Chord DAVE DAC Review (Video)

[amirm]

I do own both DACs. If it's only a question of a magic trick I'm ok with that - in the end what's important is to enjoy the music, and that I guarantee you that I do (especially with the Chord Mojo 2). BTW I have read many good subjective impressions from you in reviews from products that didn't measure that well (especially in headphones) - maybe you should start doing those reviews blindfolded (I understand it would be hard not to notice the difference in the headphones even blindfolded )

We all enjoy music regardless of our gear so no reason to "guarantee" anything. Question is whether you spent your money buying marketing features as opposed to something audible. All of our knowledge of science and engineering says you wasted your money. Fortunately, Chord products do perform well objectively so it is not as bad as some other audio products where you go backward when you spend more. And what it doesn't do perfectly, is not likely to be audible to you.

As for me doing subjective testing, I don't provide them as such in the manner that you think of other subjective reviewers. For speakers and headphones, listening tests are used to see if EQ filters based on measurements fix deficiencies. Such tests obviously create audible differences so blinding is not usually necessary. When differences are small though, or preference is not clear, I will perform the AB test blind and repeat. I note this in the review. Still, the cornerstone of the review is the measurements, not my listening tests. So you can't compare my reviews to other people's.

For headphone amps and such, I focus on how loud they can play until the sound clearly and audibly gets distorted. I don't talk about soundstage width and heigh, detail retrieval and other nonsense like that.

 

[Egoist]

We all enjoy music regardless of our gear so no reason to "guarantee" anything. Question is whether you spent your money buying marketing features as opposed to something audible. All of our knowledge of science and engineering says you wasted your money. Fortunately, Chord products do perform well objectively so it is not as bad as some other audio products where you go backward when you spend more. And what it doesn't do perfectly, is not likely to be audible to you.

As for me doing subjective testing, I don't provide them as such in the manner that you think of other subjective reviewers. For speakers and headphones, listening tests are used to see if EQ filters based on measurements fix deficiencies. Such tests obviously create audible differences so blinding is not usually necessary. When differences are small though, or preference is not clear, I will perform the AB test blind and repeat. I note this in the review. Still, the cornerstone of the review is the measurements, not my listening tests. So you can't compare my reviews to other people's.

For headphone amps and such, I focus on how loud they can play until the sound clearly and audibly gets distorted. I don't talk about soundstage width and heigh, detail retrieval and other nonsense like that.

If we all enjoyed our music regardless of our gear, we would only need a set of bluetooth headphones (the cheaper the better) and be done with it. There's a bit more than that and that's why sites like these exist. Keep up the good work that you've been doing.

 

[Jimster480]

Don't have a clue about Chord Dave but the Mojo 2 is in a completely different league than Topping DX3 Pro+, although the latter measures better. Why, I don't know, but the Chord Mojo 2 sounds much more resolving and natural (which in my perception is a paradigm) than the Topping DAC.

Makes literally no sense, it would only be based on the power output and what headphones you are using.
Mojo2 measures perfectly fine to resolve 99% of music 100%.

 

[Egoist]

Makes literally no sense, it would only be based on the power output and what headphones you are using.
Mojo2 measures perfectly fine to resolve 99% of music 100%.

Hifiman Arya Stealth and Focal Radiance, but I also use the DACs in a two channel speaker system.

 

[Mart68]

So, at the risk of getting reamed here, I ask, "Has anybody here heard this thing? If so, do you actually hear the issues Amir has posted about?" I'm not interested in whether you care for Chord's obsession with little balls of any color.

I've had a listen to some systems that were using one, yes. Nothing special was happening, nor were their any issues with it either.

I'm pretty confident they could gave swapped in pretty much any DAC at any price and the sound would have remained the same.

It bucks the trend by looking better in reality than it does in photos. It looks expensive and well made.

 

[Jimster480]

Hifiman Arya Stealth and Focal Radiance, but I also use the DACs in a two channel speaker system.

In a speaker system you wouldn't be able to tell a difference unless you have setup some eq or frequency limitations on one VS the other.
The MOJO is "good" as a portable product with decent power output and a reasonable battery life. It's a niche product that fills it's niche well.

I've had a listen to some systems that were using one, yes. Nothing special was happening, nor were their any issues with it either.

I'm pretty confident they could gave swapped in pretty much any DAC at any price and the sound would have remained the same.

It bucks the trend by looking better in reality than it does in photos. It looks expensive and well made.

Because once you have a certain level of performance; everything is basically "perfect". We have to understand that the SINAD in many songs is under 100. Dynamic range is often low and THD is much higher than modern DAC performance.
The ADC that recorded the music + the mastering process is the actual limitation outside of the headphones themselves.
Many headphones struggle to get a SINAD of 80... Speakers are often even less especially when you factor in how quiet a room needs to be to achieve a certain background noise level for high SINAD for speakers.

 

[BDWoody]

If we all enjoyed our music regardless of our gear, we would only need a set of bluetooth headphones (the cheaper the better) and be done with it.

You can't enjoy music until your gear reaches some threshold? That's pretty extreme.

I can enjoy a favorite song through my phone speaker. Fortunately, I don't always have to do that

There's a bit more than that and that's why sites like these exist.

Well, this one is a little different in that it doesn't act as an infomercial for any of these products. We try to separate what might matter from what won't, and when it comes to reasonably well designed, well chosen for the task at hand solid state gear, it's much more likely that it won't matter.

