Chord DAVE Review (DAC & HP Amp)

[Trell]

He went to sleep....he is on UK time. lol

He wrote “This is my last reply on the subject.”, so yeah, he bowed out.

 

[JSmith]

Hundreds of headfi regulars shills can't be wrong, can they?

Fixed... sorry.

Without hesitation, I would nominate this ensemble as the most expensive yet the sexiest doorstop everrrrrrrrrrrr.

I think it could pass as a foot rest;

JSmith

 

[PierreV]

(I believe) Chord has to pay income tax (call it corporate tax, whatever) on any money it makes in US to the US government, and then the UK government charges them tax again on the same income.
I may be wrong, but that is what I believe.

Well, you are wrong so feel free to stop believing. There are some edge cases for individuals, usually uninformed individuals.

 

[pkane]

He went to sleep....he is on UK time. lol

Sleeping is not allowed on ASR until all the debates are fully resolved and all the disagreements settled.

 

[Jomungur]

$10,588 5 years ago, $14k now works out to 5.7%/year. Not outrageous IMO. We've had exchange rate changes since then of course, to complicate matters.

From the 2017 Hi-Fi+ review <https://hifiplus.com/articles/chord-electronics-dave-dac-headphone-amp/> (yes, have a laugh) I see it was £8k 5 years ago. Current UK price is £10k so that is 4.6%/year.

You know, I was looking at my receipt when I was trying to determine when I bought the unit (in answer to an earlier question). Even in late 2019 when I ordered it the list price was around $10,558 without stand. The price increase happened sometime recently I believe (2021 or 2022). I have no way of knowing, but I think they increased the price once they realized the M Scaler threw a wrench in their pricing model. Their customer base was torn between purchasing a Hugo TT2 + M Scaler vs. the standalone DAVE, which were comparably priced. That's the reason I sent the Hugo 2 (not TT2) with the M Scaler for the review- I thought that would have been interesting information for someone who couldn't afford a DAVE. Although we know how that turned out.

 

[Angsty]

I don't necessarily mean run higher taps on the windowed sinc reconstruction filter. They can for example run higher taps on the FIR interpolation filter as part of the upsampling process. My point was that FPGA went from 28nm to 7nm and they can surely update the FPGA to run higher precision/speed calculations - heck use 64bit, 128bit internal precision. When they charge $14k for a dac, they can surely spare the marginal cost of a better FPGA

Again, but why? The only thing that justifies the $14k is the target buyer’s deep pockets. A better FPGA might make it as good as the D70s. Maybe. Well, probably not because it’s faults lie in places other than the FIR filter.

 

[acctx]

Not trying to start anything, but this has been puzzling and annoying me forever.

As a music producer with some experience....

Best audio mixing engineers work on $2-6k monitors ( ProAcs 100, ATC 25 being most common or just good old NS10s). That's all the detail you need to hear, everything they put into it with their exceptionally trained ears, shape every sound, work every detail of it there is, all the nuainces 99.9999999% of people can't discern no matter what speakers/DACs they have...

Yet you have plebs spending thousands, or even tens of thousands of dollar on dumb converters, amplifiers etc... Why???

$600 headphone amplifier? 15k DAC? Lol... How dumb are you really?

I work with Neumann monitors at this time (and owned a dozen different brands before that). For mixing they're great but for casual music listening there's little to no benefit going from, say, $300 JBL 306 to higher end monitors.

And yet you have these people spending all this crazy money on fancy ripoff hifi components that probably can't even match $200 studio hardware.

To me, it's the stupidity of the highest degree.

Buying audiophiles gear won't get you more detail in music than a mixing engineer put into it on his $600 crap NS10 monitors.

It literally doesn't matter. At all. You paying for placebo. You don't magically extract more sound from audiophile or fake-audiophile gear. You're just being scammed. It's just so extremely dumb. It's even dumber than falling for Nigerian scams.

That's all.

 

[pablolie]

He claimed income taxes justified it and doubled down defending that. Then he bowed out.

Home review

Eight grand is a high price tag for a DAC, but the DAVE more than merits it...

www.whathifi.com

Not a bargain in the UK exactly.

