Definitely not if you look at Amir's Hugo TT2 , Qutest, Hugo2, Mojo2 measurements - all top tier measurements
Dave is the oldest of all current production
-
Welcome to ASR. 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)
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Dave is the oldest of all current production
The only thing that makes me wonder is this (taken from Goldensound's measurements):
You go to all the lengths of creating a really steep filter, and then have it provide only 40dB of attenuation before Nyquist. Why???
Mani.
Does not seem to match Amir’s measurements; not sure why they are different.
The attenuation at Nyquist is similar actually. GS's shows ~40dB, Amir's ~45dB. Why Amir didn't pick up and comment on this, I don't know.
(Amir's signal is at 0dB, GS's at -60dB.)
Mani.
So noted. Is there a DAC with a sharper attenuation at Nyquist that does not start declining before 20 kHz?
Going from memory (of which mine is imperfect), this and the Hugo TT2 were the sharpest filters I could recall.
Sure:
(Though I have to say there's some discussion as to whether it's the DAC's or OS's filter that's responsible for this performance. In any event, it's totally possible.)
Mani.
Keith_W
Master Contributor
Well, I went to a friend's house today and listened to his system for the first time. He has a Chord Dave and the accompanying Chord upsampler. He told me the upsampler made a huge difference. I didn't believe him. So he tried a few settings ... 44.1, 96kHz, 192kHz ... and the difference was indeed dramatic. As the sample rate went up, the sound became leaner with a more pronounced top end!
I told him there is some kind of DSP jiggery-pokery going on. There is NO WAY that changing sample rate makes that much of a difference. I am convinced that the Chord upsampler must be applying some kind of shelf filter. Sadly, Amir only had access to the Dave and not the upsampler, because I would LOVE to see what kind of fraud Chord is committing here.
I told him there is some kind of DSP jiggery-pokery going on. There is NO WAY that changing sample rate makes that much of a difference. I am convinced that the Chord upsampler must be applying some kind of shelf filter. Sadly, Amir only had access to the Dave and not the upsampler, because I would LOVE to see what kind of fraud Chord is committing here.
From my experience, upsampling does change the sound quality, but it's not like the change you experienced with your friend's Chord system. I don't like the sound quality of upsampling; I prefer the original sound.
Or it’s all in your head… we do have a review of the upsampler:
CHORD M-Scaler Review (Upsampler)
This is a review, listening tests and measurements of the CHORD Hugo M-scaler upsampling digital transport. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $5,295 (some show it as $5,650). We have the usual lightshow of buttons as other CHORD digital products but here, due to less overloading...
www.audiosciencereview.com
solderdude
Grand Contributor
Even the cheap Motu M2 has such a filter.
but not nearly as 'perfect' as Chord's
On the other hand with 44.1kHz there should be a steep low-pass filter on the recording/resampling side above 20kHz so attenuation only needs to be good at 24kHz.
Besides the signal level in actual music is already -50dB or lower (opposite 0dBFS) anyway and at 20kHz that is inaudible for mortal audiophiles.
Maybe the hint regarding @Keith_W observation is shown here:
Last edited:
Keith_W
Master Contributor
Or it’s all in your head… we do have a review of the upsampler:
CHORD M-Scaler Review (Upsampler)
This is a review, listening tests and measurements of the CHORD Hugo M-scaler upsampling digital transport. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $5,295 (some show it as $5,650). We have the usual lightshow of buttons as other CHORD digital products but here, due to less overloading...
Wow. Yeah it's possible it was all in my head, but it sounded really convincing at the time.
HuubFranssen
Member
Try to convert your mind into someone that hears differences and strongly believes all that measuring also can confuse people.
Succeeded? Ok.
Now try to imagine what I think when I read that you suspect Chord of fraud.
AudioSceptic
Major Contributor
I agree. The only difference upsampling should make is to the reconstruction filter because the transition can be gentler, which in turn can only make a tiny difference to the analogue output.
AudioSceptic
Major Contributor
Upsampling *should* make a marginal improvement because it makes the reconstruction filter easier to implement.
BeeKay
Major Contributor
Sighted tests are worthless. It’s your brain, not the Chord voodoo stuff. How long have you been on the forum?
AudioSceptic
Major Contributor
Shouldn't that be 22 kHz (½ of 44)?
$6000 to insert a lot of jitter (although likely still not audible). What a strange world we occupy.
solderdude
Grand Contributor
When you filter the recording at 20kHz the first mirror image you would encounter and have to suppress is 24kHz.
That's why a lot of filters attenuate max at 24kHz.
This allows for less steep anti-alias and less steep reconstruction filters that still can reach 20kHz with 0dB attenuation.
Of course there will always be recordings that will still have some signal above 21kHz or so but that would be very low level so mirror images (and IM products) will be even lower.
Still ... filters as used by Motu, Chord and some of those SW filters of course are 'better'.
Motu goes to 21kHz and Chord to 22kHz.
Inaudible anyway for the wealthy audiophile that can afford the mentioned Chord gear.
Last edited:
AudioSceptic
Major Contributor
We should expect digital perfection for that sort of money.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
