "better" DAC because it better suits our preferences and the way we use it.

I agree. It seems to me that Rob prefers analytical sound (which is logical given his work), while some people (like me) prefer a more engaging sound.
So I think when Rob says Dave is better than TT2 he is being fully honest, both technically and to his preference, but that does not match everyone preference.

 

[racebit]

Imagine an MScaler + a version of DAVE that has TT2s power, then there would be no arguments to what takes the top spot.

And Chord threads would be more boring...

 

[x RELIC x]

You guys are projecting your interpretation of the word 'transparency' in to the conversation. When Rob has said the DAVE is the most transparent DAC he's created, at least from everything I've read, he points to the measured performance. Transparent to the source.

If Rob preferred cold / thin analytical sound I would imagine he would never have purchased the NightHawks and the HD800 would be his favorite, but from what I've read it's the opposite. He often expresses how important musicality and timbre is.

 

[Amberlamps]

I remember listening to a slavonic dance by Dvorak through Dave and headphones at Sonority Design and i can honestly say the 4 minutes disappeared into thin air. I have never been so utterly gripped through audio equipment. However when a HMS is added to TT2 underlying musicality springs to life that may not be present in dave solo. For me it's simple dave+hms wins. For those who can afford.

Line up 5 dacs for demoing, 4 from totl dac companies with their price tags on them, the 5th in a cheap looking plastic case with a price of £250 and with a chinese name like yoolafftoo, then let folk demo them.

99% of people will not chose cheap chinese case dac, they will go for the totl named dacs, most will also probably say that dac number 5 sounded bad and unrealistic.

People are sheep and marketing companies know how to exploit human sheep behaviour. For most audiophiles, the name & price is what attracts them, only so they can say to themselves “I’ve got this”, then they pretend that they are in some elite club.

I can guarantee, if dave was in a cheap tacky plastic case with a chinese name and a price of £250, Audiophiles wouldn’t buy it.

Any TT2 owner or Dave owner who says otherwise is BS’n.

It’s human behaviour and pack mentality.

Did I mention that I had a PHD in Psychology ? The behaviour shown is akin to a psychosomatic illness, they believe that cheap and tacky is crap, no matter what their ears tell them. Seeing their peer’s demo’ing and then choosing one of the more expensive dacs confirms what they are seeing, that ££££ and fancy beats cheap and tacky, even if it is superior sound wise.

The eye’s, when you see something you like, visual information stimulates the cerberal cortex and floods it with dopamine, making those seeing and demo’ing feel good about what they are seeing, but, because of that, the brain limits incoming information from the ears to be fully processed as the visual stimulatory process is limiting the other sense’s, smell, taste etc.

It’s all in the eye’s.

 

[Ross]

What I find strange is that Rob says TT2 is warmer than Dave and you find the opposite.

No, I agreed that TT2 is warmer/darker than DAVE. That is one of the reasons why I like it more.

You guys are projecting your interpretation of the word 'transparency' in to the conversation. When Rob has said the DAVE is the most transparent DAC he's created, at least from everything I've read, he points to the measured performance. Transparent to the source.

That is a good point, and that is also what I have meant when I used the word "transparent". Transparency as a goal is admirable, but if it is not powerful enough to drive a pair of headphones or a linestage then it doesn't matter how transparent it is, because you will never hear it at its best*. This is the nub of my issue with the DAVE. It is undoubtedly a great DAC and may well be the most transparent in the market in terms of fidelity to source, but it still sounds just a tiny bit thin and anemic to me, and a lesser DAC which is almost as transparent but much more powerful is in practice a "better" DAC for me and many others.

*I am not specifically talking about the DAVE here.

 

[Ross]

But, really, we are getting off topic in this DAVE vs TT2 discussion, since this is the M Scaler thread. And I seem to be alone in the view that the M Scaler may not be all positive.

I am still trying to find a methodology to test whether the effects of the M Scaler are entirely beneficial. If I had some native 768 files I could compare a RBCD downsampled version upscaled through the M Scaler against the original 768 file and see if they sound the same. Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to make a 768 recording using equipment in my possession.

Testing RBCD recordings and upsampled versions against the source (in my case an LP) have so far proved inconclusive, although I have only tried it for an hour or two so far.

 

[Amberlamps]

But, really, we are getting off topic in this DAVE vs TT2 discussion, since this is the M Scaler thread. And I seem to be alone in the view that the M Scaler may not be all positive.

I am still trying to find a methodology to test whether the effects of the M Scaler are entirely beneficial. If I had some native 768 files I could compare a RBCD downsampled version upscaled through the M Scaler against the original 768 file and see if they sound the same. Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to make a 768 recording using equipment in my possession.

Testing RBCD recordings and upsampled versions against the source (in my case an LP) have so far proved inconclusive, although I have only tried it for an hour or two so far.

The MScaler not being all positive.

I can agree to a certain extent, when you’re listening to tracks that the mscaler can do it’s magic on, it sounds great but, alot of genre’s of music, especially loud thumping schiit, the mscaler does nothing at all, it’s all but invisible in that type of music or tracks.

Thankfully there is more genre’s to choose from that the mscaler does wonders for. Just don’t expect it to benefit rap, dub step or whateva, grime, heavy metal and thrash etc.

 

[racebit]

No, I agreed that TT2 is warmer/darker than DAVE. That is one of the reasons why I like it more.

Sorry my mistake, you were clear on that. I deleted that part on my post now, to not create confusion on someone reading it.

 

[Ross]

Just don’t expect it to benefit rap, dub step or whateva, grime, heavy metal and thrash etc.

... Fortunately I listen mostly to classical, opera and jazz, so not really an issue for me. I can't imagine what "grime" is.

 

[Amberlamps]

... Fortunately I listen mostly to classical, opera and jazz, so not really an issue for me. I can't imagine what "grime" is.

I don’t listen to any of those, well, the odd hip hop tune, I was just making a statement of what I have noticed thus far with my mscaler, roon radio doesn’t always play songs similar to my library.

As for grime, I think it’s dirty music.

 

[analogmusic]

Line up 5 dacs for demoing, 4 from totl dac companies with their price tags on them, the 5th in a cheap looking plastic case with a price of £250 and with a chinese name like yoolafftoo, then let folk demo them.

99% of people will not chose cheap chinese case dac, they will go for the totl named dacs, most will also probably say that dac number 5 sounded bad and unrealistic.

People are sheep and marketing companies know how to exploit human sheep behaviour. For most audiophiles, the name & price is what attracts them, only so they can say to themselves “I’ve got this”, then they pretend that they are in some elite club.

I can guarantee, if dave was in a cheap tacky plastic case with a chinese name and a price of £250, Audiophiles wouldn’t buy it.

Any TT2 owner or Dave owner who says otherwise is BS’n.

It’s human behaviour and pack mentality.

Did I mention that I had a PHD in Psychology ? The behaviour shown is akin to a psychosomatic illness, they believe that cheap and tacky is crap, no matter what their ears tell them. Seeing their peer’s demo’ing and then choosing one of the more expensive dacs confirms what they are seeing, that ££££ and fancy beats cheap and tacky, even if it is superior sound wise.

The eye’s, when you see something you like, visual information stimulates the cerberal cortex and floods it with dopamine, making those seeing and demo’ing feel good about what they are seeing, but, because of that, the brain limits incoming information from the ears to be fully processed as the visual stimulatory process is limiting the other sense’s, smell, taste etc.

It’s all in the eye’s.

You’re talking interesting things

But unfortunately .... completely wrong