Review and Measurements of Chord Mojo DAC and Amp

[Stan Smitchen]

Here at the audiosciencereview-forum, so much is written about technical stuff. That's much better compared to the fairytale forum head-fi.org, where the hifi-snakeoil and voodoo are paid homage.

 

[Simon P]

Not simple, but not impossible. The invocation of the uncertainty principle isn't appropriate here since we are not looking at an infinitely small sinc or a very long time series. For example, DeltaWave detects timing differences in a real audio waveform down to around 1/100 of a ppm (or 10 ppb) in a 44.1k recording. And it does it in ... the Frequency Domain. If you are going to tell me that 10 ppb difference is audible, then I would really like you to run some well controlled ABX tests, as this will make for some sensational published research.

Seems to me the Fourier uncertainty principle means digital audio is in practice always necessarily a time domain approximation. It's just how good it is we're interested in, and whether the brain does indeed register any departures. At the very least I'd have thought you'd have to acknowledge there's the potential for errors in there, errors that as we all know are minimised on a long sine wave or periodic waveform, especially when time averaged in the analyser. Not sure what you mean here by 10ppb timing errors. 10ppb of what?
What are you actually comparing in terms of samples with your program? Most FIRs are working at oversampled rates, right?
BTW I tried my disliked DAC again and it seems to work a lot better on USB when s/w upsampled from 44.1 to 192 than it does through SPDIF at 44.1. I wonder whether the async aspect of this interface is causing an issue.

 

[pkane]

Seems to me the Fourier uncertainty principle means digital audio is in practice always necessarily a time domain approximation. It's just how good it is we're interested in, and whether the brain does indeed register any departures. At the very least I'd have thought you'd have to acknowledge there's the potential for errors in there, errors that as we all know are minimised on a long sine wave or periodic waveform, especially when time averaged in the analyser. Not sure what you mean here by 10ppb timing errors. 10ppb of what?
What are you actually comparing in terms of samples with your program? Most FIRs are working at oversampled rates, right?
BTW I tried my disliked DAC again and it seems to work a lot better on USB when s/w upsampled from 44.1 to 192 than it does through SPDIF at 44.1. I wonder whether the async aspect of this interface is causing an issue.

10ppb meaning an error of 10 parts (samples) per 1 billion (samples). There's always a potential for error, but the question is the magnitude. At the frequencies and time periods we are talking about, the effect of the uncertainty principle is miniscule.

FIR works just fine without oversampling. The reason oversampling is used in digital audio is to move the transition band away from audible frequencies for sampling rates where Nyquist is close to them. This makes the filter simpler/faster/easier to implement, especially in hardware.

 

[Roen]

PMD100-PCM63P-K. Just sounds natural, music holds up and sounds natural. Fast, punchy, pacy, cohesive sound when required. Subjectively HF is a little grainy or rough but OK. K-grade PCM63s seem better with that. Old school r2r.

DSP-Wolfson, newer product. Superficially more 'etched' or obvious transients. Maybe cleaner sounding on percussion. Tiring to listen to, unnatural. Don't know the DSP philosophy.

I also have a universal disc player with Crystal dacs, sounds decent and enjoyable but not up the the PMD/PCM63.

Don't want to get personal and name manufacturers.

Hope you realize how little your personal subjective observations carry over to others, and how useless that makes it in the realm of objective discussion on differences between hardware.

 

[Simon P]

Hope you realize how little your personal subjective observations carry over to others, and how useless that makes it in the realm of objective discussion on differences between hardware.

It's hard to decide the subjective thing one way or the other, so I won't try. Certainly it's inherently personal. Formal short-term blind tests often support rational expectations associated with measured data. My personal opinion is that there are meaningful differences between DACs which measure very well on the established parameters. There again, I think an OPA2134 sounds different to an LM49720, in either a reconstruction filter and in a preamp. I guess we won't agree here and I'm happy to leave it at that.

I am however interested in how modern DACs extract the clock from SPDIF inputs and how they handle jitter of various frequencies. Are digital PPLs able to substantially remove low frequency input jitter? And what is the effect of plesiochronous clocks here with a separately clocked transport? How much timing resolution is available at the DAC end?

 

[amirm]

I am however interested in how modern DACs extract the clock from SPDIF inputs and how they handle jitter of various frequencies. Are digital PPLs able to substantially remove low frequency input jitter? And what is the effect of plesiochronous clocks here with a separately clocked transport? How much timing resolution is available at the DAC end?

