Chord Qutest

[davide256]

I'd like to see a comparison of this vs Schiit Gumby. That it can do DSD is attractive but having 2 BNC for coax inputs is a turnoff. IMHO recent DAC tech has decent longevity but asynch USB is improving fast enough that you need wide compatibility for upgrades before end of DAC life. BNC is less common as a digital interconnect  than standard coax, optical or AES in my cable shopping experience.

[davide256]

16 minutes ago, HumanMedia said:

As others have said BNC is the standard termination for coax to maintain the correct impedance. RCA termination with two 50 ohm to 75 ohm impedance speedhumps is what should be avoided if you want higher signal integrity.

 

And really if you want 4 x DSD data rate, that is easily done via USB, even on the 2Qute.

 No thanks, I'm very happy with how well my AQ Eagle Eye coax works. Only if and when AQ made a BNC equivalent could one interest me in a device with only BNC connector. Impedance matching is a very small part of what effects the sound performance of a cable.

[davide256]

 

1 hour ago, barrows said:

Yes, because that is what I said!

Of course not.  But I do not demand that someone trying to help me understand something provides proof.  It is up to me to either respect that they have done their homework, or to verify what they have said myself, not to demand that someone taking time out of their day to do me favor, provides proof.

Scientific proof in audio is like DIlberts mythical unicorn... just an attempt by the requestor to derail what they demand it for. They know the unicorn doesn't exist but hope you are naive enough to be sidetracked.

[davide256]

6 hours ago, audiophile911 said:

Is USB straight from a computer to a Chord DAC; like the Qutest the best connection possible?  Has anyone here tested their Qutest connected directly to a computer / laptop with USB vs a network streamer?  I connect my Quest directly to my Mac Mini, which dedicated to only running ROON Core with an AudioQuest Diamond USB and I think it sounds great.  But could it sound significantly better if I eliminated the computer from the stream???  I've read lots that taking a usb connection directly from a computer is just a 'bad' idea but I've also heard that it really depends on how usb is implemented in the source and the DAC?  Specifically, I heard from Rob Watts himself that Chord DAC's are optimized for USB direct input.  So, I'm trying to decide if I need to try something like a SOTM SMS-200 Ultra or a Sonore UltraRendu but I'm hesitant to go to the expense and hassle of more boxes.   I recently read this about his $150K system: https://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/opinion/1392-after-25-years-is-this-the-worlds-best-audio-system  Specifically:

"Some Facebook readers criticized me for not using an audiophile-grade music server or USB link. I responded that if anyone can show me a music server or USB link that actually sounds better that what I have in terms of resolution, tonality, soundstaging, imaging, whatever -- I’m all ears. But so far, I’ve heard nothing that has proven itself better-sounding or more versatile -- my computer plays any digital music format and file type from streaming services and my local music drive, and my USB link, with its lengthy length, transfers the bits just fine.

The reason I can get away with using a laptop has to do with the next component in the signal chain: the EMM Labs DA2 Reference DAC ($25,000). Designed by Ed Meitner, who’s been creating digital-audio products since the 1970s, the DA2 Reference seems immune to swaps of USB links, as well as differences in source components."

 

Am I missing something??

Internal hard drives are no friend to USB out audio quality. Best to stream from your mini to a disk less endpoint. Your midrange will improve 

[davide256]

23 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

since the qutest thread popped to the top, i thought i could ask the owners here does the qutest have the ability to either upsample everything that goes to it (e.g. NOT just from a music player) but everything on a windows pc...like if i am playing a youtube video will the audio automatically be upsampled?  And if so, does it also have the ability to play native dsd without modifying it?

 

I want a dac that has multiple modes, where in one mode i can have it upsample everything going out the windows pc, and then another mode where if i am using a player playing a native dsd file that it can play it without modifying it?

 

that’s a function of the media player. With a chord mojo I have all PCM rates and using Roon/Stylus have all music upsampled to  705 khz. So you would need to know what your video player allows 

[davide256]

On 5/30/2020 at 10:50 AM, beerandmusic said:

thanks, i will read through closer and digest, but quick question...if the qutest "always" upsamples, then by davide upsampling to 705k First with software (seems like an odd number?), but then the qutest would upsample even more right?  Also what is the rate that the qutest upsamples to?

