English Premier or International (HiFi) - Chord DAVE vs Linn Organik DACs

[Brian]

Hi Edmund. A big thanks for your effort in the very detailed and interesting trial. I have not heard the Linn Organik but have recently changed from a Chord Qutest to Holo Audio May KTE. I am very happy with the Holo May and for me, the SQ is better than the Chord Dave - not by a large amount. The sound stage seems clearer and the mid to higher range has better timbre. In addition the Holo May looks a lot better and is considerably cheaper than the Dave.

I must admit that stepping away from a very well regarded UK manufacturer to a Far East manufacturer caused me a little angst, but now it is all singing in harmony at home, I am well pleased.

I wonder how the May would stack up against the Linn?

[Edmund-of-Essex]

Hi @rhodsutton , @JamesBKK and @Brian

Very many thanks for all your various suggestions…

@rhodsutton

but I also suggest a wildcard - Topping D10 balanced

@JamesBKK

DACs from LAiV (Singaporean)

@Brian

Holo Audio May KTE.

I have been busy reading up on all of the above DACs and equipment since you provided your replies. These are all technically very interesting and the Stereophile reviews (where available) are equally encouraging. Especially considering the price to the consumer!

I think knowledge of what a ‘good DAC’ sounds like is starting to converge (fundamentally it’s the time domain response that matters). See earlier discussions on this thread and the particularly helpful posting by @Protegimus here which followed my previous posting on this topic here.

The DAC (chip) device manufacturers have now optimised device to a level that sufficient performance and flexibility enables circuit design implementations to be achieved at super low cost. This facilitates HiFi equipment manufacturers to find ways to differentiate themselves beyond the basic ‘Digital to Analogue Conversion’ process. Hence the possibility of Room Correction (see Naim CI-102) and highly capable active loudspeakers (Diva).

Perhaps I will set up a further a ‘DAC’ trial latter in this year?

However I do think the Naim CI-102 should be included in such an evaluation.

Perhaps some new consumer configurable (i.e. no dealer help required) ‘Room Correcting’ single box Naim product launched in 2026 might also be included?

[rhodsutton]

A wide ranging DAC evaluation would be fun.

[Simon-in-Suffolk]

Just caught up with this thread… I guess we are all different… I undertook a listening evaluation of the Linn and the Chord DAC and the way I hear sound, the preference was clear .. to the point I was surprised …

I have found connecting the DAVE to Naim and many other amps requires care. I have found silver plated and typically coax interconnects are not optimum for an accurate tonal balance. I now use copper parallel conductor interconnects from DNM.. and most things snap into place with balance, with no hot spots that can occur with silver plated coax cables in my opinion.

As I have said before digital to analogue conversion is not a totally accurate process.. there are choices of approach to be made to suite tastes.. unfortunately with current tech.. and it may become different with post digital quantum.. there can be no such thing as the perfect DAC. With high end you need to choose the DAC that works with how your brain decodes sound.. or at least what your brain classifies as relevant when it decodes sound..

So you are right to have chosen what worked for your family… I must admit when I choose what worked for me I was possibly not as inclusive.

[Edmund-of-Essex]

Hi @Innocent_Bystander

Apologies for taking a few days to acknowledge your reply, however I still feel there is more to unpick in the results…

When my wife and I undertook our respective listening sessions (i.e. before the main fully ‘masked’ participant sessions for the people who did not know a priori what the sessions were about) our perception of the acoustic difference between the Chord DAVE and the Linn Organik was very small. In fact so small that my genuine expectation for the main ‘masked’ sessions was that the results would produce a more even distribution in the listening preferences.

Unfortunately the sessions that my wife and I undertook as experimenters for each other were not quite as ‘controlled’ as I would have liked:-

1. When my wife was changing the cables - she found the XLR inputs sockets on the Chord DAVE too stiff to be able to reliable remove the XLR connectors. Consequently additional 1m lengths of very high grade XLR cable were added to the rear of both the Linn DSM and the Chord DAVE so that the changeover from Chord to Linn and visa-versa could be easily achieved. This puts an additional connector discontinuity in the preamp to power amplifier cable runs and also extends the length by 1m (to 8.5m for these tests). For the ‘masked’ trial where I was the person changing the cables I did not need to use the 1m extensions so the fully ‘masked’ tests were undertaken with 7.5m runs of Cordial Studio Grade XLR.