There are different schemes. You can build very good PLLs with high levels of jitter reduction but they tend to increase the lock time which annoys users. Solutions are many including using two PLLs, digital PLLs such as you mention, etc. Some even go as far as detecting the clock rate and then running async to the input until they see a gap in music.

 

[Simon P]

There are different schemes. You can build very good PLLs with high levels of jitter reduction but they tend to increase the lock time which annoys users. Solutions are many including using two PLLs, digital PLLs such as you mention, etc. Some even go as far as detecting the clock rate and then running async to the input until they see a gap in music.

I'm certainly aware that an analogue PLL, i.e. one with an analogue out phase comparator and amp/lpf and a vco, can attenuate jitter very effectively over a broad band. But most cheap (and not-so-cheap) outboard audio DACs seem to use the digital clock extract built into the chip. I would think that would necessarily quantise the interface timing to the periodicity of the fastest on-chip clock and therefore introduce small amplitude but more-or-less continuous jitter, with an asynchronous (plesiochronous) interface.
When you test for jitter, do you do a jitter transfer function or just test for residuals with an essentially perfectly timed input?
I recently listened to a very tidy sounding newly designed CD player which is synchronous all the way through and makes no attempt to be a general purpose DAC. I also seemed to have noticed audible issues (usual caveats, agreed) with CD spdif into an outboard DAC. Just a train of thought, not substantiated by any detailed evidence.

 

[The Lazy Geek]

@amirm I’ve been using a Chord Mojo using its optical input from a Chrome Cast Audio. I do see a difference in sound when i use its USB input (from a laptop or Allo USBridge). I use its headphone out into active speakers (Adam Audio F7s) through RCA cables (preceded by a 3.5 mm to RCA cable).

I think the Mojo is too sensitive to any kind of leakage current or electrical noise. Did your measurements prove this when comparing optical to USB inputs? Also, I don’t think Mojo was designed for anything but headphones. So, can leakage current from active speakers enter Mojo’s circuits from its headphone out ?

 

[VintageFlanker]

@amirm I’ve been using a Chord Mojo using its optical input from a Chrome Cast Audio. I do see a difference in sound when i use its USB input (from a laptop or Allo USBridge). I use its headphone out into active speakers (Adam Audio F7s) through RCA cables (preceded by a 3.5 mm to RCA cable).

I think the Mojo is too sensitive to any kind of leakage current or electrical noise. Did your measurements prove this when comparing optical to USB inputs? Also, I don’t think Mojo was designed for anything but headphones. So, can leakage current from active speakers enter Mojo’s circuits from its headphone out ?

I was using mine with my Galaxy S7 at the time. Headphones, IEM, line out or whatever: I think USB was a total disaster. Mojo took all the network noises and bips from the phone. No issue with optical. I don't know with a computer, though.

Still measurements should be similar between both: If @amirm environment for measurements is clean, there is no reason this should measurable unless to intentionally provoke these kind of noise from the source.

 

[The Lazy Geek]

I was using mine with my Galaxy S7 at the time. Headphones, IEM, line out or whatever: I think USB was a total disaster. Mojo took all the network noises and bips from the phone. No issue with optical. I don't know with a computer, though.

Still measurements should be similar between both: If @amirm environment for measurements is clean, there is no reason this should measurable unless to intentionally provoke these kind of noise from the source.

I was using mine with my Galaxy S7 at the time. Headphones, IEM, line out or whatever: I think USB was a total disaster. Mojo took all the network noises and bips from the phone. No issue with optical. I don't know with a computer, though.

Still measurements should be similar between both: If @amirm environment for measurements is clean, there is no reason this should measurable unless to intentionally provoke these kind of noise from the source.

I’m keen to see what would happen in measurement terms if a normal (wall wart) USB charger was also connected to the Mojo while it was playing through its optical input.

 

[allhifi]

This is a review and detailed measurements of Chord Mojo portable DAC and headphone amplifier. It is on a kind loan from a member. Retail price is USD $599 but I see Amazon showing it for $532 including prime shipping.

The Mojo is a small but chunky and heavy as portable headphone amplifiers go:

View attachment 17369

The case feels like it is filled with lead and you could run a car on top of it and have it escape unscathed.

Let me get out of the way that I am not a fan of its whimsical look. But much worse is forcing a human to decode hues and color intensity of lights to detect what mode the unit is in. Why oh why? For $600, I expect something more informative than what is offered here. I will for example happily take a rotary volume control over those two blue buttons for volume level.

