Chord Qutest

[jos]

I think the Chord Qutest is a phenomenal sounding DAC, it really is!! But I could only compare it to my old Arcam iRDAC. My wife thinks it’s much better too and her ears are very good. Today I ordered the UltraRendu to complete and upgrade my new setup. And also to replace my iMac with Jitterbugs, USB Regen and Supra USB cable. I hope the sound will be better, otherwise I will sent it back home.  Altough, I have heard it’s a much better sounding setup, but I’m also a little bit afraid it isn’t. Why? At this moment, listening to the Qutest, I think, the sound quality can’t improve anymore, but hopefully I’m wrong. Anyhow, I will let you known about my findings in a week or so...

[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.

[pl_svn]

BNC actually is the recommended connection for  S/PDIF whilst RCA is an acceptable compromise

my Audiophilleo (USB/SPDIF converter), in fact, has BNC out and I connect it to the Qutest using an hard adapter

 

if BNC bothers you... you can get a BNC/RCA adapter 

[jcn3]

On 3/14/2018 at 4:19 PM, davide256 said:

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.

 

bnc and rca are simply connectors -- the cable is the same one way or the other.  it's also easy enough to get cables terminated with bnc (www.ghentaudio.com, www.bluejeanscable.com) . . . .

[semente]

On 10/01/2018 at 7:13 AM, firedog said:

Wow, big statement conidering the new iFi DSD Pro was announced and it does have the features "missing" from the Chord, among others. Maybe lets wait till people hear them to decide which DAC is best. 

 

I don't know about the Pro but the iDAC I owned had its fair share of "house sound".

[jos]

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

[mentt]

After one week with qutest + allo USB bridge streamer I can confirm that it is noticeable better than my Naim ND5 XS + Naim XP5 XS  streamer. Naim combo costs 3 times more so good job Chord!

[jamesg11]

On 17/03/2018 at 8:27 AM, semente said:

 

I don't know about the Pro but the iDAC I owned had its fair share of "house sound".

I guess we’ll eventually get some comparisons between qutest & pro ...

 

But what about now, with dacs that are currently owned & listened to + highly liked - Brooklyn, etc ...

[jos]

9 hours ago, jamesg11 said:

I guess we’ll eventually get some comparisons between qutest & pro ...

 

But what about now, with dacs that are currently owned & listened to + highly liked - Brooklyn, etc ...

According to the Darko DAC-index better than Brooklyn, etc. And I do have al lot of trust in his (honest) judgment. It is playing in his top league (Hugo 2).

[barrows]

10 minutes ago, jos said:

According to the Darko DAC-index better than Brooklyn, etc. And I do have al lot of trust in his (honest) judgment. It is playing in his top league (Hugo 2).

Same DAC (taps, pulse array DAC elements plus galvanic USB isolation) as H2, and it is possible to improve on the H2's power supply (if you build a really great one, hint...)  So theoretically Qutest could outperform H2.

[jos]

2 minutes ago, barrows said:

Same DAC (taps, pulse array DAC elements plus galvanic USB isolation) as H2, and it is possible to improve on the H2's power supply (if you build a really great one, hint...)  So theoretically Qutest could outperform H2.

Agree, a tiny better with a good LPS.

[jamesg11]

15 hours ago, barrows said:

Same DAC (taps, pulse array DAC elements plus galvanic USB isolation) as H2, and it is possible to improve on the H2's power supply (if you build a really great one, hint...)  So theoretically Qutest could outperform H2.

Well, yes, a barrows-special would be just the ticket ...

But, I’m unlikely to expend more than say a lps1.2, with pre-owned linear lpsu, on such.

[6aardvark9]

On ‎3‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 9:19 PM, davide256 said:

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.

 

Dual BNC is required to link the Qutest with the BluMk2 (or possible future release of a standalone MScaler), if you so desire

[HumanMedia]

On 15/03/2018 at 7:19 AM, davide256 said:

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.

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.

[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.

[jamesg11]

On 19/03/2018 at 3:24 PM, jamesg11 said:

Well, yes, a barrows-special would be just the ticket ...

But, I’m unlikely to expend more than say a lps1.2, with pre-owned linear lpsu, on such.

On reflection, I might go with the js-2:

 

Austinpop -

“Mytek Brooklyn DAC+

I'll be writing more about my experience with this DAC in the coming weeks. For the moment, I want to focus on it only in the context of PSUs. While the LPS-1.2 lacked the minimum current needed to drive this DAC, I was able to use the other PSUs. Here is my ranking, with all PSUs set to 12V.

1. JS-2
2. SR-4
3. sPS-500

While the SR-4 had really shone on the tX-USBultra, on the Brooklyn DAC+, it was the JS-2 that pulled ahead, and by quite a margin. Compared to the JS-2, the SR-4 (and the sPS-500) seemed to lack dynamism, and sounded strained, and unexciting. What is important to note is that these PSUs did work with the DAC+.

 

This result isn't particularly surprising, since the DAC+ (or any DAC really) has an analog output stage, which really benefits from a PSU with vast reserves of current. The JS-2, with its beefier current capacity, was clearly better at delivering current peaks that the other, smaller, supplies couldn't.”

