• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Chord DAVE Review (DAC & HP Amp)

Rate this DAC & HP Amp

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 294 60.7%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 120 24.8%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther

    Votes: 46 9.5%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 24 5.0%

  • Total voters
    484

Jomungur

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2022
Messages
92
Likes
591
Depends on your friend group. Some people spend millions on art that is only seen by people entering their homes. Can’t have a $500K artwork in the same room with a Topping audio stack, can we?
Art's a much bigger market though. It will impress many people. That's why Carlos Slim shows off his collection with in the Museo Soumaya. Art has the cache of sophistication and culture; audio gear reeks of nerd-dom (just kidding). People take art appreciation classes, no one takes DAC appreciation classes.

I'm just echoing the point made several times in this thread: people buy expensive DACs because they think they'll get better sound, not because they are trying to make a statement to their friends. If they're making a statement, it's to themselves: I have the best DAC that will make the most of my high end speakers. Once they fully understand that DACs have a performance ceiling, they'll stop chasing the next one.

Art also can appreciate in value so it's a good investment. You can make a lot of money if you find an upcoming artist and get their works early. I think of the boutique private equity/hedge funds that invest primarily in works of art. There are even corporate law firm partners who specialize in high end art deals.

Audio equipment, on the other hand, usually depreciates and become obsolete. Especially digital gear. The DAVE kind of defied gravity and reached cult status. I think it's priced brilliantly even though the performance doesn't keep up. It adds to the aura. If it wasn't priced at 14k we would hardly be talking about it, it would just be another DAC on the list.
 
Last edited:

DonR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Messages
2,971
Likes
5,615
Location
Vancouver(ish)
I would like someone trained in the art of design to weigh in on the appearance of DAVE. To my untrained but practically minded eye, it appears like a mixed bag of various styles with no intuitive usability. It does look "different" but then so does a platypus.
 

Doodski

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
20,750
Likes
20,760
Location
Canada
I would like someone trained in the art of design to weigh in on the appearance of DAVE. To my untrained but practically minded eye, it appears like a mixed bag of various styles with no intuitive usability. It does look "different" but then so does a platypus.
I gathered a few pics of the Chord DAVE. It seems a avionics machinist and a motorcycle mechanic got together and made the case with whatever fasteners that where available. Stacking the components does not work.
2016-01-15_Chord-Dave_002.jpg

116ces.chordDAVE_0.jpg

IMG_20210120_122222.jpg

20220314_204354.jpg
 

jlb

Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2021
Messages
15
Likes
10
clearly a topping DAC or amp is better than any expensive audio product...only suckers ever buy anything more than 300 dollars
 

sonci99

Active Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2018
Messages
123
Likes
76
clearly a topping DAC or amp is better than any expensive audio product...only suckers ever buy anything more than 300 dollars
I’d say only suckers buy anything less than 300$.
 

jlb

Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2021
Messages
15
Likes
10
sorry, only buy the best measuring topping DAC and AMP...anything more is a waste of money based upon nothing but outlandish advertising
 

Jimster480

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 26, 2018
Messages
2,880
Likes
2,032
Location
Tampa Bay
clearly a topping DAC or amp is better than any expensive audio product...only suckers ever buy anything more than 300 dollars
I mean that isn't necessarily the case. Honestly there are more features to be had sometimes for higher prices. Things like the DX7, DX5, RME Adi 2, several of the SMSL products... It doesn't have to always be the cheapest stuff. Like ladder-stepped volumes are amazing, I quite like the OLED screen of my DX7 and the balanced outputs to take advantage of the best in any amp.
 

Jomungur

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2022
Messages
92
Likes
591
I would like someone trained in the art of design to weigh in on the appearance of DAVE. To my untrained but practically minded eye, it appears like a mixed bag of various styles with no intuitive usability. It does look "different" but then so does a platypus.
I can answer this. My wife is an art major (ended up going to med school, go figure). She tells me the DAVE just looks off, and agrees with you. It seems to be trying to copy the sleek look of Apple products with the aluminum look, but the angles aren't smooth enough and it's too bulky looking. The buttons are clunky, Apple would never have used those. The main problem, though, is the screen: it's the focal point of the device, but the glass is cheap looking, it's at an odd angle and it looks like it's from a 1970s scifi movie. That for her was the main giveaway that it was not designed by an artist. On the screen part, I have to agree, it isn't great and you have to see it in person to see why. Maybe if you're generous you could say it's a retro look.

For comparison, she thinks Bang & Olufsen products are very stylish and modern looking. (Why can't we get those?).
 

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
4,685
Likes
10,700
Location
Hampshire
I can answer this. My wife is an art major (ended up going to med school, go figure). She tells me the DAVE just looks off, and agrees with you. It seems to be trying to copy the sleek look of Apple products with the aluminum look, but the angles aren't smooth enough and it's too bulky looking. The buttons are clunky, Apple would never have used those. The main problem, though, is the screen: it's the focal point of the device, but the glass is cheap looking, it's at an odd angle and it looks like it's from a 1970s scifi movie. That for her was the main giveaway that it was not designed by an artist. On the screen part, I have to agree, it isn't great and you have to see it in person to see why. Maybe if you're generous you could say it's a retro look.

For comparison, she thinks Bang & Olufsen products are very stylish and modern looking. (Why can't we get those?).
To me, the main giveaway is that it's ugly as sin.
 
Top Bottom