Unlike the Metrum Octave  and Gungnir NOS DAC's (which admittedly are limited to 192khz), I find that upsampling a 44.1/48khz to max PCM rate 705/753

in the player application makes a large difference over USB audio using a Chord Mojo vs using PCM native rate. Its one of the reasons I plan to buy a Qutest.

To do this the application needs to allow you to enable rate conversion vs only set the max rate supported by the DAC

[davide256]

23 minutes ago, barrows said:

Here is some of the theory:

 

1.  The processor in a computer is many times more powerful than the one in a DAC. Therefore the software based oversampling algorithm can be mush more precise/sophisticated than the one in the DAC.

2.  The first oversampling step, is generally much more audible than subsequent ones, because any artifacts are at much lower frequencies-so the first oversampling step is the most important.

3.  Having the DAC do less "work" (processing) usually means the DAC will also produce less RF internally, and less internal RF often means better sound quality.

4.  No, of course you cannot get "more music" by oversampling, but what you can do is use a much simpler and more accurate conversion circuit for the final step of turning digital into analog when you have a much higher sample rate.  Many designers feel that the more simple conversion stage allows for better sound.

 

It should also be noted that even Chord themselves understands the above, and they make the mScaler external oversampling processor for precisely these reasons.

Drat... now Its sounds like I'm going to be tempted to buy an M-Scaler equivalent after I get a Qutest . More $$$ out.

[davide256]

53 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

and one more question for davide....

since you have mojo and plan to upgrade to qutest, can you tell me al the differences between the two?

 

1) the Mojo doesn't have galvanic isolation so electrical noise from a source will travel across a wired connection. Might not be an issue with

a high quality ($$$) USB endpoint but I definitely have random background computer chatter with a NUC... a nuisance similar to vinyl surface noise

2) the Mojo is hobbled for chip speed in order to prolong battery life

3) the input/output connections of the Mojo are miniature which means you have to use adaptors to connect all your good main system cables... adaptors add

cable degradation

 

the Qutest remedies all of these, is designed for main system use. I haven't auditioned a Qutest yet but based on its reviews, newer design and the pleasing results

I'm getting from the Mojo, I expect the Qutest to perform even better and integrate properly as main system DAC that I can power with an LPS 1.2

[davide256]

28 minutes ago, asdf1000 said:

 

Where?

 

Jussi says there is nothing special about maths.

 

Rob says he has the best algorithms, so do not use software upsampling before his products.

 

Do you expect either of them to say different? 

 

Better to just listen and discard any comparisons one makes about the other because there will always be strong bias...

 

Rob doesn't know what HQPlayer is doing fully (algorithms) and HQPlayer doesn't know what WTA is doing fully...

 

 

Could it just be that M-scaler sounds better because its logic is chip based ( firmware) vs software for HQPlayer?

[davide256]

Starting to think seriously now about getting a Hugo2 instead of  Qutest this summer. While @gmgraves review of the Denafrips Pontus was exciting, I just

don't see any other "trusted" reviews to say a Denafrips Pontus will be more universally liked... system interactions can really be so unpredictable. I just had this

experience with a Mojo that makes the extra spend for the Hugo 2 sound more predictable for results with it's better DAC section and variable line out

 

 

[davide256]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I have extensively compared (along with some of my audio buddies) the Pontus with not only the Hugo2 but with the Benchmark DAC3, and the latest Schiit Yggdrasil. Sound wise, the Denafrips Pontus trounces all of them soundly and embarrassingly!

BTW, the Cutest is supposed to be exactly the same DAC section as in the Hugo2, and they should sound the same. They do not. Not even close! The Hugo2 sounds much better than the Cutest.

The DAC section is identical but the line out is not 🤔 

[davide256]

On 7/20/2021 at 2:38 PM, OldBigEars said:

I still use my Qutest pretty much standard, except for the iPower X PS. I haven't compared it recently to the stock PS but when I first bought it I was satisfied it's slightly better. I choose to not send it back, after all. Aside from that, I'm feeding my Qutest through its USB drive via an OpticalRendu. The Qutest in turn feeds my Belles Aria, and then my Kudos Super 20's. It's a decent level of performance, but some recordings can occasionally sound slightly bright.

