[Triode User]

Maybe he mouthed about as he didn't feel that such performance should be this expensive, given most Chinese DACs easily surpass the Qutest at a fraction of the price nowadays e.g. SMSL M500 or the D90! Off course the premise is that all similar measuring DACs should ideally sound the same as they are only converting 1/0s to Analogue signal and the output stage issues are well covered in those measurements. Personally,I have yet to hear the Qutest to understand if that's true...

if the measurements done by ASR were all that mattered then the Qutest and others would sound the same as Dave and yet . . . . . . .

 

[plsvn]

yeah, it's just 1s and 0s: nothing else!

 

[Zzt231gr]

Hey guys,any speaker user here that uses some kind of low frequency equalization that doesn't affect sound quality?A digital one for example?

 

[Arniesb]

if the measurements done by ASR were all that mattered then the Qutest and others would sound the same as Dave and yet . . . . . . .

Measurements show potential it seems.
Like low end thx amps... Massive resolution yet sound thin. Benchmark better implementation hpa4 didnt sound thin according to many.
Low end chord dacs like hugo and qutest sound thin too unlike Dave which sound natural and much more resolving.

 

[shoaibexpert]

I just wish we had measurements for how resolving a DAC was...could have saved people a lot of money if it could be proven that D/A conversion from a clean DAC...all sound the same! Maybe there is something...

 

[Jon L]

Maybe he mouthed about as he didn't feel that such performance should be this expensive, given most Chinese DACs easily surpass the Qutest at a fraction of the price nowadays e.g. SMSL M500 or the D90!

"Easily surpass" in what way? Most of us don't have a dog in the race or own Chord stocks and would LOVE to pick up a Chi-Fi DAC that sounds just as good as Qutest at a "fraction" of the price.
SINAD and distortion graphs are nice to look at but do not tell you how something will actually sound to your ears when you hook it up to your complicated system milieu (including all cable choices, power choices, etc).
I need another DAC for a second system and was looking at the new Topping D90, but it's $700 which is no longer chump change. I'm sure nice measurement graphs will come out soon, but I will still not know how it will SOUND

*Edit*
Yup, I see the D90 measurements are already published and are superb. My dilemma remains the same...

 

[ecwl]

I just wish we had measurements for how resolving a DAC was...could have saved people a lot of money if it could be proven that D/A conversion from a clean DAC...all sound the same! Maybe there is something...

This is complicated for a number of reasons:
1) some things are measurable and affect sound quality but it’s frequently not measured, e.g. jitter in the old days and noise floor modulation nowadays
2) some things are not measurable but is mathematically provable and affects sound quality, e.g. upsampling/oversampling filters, ASRC, digital noise shaper performances below -180dB
3) people don’t agree on whether something that is measurable or mathematically different but unmeasurable truly affect sound quality
4) some people like distortions, especially euphonic ones
5) some recordings are so bad that they almost always sound better with euphonic distortion
I think Chord DAC philosophy is to minimize distortions that they believe are audible and to not introduce euphonic distortions.

My take is that we spend our money where we want. If we buy a gear and put into our system and appreciate the sound compared to our previous gear, who am I to judge?
I can argue one DAC has less measureable distortions than another. Or I can say one DAC has less noise floor modulation, lower noise digital noise shaper, or longer tap length upsampling filter that more closely mimics the sinc function. These are facts. But if you don’t think these things are audible or reduce audible distortion and if you find another DAC more euphonic, there’s really not much more to say beyond that.

 

[shoaibexpert]

This is complicated for a number of reasons:
1) some things are measurable and affect sound quality but it’s frequently not measured, e.g. jitter in the old days and noise floor modulation nowadays
2) some things are not measurable but is mathematically provable and affects sound quality, e.g. upsampling/oversampling filters, ASRC, digital noise shaper performances below -180dB
3) people don’t agree on whether something that is measurable or mathematically different but unmeasurable truly affect sound quality
4) some people like distortions, especially euphonic ones
5) some recordings are so bad that they almost always sound better with euphonic distortion
I think Chord DAC philosophy is to minimize distortions that they believe are audible and to not introduce euphonic distortions.