 

[pablolie]

Home review

Eight grand is a high price tag for a DAC, but the DAVE more than merits it...

www.whathifi.com

Not a bargain in the UK exactly.

That said - if you like the design and feel and UI... hey go for it. I am not sure there is an audible difference at this level of performance, even though you can most certainly get better measurable performance for a fraction of the $ elsewhere, as has been pointed out, and US import taxes notwithstanding :-D. But at this level, whether it is realistically listenable or not... your individual call. I do get he appeal of design though Chord's (or by the way, De Agostinos) is totally lost on me.

 

[JSmith]

So how is Hugo 'better' than Dave... even more musical?

Chord Hugo 2 Review (Portable DAC & HP Amp)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the CHORD HUGO 2 portable (battery operated) DAC and headphone amplifier. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $2,950. As expected, Chord carries its "design language" into this product which in my opinion, puts looks ahead of usability...

www.audiosciencereview.com

So far it seems Dave is worse, especially for the moolah.


JSmith

 

[sofrep811]

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/

Great review! I expected much more from the DAVE. I’m more surprised Chord is deceiving their customers. Sad and not expected. I’m sure we’ll be seeing someone come along (likely has as I’m late to this) to explain how the tests are wrong and end with something about it being a subjective feeling anyway. Pfft.

 

[Peternz]

Again, but why? The only thing that justifies the $14k is the target buyer’s deep pockets. A better FPGA might make it as good as the D70s. Maybe. Well, probably not because it’s faults lie in places other than the FIR filter.

Hey, stop dissing the D70s. I have one and there is no way some kind of band aid is going to make the Chord DAVE as good.

 

[amirm]

I just saw your profile. I would rely on your data as my data points are old and likely one off deals. Thanks.

Why would you post this in head-fi?

I didn't tell you I run a "retail AV shop." I said we buy a ton of AV products. They all go in custom high-end commercial and residential projects. We have no retail business. Sell no DACs. Or anything close to much of what I review here. I don't have an agenda other than testing what members bring me. If that doesn't sit well with you, then you can stay at head-fi where marketing of such is the norm, not exception.

 

[JSmith]

He went to sleep

Maybe you need some sleep too... what possessed you to make such a post elsewhere, casting such unfounded aspersions? Before making such assumptions, you would be best to actually look into what you are referring to properly. Plus it is not like @amirm has ever hid his association with Madrona... speaking of agendas, it certainly seems you have one. I'm going to go as far as saying, pull your head in champ and show some damn respect for our host here.


JSmith

 

[DHT 845]

Great review Amirm. So you say I do not need to sell d70s and apply for a bank's loan to buy Dave?

 

[PeteL]

Not trying to start anything, but this has been puzzling and annoying me forever.

As a music producer with some experience....

Best audio mixing engineers work on $2-6k monitors ( ProAcs 100, ATC 25 being most common or just good old NS10s). That's all the detail you need to hear, everything they put into it with their exceptionally trained ears, shape every sound, work every detail of it there is, all the nuainces 99.9999999% of people can't discern no matter what speakers/DACs they have...

Yet you have plebs spending thousands, or even tens of thousands of dollar on dumb converters, amplifiers etc... Why???

$600 headphone amplifier? 15k DAC? Lol... How dumb are you really?

I work with Neumann monitors at this time (and owned a dozen different brands before that). For mixing they're great but for casual music listening there's little to no benefit going from, say, $300 JBL 306 to higher end monitors.

And yet you have these people spending all this crazy money on fancy ripoff hifi components that probably can't even match $200 studio hardware.

To me, it's the stupidity of the highest degree.

Buying audiophiles gear won't get you more detail in music than a mixing engineer put into it on his $600 crap NS10 monitors.

It literally doesn't matter. At all. You paying for placebo. You don't magically extract more sound from audiophile or fake-audiophile gear. You're just being scammed. It's just so extremely dumb. It's even dumber than falling for Nigerian scams.

That's all.

I haven't seen or heard anybody mix on NS-10 for decades.

 

[Bleib]

I haven't seen or heard anybody mix on NS-10 for decades.

Hope not because the speaker doesn't even dig very deep anyway. Not extremely useful for mixing when you can't even hear it all.

