WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. 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!
Thanks. So the differences in output analogue stage between DACs create no differences in audio output or how rich or thin it sounds? Everywhere I read, I've got experts swear by Chord DACs so I was wondering...
I saw the review now a bit late off course. But I noticed that DACs like say the SMSL M500 which I happen to own are showing better stats than this expensive Qutest in all categories Amir threw at it. Is it safe to assume that my chinese ~$300 DAC sounds better, more natural and neutral than this ~$1900 DAC? I don't have any Demo places where I live so has anyone listened to them to form an opinion? I am asking coz I'm thinking of upgrading to the Qutest. Thanks
I have great respect for many of the Chinese products, I use a yaqin valve amp myself. However when I have tried the SMSL DACS out ( a while ago) they missed out on clarity without being harsh and 3d imaging on DACS using, for instance, a plain 1794 chip with good opampas such as the opa1611. The QUTEST beat the DACS I have hands down. As I have stated earlier on in this thread I wish I knew how they do it!
Thanks. So the differences in output analogue stage between DACs create no differences in audio output or how rich or thin it sounds? Everywhere I read, I've got experts swear by Chord DACs so I was wondering...
Have they ever performed a DBT volume matched with even just the $9 Apple Lightning dongle? Without concrete evidence of a 19/20 DBT test that they can reliably pick Qutest over the $9 Apple lightning Dongle then all that subjective "rich and thin" sounds are just BS.
I myself have sighted A/B volume matched both of my $9 Apple Lightning to my $700 Bifrost 2 DAC and found zero difference despite the Bifrost 2 measurements being abysmally horrible
Have they ever performed a DBT volume matched with even just the $9 Apple Lightning dongle? Without concrete evidence of a 19/20 DBT test that they can reliably pick Qutest over the $9 Apple lightning Dongle then all that subjective "rich and thin" sounds are just BS.
I myself have sighted A/B volume matched both of my $9 Apple Lightning to my $700 Bifrost 2 DAC and found zero difference despite the Bifrost 2 measurements being abysmally horrible
Yamaha HS7 speakers fed from 120 SINAD Schiit Saga preamp Passive mode. I don't listen to dynamic or planar headphones since they lack the resolution, layering and sound stage of near field speakers to my subjective opinion though I've never listened to electrostatics FWIW
BTW, without volume matching and removing the lightning dongle out of sight, the Bifrost 2 sounds more detailed, more 3D, less harsh and all that overflowery words. That's psychoacoustics in action and eliminating bias through volume matched listening reveals no difference whatsoever
He's known to shill on any audio gears since he's given freebies from his sponsors. I would never put any weight on his subjective opinions though the good thing about him is that he goes on tangents on other aspects like build quality and some random features and he can be entertaining at times
He's known to shill on any audio gears since he's given freebies from his sponsors. I would never put any weight on his subjective opinions though the good thing about him is that he goes on tangents on other aspects like build quality and some random features and he can be entertaining at times
I own the Chord Qutest and I’ve also owned the SMSL M500. I’ve done a few volume matched shootouts between my various DACs (but keep in mind that my dB meter is reliable to the 0.7db difference) and the results tend to be interesting.
For pop music it’s really hard to tell the difference between any of the DACs, period (except the line out which is very obvious). It’s in well mastered electronic and eg; jazz with lots of hi-hats and pluck bass that sometimes things sound different.
The well measuring DACs all have a similar sound (which I guess they should, being neutral so they really have no sound of their own at all) but eg; for whatever reason I reliably prefer the Qutest as having ever so much more detail without sounding harsh. In 10 different songs I could pick it out 7/10 times. I can similarly identify the R2R DACs reliably. Some just sound far more muddy (not in a pleasant way) and one actually sounds pleasant (the Denafrips Ares II... which I just sent to Amir to review) but I suspect it’ll show distortion because it definitely doesn’t have the clarity of eg; the Qutest.
Imaging is something people talk about a lot but I have yet to see a great way to measure it and it’s super dependent on the source material (and speakers, room, etc.) I have noticed when I listen with the Qutest that a well recorded track that has good imaging will reflect that in my system. But with some other DACs the image seems too wide. Not sure how to best quantify that.
Again, it's sighted listening . I wouldn't hold it against anyone but if seeing the Qutest in your system gives you magical pixie resolution and zero harshness then you don't really need to ask anyone here. What we can tell you is that Qutest and any other well engineered DAC will sound great and be indistinguishable under DBT volume matched test (95%-100% confidence of distinguishing the DACs)
Well, without DBT we can’t claim that either. All we can verify are the measurements for the DACs and the limits of their effects on signals output to the rest of the audio chain. No more no less without a proper DBT with sufficient sample size. The manufactured confidence interval you threw up is rather irrelevant lol.
Of course, it would be surprising if a substantial difference did exist in such an experiment. I would certainly hope not— we’re talking about nearly identical signals coming from the DACs.
me— I enjoy my glowy little black box knowing full well a topping DX7 would happily do the job. At the end of the day if we’re paying for audio jewelry it better be well engineered audio jewelry after all.
me— I enjoy my glowy little black box knowing full well a topping DX7 would happily do the job. At the end of the day if we’re paying for audio jewelry it better be well engineered audio jewelry after all.
BTW, I was able to get up close to the Qutest recently and was incredibly surprised on how heavy it was especially compared to Hugo 2 and Mojo. I'm probably sure that Chord put some weights around the chassis so that Qutest will not be dragged down by heavy cables
Yeah, I’ve taken it apart along with the Hugo. The Qutest’s chassis weighs a lot (and for what it’s worth is machined pretty nicely). Rather than weights it’s just really thick metal. I’m guessing the manufacturing cost of the chassis alone is half the unit price (because the FPGA they used is pretty cheap). I used to hate the form factor but I’ve grown fond of it since it’s really easy to place.
