[glassmonkey]

It would sound sublime! Here's some interesting feedback though...

I had a DAVE owner trial the complete Golden stack (CAS192DG, CMA800PG, 2x CMA800RG). He felt that the complete Golden system sounded better than his DAVE feeding 2x CMA800RG, but both better than straight out the DAVE. I guess it has to do with the synergy between same brand products, since they are designed to work best together. I was VERY surprised the Questyle DAC could compete on that level but I do tend find the differences between DACs to be more subtle than the difference better amplification makes, especially depending on the headphone. I think he used LCD4s.

To be fair to the DAVE, it isn't made to drive the LCD4. There is also something to be said for synergy in components made to be played together. I've only had opportunity to hear the monoblocks with the CMA600i, but that was a pretty excellent sound too. I'll have to play with the full stack sometime. Honestly, I think the CAS192DG needs an upgrade to play all formats. It's pretty much the only Questyle without DSD256 now, and it only goes to 24/192. It needs an update. The amps are all 'golden'.

 

[514077]

To be fair to the DAVE, it isn't made to drive the LCD4. There is also something to be said for synergy in components made to be played together. I've only had opportunity to hear the monoblocks with the CMA600i, but that was a pretty excellent sound too. I'll have to play with the full stack sometime. Honestly, I think the CAS192DG needs an upgrade to play all formats. It's pretty much the only Questyle without DSD256 now, and it only goes to 24/192. It needs an update. The amps are all 'golden'.

Yes, I'm surprised they haven't updated the DAC by now. I wonder if they are at CES.

 

[esauseesaw]

Perhaps you should persuade more people to trial the Golden stack, sounds like a good plan?

I keep a full demo system in stock for just that.

 

[esauseesaw]

To be fair to the DAVE, it isn't made to drive the LCD4. There is also something to be said for synergy in components made to be played together. I've only had opportunity to hear the monoblocks with the CMA600i, but that was a pretty excellent sound too. I'll have to play with the full stack sometime. Honestly, I think the CAS192DG needs an upgrade to play all formats. It's pretty much the only Questyle without DSD256 now, and it only goes to 24/192. It needs an update. The amps are all 'golden'.

Yes, I'm surprised they haven't updated the DAC by now. I wonder if they are at CES.

Yes, it is one of their older products now and higher format support would be welcome. Honestly though, I think the current mode amplification is the thing that makes the major difference in SQ - same with the QP2R/QP1R. The CMA800i uses the same DAC chip and has similar file support - still sounds better than the CMA600i. Personally I own very little over 24/192 or in DSD256 and I'm not sure how much difference the really high formats make. Relatively little music is actually produced at rates over 24/192 anyway.

 

[glassmonkey]

Yes, it is one of their older products now and higher format support would be welcome. Honestly though, I think the current mode amplification is the thing that makes the major difference in SQ - same with the QP2R/QP1R. The CMA800i uses the same DAC chip and has similar file support - still sounds better than the CMA600i. Personally I own very little over 24/192 or in DSD256 and I'm not sure how much difference the really high formats make. Relatively little music is actually produced at rates over 24/192 anyway.

I personally can't tell the difference between DSD128 and DSD256. It's just extra storage to me. But if something was recorded in DSD256, best principle is to leave it there. It's not a principle I always follow. Similarly, DXD (PCM 24/354) is essentially what many PCM tracks are mastered in (word length dropped from 32bit to 24bit for release). Buying DXD is like buying a master. If something was mastered in DXD, I do try to get that. DXD takes the same space as DSD128, essentially, and I couldn't tell the difference sonically on the same files converted from DSD128.

With regards to the WM8741 chip in the older Questyle products, it's old, really old. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the chip, but newer chips will have lower noise stats (whether the lower noise can be heard is another question), better other specs, and greater format support. Wolfson chips just aren't used much anymore.

 

[esauseesaw]

Has anyone tried connecting the QP2R in DAC mode to a phone for wireless connectivity? I have with an iPhone 7, it required a camera kit with power to work. A bit clunky but does allow streaming Tidal or whatever, through the QP2R DAC and amp. I don't have an Android phone to try but it should be much simpler with a single USB C cable?

