Chord Chordette Qute EX DAC - Update

I have the 2G cable on order and will be comparing it head-to-head with my TotalDac D1 cable once the 2G arrives. We will see which cable emerges as victorious.

How much will the 2G cost?

2G msrp: $449 (1 meter), $599 (2 meter), $799 (3 meter), and $1,199 (5 meter)

I'm sure it is. Good buddies like Priaptor love it...but I am slightly turned off by the investment required. I'm probably being short sighted given my audio investments in the past.

Don't tell me about...!

The worst thing to me is each USB cable works different with each USB DAC.

Then, which would be the "best" USB cable?

Roch

Great article Ted. I had recently purchased the Qute EX and am currently revisiting my entire playlist with awe at what a high quality DAC can do with this music. After over a year of researching various products within my limited budget, I ended up purchasing the Qute EX thanks in part to your ongoing reviews and forum contributions on several DACs I was considering. Please accept my thanks and a very sincere "keep up the great work"!

Budley007 (and others, too)

Thanks for the nice comments. It is great to read, I can't lie.

OK....well, I know it will be a little while before I can do another review (or addtl addendum) in this Chord series...namely the Hugo. I expect to receive it as early as late this week (although I think it's safer to say next week). And then break-in, etc. And so even though this mini-diatribe from Chord's own Rob Watts is mainly targeted for the Hugo, it says things about the Qute series too, so I thought I would publish it here.

This is Rob's response to "what do the Chord DACs really do to DSD internally" (first posted on Head-Fi):

"I have had a number of posts asking me about DSD, how it is done within Hugo etc. A constant idea is that DSD should remain native and hence "pure" and that this would be best. Now I sympathise with this idea, as if it were analogue then one would want to keep everything as simple and direct as possible, as each analogue component you add, you degrade transparency. But this rule simply does not apply in the digital domain, as it is possible to have processing that is perfectly transparent (just to stop there - although a digital module can be made perfectly transparent, it is categorically not easy to do so).

So I need to explain why native DSD is a bad idea inside the DAC. Firstly, Hugo needs to see the original file that you can get hold off, so if it was originally PCM, use that, if it was DSD, feed that to Hugo via DoP. So my comments about native DSD apply about inside the DAC, something people do not see.

Firstly, some history. I first started getting involved in designing DAC's in 1989, when I heard Phillips Bitstream DAC the SAA7320. Compared to multi-bit DAC's at the time, it was a revelation - digital was starting to sound smooth and refined. Now these DACs were PDM types - that is 1 bit with 256 times oversampling - technically exactly the same as DSD but running at 256 times not 64. Now I started with these DAC's, made improvements, and I realised that the noise shapers were limiting resolution, so I started using multiple chips each with their own dither, to improve resolution. Noise shapers convert PCM to lower resolution data like 1 bit DSD. Also I found that the out of band noise from these noise shapers were overloading the analogue sections, giving noise floor modulation, making it sound harder. Also the DAC's were innately very sensitive to clock jitter. To try to solve these problems I designed the PDM1024, which had multiple noise shapers (improve resolution) and digital filtering (delay and add) to help with the jitter sensitivity and the out of band noise problems. Now the PDM1024 (early 90's now) gave a big step forward, but I could not resolve all of these problems. So I started developing Pulse Array, which was a multi-bit noise shape technology. To solve the noise shaper resolution problems, it runs at 2048 FS and is 5th order or better. This theoretically approaches 90dB more noise shaper resolution than PDM at 256 FS, and 150 dB more resolution than DSD 64. The Pulse Array modulation scheme also has the benefit in that it has much lower master clock jitter sensitivity than native DSD/PDM and, more importantly, has no jitter induced noise that is signal dependent as it is a constant clocking scheme - so it has no innate noise floor modulation. Also, by running at 2048 FS, the noise shaper noise at 1MHz is much lower - about 1000 times lower noise than usual DAC's. This means a simple analogue single stage with minimal filtering, so you get much more transparency. Also, the analogue active section has a much easier time, as RF induced noise floor modulation is fundamentally easier.

Now this happened in 1995. At the same time, silicon DAC designers were on a similar path - moving performance DAC's to multi-level noise shaping, away from single bit. At this time DSD started, which was moving in the opposite direction - instead of 256 FS it had reduced to 64 FS, simply because of data rate limitations on optical disks. Now as I have talked about in earlier posts, DSD has a major benefit - it does not have the big timing problems of PCM - but it suffers from much poorer resolution, and creates more distortion and noise than PCM. Using the WTA filter addresses (I won't say eliminates the timing issue because I think we need more taps than today to do that) the timing problems of PCM, giving you the potential of better resolution from PCM and overall better sound.