I own the Chord Qutest and I’ve also owned the SMSL M500. I’ve done a few volume matched shootouts between my various DACs (but keep in mind that my dB meter is reliable to the 0.7db difference) and the results tend to be interesting.
For pop music it’s really hard to tell the difference between any of the DACs, period (except the line out which is very obvious). It’s in well mastered electronic and eg; jazz with lots of hi-hats and pluck bass that sometimes things sound different.
The well measuring DACs all have a similar sound (which I guess they should, being neutral so they really have no sound of their own at all) but eg; for whatever reason I reliably prefer the Qutest as having ever so much more detail without sounding harsh. In 10 different songs I could pick it out 7/10 times. I can similarly identify the R2R DACs reliably. Some just sound far more muddy (not in a pleasant way) and one actually sounds pleasant (the Denafrips Ares II... which I just sent to Amir to review) but I suspect it’ll show distortion because it definitely doesn’t have the clarity of eg; the Qutest.
Imaging is something people talk about a lot but I have yet to see a great way to measure it and it’s super dependent on the source material (and speakers, room, etc.) I have noticed when I listen with the Qutest that a well recorded track that has good imaging will reflect that in my system. But with some other DACs the image seems too wide. Not sure how to best quantify that.
Thanks. So in short your hit rate was 70% to tell the difference between say a $1900 DAC over a say $350 DAC....and that too for certain non-pop recordings. Was it a noticeable difference when listening casually in your opinion?
R2R is a different story I presume...and it should be easy to tell apart. How was the Ares II btw? Does it blow the other well measuring Delta Sigma DACs out of the water in terms of naturalness and analogue like Sound?
Its exciting though, if 2 DACs process the same 1/0s fully in the same time domain...can they produce 2 different analogue signals...I mean can one be theoretically more detailed than the other while processing the same bits? If no, then what is the rationale of DACs that cost 5000+ dollars if they sound the same as the 350 one? Some threads talk about differences in analogue output stage...how significant is that? And can that be measured? I know dum question...but still...
Again, it's sighted listening . I wouldn't hold it against anyone but if seeing the Qutest in your system gives you magical pixie resolution and zero harshness then you don't really need to ask anyone here. What we can tell you is that Qutest and any other well engineered DAC will sound great and be indistinguishable under DBT volume matched test (95%-100% confidence of distinguishing the DACs)
Although much cheaper but I've got a bit of an experience myself in A/B'ing DACs... pretty basic ones. I've compared the Dragonfly Red with the SMSL SU-8...a difference in SiNAD of around 25-30. Volume matched, I could not tell them apart on my THX 789 and my Hifiman Arya/HD 650. For some reason though, I find my new M500 lot more inviting though... especially on the Apodidizing PCM filter...don't know why
Thanks. So in short your hit rate was 70% to tell the difference between say a $1900 DAC over a say $350 DAC....and that too for certain non-pop recordings. Was it a noticeable difference when listening casually in your opinion?
R2R is a different story I presume...and it should be easy to tell apart. How was the Ares II btw? Does it blow the other well measuring Delta Sigma DACs out of the water in terms of naturalness and analogue like Sound?
Its exciting though, if 2 DACs process the same 1/0s fully in the same time domain...can they produce 2 different analogue signals...I mean can one be theoretically more detailed than the other while processing the same bits? If no, then what is the rationale of DACs that cost 5000+ dollars if they sound the same as the 350 one? Some threads talk about differences in analogue output stage...how significant is that? And can that be measured? I know dum question...but still...
Well, absolutely there is no conceivable way that based on the sound quality eg; the Qutest is going to be 5x better than any other technically excellent DAC. In fact, many may prefer the other DAC. You’re paying for build quality, and bespoke over engineering. It’s really no different than paying for an over the top mechanical watch movement.
As for the R2R DACs yes they sound different. It’s like tubes where they heavily affect the sound. In most cases for the worst. For what it’s worth I found the Ares II to be quite pleasant though. BUT it causes a loss in detail.
Well, absolutely there is no conceivable way that based on the sound quality eg; the Qutest is going to be 5x better than any other technically excellent DAC. In fact, many may prefer the other DAC. You’re paying for build quality, and bespoke over engineering. It’s really no different than paying for an over the top mechanical watch movement.
As for the R2R DACs yes they sound different. It’s like tubes where they heavily affect the sound. In most cases for the worst. For what it’s worth I found the Ares II to be quite pleasant though. BUT it causes a loss in detail.
Thanks. Off course it won't be 5 times better sounding...my curiosity was around the differences being 'noticeable' at least for 5 times the price, volume matched.
As for the R2R DACs yes they sound different. It’s like tubes where they heavily affect the sound. In most cases for the worst. For what it’s worth I found the Ares II to be quite pleasant though. BUT it causes a loss in detail.
I probably doubt that. Even my Schiit Bifrost 2 DAC known by subjectivist to be much more "musical" sounding didn't have any sonic difference with the delta sigma Apple lightning DAC/Amp once volume matched.
. I wouldn't hold it against anyone but if seeing the Qutest in your system gives you magical pixie resolution and zero harshness then you don't really need to ask anyone here. What we can tell you is that Qutest and any other well engineered DAC will sound great and be indistinguishable under DBT volume matched test (95%-100% confidence of distinguishing the DACs)