The Chord products are popularized by its designer, Rob Watts who is quite active online, and in audio shows/conferences. Having technical designers mingle with social media community has been proven to be a successful formula and this is no exception. In one of the talks Rob mentioned they had sold something like 70,000 Chord Mojos!

Rob's approach to building DACs is rather unique and involves his own custom DAC implemented in an ASIC (custom integrated circuit) [EDIT: it uses and FPGA which is like an ASIC but programmable over and over again]. The reason for shunning off-the-shelf DACs is that Rob believes in very high precision filters for upsampling and reconstruction. Convinced by his own experiments (sighted and unscientific unfortunately), he believes the more precision he puts in these filters, the better the sound gets. He has taken this to incredible extremes in his higher-end DACs but that formula also exists in this little unit.

The drawback to his approach is power consumption and heat. The Mojo sitting there doing nothing runs warm. With use it gets even warmer making me concerned for lifetime of any battery in there. Batteries don't like to be charged when warm and here, that will be the rule, not the exception. All that heat could also go to producing sound instead of wasting battery life.

Are the compromises worth it? Let's measure the unit and see. Note that all tests are done with USB input.

Measurements
This review will be much more detailed than my usual ones since Chord DACs are sold on basis of technical claims. As I typically do, I start with testing the DAC portion of the unit and then the headphone amplifier. Since there is no separate line out, I resort to setting the output to 2 volts. There is a mode to put the unit in "line-out" mode but it produces too high a voltage of 3 volts which degrades the performance. I don't know where the notion of 3 volt comes from other than wanting to make sure the unit sounds louder than others. Due to steppingstones of the volume control, I could not get to exact 2 volt output but that shouldn't matter. Let's get our dashboard view and see the state of union:
View attachment 17371

Chord specifies Mojo distortion at 0.00017%. We are missing that by a fair bit at 0.00086%. Sadly Chord spec shows no measurement conditions (e.g. weighted or not) so no way of knowing how to try to match their numbers.

A bit worrying was highly variable response. I was getting SINAD numbers jumping from 99 to 105. The above snapshot randomly captured 101. I usually see some variations but not 6 dB. Regardless, using a 102 dB SINAD puts the Mojo solidly at the bottom of our tier 2 DAC performance:
View attachment 17372

That puts it in the same category of portable units like Topping NX4 DSD (retail $150). Rather disappointing.

Let's look at intermodulation distortion versus level:
View attachment 17373

I happen to have the Topping DX3Pro ($250) in my template so I left it there as a reference. We see that Chord Mojo has uniformly higher noise level (and hence worse THD+N/SINAD). But also has a kink in the curve where intermodulation distortion overtakes noise at around -25 dB. Some kind of non-linearity is setting in. Not sure if this is in the DAC portion or amplification. Either way, there should be better performance here.

The Chord Mojo redeems itself with very good jitter spectrum:

View attachment 17374

This is my new high resolution test so we are liable to see spikes but they are all well below audibility by any stretch.

Linearity is very good (and beats DX3Pro) but it is not textbook perfect:
View attachment 17375

Many DACs achieve less than 0.5 dB of error at -120 dB but the Mojo DAC misses that mark.

Dynamic range is 9 dB shy of the spec:
View attachment 17376

Since there is so much talk about the filter component of Chord DACs, I ran a few tests to characterize that. Here is the response to square wave:

View attachment 17377

We get a "free" multitone response out of that in frequency domain since a square wave is a tone with infinite odd harmonics:

View attachment 17378

An ideal system would have a response at 1, 3, 5, 7, etc. kHz. We see those spikes but also get fair amount of "grass" growing at their feet with spurious spikes.

There is also an odd rise in low frequencies. Not sure what this is about. Fortunately we are pretty deaf in that region so not an audible concern.

Running white noise through a DAC shows the response of the reconstruction filter since such a noise has infinite bandwidth:

View attachment 17379

An ideal DAC would have infinite attenuation outside of the our required band (22.05 kHz at 44.1 kHz). No DAC is perfect though and here we see an attenuation of 80 dB.

Zooming into the transition band (from full bandwidth to filtered) we see the bandwidth of the filter:
View attachment 17380

So the transition region is about 370 Hz. I will try to measure this on other DACs from time to time so we have more frame of reference. Personally though, I am as interested in such things as watching paint dry. But I know some of you like to see them so I will provide them as time allows.