Now when DSD was first presented, it was claimed that processing could be maintained natively, that is if you wanted to add volume control or freq EQ, you could modify the bit-stream directly and re-noise shape the OP. But people quickly found out that this was not possible. When you re noise shape DSD 64 it very quickly degrades in terms of noise performance - you simply cannot connect 3 or 4 noise shaped stages together, unless you want awful performance. With regular PCM this is not the case, you can add as many stages together and it won't significantly change the measured performance. This is why DSD is initially recorded with PCM at 352.4 kHz - the DXD standard. Then it can be mixed, EQ etc, with minimal losses. Then finally it gets converted from DXD to DSD. And if you can get hold of DXD master recordings and the DSD you can hear the transparency losses of DSD (try 2L website they have free samples).

Now with Qute I did have a choice - I could easily use the DSD data and delay it, then feed it into the 4E DAC. But this would be a very bad thing to do, as DSD is -20dB at 100 kHz, and this noise is distorted, signal correlated, and would cause noise floor modulation in the OP stage. Also, it would be very master clock jitter sensitive, so you would get jitter induced noise floor modulation. The result would be back to the 90's, sub 100 dB dynamic range, distortion, noise floor modulation, whistles, pops and gurgle noises... together with poorer sound stage, poorer detail resolution and a hard aggressive sound quality.

So, in Qute it is digitally filtered, upsampled, filtered again. At this point you still have identical performance, as these steps can be done transparently, that is the audio spectrum is identical to the original signal. It is next fed into Qute's pulse array noise shaper, which will have a small price in transparency. But since this noise shaper runs at 2048 FS not 64 FS, at 20kHz, it is 10,000 times more capable of resolving signals than DSD. At 1kHz it is billions of times more capable than DSD. So the transparency loss is very very small compared with the enormous problems of using DSD natively. In Qute, I used a moving average filter, and the signal was always up-sampled, not decimated. At 100kHz the filter gave 50 dB worth of rejection.

Now in Hugo, we have a potentially much more serious problem with DSD, as Hugo has to do volume control and cross-feed EQ. This means it has to be converted to PCM, and at a rate the cross feed and volume control works at - which is 16FS. So the filtering was much more challenging now, as I had to decimate the signal too (make it a smaller sample rate). This meant a new design, as the Qute filter would have aliasing problems due to not enough stop band rejection - it needed much more than 50dB filtering that Qute had. So I decided on a sledge hammer approach to aliasing problems, by having 140 dB of rejection. This actually is much better than pro standard ADC aliasing filters, but that is another story. The other benefit of this filter was that it removed the DSD noise at 100 kHz, as it had 110 dB worth of rejection at that frequency. Now I could have the benefits of PCM with DSD in that out of band noise is non-existent.

So this filter was designed, verified, measured and listened too. Now I was worried about the listening tests, as I had not decimated DSD before. I listened to the Qute filter directly, and compared it to the Hugo decimating filter, with no volume or cross feed, with identical gain on the two filters. The Hugo DSD filter sounded very much better - DSD was a lot smoother and warmer and more natural, with no detectable loss in transparency or timing. So the benefits of the much better filtering at 100 kHz far outweighed the potential decimation errors by a very big factor.

So apologies if you could not keep up with the technicalities, it is very complex issue - but people kept asking. I hope that you have gotten a flavour of the difficulties involved. Simple and false statements like "native DSD is best" hide a very much more complex reality."

Let the questions begin...I'ill ask Rob to respond here too.

What will the Hugo cost?

What will the Hugo cost?

$2,195 in the US.

There seem to be a few US dealers offering 10% (like Noble did at Axpona, for example).

$2,195 in the US.

Thanks. Yikes!

I have the Hugo Dac. I am using it with my headphones, in my car and my home system. I can say its a little wonder product. I always preferred tubes, but this little DAC replaced my 6k tube CD player.

I have few questions but not related to DSD

1) The manual says to disable volume control...hold crossfeed and turn unit on. The volume control turns blue color as specified, but the volume control still works on the hugo. Should it not be disabled?

2) The bluetooth works perfectly in my car. But with my headphones i hear a very low noise...any suggestions to resolve it?

3) What is the best way to use the DAC...USB? If usB then would a better USB cable sound better?

Oh and I believe the price is $2395, or did my dealer charge me more?

thanks a lot...

Ajay

How comes the Meitner/EMM, PBD, LampiDSD, PS DirectStream etc have various native DSD playback schemes and all reportedly sound soooo good? Not buying Rob Watts argument here and I own a Qute HD. It is inferior by far to the Lampi on DSD and also the PD MPD-5.

I only heard the Dac2x for a short while so cant comment. I have not heard the EX or the Hugo either...