For *most* people who want to improve their sound, buying a calibrated mic and learning to measure their own system in their own room, then learning what it means and how to address what is found is going to actually make a real, positive difference.

After that, *most* people should look into new speakers, not waste money on products sold based on a story.

More taps just has to sound better...

Sure it does.

 

[CapMan]

More taps just has to sound better...

 

[ObjectiveSubjectivist]

I wonder how many people dumping on this DAC have actually heard it.

I owned it. Bought with my money.
Compared it with much cheaper smsl dac.
Level matched through benchmark hpa4.

I won't describe to you what I heard, but I sold Dave.
Hope that helps.

 

[CapMan]

For *most* people who want to improve their sound, buying a calibrated mic and learning to measure their own system in their own room, then learning what it means and how to address what is found is going to actually make a real, positive difference.

After that, *most* people should look into new speakers, not waste money on products sold based on a story.

Best advice you will ever hear.

Understanding how imperfect my room response is by measuring it, and that this room response fundamentally defines the ‘tonality’ (if that’s the right word) of what I hear completely obliterates any notion that an extra tap or some other low level nuance in electronics matters even a little bit.

Room effects (and speakers) swamp any other considerations from electronics as long as the electronics are competently designed and sufficiently powerful.

I have a strong sense of deja vu in this thread !

 

[BigEarsBill]

I owned it. Bought with my money.
Compared it with much cheaper smsl dac.
Level matched through benchmark hpa4.

I won't describe to you what I heard, but I sold Dave.
Hope that helps.

This is what I've been looking for. Thanks for the share.

 

[CapMan]

I think a suitable analogy is that you drive a cart with wooden wheels , but spend a lot of money fitting it with air suspension, use titanium bolts on the wheels, add carbon
fibre axles and a leather steering wheel

Still rides like a cart with wooden wheels

 

[Multicore]

As for me doing subjective testing, I don't provide them as such in the manner that you think of other subjective reviewers. For speakers and headphones, listening tests are used to see if EQ filters based on measurements fix deficiencies. Such tests obviously create audible differences so blinding is not usually necessary. When differences are small though, or preference is not clear, I will perform the AB test blind and repeat. I note this in the review.

I think you accomplish a bit more than that. I have the impression that your listening reports are quite consistent and over time we have an idea of what you like. Thus emerge subjective reports that we can interpret. I liken this to Robert Parker, the wine critic. He has bad taste in wine but he is consistent and his language is consistent. Over time you can learn his language and his preferences in relation to your own and this can be quite useful. I'm not saying you have bad taste in audio gear (visual appearance perhaps excepted ; ) but I think there's enough consistency in your subjective reports to add something above the measurements.

 

[computer-audiophile]

Over time you can learn his language and his preferences in relation to your own and this can be quite useful.

It takes a long time for a personal profile of the panellists to crystallise. And then you realise that it is usually very different from your own. It can still help to reflect on a topic, I agree.

 

[danadam]

awareness of an instrument I didn't realize was in the track, buried down in the mix.

So, you still can't hear it on other DACs or can you? And if you can, what makes you think that the reason you noticed it was Qutest and not that you happened to listen more attentively while using Qutest.

If upsampling enhances playback, it's got to be in the timing.

Can you elaborate how that would work and how much improvement it would give?

 

[ObjectiveSubjectivist]

So, you still can't hear it on other DACs or can you? And if you can, what makes you think that the reason you noticed it

Exactly that.
Our brain is an amazing and complicated thing

 

[Egoist]

What's the reason that's universally considered that a movie played in 24 fps is more appealing (or cinematic) than if played in a higher fps which, technically, is superior and and gives a more detailed image (less blurred)?

 

[DonR]

What's the reason that's universally considered that a movie played in 24 fps is more appealing (or cinematic) than if played in a higher fps which, technically, is superior and and gives a more detailed image (less blurred)?

Probably because that is what we have been conditioned to enjoy as film and our brains fill in the gaps. I would hate to watch a football game at 24p though. This might be a question for Videosciencereview.

 

[amirm]

What's the reason that's universally considered that a movie played in 24 fps is more appealing (or cinematic) than if played in a higher fps which, technically, is superior and and gives a more detailed image (less blurred)?

I don't think it has ever been researched properly. It is said that we are so used to the jittery look of 24 fps, that higher frame rates don't look like "movies" to us. But rather TV programming that is shot at 50/60 Hz. It is definitely a puzzle as I frequently see artifacts of low frame rates. But at the same time hate upsamples to 60 Hz.

 

[Egoist]

I don't think it has ever been researched properly. It is said that we are so used to the jittery look of 24 fps, that higher frame rates don't look like "movies" to us. But rather TV programming that is shot at 50/60 Hz. It is definitely a puzzle as I frequently see artifacts of low frame rates. But at the same time hate upsamples to 60 Hz.

Before the advent of Netflix and other streaming platforms it took me just a few seconds to understand if a movie beeing played at home was a cinema or TV movie (I would guess it right 100% of the times), and I automatically could not enjoy the image quality of a TV movie. I learned later that the reason why I could do this was because of the different frame rates and that my brain automatically associated the lower fps to higher quality (because cinema movies had better directors, photography directors, actors and so on). In this case, having a technicallly better image quality would have the opposite effect in the enjoyment of the movie I was watching (99% of the times I would just change to a different channel). I think this was studied and I learned this in a workshop of documentary movie making with DSLR cameras (and I am sure the reason I could identity a TV movie in a few seconds was because of it's image quality - just didn't know what was the difference).