I think we are done with the DAC portion. Let's see how how much power we can get out of this unit with headphone loads started with 300 ohm:
View attachment 17381

Here again I had the Topping DX3Pro results already in the template. As we see, the Chord graph is rather choppy and as indicated by the letter "T," is frustrating the analyzer by not providing a stable output -- same issue we saw in the dashboard. I actually relaxed the criteria (hence the choppiness of the graph) to get any results.

We see decent amount of power here although once again, less than DX3Pro. Same was true at 33 ohm:

View attachment 17382

The output was more stable here, producing 410 milliwatts of power prior to clipping. This is pretty good amount of power for a small battery operated unit.

Output impedance is satisfyingly low at just 0.7 ohm:

View attachment 17383

So it should be able to drive any headphone and not impact its frequency response.

Finally, let's look at channel balance versus volume control level:

View attachment 17385

We have perfect result of 0 dB deviation due to use of digital controls. The up/down buttons change level by 1 dB linearity forever as shown in the graph. That is perceptually not correct but it does the job.

Listening Tests
As usual I start my listening tests with 300 ohm Sennheiser HD-650 headphone. Using my usual test clips, the Chord Mojo got quite loud but as the saying goes, "it got scared before I did." Namely, I could get it loud enough to start to get distorted/buzz/crackle some with bass getting distorted. This was at very high volumes though so not a problem for just about anyone.

There was more power (as there usually is) with my HiFiMan HE-400i generating a very satisfying experience.

No, I did not detect any magical qualities due to the filter or DAC design.

Conclusions
There is really nothing broken in Chord Mojo. It performs well in a variety of tests. The issue with it is so much technical hype about its superiority that one is left empty after seeing performance that is well below state-of-the-art. We have DACs at less than half the price easily outperforming it on many tests. I cannot see any technical benefit to its design approach. On the contrary, that approach brings with it much higher cost, and power consumption. Combine that with the poor user interface and the Chord Mojo is simply not my cup of tea.

Again, the Mojo is a competent product unlike some other boutique DACs that compete with each other to see who can produce worse performance. It goes a different route but leaves the road well paved. So if you are attracted to it, I am not going to sit here and tell you that you should not buy it.

A rant: Rob Watts owns an audio precision analyzer which he uses for the design of his DACs. Why on earth then are his specs are shorter than markings on a car tire? Why not post full measurement report? This review is going to garner some amount of angst among people. To short circuit that, I am going to remind you that the only answer to my review is manufacture posting similar measurements showing different results. That they don't do that, is a more serious problem than any conflict between the data I have and what is claimed.

-------------

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

If you like this review, please consider donating funds using Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/audiosciencereview), or upgrading your membership here though Paypal (https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...eview-and-measurements.2164/page-3#post-59054).

Amir: There appears considerable 'bias' in this "review". (?)

Chord product in general receives superior reviews (likely legitimate) from around the globe -both pro/consumer.
Model after model, year-after-year -for the past 20-years !

Yet you seem 'bent' on minimizing Watt's highly-regarded designs (DAC accomplishments). Most bizarre.
If you feel you can/will dissuade consumer's from considering being customer 70,001 you'll likely be left
disappointed.

Moments ago, I read the review on Berkley's DAC-2(?) here on this site; the tech spec's were incredibly disappointing.
Yet, the odd "good" measurement was worthy of 'extra-wording' (praise) while some truly crappy measurements were
swept under the rug. What gives ?

Or perhaps is it that this website would like to believe that superior SQ ALWAYS has SOTA/Best technical spec's ?

I suppose it takes decades of experience (eventually transitioning to expertise) that leads to credible, even-handed
remarks -and insight. Here's hoping it comes sooner rather than later ....

peter jasz

 

[Veri]

Amir: There appears considerable 'bias' in this "review". (?)

Chord product in general receives superior reviews (likely legitimate) from around the globe -both pro/consumer.
Model after model, year-after-year -for the past 20-years !

Yet you seem 'bent' on minimizing Watt's highly-regarded designs (DAC accomplishments). Most bizarre.
If you feel you can/will dissuade consumer's from considering being customer 70,001 you'll likely be left
disappointed.

Wait wait wait wait. You come in here with an obvious bias that Chord DACs are widely acclaimed as 'great' and start your rant/argument that Amir is in fact biased? Think about that for a moment!!

Honestly, this thread is filled with people complaining about short battery life, ridiculous costly replacement of said battery, and ridiculous sensitivity to radio/emi noise even when just tapping the Mojo enclosure.

Or perhaps is it that this website would like to believe that superior SQ ALWAYS has SOTA/Best technical spec's ?