[ElviaCaprice]

Nevermind.  

[barrows]

I would add, that while I agree that many analog circuits do benefit from current headroom, I have come to find that digital circuits benefit from this headroom even more, especially when that current is delivered with very low impedance.  So, a low impedance, high current supply is usually a good idea all around.

Tip, it can really help to keep the power cable as short as possible when using any kind of external supply.

[firedog]

2 hours ago, barrows said:

I would add, that while I agree that many analog circuits do benefit from current headroom, I have come to find that digital circuits benefit from this headroom even more, especially when that current is delivered with very low impedance.  So, a low impedance, high current supply is usually a good idea all around.

Tip, it can really help to keep the power cable as short as possible when using any kind of external supply.

Interesting you wrote that. Just yesterday I had an email exchange with Brian from Bricasti where he said that one of the issues with SQ in digital audio is having a robust enough power supply. Basically (my interpretation) saying a lot of digital audio doesn't sound as good as it could because it is underpowered, at least in terms of optimal performance. He said that's why they try to over spec the PS in their designs. 

[Ralf11]

underpowered & non-robust in terms of current delivery?

 

time course of current delivery? (e.g. rise time?)

 

or...??

[barrows]

52 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

underpowered & non-robust in terms of current delivery?

 

time course of current delivery? (e.g. rise time?)

 

or...??

I would suggest that all matter, but especially as you put it, "time".  Digital circuits basically grab current in chunks, or pulses, so the "faster" the supply (meaning low impedance), the better the performance.

For example, at Sonore, we pay a lot of attention to this for the various supplies on board the Rendu units; a great deal of work is put into the impedance of both the local, and the pre-regulators, and their associated de-coupling elements.  This attention on the Sonore Signature Rendu SE goes all the way back through the entire power supply to the IEC connector, and means we have a large amount of (high quality) capacitance in the supply, a generously over sized transformer (very high quality), and beefy wiring and PCB traces.

The same approach would apply to DACs as well.  In fact the difference between a $2K dAC and a $10K+ DAC is often mostly related to the power supplies and how well they are implemented. 

[pl_svn]

since this thread is about the Chord Qutest... does the above actually matter for a DAC based on a FPGA drawing just 2W? 

[barrows]

7 minutes ago, pl_svn said:

since this thread is about the Chord Qutest... does the above actually matter for a DAC based on a FPGA drawing just 2W? 

I built a supply that is very, very good on all these parameters for my Brother's (soon to arrive) Qutest.  When he gets it I will be interested to see what he reports is the outcome of the difference between it and the stock supply.

Theoretically, the overall power draw of the DAC is not going to be an issue for most any supply one uses, but the noise and impedance performance will be.  I saw Ron Watts suggest that the Qutest needs at least a 1A capable supply, that would actually be 5 Watts, but perhaps that is just boot up current.  The supply I built could supply up to 3A, and is happy running continuously at 1.5 A 24/7, with the only limitation there being heat sinking.  Every DAC I have ever built has always benefitted from better power supplies, to a point.  And the Qutest has really, really good performance, so it should benefit from a really good supply.

[pl_svn]

Rob wrote, on Head-Fi, 1A is enough (not that it needs "at least" )

so I'm powering my Qutest from an UpTone UltraCap LPS-1.2 (1.1A max) 

[jos]

On 9-3-2018 at 8:20 PM, jos said:

I think the Chord Qutest is a phenomenal sounding DAC, it really is!! But I could only compare it to my old Arcam iRDAC. My wife thinks it’s much better too and her ears are very good. Today I ordered the UltraRendu to complete and upgrade my new setup. And also to replace my iMac with Jitterbugs, USB Regen and Supra USB cable. I hope the sound will be better, otherwise I will sent it back home.  Altough, I have heard it’s a much better sounding setup, but I’m also a little bit afraid it isn’t. Why? At this moment, listening to the Qutest, I think, the sound quality can’t improve anymore, but hopefully I’m wrong. Anyhow, I will let you known about my findings in a week or so...

I promised to report about my findings wth the ultrarendu in combination with the Chord Qutest. It took some more time because I had to replace my generic cat6 cable below my house with the Supra Cat8. Right now I have this Supra cable everywhere in my house. I did some comparisons and have ro conclude that the sound is a little better with the ultrarendu, but certainly not night and day as replacing my Arcam DAC for the Qutest. I could not expect that too because this device is running downstream and because of that it will not change the character of the Qutest. Replacing the Arcam DAC was really a major update! I My first impression with the ultrarendu was better resolution, and my second thoughts: ‘better overall’, no other sound, just a little better overall. I would advise people to buy this Chord DAC first and later an NAA of choice. Btw. I left my 4 Jitterbugs in the chain. I am still using the MeanWell adapter with the ultrarendu, although it is running with the Sbooster for Regen ultra active adapter, and that makes a lot of difference. The ultrarendu is not running warm at all with the Regen ultra adapter in place. A relatively cheap but effective upgrade.