My take is that we spend our money where we want. If we buy a gear and put into our system and appreciate the sound compared to our previous gear, who am I to judge?
I can argue one DAC has less measureable distortions than another. Or I can say one DAC has less noise floor modulation, lower noise digital noise shaper, or longer tap length upsampling filter that more closely mimics the sinc function. These are facts. But if you don’t think these things are audible or reduce audible distortion and if you find another DAC more euphonic, there’s really not much more to say beyond that.

I think everything apart from 'lower noise digital shaper' is being measured at Audiosciencerevew. Their philosophy is simple: a D/A converter is supposed to draw an analog signal from digitally processed files...as cleanly as possible and as without coloration or degradation as possible. They measure quite a few things there...how directly related these things are to how a DAC sounds and if they are missing out on any key measurements is not known to me.

But my premise is this: all DACs which do not add any color or distortion or change the signal in any way, are clean...should sound the same theoretically! Now I know they don't...but really don't know why?

 

[ecwl]

I think everything apart from 'lower noise digital shaper' is being measured at Audiosciencerevew. Their philosophy is simple: a D/A converter is supposed to draw an analog signal from digitally processed files...as cleanly as possible and as without coloration or degradation as possible. They measure quite a few things there...how directly related these things are to how a DAC sounds and if they are missing out on any key measurements is not known to me.

But my premise is this: all DACs which do not add any color or distortion or change the signal in any way, are clean...should sound the same theoretically! Now I know they don't...but really don't know why?

Hmmm... Audioscience review does not measure
1) Noise floor modulation (as in noise floor with no signal vs noise floor with a signal)
2) Digital filter in the sense that you can have two digital filters with the same frequency response and distortion based on the Audio science review measurements but they are still not mathematically identical because that is a static measurement and not a dynamic computation of the filter with musical material. Although I guess you can argue that they do run the filter through an impulse response to see the ringing so you can argue that measurement represents the filter except nobody really understands how to interpret the ringing because impulse response is really an illegal signal that is not bandwidth limited and you see people online arguing whether having pre-ringing is good or bad, but never how closely the filter is to the sinc function, probably because other designers don’t think it matters. On the other hand, I just heard a quote that “people try not to understand something if their income depends on not understanding it”. If other DAC designers cannot program FPGAs with long tap lengths to mimic the sinc function, they’re going to say that using long tap lengths to mimic the sinc function for digital filtering does not matter.

I think Rob Watts has addressed this issue that even puzzles him when he was designing his DACs. He has said that first of all, the noise floor for almost all decent DACs should be below audibility levels but noise floor modulation in non-Chord DACs are highly audible even if the noise floor itself is always below our current understanding of the threshold of audibility. Second, the closer the digital filter can approximate the sinc function, the better reconstruction of transients. Third, he found that there is a huge difference when his digital noise shaper went from -220dB to -360dB even though once again, he doesn’t think these noise shapers are obviously performing way beyond the threshold of audibility. Unfortunately, we have no way to verify his findings ourselves because at least I don’t know how to build DACs like he does so that I can do these AB/ABX listening experiments.

Ultimately, my take is that we are still missing something and that we don’t fully comprehend what our true threshold of audibility is. Or alternatively, by optimizing these parameters, Rob Watts is changing the final analog output of the DACs which is within our known thresholds of audibility. But of course, if that were true, as you said, Audioscience review or other measurements should be able to detect this. My take on these issues is that we don’t know what we don’t know. Or I am crazy and there is no difference and I just wasted my money. But if that were true, it’s still my money. We all waste our money on silly stuff that we like. As long as we are having fun, no harm no foul.

 

[linearly]

Or I am crazy and there is no difference and I just wasted my money. But if that were true, it’s still my money. We all waste our money on silly stuff that we like. As long as we are having fun, no harm no foul.

You did not waste your money, I did. Because I trusted others on what they say about measurments and not my ears. Chord DAC's are so much better then any other Delta Sigma DAC out there, and believe me I've spent a fortune on different designs. And never was happy on how they sound.

But the question remains, what are we looking for in a DAC? For me this question is simple. It has to be musical and detailed without being harsh. And Chord delivers on this. They say we should do blind tests, level matched, but thats so much effort for something obvious. The difference is there and noticable right away, you have to make an effort not to hear it, for whatever reason.

Again they say we have some kind of bias when we listen to anything, and the most expensive thing should sound the best. Thats not what I've found. My 40 euro's sound card to my ears is better then any other expensive DAC's I had (not Chord). Same experience I had with cables. Expensive ones sounding bad. In the end we have to trust our ears, because we listen to music not measurments. And in my experience what measures well does not always sound good.