 

[514077]

Yes, it is one of their older products now and higher format support would be welcome. Honestly though, I think the current mode amplification is the thing that makes the major difference in SQ - same with the QP2R/QP1R. The CMA800i uses the same DAC chip and has similar file support - still sounds better than the CMA600i. Personally I own very little over 24/192 or in DSD256 and I'm not sure how much difference the really high formats make. Relatively little music is actually produced at rates over 24/192 anyway.

I own a few in DSD256, but not many. I try to buy in known rate if possible. I just bought an album by a couple of ex-Knopfler musicians in 256 from NativeDSD. They're pretty good at letting you know the source. Not sure I can tell btw 128 or 256, but it sounds engaging.
If one were to remember the QP1R's original demo tracks included; one was a track from the Stockholm Guitar Quartet. Well, I bought that album at DSD128, and I could definitely hear a diference from the 64 version. Crisper and better transiant picking. I do believe that Q's current-mode is the outstanding feature of their products. But, their DAC might use an upgrade, especially since DSD seems to be reputed to be among the best implimentations in the business.

 

[esauseesaw]

I own a few in DSD256, but not many. I try to buy in known rate if possible. I just bought an album by a couple of ex-Knopfler musicians in 256 from NativeDSD. They're pretty good at letting you know the source. Not sure I can tell btw 128 or 256, but it sounds engaging.
If one were to remember the QP1R's original demo tracks included; one was a track from the Stockholm Guitar Quartet. Well, I bought that album at DSD128, and I could definitely hear a diference from the 64 version. Crisper and better transiant picking. I do believe that Q's current-mode is the outstanding feature of their products. But, their DAC might use an upgrade, especially since DSD seems to be reputed to be among the best implimentations in the business.

I've heard some truly amazing DSD/Hi-Res recordings. It's just in reality I think there are very few recordings which have maintained a 'super-hi-res' path through the entire recording process. If you consider the vast majority of multi-channel audio interfaces top out at 192/24 and even fewer record direct to DSD format, I'd guess the stereo mix down which reaches the mastering engineer is rarely over 192/24. Of course there are projects/musicians specifically focused on achieving as higher recording quality as possible (the ex-Knopfler guys) - recordings specifically made for audiophile listening. The vast majority of recorded music does not have this objective. 192 is more than enough!

There is an interesting article from Benchmark Media around the DSD format. They take a very 'science only' approach to everything.

https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/ap...-dsd-provides-a-direct-stream-from-a-d-to-d-a

The blog is generally quite interesting, although I'm sure not everyone would agree with John's views.. I'm open to personal experience, as well as what graphs say I should hear.

 

[514077]

I've heard some truly amazing DSD/Hi-Res recordings. It's just in reality I think there are very few recordings which have maintained a 'super-hi-res' path through the entire recording process. If you consider the vast majority of multi-channel audio interfaces top out at 192/24 and even fewer record direct to DSD format, I'd guess the stereo mix down which reaches the mastering engineer is rarely over 192/24. Of course there are projects/musicians specifically focused on achieving as higher recording quality as possible (the ex-Knopfler guys) - recordings specifically made for audiophile listening. The vast majority of recorded music does not have this objective. 192 is more than enough!

There is an interesting article from Benchmark Media around the DSD format. They take a very 'science only' approach to everything.

https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/ap...-dsd-provides-a-direct-stream-from-a-d-to-d-a

The blog is generally quite interesting, although I'm sure not everyone would agree with John's views.. I'm open to personal experience, as well as what graphs say I should hear.

True in that a lot of DSD goes through PCM stages for processing, which negates the consept. Genisis's remixes for example, were actually done at 192, and then released in DSD. I would've prefered they had been released in 24/192 download for those who wanted them. Hans Veekhausen explains clearly in my mind why 192 is the ideal format in his MQA videos. The Legacy album, (the ex-Mark Knopfler people) was recorded in DSD256 except for some bits mixed in at 352. I'm agnostic about the whole debate over formats, except that hi-res in many cases, seems to have better quality writen and recorded music.
But, I want to have a look at that link you provided.