So I'm intrigued by the possibility of taking my Qutest to the next level with (a) an SBooster / Ultra PS and (b) Audiowise SRC DX Bridge, enabling double-BNC connection with my OpticalRendu. From all the various reports, this should be a nice upgrade for around $1000. But that begs the question....My Qutest becomes a $2700 DAC....should I sell and simply buy a new DAC such as a Denafrips Venus?

As far as I know no Denafrips DAC supports the dual BNC DX mode. I believe the Holo May is supporting this but that’s $4k vs $1.7 for Qutest

[davide256]

On 8/9/2021 at 10:31 PM, OldBigEars said:

 

Had the cheapie Douk Audio in my system for about 5 days, converting USB to optical, and I'm completely blown away by the improvement provided by this simple 50 buck device. What's more, I'm finding it works much better in my system using the USB power, rather than a 5v wall-wart (the only option I have in the house). I've never had a more sophisticated DDC in my chain so I can't provide a comparison, but I can clearly confirm that optical connection via the Douk Audio box is miles better than the USB directly into my Qutest.

I’ve always thought a better DDC was a good thing so bought a Denafrips IRIS recently, it worked very well. But then I ran across the PGGB thread and started comparing native rate to PGGB converted files. At this point what I’ve concluded is that listening to 192 and below rates is like limiting yourself to DVD quality video… there’s so much more there that the sampling rate doesn’t resolve whereas using PGGB at 706/24 brings me closer to a high resolution experience even doing USB into a simple Chord Mojo. Reminds of that 1911 film clip “A Walk in New York” which was digitally reconstructed into amazingly high resolution 

[davide256]

On 8/10/2021 at 7:03 PM, Middy said:

Hi all, I have been experimenting again with the Qutest and got a little more SQ from trying. Smaller improvements but positive. I went all out with the EMI absorbing  AB5010 on the circuit blocks and traces on the PCB.

 

I de coupled the PCB from the chassis to see if this helps but the small improvement seemed to be from the tape.. Less cross talk.?  Great..

 

I was reading about anti vibration and tungsten footers using Tugsten  and tungsten powder.... also the  affects of vibration on clocks phase noise....

I found a tungsten putty used for fishing weights but it's a tungsten powder weighted elastomer... why not try it to damped the clock on the Qutest and PCB.

 

I put some on the clock, the FPGA, round both the capacitors and around the the edge of the PCB.

I can say there is a small positive change in doing it... 

 

But it's now there as another option for people to try on a Qutest or any clock...

 

I've got more coming to apply onto the SRC DX  and a bit more tape on that PCB... to see if I can squeeze a bit more out...

 

All this extra clarity is lovely and for not much cost.... even though I've experimented, the cost is £22 to try both...

3M AB5010 I am sure could benefit other units

Tungsten putty.. 36g

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0798Q1CYG/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_glt_fabc_W1MCHCGBFACF3YY3FRQR

 

This could be used for around connectors inputs outputs ect...

 

 

Any details just ask....

 

Thanks

 

Dave

 

 

 

 

um, why not just cover a side completely with 1 sheet of the 3M material?

[davide256]

2 hours ago, OldBigEars said:

New problem with my Qutest......out of the blue, one of the output channels has developed an intermittent fault, resulting in no sound coming from one speaker. If I fiddle around with the RCA interconnect, take it off, put it back on....it goes away and the DAC sounds normal with both channels working.  My Qutest is 18 months old. This is surprising and disappointing given the brick-like character of the DAC.  I'll be in touch with the retailer or Chord this week.  My interconnects are AQ Water - quite stiff and heavy. Anyone else out there experienced something like this with their Qutest? 

need to do basic trouble shooting here...

 

1. use a different set of cables and see if the problem persists. If it doesn't, theres an issue with the original interconnects.

 

2. If it does with the new cables , reverse the cables at the Qutest and wait for the problem to reoccur. If it switches sides then the issue is at the Qutest.

If it doesn't switch sides the problem is with the Belles Aria

 

 

[davide256]

9 hours ago, Womaz said:

Ok I am considering both of these options , the powerbank seems the easiest as I think I understand how it would work.

Forgive my lack of knowledge as this is a sort of first attempt at tinkering.

 

The powerbank simply replaces the Power Supply? Cable provided with the powerbank plugs into the back of the Qutest where the original PS would go?

 

The Douk option also appeals to me, but I have just bought a £350 TQ USB cable and it has the B connector. Does the Douk come with a B connector?