Chord DAC's have this uncanny ability to pull you into the music, like the artist is there into the room with you, that I was not able to hear on any other Delta Sigma DAC I had. Regardless on how good they measure or how expensive they were. I like to compare this with an old CRT tv vs a modern 4k tv. While watching some breath taking landscape on the CRT you just watch it, like with Delta Sigma DAC, but with the 4k tv the landscape takes your breath away and you start to 'feel' it as you are there, like with Chord DAC's.

Now, I said Delta Sigma DAC's a lot. Personally I've yet to find a design that I like, no matter the company. And I'm done searching. So if Chord sounds so good why not a DAC from them? In the past I owned the DAVE but unfortunately life happens and I had to sell it. So until I gather funds for another one I have to make do with something else. And thats hard mind you for anyone that knows the DAVE.

So in my search for a decent DAC I've stumbled upon some youtube sound demo's testing different designs, with an R2R DAC aswell. No surprise from the Delta Sigma ones, but the R2R came as a shock. I had this preconception that R2R's measure bad, they must sound bad, and that they are veiled with no details. But that was not the case in the video.

Of course I had to test it myself and what other way to do it then buying another DAC... An R2R one this time. What do I have to lose. There are a lot of designs, fortunately someone on a forum made a list and it was easy for me to pick the cheapest one to try.

I went with the Pro-Ject DAC Box S FL thats about 200 euro's, figured thats not much to test a new technology. And frankly there wasn't much to test. They say R2R DAC's need burn in at start, but it sounded amazing right out of the box. Everything that I didn't like about Delta Sigma was gone here. With every Delta Sigma DAC you make a compromise. Either its veiled and to warm sounding, or its detailed and harsh, sounds thin or congested, there are compromises to be made. But NOT with R2R. With R2R music is just there, not harsh, not veiled, not thin, everything is perfectly balanced.

If I have to use a word to describe R2R sound is 'effortless'. I've yet to find a song that sounds bad with R2R, everything sounds musical, makes you tap your feet and enjoy music. And for me that's all its about. Not measurments or what others say on different forums. Does it pull you into the music like Chord? No it does not. But it makes you enjoy music like Chord and for me thats all that matters. Of course with more expensive R2R designs sound can get better (I hope), but for now I'm happy with what I've got until another DAVE.

So in conclusion (this is my personal opinion and in this hobby everyone has theirs) but Chord is better then my R2R DAC that is MUCH better then any Delta Sigma design I had, regardless of measurments.

 

[Arniesb]

You did not waste your money, I did. Because I trusted others on what they say about measurments and not my ears. Chord DAC's are so much better then any other Delta Sigma DAC out there, and believe me I've spent a fortune on different designs. And never was happy on how they sound.

But the question remains, what are we looking for in a DAC? For me this question is simple. It has to be musical and detailed without being harsh. And Chord delivers on this. They say we should do blind tests, level matched, but thats so much effort for something obvious. The difference is there and noticable right away, you have to make an effort not to hear it, for whatever reason.

Again they say we have some kind of bias when we listen to anything, and the most expensive thing should sound the best. Thats not what I've found. My 40 euro's sound card to my ears is better then any other expensive DAC's I had (not Chord). Same experience I had with cables. Expensive ones sounding bad. In the end we have to trust our ears, because we listen to music not measurments. And in my experience what measures well does not always sound good.

Chord DAC's have this uncanny ability to pull you into the music, like the artist is there into the room with you, that I was not able to hear on any other Delta Sigma DAC I had. Regardless on how good they measure or how expensive they were. I like to compare this with an old CRT tv vs a modern 4k tv. While watching some breath taking landscape on the CRT you just watch it, like with Delta Sigma DAC, but with the 4k tv the landscape takes your breath away and you start to 'feel' it as you are there, like with Chord DAC's.

Now, I said Delta Sigma DAC's a lot. Personally I've yet to find a design that I like, no matter the company. And I'm done searching. So if Chord sounds so good why not a DAC from them? In the past I owned the DAVE but unfortunately life happens and I had to sell it. So until I gather funds for another one I have to make do with something else. And thats hard mind you for anyone that knows the DAVE.