 

[glassmonkey]

I've heard some truly amazing DSD/Hi-Res recordings. It's just in reality I think there are very few recordings which have maintained a 'super-hi-res' path through the entire recording process. If you consider the vast majority of multi-channel audio interfaces top out at 192/24 and even fewer record direct to DSD format, I'd guess the stereo mix down which reaches the mastering engineer is rarely over 192/24. Of course there are projects/musicians specifically focused on achieving as higher recording quality as possible (the ex-Knopfler guys) - recordings specifically made for audiophile listening. The vast majority of recorded music does not have this objective. 192 is more than enough!

There is an interesting article from Benchmark Media around the DSD format. They take a very 'science only' approach to everything.

https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/ap...-dsd-provides-a-direct-stream-from-a-d-to-d-a

The blog is generally quite interesting, although I'm sure not everyone would agree with John's views.. I'm open to personal experience, as well as what graphs say I should hear.

I've read that one before. Couple points I'd like to see addressed: Blue Coast does record direct to DSD, what about DSD128 and DSD256? Some have said that the limitations of DSD64 are overcome with DSD128.

I for one am happy with whatever sounds best, so hope that Questyle will continue allowing me to play the best music with minimal conversion.

 

[514077]

I've read that one before. Couple points I'd like to see addressed: Blue Coast does record direct to DSD, what about DSD128 and DSD256? Some have said that the limitations of DSD64 are overcome with DSD128.

I for one am happy with whatever sounds best, so hope that Questyle will continue allowing me to play the best music with minimal conversion.

As I say, I did hear a diference between a 64 version of a track and its 128 version. I also remember Bluecoast starting to record in 256DSD. But I don't know the current situation.

 

[Luckyleo]

As I haven't heard the QP2R yet I can't say. I think the QP1R sounds so much better than the Kann I doubt the QP2R is going to sound worse. I was totally unimpressed by the Kann the fluted body is a just what were they thinking.

I haven't read the entire thread yet. I have both the Kann and QP1R. In unbalanced mode, the Q is far superior in my estimation. However, in balance mode, the Kann blows the Q out of the water, not even close..... again, in my opinion

 

[Luckyleo]

I own and really like the qp1r. My assumption is the qp2r sounds slightly better, but its lack of support for streaming means I will not be upgrading.

The way music is consumed has changed and companies that do not recognize this are just opening the door for the competition. With the very minor differences in sound quality between high end daps companies must now compete on functionality, price and the cool factor. If I gave my qp1r to either of my sons (both of whom are in their 20s) neither would likely ever use it.

I get that the minimalist design is intended to maximize sound quality, but why not design a product that gives users the choice: streaming and touch screen for convenience, everything off and minimalist controls for maximum sound quality? Perhaps I am over simplifying.

I own and really like the qp1r. My assumption is the qp2r sounds slightly better, but its lack of support for streaming means I will not be upgrading.

The way music is consumed has changed and companies that do not recognize this are just opening the door for the competition. With the very minor differences in sound quality between high end daps companies must now compete on functionality, price and the cool factor. If I gave my qp1r to either of my sons (both of whom are in their 20s) neither would likely ever use it.

I get that the minimalist design is intended to maximize sound quality, but why not design a product that gives users the choice: streaming and touch screen for convenience, everything off and minimalist controls for maximum sound quality? Perhaps I am over simplifying.

You mean, like the Kann??

 

[brams]

You mean, like the Kann??

I’ve heard the Kann. I thought it was OK, but didn’t think it was in the same league as the qp1r or qp2r.

What is required is a dap with the performance of the Questyle models, but functionality of the Kann.

 

[514077]

You mean, like the Kann??

I think Questyle is playing to its market. I, for one, don't wish to stream, prefer definite controls and an OK button over a touchscreen. If people want gadgetry for streaming, buy a phone. I want to listen to music at its best. I wouldn't waste my good HP equipment on my sons.