(Note: this is becoming a Hugo thread very quickly. I will ask Chris to move these Hugo-specific posts to my Hugo review/addendum to this series once I get it, etc)

Ajay,

The manual should have called what you did "line level preset" for that is what it is. It sets the Hugo to 2V RMS. But it's not a bypass so the volume control still works and is in the signal path.

Bluetooth seems to have issues with certain headphones of certain impedance. Check the head-fi thread for more info. You are by no means alone.

Either USB or a good USB converter (to coax or toslink) is the way to get the best hirez PCM and DoP (via the USB HD port). Yes, USB cables matter...but there are few quality ones that also do micro-USB. And an adapter is not the best solution.

I would love to see a showdown between the Chord Hugo vs the PS Audio Directstream DAC. I'm guessing the Hugo will do very well against the $5,995.95 DAC.

I bought the Hugo yesterday and found it all it is reported to be, very detailed, very clear. This DAC is going to have lots and lots of other DACs on the ropes once more people get them and word gets out.

I hooked up the Hugo to my Squeezebox touch, and really liked the sound.

I didn't have a long enough RCA cable so I went to Radio Shack and bought one there, didn't matter the Hugo still sounded out of this world. I am looking into upgrading the connections. Chord needs to make a home version of the Hugo and include XLR outs as well as regular size USB connections.

Thanks Ted B for your review, Chord owes you a debt of gratitude for sure.

I would love to see a showdown between the Chord Hugo vs the PS Audio Directstream DAC. I'm guessing the Hugo will do very well against the $5,995.95 DAC.

I bought the Hugo yesterday and found it all it is reported to be, very detailed, very clear. This DAC is going to have lots and lots of other DACs on the ropes once more people get them and word gets out.

I hooked up the Hugo to my Squeezebox touch, and really liked the sound.

I didn't have a long enough RCA cable so I went to Radio Shack and bought one there, didn't matter the Hugo still sounded out of this world. I am looking into upgrading the connections. Chord needs to make a home version of the Hugo and include XLR outs as well as regular size USB connections.

Thanks Ted B for your review, Chord owes you a debt of gratitude for sure.

Sonic77, the Hugo is a great Dac for sure and Chord makes great Dacs....Just look at the plethora of great pro reviews they have stacked up. The Qute HD is their most review awarded product ever!

However, you are a PCM guy and my specific issue was with DSD. From Ted's post above it seems that while the HD and EX only upsamples, the Hugo even decimates the DSD signal. All convert to PCM internall, so none are "pure" DSD. I am sure the EX and Hugo still sound great, but for me the HD is just good with DSD. All seem to be great with PCM. I have owned a Qute HD since late 2012, so a pretty early adaptor.

Finally, the showdown you ask for...would that be with PCM input, DSD input or a balance of the 2?

The 2 Dacs are polar opposites in a way. The DS converts all input to upsampled PDM and othen converts to DSD2x and then analog. The Hugo converts all to multi-bit PCM and then after processing converts to analog.

Sonic77, the Hugo is a great Dac for sure and Chord makes great Dacs....Just look at the plethora of great pro reviews they have stacked up. The Qute HD is their most review awarded product ever!

 

However, you are a PCM guy and my specific issue was with DSD. From Ted's post above it seems that while the HD and EX only upsamples, the Hugo even decimates the DSD signal. All convert to PCM internall, so none are "pure" DSD. I am sure the EX and Hugo still sound great, but for me the HD is just good with DSD. All seem to be great with PCM. I have owned a Qute HD since late 2012, so a pretty early adaptor.

 

Finally, the showdown you ask for...would that be with PCM input, DSD input or a balance of the 2?

The 2 Dacs are polar opposites in a way. The DS converts all input to upsampled PDM and othen converts to DSD2x and then analog. The Hugo converts all to multi-bit PCM and then after processing converts to analog.

Hi wisnon,

I wasn't directing my comments towards you or DSD.

I was just thinking how the Hugo would compare sound wise to the New PS Audio DAC, (and other DACs) I understand it would be subjective, but sometimes there can be a consensus on what sounds "better" again I know it's subjective. If it can be shown scientifically if the readings are a certain way, and that is the "perfect" sound, then all DACs would be made that way, to me that would be boring, kind of like disregarding tube equipment because it's not sonically perfect.

Getting back to my point, I think the Hugo is great, and will surprise many.

Sonic, I get that and wasnt really taking you to task. I am sure the Hugo is excellent and I may even get one in the future for its portability aspect and HP amp, but as a DSD purist, I remain less than convinced (theoretically). I do agree with you about the subjective consensus as being useful.

Anyway, to compare the 2 Dacs, would you be thinking just PCM or both formats? I am sure you realize that probably both DAcs likely have their sweetspots in opposite format camps.

I am interested to hear your thoughts here.

So begins chapter 3 of the Chord journey.

So as I set up my Hugo (for another article, down the road) I am finding a few things that are surprising.

