Chord DAVE Review (DAC & HP Amp)

[ahofer]

I'm not believing that anyone can hear a difference between filters. Unless a filter is poorly designed or incorrectly implemented.

I’ve heard others assert that it is the one thing that *can* be heard, although commercially implemented filter differences probably remain in the realm of trained listeners.. At any rate, you can try here, and see the results of a large-scale preference test:

INTERNET BLIND TEST: Linear vs. Minimum Phase Upsampling Filters

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

 

[RandomEar]

I’ve heard others assert that it is the one thing that *can* be heard, although commercially implemented filter differences probably remain in the realm of trained listeners.. At any rate, you can try here, and see the results of a large-scale preference test:

INTERNET BLIND TEST: Linear vs. Minimum Phase Upsampling Filters

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

I think that the accepted audible differences between filters generally converge to "the treble roll-off of slow roll-off filters can be audible" with the added caveat that this is true only for 44.1 kHz material and maybe 48 kHz for teenagers and children.

There's certainly lots of audiophiles claiming to hear differences between linear and minimum phase filters or imagining the audibility of "that evil pre-ringing", but I haven't seen any proof that this is more than bias. The Archimago article you linked certainly supports that there isn't an obvious difference between them and that many people are highly confident in hearing differences while failing to actually identify the filters correctly.

 

[MaxxC]

This is a review, detailed measurements and listening tests of CHORD DAVE combination DAC and headphone amplifier. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $14,000.
View attachment 220013
Having been frustrated with the user interface of lower end Chord products with their color Morse codes, I was really looking forward to using the DAVE with its color LCD. The display certainly helps a lot in being able to use the product. Alas, poor attention to usability still abounds. Navigating the settings using four buttons seems anything but logical. I had to keep pushing buttons to get to what I wanted. The manual is no help as it doesn't show the sequence of buttons to get to any settings. The center control can be pushed but that just mutes things. Changing some modes like DAC or Pre mode requires simultaneous press of two buttons which was a hassle as well.

The display is slanted back and I had to tilt the unit forward to take the above picture from nearly up top. Otherwise, everything but the top two squares wash out due to low contrast. Forget about putting this in a stereo cabinet and using it remotely. You won't be able to see anything.

The volume control is another nod to looks than function. The metal knob is slippery and a bit shallow for good control. It does have acceleration which is good.

I found the bug in the time out mechanism for the display. In the midst of changing the volume control, the display would go black for a second and then come back.

Strangely from this company is lack of any anti-aliasing on the text causing pixels to not be seen in the fonts chosen! The result is a rather grainy look (better in person than the shot above though).

On the positive front, the unit is quite heavy and substantial. And I like the look of the circular display and the look of the UI.

Overall I give it B- when it comes to look and design of the interface.

Edit: here is the back panel picture:
View attachment 220458

Note: usually I don't take price into consideration when reviewing audio products. However, when we get to the extremes of price range, I do start to look at that. This is one those reviews especially since the designer talks extensively about attention to the smallest detail in measured performance. So be ready for me to analyze its performance in the same manner.

CHORD DAVE Measurements
I started with XLR output and putting the DAC in its "DAC mode" which fixes the output at an odd 6+ volts for balanced:
View attachment 220014

I was very surprised to see channel 2 noise floor dancing up and down significantly with SINAD going for the ride as well. Its distortion is also substantially higher than the other channel. To show you the variation, here is the SINAD over time:
View attachment 220015

As you see it sinks as much as 6 dB! The unit advertises galvanic isolation on USB but still, I thought noise over that bus may be a problem so I switched to Toslink (levels adjusted to 4 volts):
View attachment 220016
As you see, variations persisted. This is just unacceptable. Here is the USB mode again with output adjusted to 4 volts:

View attachment 220017

Using this last display, SINAD is "excellent" by our normal standards but simply not competitive when compared to countless other DACs at all prices that beat DAVE:
View attachment 220019

Notice how SINAD lands right next to Chord Mojo 2!

RCA output is actually a bit better as far as SINAD/distortion but it also has noise modulation:
View attachment 220018

To be sure there was nothing broken with my setup, I used the same cable and setup to test the Topping D70s that is on my bench and it performed superbly with none of the noise issues that DAVE has. Its SINAD variation was limited to decimal place, not whole numbers.

There is extra output voltage available if you need it:
View attachment 220021

Note however that clipping behavior is quite nasty. It generates a sole square wave with some ripple so do not go above +3 dB on the volume scale.

The higher noise floor impacted a number of other measurements starting with IMD distortion test vs level:

View attachment 220020

Its noise floor is landing on couple year old combo DAC and amp which costs only $250. Distortion is however lower as we can see reflected in multi-tone:
View attachment 220022

But then what is going on with those sidebands at lower frequencies???