It's the other way around.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Amir: There appears considerable 'bias' in this "review". (?)

Chord product in general receives superior reviews (likely legitimate) from around the globe -both pro/consumer.
Model after model, year-after-year -for the past 20-years !

Yet you seem 'bent' on minimizing Watt's highly-regarded designs (DAC accomplishments). Most bizarre.
If you feel you can/will dissuade consumer's from considering being customer 70,001 you'll likely be left
disappointed.

Moments ago, I read the review on Berkley's DAC-2(?) here on this site; the tech spec's were incredibly disappointing.
Yet, the odd "good" measurement was worthy of 'extra-wording' (praise) while some truly crappy measurements were
swept under the rug. What gives ?

Or perhaps is it that this website would like to believe that superior SQ ALWAYS has SOTA/Best technical spec's ?

I suppose it takes decades of experience (eventually transitioning to expertise) that leads to credible, even-handed
remarks -and insight. Here's hoping it comes sooner rather than later ....

peter jasz

I think it is true that the Chord products tend to be SOTA but that there are other products which sound just as good that are much less expensive if not as nicely made.
Certainly the DAC technique used by Chord, and that used by dCS are certainly nice selling points, since they are unique and they are both beautifully made but there is no sound evidence they actually sound better in level matched tests. I write this as a Chord and dCS owner who has done level matched listening comparisons btw.
The main complaint against the Mojo seems to be cost/reliability and EMI sensitivity rather than basic performance.
I have a Hugo which I like a lot for its quirkiness and it works fine for me. I also use a Blu transport for CDs. The Dave DAC is certainly as good as it gets but is very, maybe reassuringly, expensive.

 

[Saffuria]

Update: After removing the battery, irony struck - my mobile Mojo is now a decent desktop dec/amp.

Are you stiil using your Mojo this way? Couse I'm using it as a desktop dac/amp and this battery thing is really annoying...
Anyway, sound is good.

 

[allhifi]

Wait wait wait wait. You come in here with an obvious bias that Chord DACs are widely acclaimed as 'great' and start your rant/argument that Amir is in fact biased? Think about that for a moment!!

Honestly, this thread is filled with people complaining about short battery life, ridiculous costly replacement of said battery, and ridiculous sensitivity to radio/emi noise even when just tapping the Mojo enclosure.


Fair enough. Perhaps it was one of Chord's other DAC's (Qutest, Hugo, Dave) that YES, that ALL receive splendid universal, critical acclaim.

pj

 

[Jorj]

Fair enough. Perhaps it was one of Chord's other DAC's (Qutest, Hugo, Dave) that YES, that ALL receive splendid universal, critical acclaim.

You're making the mistake that many who have little exposure to objective analysis make. Sure, lots of pundits and reviewers love them. Rob talks a good talk. BUT. The world is full of audio gear that was universally acclaimed and measures like garbage. All that means is reviewers ears are no better than those of the rest of the world. How many negative product reviews have you read? (I'd wager most of them were on this site.) I should add that not all reviewers are so enamored of Chord, like the SBAF crowd. Now, it's not that they have good reason, they're a bunch of trend-following, "we measure stuff but don't trust the results" audiophools for the most part, but don't make the mistake of assuming that the lemmings are not running over a cliff simply because there are so many of them. That is one of the basic logical fallacies.

The Chord products sound good. They don't measure the best, but good luck hearing the difference between a Mojo and some other competent portable DAC\amp (level matched). There are some issues with the Mojo. I have one and still use it often.

 

[allhifi]

Once again, let's drop the Chord 'Mojo' (bashing).

EVERY other Chord DAC (since 2015?) measures brilliantly ! What are you talking about ?

Google the 'Qutest', Hugo2, Dave -ALL have spectacularly low noise floor and ABSOLUTE UNIVERSAL (as in
Globally) critical acclaim from reviewer's and owner's alike.

For goodness sake's early this morning, not one, but several reviews on the 'Qutest' were ALL stunned by its
superb measured performance -and more importantly World-Class sound quality.