So in my search for a decent DAC I've stumbled upon some youtube sound demo's testing different designs, with an R2R DAC aswell. No surprise from the Delta Sigma ones, but the R2R came as a shock. I had this preconception that R2R's measure bad, they must sound bad, and that they are veiled with no details. But that was not the case in the video.

Of course I had to test it myself and what other way to do it then buying another DAC... An R2R one this time. What do I have to lose. There are a lot of designs, fortunately someone on a forum made a list and it was easy for me to pick the cheapest one to try.

I went with the Pro-Ject DAC Box S FL thats about 200 euro's, figured thats not much to test a new technology. And frankly there wasn't much to test. They say R2R DAC's need burn in at start, but it sounded amazing right out of the box. Everything that I didn't like about Delta Sigma was gone here. With every Delta Sigma DAC you make a compromise. Either its veiled and to warm sounding, or its detailed and harsh, sounds thin or congested, there are compromises to be made. But NOT with R2R. With R2R music is just there, not harsh, not veiled, not thin, everything is perfectly balanced.

If I have to use a word to describe R2R sound is 'effortless'. I've yet to find a song that sounds bad with R2R, everything sounds musical, makes you tap your feet and enjoy music. And for me that's all its about. Not measurments or what others say on different forums. Does it pull you into the music like Chord? No it does not. But it makes you enjoy music like Chord and for me thats all that matters. Of course with more expensive R2R designs sound can get better (I hope), but for now I'm happy with what I've got until another DAVE.

So in conclusion (this is my personal opinion and in this hobby everyone has theirs) but Chord is better then my R2R DAC that is MUCH better then any Delta Sigma design I had, regardless of measurments.

Lol. No one will take fanboy opinion seriously.

 

[linearly]

Lol. No one will take fanboy opinion seriously.

So if someone doesn't share your opinion lets just call him a fanboy and call it a day. If you believe that then you didn't understand what I had to say. I fanboy with my ears, I'm a fanboy of my ASUS Xonar AE that has an ESS chip (delta sigma) that sounds to me much better then any Chi-fi DAC I've heard (with perfect measurments). Sure I'm a fanboy of Pro-Ject that they make this wonderful and cheap R2R DAC, the first I tried and its amazing (to me). And also don't forget I'm a huge Chord fanboy that currently I don't own any of their products.

Anyways at the end of the day everyone is a fanboy to someone, its called brand trust, and I rather buy something from someone I know makes great products, then take my chance with obscure products and companies that end up breaking or not working at all.

 

[GreenBow]

So I am interested in the Qutest...but obviously find it expensive...only if it does things that cheaper alternatives can do to a similar extent.

My setup is HiFiMan Arya with THX AAA 789...and currently run the Tidal HIFI source via my SMSL M500 DAC (I know cheap Chi-Fi). The M500 DAC measures incredibly well (better than the Qutest) and some folks at ASR swear that I won't hear a difference between that and the Qutest double matched... something they call 'being objectivist'...

I am 35 and live in UAE where there is no place to Demo Chord Products. My question to the experts here is simple: Do similar measuring DACs as regards SINAD and Distortion etc. sound exactly alike in listening like the theory suggests? Has anyone done a double matched A/B testing to confirm this?

And in my current setup, would getting the Qutest make a huge difference in SQ and experience...enough to justify the new acquisition? Apologies for the vague question...Many Thanks

There is the 2Qute, which was the predecessor to the Qutest.

However I would strongly recommend the Qutest if you can make your budget do that. The Qutest is a clearly better product than the 2Qute, but that doesn't mean the 2Qute was weak. It means that the Qutest is a fantastic product. Honestly, if you want the Qutest, don't worry - buy with confidence.

 

[GreenBow]

Yes the events at Dubai Audio will be public. I don't have the detailed times of it yet...

My DACs are innately single ended, so adding balanced will add extra circuitry, and hence degrade transparency. This is the reverse of other DACs - they have to be balanced, as it's impossible to remove common mode noise from the chip substrate unless you go differential (balanced).

Badda-bing badda-boom. The definitive reason why Chord DACs don't have balanced, straight from the horse's mouth.

Many of have seen this before, and tried repeating for others who have asked. Never clearer than this post though.

 

[GreenBow]

Was just having a 'wish my Qutest had remote control' moment.