Linearity looks good at high level but it is polluted by some amount of noise which we never see in more performant DACs:
View attachment 220023

Dynamic range as you can imagine is simply is not completive:
View attachment 220024

Here is a comparison to another custom high-end DAC, the Mola Mola Tambaqui

We are not even speaking the same language here!

Claim to fame of this product is its steep reconstruction filter and on that, company delivers:

View attachment 220025

There is an undocumented "HF Filter" which company recommends leaving on except when using their M-scaler. Here is its effect:

View attachment 220026

Odd that they would build you a sharp filter but then say you need to turn this other filter on and lose some of your upper end extension.

Distortion+noise relative to frequency is not bad but "not bad" is not a term you want to use with a very expensive DAC whose marketing story is precision of its implementation:

View attachment 220027

Chord DAVE Headphone Amplifier Measurements
Let's start with the noise performance:
View attachment 220028

That is disappointing:
View attachment 220029
So be careful in using sensitive IEMs as you may hear hiss and nosie.

There is decent amount of power to drive headphones but I like to see more:
View attachment 220030
View attachment 220031

Notice the variations in one channel especially which likely is due to the noise modulation we saw in the DAC measurements.

Our sweep of load impedances doesn't show any issues:
View attachment 220032

CHORD DAVE Listening Tests
I started my testing with my Dan Clark Stealth headphone which is the same one the DAC designer prefers. At low to medium volumes, the sound was excellent and I could not detect any impairments. Crank up the volume though and the sound proceeds to get shrill and congested. This is a difficult to drive headphone but again, for the kind of money you are paying, I don't expect compromises.

Switching to Sennheiser HD650 did not improve the situation much as predicted from measurements (not enough power for the class). Again at low to medium levels there was nothing to complain about. Crank it up though and shrillness and high frequency accentuation became way too much. Using DAVE DAC to drive the Topping A90 Discrete remedied that problem.

Overall, I could detect no magic or special qualities attributed to the filtering of the DAC. At low to medium levels it sounded like other DAC/Amps I have tested.

Conclusions
I always considered Chord products excellent but over designed. I now have to change that. The DAVE DAC does not perform anywhere near where it should. It is bested easily by DACs at $150. Its headphone amplifier is good but no match for higher powered units. It is a pretty DAC but usability is left behind. In my listening tests, I could detect no attribute that made it sound special. No, this is not a controlled test but neither are the reports to the contrary! Regardless, company's claim to fame is exacting implementation with concepts such as -300 dB and noise modulation mattering. So what is up then with my measurements?

I know someone may say my measurements are wrong. Well, where is the company measurements? Designer owns and uses same Audio Precision APx555 that I have. If it is all about precision of signal processing and implementation, where are their measurements? Their specs by the way are paltry and all use a-weighting filtering. Why filter the measurements? Why not let us see the true measurements if -300 dB matters in them?

I get that some of us, myself included, can afford and want high-end audio products. But for heaven's sake, get something that performs like its marketing. The aforementioned Mola Mola Tambaqui runs circles around Chord DAVE and gives you streaming functionality as well!

Company marketing line says: "DAVE stands for ‘Digital to Analogue Veritas in Extremis’, a moniker that best reflects the product's capability; a device so advanced and with so few compromises, that it is absolutely truthful in the extreme — a standard that all other DACs on the market simply cannot hope to match."

I see no extreme truth here. And a lot of compromises. Many other DACs not only match it, but exceed its performance provably.

Mind you, the impairments are there objectivity. Other than lack of amplification power, I doubt any of these issues are audible. Then again if you believe this, then you have not gotten what you paid for!

Anyway, a disappointing show from the company that hypes its technical expertise in every way possible. I suggest going back to the design and cleaning it up.

Needless to say, I can't recommend CHORD DAVE. Company needs to do better. A lot better.

P.S. All the panther are busy in the vegetable garden pulling weeds. Hence the reason you don't see them in the review picture.

Edit: Video review posted as well:

-----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

I’ve never seen a DAC in this price range reviewed here. I had to laugh when you said most $150 DACs can beat it . I looked at least 5 other reviews and read some technical info. This seems to be the most polarizing DAC in the world with its own style, idiosyncrasies and character.

-One review said they sound just terrible at audio shows.

-One reviewer said they use some different technology and sounded like no other DAC he had ever heard . But bought one as his new reference DAC

-One reviewer said it might be the best all in one DAC in the world

-Another the sound sound signature is so strong it overwhelms and flavors everything

-Lastly this reviewer. I follow and trust. He said the interface is just overkill. Overly complicated and frustrating. It didn’t behave well with any of the headphones he tried. The first pair of phones he said started to audibly distort as low as 70db

Well done.