2. When I was changing the cables for my wife’s listening sessions we did this without the 1m XLR cable extensions, however my wife was somewhat unwell with a cold for quite a few days and her ears may have been sub-par.

3. Finally, I have been so concerned about the distribution of the results that I have gone back to check (as much as I am able) the experimental setup and notes. Unfortunately there is a possibility that I did not have Space Optimisation turned OFF for the Linn DSM in all cases. It is certain that the Chord DAVE was fed with the RAW (unprocessed) digital SPDIF signal but it is possible that for some of the ‘masked’ sessions SO was ON for the Linn DSM.

For the decision regarding upgrading the AV system, this potential error in the test conditions is not significant as my wife and I have chosen to remain with the Linn Organik DAC. For everyone else reading this who owns (or is considering) a Chord DAVE DAC - what you do with this additional information is up to you.

[Innocent_Bystander]

thanks for clarifying,

@Edmund-of-Essex

what you do with this additional information is up to you.

Probably apply a 10 point plan:

1)I shall read the information. 2) I will process it. 3) I will consider whether and to what extent any parts may be of greater or lesser interest and/or importance, 4) I may feel stirrings of mild amusement. 5) I will consider whether any reply or other action is appropriate. 6) If a reply is appropriateI will draft and send it when I have time. 7) If I intend to write a reply but don’t have time at that point I will try to remember to do so some time later. 8) If I pnan to reply some tome later I might or might not forget. If I am moved to take some other action the same will apply as if that action is to reply. 10) Future tenses of these actions, other than unfulfilled conditional ones, will turn to past tenses.

[Edmund-of-Essex]

Hi Simon,

Thank you for continuing to provide your input to this thread - it is appreciated. I think it is worth exploring more of the specifics relating to our respective experiments with the Chord DAVE DAC. Perhaps you have seen my reply to I_B above?

The ‘our’ preference for Linn (in my posting) relates specifically to my wife and I. All other participants who also expressed the preference for the Linn Organik DAC are not family members - they are sufficiently independent listeners who were requested to participate in this series of experiments.

BTW: Studio grade XLR cable was used from the preamplifier to the power amplifier in the fully ‘masked’ experiments with Chord DAVE and Linn Organik.

Regarding your general observations re DACs - I personally do not think that ‘high end’ DACs are in some special category. In fact, stating ‘high end’ as a qualifier is part of the problem! If a customer spends a lot of money on something, it seems reasonable that the purchaser may have expectations of ‘superior sound’ - even to the point of ‘hearing’ or ‘perceiving’ such ‘superior sound’. IMO this ‘problem’ is entrenched in the HiFi industry. Nevertheless, this can also work in the ‘inverse’. I.e. someone may wish to ‘hear’ ‘superior sound’ in the most low cost product.

Personally, when undertaking my evaluations, I try to eliminate such potential conscious bias as much as possible. For example, when testing the Naim CI-102 last year, I really wish I had undertaken more thorough multi participant ‘masked’ listening sessions to compare the Naim CI-102 product with the Linn Klimax DSM. In the event, I could only ask one independent participant to express an opinion - and that unfortunately was not a sufficiently ‘masked’ trial. The listener knew that DACs were involved, just not which one in any given moment.

PS: Another consideration when undertaking such evaluations is a sufficiently specified listening environment. This is so that any results may be considered to be testable and checked for (scientific) repeatability in other similarly specified (ITU or EBU) listening environments.

[Simon-in-Suffolk]

I agree to some extent, but where I don’t agree is that high end necessarily needs to cost a lot… it may be more niche or focussing on specific needs… at least that is how I use the term. Yes in the limit there is a general correlation between high end and price, but for me not a pre requisite..