There are several wishy-washy design out there, but NOT from Chord (or Auralic, dCs, T+A, Antipodes etc.).
All of these manufacturer's offer beautifully built/spec'd product -damn it, some ven sound OK. lol

To suggest current Chord DAC's are anything short of state-of-the-art suggests you've been away some where,
for some time -In a Land, Far, Far Away ...

pj

 

[allhifi]

You're making the mistake that many who have little exposure to objective analysis make. Sure, lots of pundits and reviewers love them. Rob talks a good talk. BUT. The world is full of audio gear that was universally acclaimed and measures like garbage. All that means is reviewers ears are no better than those of the rest of the world. How many negative product reviews have you read? (I'd wager most of them were on this site.) I should add that not all reviewers are so enamored of Chord, like the SBAF crowd. Now, it's not that they have good reason, they're a bunch of trend-following, "we measure stuff but don't trust the results" audiophools for the most part, but don't make the mistake of assuming that the lemmings are not running over a cliff simply because there are so many of them. That is one of the basic logical fallacies.

The Chord products sound good. They don't measure the best, but good luck hearing the difference between a Mojo and some other competent portable DAC\amp (level matched). There are some issues with the Mojo. I have one and still use it often.

For sure, your assertions are bang-on ?

No less the ASR review itself (last link/or scroll to top) :


https://www.techradar.com/reviews/chord-qutest

https://www.whathifi.com/chord/qutest/review

https://www.stereophile.com/content/chord-electronics-qutest-da-processor

https://darko.audio/2017/09/top-of-the-pops-chord-electronics-outstanding-hugo-2/
(HUGO2)

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ew-and-measurements-of-chord-qutest-dac.5981/


pj

 

[JJB70]

I think that Chord gear is generally well designed, performs well and looks the part if you are OK with the UI. It's not cheap but by the standards of high end hifi neither is a lot of their gear that expensive. Making the Mojo which is an affordable and accessible product for regular consumers was a nice move and one not that many other expensive brands have done. So in many ways I think that the company is commendable. Certainly Watts is no idiot and him and his team are clearly very capable. However he does also spout some nonsense and I find this particularly disappointing precisely because Watts is not just another snake oil selling quack job but a very knowledgeable and capable individual. He knows better. And the Mojo battery stuff was disappointing. However I certainly would not put Chord in the same basket as TotalDAC for example. You certainly don't need to pay Chord prices for a good DAC but if you do at least you are getting a good product with a suitably premium feel.

 

[Jorj]

Once again, let's drop the Chord 'Mojo' (bashing).

EVERY other Chord DAC (since 2015?) measures brilliantly ! What are you talking about ?

Google the 'Qutest', Hugo2, Dave -ALL have spectacularly low noise floor and ABSOLUTE UNIVERSAL (as in
Globally) critical acclaim from reviewer's and owner's alike.

For goodness sake's early this morning, not one, but several reviews on the 'Qutest' were ALL stunned by its
superb measured performance -and more importantly World-Class sound quality.

There are several wishy-washy design out there, but NOT from Chord (or Auralic, dCs, T+A, Antipodes etc.).
All of these manufacturer's offer beautifully built/spec'd product -damn it, some ven sound OK. lol

To suggest current Chord DAC's are anything short of state-of-the-art suggests you've been away some where,
for some time -In a Land, Far, Far Away ...

pj

If you bothered to read, you'd know that I'm a fan of the Chord Mojo and happen to like the quirky interface. I use mine daily. It's not without problems, like getting hot, accidental button presses, and some really, REALLY awful EMI issues, but I endure those and still like it.

Not sure why you're railing on about the Dave, the Hugo, the Qutest and such, they were never under this particular microscope. I would point out that the fundamentals of the gazillion-tap DAC architecture does not stand up to closer electronic or audio-engineering scrutiny, but it sounds impressively technical and sells units, so if folks think they sound good, wonderful! They still cost a lot less than many other audio-nirvana gadgets out there, and are fun in their quirky way so, bang on, I say.

I can certainly suggest that Chord DACs are somewhat less than SOTA and the data would support that statement. The adaptation of a FPGA to audio processing is not even particularly novel (it's just software on a chip fahchrissakes). Mr. Watts speaks about matters that can only be described as pseudoscience in many of his presentations, and despite these monumentally important technical achievements (according to him) his gear sounds just as good as many other high-end DACs, and even sometimes might be said to rival some measurements of state-of-the-art audio gear. It's competent kit, works fine, costs more than many rival devices that test as well or better, and that is all. Calling a well implemented D\S DAC from ESS or AKM as less-than-SOTA (which I hope you're not) because it costs less and does not come with a Rob Watts to technobabble it over the moon would go over very badly in this neck of the woods.

The fact that the audio literati are STUNNED means less than nothing to me. Yes, I'm looking at you, Arnott & Fremer. Remember, these are the guys that listen to cables and buy $35K tonearms. A subjective review is worth less than the paper it was written on, unless you're a salesman or manufacturer.