 

[Jimster480]

I’ve never seen a DAC in this price range reviewed here. I had to laugh when you said most $150 DACs can beat it . I looked at least 5 other reviews and read some technical info. This seems to be the most polarizing DAC in the world with its own style, idiosyncrasies and character.

-One review said they sound just terrible at audio shows.

-One reviewer said they use some different technology and sounded like no other DAC he had ever heard . But bought one as his new reference DAC

-One reviewer said it might be the best all in one DAC in the world

-Another the sound sound signature is so strong it overwhelms and flavors everything

-Lastly this reviewer. I follow and trust. He said the interface is just overkill. Overly complicated and frustrating. It didn’t behave well with any of the headphones he tried. The first pair of phones he said started to audibly distort as low as 70db

Well done.

It is true though, $150 DAC's can "beat" it in the sense that today there are fully audibly transparent DAC's with no quirks for $150.

 

[MaxxC]

I’ve never seen a DAC in this price range reviewed here. I had to laugh when you said most $150 DACs can beat it . I looked at least 5 other reviews and read some technical info. This seems to be the most polarizing DAC in the world with its own style, idiosyncrasies and character.

-One review said they sound just terrible at audio shows.

-One reviewer said they use some different technology and sounded like no other DAC he had ever heard . But bought one as his new reference DAC

-One reviewer said it might be the best all in one DAC in the world

-Another the sound sound signature is so strong it overwhelms and flavors everything

-Lastly this reviewer. I follow and trust. He said the interface is just overkill. Overly complicated and frustrating. It didn’t behave well with any of the headphones he tried. The first pair of phones he said started to audibly distort as low as 70db

Well done.

It is true though, $150 DAC's can "beat" it in the sense that today there are fully audibly transparent DAC's with no quirks for $150.

I don’t buy in to the notion $150 DAC are “fully audibly transparent” and “with no quirks”. I’ve not owned a $150 DAC. But I’ve had a Peachtree, Bifrost and Musical Paradise in the $400-600. All very good but not close to perfect

I believe the Chord David was an extreme outlier.

 

[voodooless]

I don’t buy in to the notion $150 DAC are “fully audibly transparent” and “with no quirks”. I’ve not owned a $150 DAC. But I’ve had a Peachtree, Bifrost and Musical Paradise in the $400-600. All very good but not close to perfect

That is because your evaluation process is flawed.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

I don’t buy in to the notion $150 DAC are “fully audibly transparent” and “with no quirks”. I’ve not owned a $150 DAC. But I’ve had a Peachtree, Bifrost and Musical Paradise in the $400-600. All very good but not close to perfect

what is your explanation for the measurements, then? do you think we aren't capable of thoroughly and accurately measuring the signal in and out of a DAC? do you think human hearing is more sensitive than measuring tools?

 

[AudioSceptic]

what is your explanation for the measurements, then? do you think we aren't capable of thoroughly and accurately measuring the signal in and out of a DAC? do you think human hearing is more sensitive than measuring tools?

I don't think it's just a matter of what's "more sensitive", but more about what's more objective and free from various biases, the ones we try to guard against with double-blind testing.

 

[Purité Audio]

Forty years of indoctrination, and no attempt to learn, sadly very common.
Keith

 

[antcollinet]

I believe the Chord David was an extreme outlier.

Thing is, when you bring an understanding of engineering and science to the table - or if you can't do that, then get to the point you can trust those who do, then you don't need to believe, you can know.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I don’t buy in to the notion $150 DAC are “fully audibly transparent” and “with no quirks”. I’ve not owned a $150 DAC. But I’ve had a Peachtree, Bifrost and Musical Paradise in the $400-600. All very good but not close to perfect

I believe the Chord David was an extreme outlier.

The thing is, of all HiFi equipment a DAC is the item which is both the simplest and most easily rigorously accurate to measure.

Record players are even influenced by the room they are in and where in it and where relative to the speakers and what sort of support is used, so even a lab test of the TT and cartridge may not tell you how it will sound in your room/installation.

Speakers are influenced by the room and where they are in the room, how they sound also changes as you move the listening position.

Amplifiers may be influenced by the impedance of the speakers they are driving.

So a reliable universal test for these items is difficult and results need expert interpretation.


In the case of a DAC all the results of its function are available only on its output terminals. Here there is an electrical signal with magnitude, frequency and phase. There is nothing else.
All these can be measured to a level way beyond the sensitivity of human ears.

So a DAC is one item where there is little supportable controversy possible over its measurements.

FWIW when I did a controlled blind listening test between DACs, most reasonably high end, I could not hear any difference between them with properly implemented filters.
On one of the DACs (a dCS) which had switchable reconstruction filters I could hear a difference with some of the filters but some of these filters allow spurious signal in the audible range and some roll off the frequency response early so in retrospect no real surprise.