For me audio replay equipment is about tuned performance for my tastes and sensibilities… ie what makes me grin and look up at the speakers repeatedly over time… rather than having some sort of trophy taking a prominent position in the room… to me this addresses abstractions like sub conscious bias.. which implies there is some sort of justification going on… for me listening to my recordings in the way they were mastered is what enjoy… obsessing about technical aspects of my system just doesn’t feel relevant for me these days.

This all came into focus with me when I undertook commercial music mixing and mastering courses, when I learned how much tailoring and sound sculpting goes on to make a production sound engaging and appealing. It is manipulated…

[Dunc]

Get the best dac you can afford is my advice and it will see you good for many years to come. The difference is there, everything is just better, especially on the right system.

[Edmund-of-Essex]

Hi @Simon-in-Suffolk ,

Apologies that has taken me a while to respond to your most recent post here. My excuse is that I went hunting for more information to establish what the theoretical basis might be for the signal processing in the Chord DAVE DAC.

What follows is supposition (on my part), but I think I may be in error in the fourth paragraph of post number 311 when I said the Chord DAVE used ‘Pulse Density Modulation’ in the final stage of digital signal processing. I now suspect the CHORD DAVE actually uses a combined PWM and PDM Digital to Analogue Conversion (DAC) technique (named PWDM?) which certain scientific papers have established to have excellent step response and differential nonlinearity.

Nevertheless, my view remains that (in spite of all this wonderful DAC linearity) the Chord DAVE implements digital filtering which has significantly long pre-echo in the effective impulse response. This long pre-echo ‘feature’ of the Chord DAVE seems to create a sound characteristic that some listeners do not like and may also partially explain the desirability of modern NOS (non-oversampling) DAC devices to some NAIM forum members?

I do agree with you that the great news is that many modern streamer and DAC systems have very high absolute technical performance and are also available at relatively low cost.

ATB

E of E

[Simon-in-Suffolk]

Hi, not sure what you mean by pre echo unless you referring to the delay caused by the size of the symmetrical window of the FIR reconstruction filter kernel window (ie the number of ‘taps’) and the filter slope… (though clearly adding to the resolution of filter kernel ‘number taps’ improves the accuracy of the FIR filter to the point transients are not effectively filtered through pre echo). I believe Chord use a low pass filter with not too high Q, which they can do because of the benefits of oversampling, thereby the effects of pre echo would reduce further, perhaps to the point of irrelevance. Typically Chord DACs are renown for thier transport response compared to some competitors so they must be on top of that, perhaps by choosing the optimum slope of the reconstruction filter and number of taps in their FIR convolution window for thier design… Chord do offer on the mscalar an alternate algorithm option that offers less latency, which can be more suited to AV.

Or are you referring to something else?

Non over sampling DACs are more to my mind about the character of the reconstruction filter which often becomes more intrusive into the pass band than over sampling DACs. I suspect some might prefer the generally softened high end that some NOS DAC implementations provide that helps avoid the pit falls that higher frequency energy can have on other components in the replay chain.

[Edmund-of-Essex]

Hi Simon,

Thanks for contributing. I have used this term ‘pre echo’ previously in post number 324 when we were in discussion about system filter passband roll-off characteristics, the corresponding system impulse responses and the listener perceived effect on sound reproduction…

@Edmund-of-Essex

The point I was trying to make is that some modern DACs (and even some bespoke products such as dCS) facilitate designer or even customer choice regarding these trade-offs.

Regarding my use of the term ‘pre-echo’. It is NOT the delay to which I refer, it is the presence of output (from the filter) before the main peak of the ‘pulse’ arrives. This is a fundamental characteristic of Linear Phase Finite Impulse Response (FIR) filters. One can choose to have FIR filters that are NOT linear phase, CHORD have NOT done that the DAVE DAC - they have implemented linear phase.

My specific point is that the ear-brain system works to make sense of the sound pressure variations and these pre-echoes represent a distortion of what normally would occur in many ‘natural’ (low order) systems in real life. I.e. the ear-brain system does not expect (and is not evolved to ‘expect’) such pre-echo pressure variations.