@acctx
And as quite a bit measurements here on ASR shows not all studio equipment is that great either. But it doesn't mean that all of it is recorded poorly

 

[nyxnyxnyx]

Not trying to start anything, but this has been puzzling and annoying me forever.

As a music producer with some experience....

Best audio mixing engineers work on $2-6k monitors ( ProAcs 100, ATC 25 being most common or just good old NS10s). That's all the detail you need to hear, everything they put into it with their exceptionally trained ears, shape every sound, work every detail of it there is, all the nuainces 99.9999999% of people can't discern no matter what speakers/DACs they have...

Yet you have plebs spending thousands, or even tens of thousands of dollar on dumb converters, amplifiers etc... Why???

$600 headphone amplifier? 15k DAC? Lol... How dumb are you really?

I work with Neumann monitors at this time (and owned a dozen different brands before that). For mixing they're great but for casual music listening there's little to no benefit going from, say, $300 JBL 306 to higher end monitors.

And yet you have these people spending all this crazy money on fancy ripoff hifi components that probably can't even match $200 studio hardware.

To me, it's the stupidity of the highest degree.

Buying audiophiles gear won't get you more detail in music than a mixing engineer put into it on his $600 crap NS10 monitors.

It literally doesn't matter. At all. You paying for placebo. You don't magically extract more sound from audiophile or fake-audiophile gear. You're just being scammed. It's just so extremely dumb. It's even dumber than falling for Nigerian scams.

That's all.

It's not wise if one cares about price to performance ratio or just getting good sound. I think the fact that they spend more has to do with other factors too like psychological aspect and pride etc.... If they believe in audiophile voodoo buzzword nothingness and they spread it out then yeah that's on them, but if they're just someone with money to spend and prefer to pay more for aesthetic, brand prestige, bla bla bla.... Then I don't think that means they are dumb or uneducated.

IMO the dumb part has not much to do with people spending excessive money on those products, it's more about those uninformed customers barely knowing anything yet they cannot keep an open-mind to learn and discuss. For example in this forum we have active sound engineers, audio DIY veterans, audio reviewers, even manufacturers and other pioneers in this field and even so most audiophiles still don't want to consider their knowledge.
What's even more frustrating is that they keep asking knowledgeable folks for proofs, but never ever doubt the marketing claims of the products they bought.

 

[PeteL]

IMO the dumb part has not much to do with people spending excessive money on those products, it's more about those uninformed customers barely knowing anything yet they cannot keep an open-mind to learn and discuss. For example in this forum we have active sound engineers, audio DIY veterans, audio reviewers, even manufacturers and other pioneers in this field and even so most audiophiles still don't want to consider their knowledge.
What's even more frustrating is that they keep asking knowledgeable folks for proofs, but never ever doubt the marketing claims of the products they bought.

To be fair, Asking for proof is at least as much being the favorite sports of the objectivist community here. There is nothing wrong with that. I would qualify Rob Watt as a" "knowledgeable folk" and an "active audio engineer" and it's totally fair to ask proof for his claim. What's OK for one side should be for the other. Yes science should be about being able to prove what you claim, If not we are not any better and drink the cool aid on the sole premiss that the one making it is experienced or knowledgeable. This exemple shows that being knowledgeable don't mean being right all the time.

 

[nyxnyxnyx]

To be fair, Asking for proof is at least as much being the favorite sports of the objectivist community here. There is nothing wrong with that. I would qualify Rob Watt as a" "knowledgeable folk" and an "active audio engineer" and it's totally fair to ask proof for his claim. What's OK for one side should be for the other. Yes science should be about being able to prove what you claim, If not we are not any better and drink the cool aid on the sole premiss that the one making it is experienced or knowledgeable. This exemple shows that being knowledgeable don't mean being right all the time.

I agree with what you said, the thing with those kinda audiophiles is there is an imbalance in which direction they are leaning in. They can easily doubt and dismiss this site's method of testing but rarely they ever ask themselves if the stuff they bought do work as they were advertised.

In this example with RW, he is definitely an EE, knowledgeable folk and so on yet the issue is a large part of the audiophile crowd (f.e headfi, sbaf, stevehoffman etc...) are already satisfied with his previous materials (before the measurement of ASR) and they fully believe in him instead of now asking him to explain or debunk ASR's verdict.