 

[ahofer]

I don’t buy in to the notion $150 DAC are “fully audibly transparent” and “with no quirks”. I’ve not owned a $150 DAC. But I’ve had a Peachtree, Bifrost and Musical Paradise in the $400-600. All very good but not close to perfect

I believe the Chord David was an extreme outlier.

I don’t believe that you could tell the difference in a blind test. Furthermore, since my beliefs are irrelevant, the evidence suggests, overwhelmingly, that you couldn’t.

 

[MaxxC]

I knew what you were trying to get across. A $150 DAC sounds identical to a $15,000 DAC .
That’s a very fringe view outside these forums. Amirm, the founder of ASR disagrees with you in this case. He heard notable differences in this situation. That can’t be explained away if your position is all DAC sound the same.

Even my dog can hear the difference. Going from a mid level DAC to a higher end. Playing Amazing Grace with children singing. The dog had heard it hundreds of times before. First listen the dog is sniffing around the speakers looking for the children. What does that say about your blind tests and measurements.

 

[Mart68]

en Amirm, the founder of ASR disagrees with you in this case. He heard notable differences in this situation.

No he didn't. He specifically states on page 1

'At low to medium levels it sounded like other DAC/Amps I have tested.'

 

[ahofer]

I knew what you were trying to get across. A $150 DAC sounds identical to a $15,000 DAC .
That’s a very fringe view outside these forums. Amirm, the founder of ASR disagrees with you in this case. He heard notable differences in this situation. That can’t be explained away if your position is all DAC sound the same.

Well, if you are really looking for evidence for this position, here’s the best I can find.

Archimago has a new DAC listening test

I see Archimago has a new listening test using 3 mystery dac’s, the difference in cost between them is 100x so it’ll be interesting to see if if there is much, if any difference when I listen. (I’m betting I can’t hear any difference at all). Perhaps this fact might encourage you to listen for...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Most every other test simply reinforces the null hypothesis (as this one does by conventional significance measures). But I encourage you to dive into the data and consider how close a (<$150) DAC came to a $20k device.

 

[oleg87]

That’s a very fringe view outside these forums.

Yes, which makes it one of the very few audio forums bearable to read as a technically-minded person, and why woo-woo claims of inaudible differences producing a sound are going to get vigorous pushback here.

 

[Jimster480]

I knew what you were trying to get across. A $150 DAC sounds identical to a $15,000 DAC .
That’s a very fringe view outside these forums. Amirm, the founder of ASR disagrees with you in this case. He heard notable differences in this situation. That can’t be explained away if your position is all DAC sound the same.

Even my dog can hear the difference. Going from a mid level DAC to a higher end. Playing Amazing Grace with children singing. The dog had heard it hundreds of times before. First listen the dog is sniffing around the speakers looking for the children. What does that say about your blind tests and measurements.

I've heard lots of arguments and seen lots of arguments for different DACs before, but this is the first time I've ever seen a person reference a dog and it's hearing as to confirm the difference between devices.
Overall, I believe that in the past, you needed to spend way more money to get competent hardware and we can see that that was mostly the truth before this forum blew up and became so popular around 10 years ago. Companies like Schiit famously gatekept transparent hardware behind devices like Yggdrasil for over $1500.
Because of competition through the existence of this forum, you can see that the price of what is state of the art sound quality has continued to fall. The reality is that the modern day dack chip is way better than anything of the past and also way more affordable. This is just due to the massive investment in chip manufacturing in the past eight years.

However, it's important to note that 10 years ago, there were still good devices like the SMSL M8 and even the Topping D30. However, neither was absolute state-of-the-art close to 120 dB SINAD the way that the newer models are. So, indeed, lots of development has gone on in the past decade and you can now get totally transparent DAC units for under $150.
In the world of dongles, you can even get more performance, some $100, as there are many transparent dongles with semi-competent amplifiers in the $80 price range.

 

[AudioSceptic]

I knew what you were trying to get across. A $150 DAC sounds identical to a $15,000 DAC .
That’s a very fringe view outside these forums. Amirm, the founder of ASR disagrees with you in this case. He heard notable differences in this situation. That can’t be explained away if your position is all DAC sound the same.

Even my dog can hear the difference. Going from a mid level DAC to a higher end. Playing Amazing Grace with children singing. The dog had heard it hundreds of times before. First listen the dog is sniffing around the speakers looking for the children. What does that say about your blind tests and measurements.

I'm sorry but you need to reread Amir's review and also to reconsider what you consider a "fringe view". As for the dog, that's a new level of craziness in subjectivism!

 

[Purité Audio]

Was the dog in the kitchen?
Keith

 

[antcollinet]

I'm going to assume the dog anecdote was a piss take.

No one could be that ...... could they?