Also does this product mean I have effectively wasted my cash on the TQ USB cable? Would a cheap cable have done the same job as the Douk is doing the stuff here?

Does the Douk need a Toslink cable to then go into the back of the Qutest ?

So I guess to sum up I have no idea how this would connect to my Qutest😀

 

My apologies for all of the questions , but just trying to get a handle on things.

 

 

 

Some have suggested that for lower speed rates using the Douk device as a DDC bypasses degradation from Chord's USB implementation. Its a micro USB in device,

you would need an Audioquest USB to micro USB converter (~$25), I have used one with the Chord Mojo. Outputs appear to be standard toslink/coax so toslink

would be usable, coax would need a female BNC to male RCA adaptor (Monoprice).

 

Having tried multiple DDC's in the past, the Doak XU208 (~ $60)  looks similar in concept to the Gustard XMOS unit I had a few years ago, not a bad design but DDC's improve every year.

But if you are wed to using Chord, you may want to splurge and buy an Audiowise SRC-DX ($500) as a better DDC option for the Qutest or any future Chord upgrade.

But using either device will "break" electrical connectivity in a way, reducing noise transmission to the DAC.

 

I doubt your USB cable investment is wasted, the only question is whether the RPI device is good enough for it to matter.

 

 

[davide256]

On 12/26/2021 at 1:45 PM, OldBigEars said:

 

I use the Douk U2 Pro, connected via a Curious short link USB to my OpticalRendu. The Douk is connected by an AQ Cinnamon Optical cable to my Qutest.  Adding the Douk DDC made a truly stunning difference, compared with a USB direct connection from the oR to the Qutest.  

Step 2....last week I added an SBooster power supply.  Another significant jump in SQ in my system.  I'm more than satisfied with both of these investments. Obviously I would be curious to hear if fancier DDC's sound better than the $56 Douk.  One would hope so, at 10-30 times the cost - your call as to whether the improvements offer proportional value.

Been on my back burner to try one of these and since I haven't been happy with the Mojo's USB input, I bought one to try. It's a nice alternative, sound  is more pleasant

but gives up some resolution vs Mojo USB. But it's definitely not in the same league as something like an Iris or the SRC-DX used in main system. 

There even with inexpensive DAC's like Mojo  or my aged Metrum Octave an SRC-DX will float notes out in space, provide clean articulation and bass impact whereas

the Douk device growls in the bass and never really provides any sense of relief/ layering in the music.

[davide256]

7 hours ago, OldBigEars said:

Thanks for providing your experience comparing the Douk with at least two of the leading DDC contenders in the $500-700 class.  As you've tested both,  did you have a preference between Iris and SRC-DX?  Note that I wouldn't be feeding either with upsampled data.  Concerning the Douk, I haven't really found anything resembling a growling in the bass but ultimately you can only really hear these things when you directly compare with other pieces of equipment.  In isolation, it sounds pretty darn good feeding my Qutest.

I thought the Iris did what it was supposed to, improve resolution, but it was a "technical" improvement that I personally didn't find more engaging.  I much prefer

the SRC-DX, it gives  more vibrant tone colors in playback and with the right source music begins to feel like it has relief/imaging vs being a flat picture hung between the speakers.

While Magnepans aren't known for low bass impact the SRC-DX improves that, other DDC's seem to spread low bass energy out or diminish it vs keeping the original pitch and

intensity. When used with an FPGA Chord Mojo dynamics become very intense and when used with NOS Metrum Octave string instruments come through sharply for intonation

and resonance. I try to stick with native rates as  up-sampling seems to rob from harmonics to improve resolution, might just be better DAC needed 😉

[davide256]

@OldBigEars

Just wanted to share that over time/use with two different Chord Mojo's, the micro USB port has become problematic for on the go use...if cable is jostled at all play is stopped.

The Douk Audio U2 DDC  has a much more solid micro USB port, no wiggle room, can reuse any USB cable bought for the Mojo.

I'm finding that it really shines for iPhone use with mini coax input to the Mojo, a cleaner, more relaxed sound than my USB  dongles or the USB port to the Mojo. 

Don't know if there are other mobile DAC's with coax or SPDIF input but I think the Douk device has value as a mobile DDC/electrical isolator for iPhones

and DAP's with the Mojo family