1) I should have known better but it seems the Hugo relies on the USB 5V from the computer/source (makes sense since its powered by its own battery and meant to be portable). This squashes one feature I liked in its Qute cousins; an ultra-clean unpowered USB signal. I am forced to use the linear powered port on my JCAT USB board, so I will make sure I filter it too.

2) some of my favorite analog interconnects don't fit, so I am reconfiguring pre-to-amp cables for dac-to-pre cables. No big deal, but I liked the former combo slightly better.

3) I do not have a micro USB adapter yet so I am first going to listen via coax in (Matrix X-SPDIF accepting my JCAT or TotalDAC D1 USB cables without adapter). Chord supplies a USB A to micro b USB cable but it is nowhere near the quality of my fave audiophile USB cables. I used it simply to install the USB drivers for down the road (and confirmed they worked), but currently my pre-installed Matrix X-SPDIF USB driver is in command now.

Out of the box: never heard a more flavorful, timbre-rich DAC in my life. It is not Wow value, just very musical. Soundstage with Matrix is a bit narrow right now. Caveat: this is 2 hours into life, and the X-SDIF box was cold and unused for awhile too.

Coolhand...you have a PM response.

Edit from above comment. I got this clarification back from Chord designer-extraordinaire Rob Watts:

"It still does not draw power from the USB, merely senses that the VBUS 5v is attached. If it sees that, then the FPGA turns on the HD USB chip PSU, then the USB starts working.

The benefit is if the HD USB is not connected, then the battery life is increased as the power draw from the USB chip is significant.

The 5v sense is isolated via a 9K1 resistor, so RF noise on the USB VBUS 5v is not coupled into Hugo and we have tested that RF noise doesn't change the SQ."

Edit from above comment. I got this clarification back from Chord designer-extraordinaire Rob Watts:

"It still does not draw power from the USB, merely senses that the VBUS 5v is attached. If it sees that, then the FPGA turns on the HD USB chip PSU, then the USB starts working.

 

The benefit is if the HD USB is not connected, then the battery life is increased as the power draw from the USB chip is significant.

 

The 5v sense is isolated via a 9K1 resistor, so RF noise on the USB VBUS 5v is not coupled into Hugo and we have tested that RF noise doesn't change the SQ."

Ted I have a Hugo and it is connected to my CAPS v3 SOtM card with power switch on sound card OFF telling me it does not take power from the USB.

Yes, it does. It needs 5V to turn on HD USB input (Rob designed the darn thing; he would know ). You are likely powering the SotM internally, maybe. I tried unpowered and it did not see the pc/board; powered immediately saw it.

He also said you can't fake it out (power intially then move to unpowered). As soon as HD receiver sees no 5V it shuts down.

Yes, it does. It needs 5V to turn on HD USB input (Rob designed the darn thing; he would know ). You are likely powering the SotM internally, maybe. I tried unpowered and it did not see the pc/board; powered immediately saw it.

 

He also said you can't fake it out (power intially then move to unpowered). As soon as HD receiver sees no 5V it shuts down.

I am powering my SOtm with Paul Hynes SR3 (I have not cut the internal wires, that's next, but I was told by Andy at CAPS that it switches to external power automatically.

I will try a few things (turning things OFF and then turning them ON again) and report back. I am in process of comparing it with my Vega, very little time so far so don't know yet. Both are good DACS, one thing though; Vega skips few times when switching formats, Hugo is flawless in that regard.

Power is certainly OFF on my SOtM and it is playing.

I am powering my SOtm with Paul Hynes SR3 (I have not cut the internal wires, that's next, but I was told by Andy at CAPS that it switches to external power automatically.

 

I will try a few things (turning things OFF and then turning them ON again) and report back. I am in process of comparing it with my Vega, very little time so far so don't know yet. Both are good DACS, one thing though; Vega skips few times when switching formats, Hugo is flawless in that regard.

Power to the SOtM card is certainly OFF and Hugo is playing.

Sonic, I get that and wasnt really taking you to task. I am sure the Hugo is excellent and I may even get one in the future for its portability aspect and HP amp, but as a DSD purist, I remain less than convinced (theoretically). I do agree with you about the subjective consensus as being useful.

 

Anyway, to compare the 2 Dacs, would you be thinking just PCM or both formats? I am sure you realize that probably both DAcs likely have their sweetspots in opposite format camps.

 

I am interested to hear your thoughts here.

Wisnon, I would like to see both PCM & DSD compared.

Word to the wise, I pushed in my HD USB connector on my Hugo, if you look at the inside picture of the Hugo, you will see that the usb connector is being held on to the circuit board by two soldered points, for a dac that's going to be handled quite a bit, I would've thought the attachment would've been more robust. I just wanted to give everyone a heads up on that potentially fragile connection.