Of course (as you have mentioned elsewhere on the forum) much recorded music is ‘processed’ in some way. My additional point is that in the replay chain in the home one does not wish to excessively add such ‘unnatural’ linear phase high stopband attenuation - c.f. long impulse response - signal processing.

By way of illustration, I have chosen to include impulse response examples of just two of the eight available filter type options from the specification sheet of the DAC devices that NAIM have selected to be used in the NAIM CI-102 product. Note: I am not suggesting that either one of these is the filter chosen to be used by NAIM in the CI-102 - that has not been confirmed.

Image Credit: ESS Technology Inc.

As can be seen these are Linear Phase (symmetrical) impulse response with what I refer to as ‘pre-echo’. For comparison, included below is the Stereophile review and measurement image of the impulse response of the Chord DAVE DAC. The blue circle (added by me) identifies the region I call the ‘pre-echo’.

Image Credit: Stereophile Magazine (May, 2017).

The great news is that the ESS DAC family give designers eight filters to choose, some linear phase some not. What is involved for the designer using such DACs is the trade-offs involved between desired anti-alias protection (of the repeating spectral images of the wanted audio in the Z domain), degree of ripple in the desired passband, sufficient clean initial transient response of the DAC (little or no pre-echo in overall impulse response), and ultimate differential nonlinearity performance if also incorporating other features such as implementing digital volume control.

By way of final illustration, here are impulse response examples of two more of the eight available filter type options from the specification sheet of the DAC devices that NAIM have selected to be used in the NAIM CI-102 product. Note as mentioned previously, I am not suggesting that either one of these is the filter chosen to be used by NAIM in the CI-102 - that has not been confirmed, but I hope readers can clearly see the lack of pre-echo in the first example and very small pre-echo - with a bias towards post-echo in the second example below.

Image Credit: ESS Technology Inc.

FYI I am still seeking evidence of the impulse response of the Linn Organik DAC. My expectation is that it will NOT be a linear phase FIR type, and my understanding is that Linn have implemented an Analogue Transversal Filter (Analogue FIR) in the Organik DAC.

ATB

E of E

[Simon-in-Suffolk]

Yes, but this response is dependent of the resolution of the filter kernel (taps) and the Q of the FIR reconstruction filter….

This is one reason why large kernels are used (high taps) and over sampling is used to reduce this pre and post ripple to a transient.

The alternate is an IIR filter and here the ripples decay exponentially over a large period of time.

These are all attributes of digital filters which ever type.. where the signal in the limit is corrupted.

To comment further on the benefits and disadvantages of an asymmetric filter response with respect to transients I will need to refer to my engineering DSP books which are stored in my garage to refresh my memory…. Don’t currently use these applications in my professional world.

What I do know is that it’s ultimately pretty much a zero sum game, so you choose your benefits and compromises… such as phase vs pre echo vs post echo vs filter Q to provide the characteristics you are after - or in the audio world, you choose to taste..

[Edmund-of-Essex]

Hi Simon,

Very many thanks for providing your (multi-edited) reply. This morning I saw you had included a link regarding digital filtering in audio applications in your post and I had planned to follow that link and provide some continuous discussion … but it seems the link is not in your posting anymore.

I think the Naim forum is great for being able to discuss certain highly technical aspects of audio replay - so thanks for considering to metaphorically ‘blow the dust off’ your engineering textbooks stored in your garage.

FYI I am fortunate enough to be able store what remains of my engineering textbooks in my study - it is the shipping crates for my Magico loudspeakers that fill the garage at our house!

In my professional experience, the dominant transient characteristic in a multistage signal processing chain is typically defined by the lowest bandwidth stage - hence my posting of the various graphs of impulse responses of ESS DAC chip and Chord DAVE.

PS: If I can manage to obtain (or perhaps even measure?) the comparable impulse response for the Linn Organik DAC, please be assured that I will share the information with the Naim community.