dgently

I have had this DAC for a few months and really love it. I am now taking a break from upgrades for a while. As for using HQ player of any other player to up-sample, I would expect it to be detrimental to the sound, or at least counter productive to the way the 2QUTE processes music. The DAC uses the WTA algorithm with 26,368 taps. If you send an up-sampled stream, a large number of this taps will be data calculated by the player and not original recording data. I cannot imagin that the WTA algorithm can have its intended results with a large percentage of the data not being real samples. Cheer

The only reason I mentioned the upgrade is your gripe about ALL dacs sounding bright, so I figured some other component could reduce the brightness... cheers

Well, I am looking at things differently I guess. I have been trying highres files since I got a usb to spdif converter that supported it a few years ago, but have decided that my main listening is done in redbook, so that is what I am concentrating on now. Currently I find my 2qute with redbook (I do have some DSD or highres files in the mix, but don't seek them out anymore) sounds better than anything I previously had in my system. Maybe by tweaking some other part of your system, you can tame the brightness a bit, and the dac is not the correct place to do this. (I changes my amp because after changing listening rooms my old amp sounded thin, made a huge improvement to my listening enjoyment, but I hadn't felt the need in my old listening environment. Anyway, I was never saying dacs are the place to upgrade, only that for me they do generally affect the sound and enjoyment of my system significantly. I must admin that I worked on speaker/amp combo a lot more (almost exclusively) in the past, and that is probably why the source is where my system needed to be improved. cheers

I don't understand why you rewrite my examples to fit your experience. I am just explaining my experience, where A) the differences are clearly audible and don't just involve differences in volume and minute changes in subtleties. With B), I was giving an analogy where TASTE is as important as QUALITY. this does not mean that there is no difference in quality. Your analogy is just explaining your experience and the premise you want are trying to get support for. Both are analogies to explain different concepts. As for DACS being in their infancy, I auditioned (and didn't buy, because the difference wasn't enough for me) a Micromega MicroDac(not udac) in the early 90s, then bought my first dac (MSB LINK3) in the late 90s (some CDs in between). Also in the late 90s early 2000, there were a few other inexpensive dacs (QED BIT or something). These could be connected to PCs with the appropriate PCI card via optical or Coax. I have been using USB since 2008 to my dac. Also, there have been audio cards with audiophile or Pro audio pretensions for YEARS. I find infancy is a bit exagerated. Yes, DACS have a good 50% high tech which falls into the category of all electronics which improves quickly, but I am sure you don't hesitate to buy a cell phone, computer for these reasons. Saying DACS are in their infancy because just now they have high-res USB is like saying Hard disks are in their infancy because they just started making 2TB lightning drives. Interfaces change over time. the Dac in a CD has about the same age as the HD in a home PC, and is older than Notebook computers. Cheers

It is more obvious than that. It may be as Norton says, that some systems just show these differences more clearly. I don't even have a particularly quite listening room, but bass texture, instrument placement, and frequency balance all change significantly enough that you notice a change just walking into the room when the dac has been changed (my wife does, although I must admit that she has a musical background, though not much interest in hifif) cheers

Yesterday I wrote a long reply to this that unfortunately did not get sent. I have not heard the Teac dacs, having chosen to go a different route (although I did consider the 501 at the time). I don't find giving percentages to DACs or other hifi components very useful, all I will say is that I don't agree with your chart, the difference in enjoyment I get out of my system when I choose to keep a component is not subtle or of little significance. my main points are A) there are CLEARLY noticeable differences between dacs, most will differ noticeably in at least some characteristic of playback that will make the difference easy to see. B) One needs to take into account both the quality, and ones taste/system compatibility, so the better component is not necessarily better for you. Another food analogy, if you have to choose between a fancy chocolate ice-cream with no aditives and real eggs, and a supermarket vanilla, but don't like chocolate, the supermarket ice is better for you. C) Just because you can get something better doesn't mean that your system can't sound great and well balanced with a lesser component one doesn't always need the "best". I loved my system with the Concero HD(which I kept for almos a year), nothing wrong with that. I do enjoy it now more though. I currently have a Jungson Integrated amp, sounds great in my system, but I'm sure I could improve my system by getting something better. For right now, I find that the best value improvement for me is upgrading my dac. (well, until this last upgrade... the amp maybe next, but probably not soon). Cheers

I beg to differ, I don't find one needs "Heightened awareness" to hear the differences. Dacs often clearly change the experience one has with the system. The question of scale is a difficult one. Think of food, two identical dishes one with too much salt. The balanced one is clearly better, but what % do you give it? I do totally agree that what is better or worse is definitely a matter of preference and system synergy (some DACS may be overall better quality but still have characteristics that make them unsatisfactory in ones context). Cheers

Hi Mike, thanks for the response. I just wanted to point out a few more things. By saying that the differences are not subtle, I mean that one swap changes the general sound of my system, there is no careful back and forth necessary. (the case where I might have felt this less so was between the RDAC and the 100D, but that was in a different room, with a different amp. Since then all changes have been CLEAR (or as I said in my first post significant). The bass was use as an example of something that changes in a way that you hear in the first 10 seconds with material that has bass. It is by no means the only aspect that changes. I was not writing a full review, just pointing out that there are clear and obvious differences. The reference to dynamics also doesn't mean extra bass. I think that you might be confusing two different aspects of audio components. The difference in quality (or sound signature) and preference/system integration. I do not have to listen several times to see that they are different. I might have to listen several times to see which I prefer, and in what circumstances, since they are different sounding. (Just like when purchasing a speaker.) Again, to make it clear, I find the 2qute vastly better in my system (note only bass but fluidity, timing/staging/whatever you want to call it, and treble). I agree about recordings, this is also very important, but I find a good DAC can influence your decision on which recordings are most enjoyable. Also, I find that the 2qute shows in some ways more differences between the recordings, but at the same time makes more of them enjoyable. Please, I am not trying to push any dac in particular, just saying that in my opinion they do make a big difference that is not to be ignored. BTW, I had to speend a few weeks without any regular dac, and was stuck listening through my Oppo103 or ifi nano idsd, and did not find it at all enjoyable compared to any of the dacs I have had in the system (translation, didn't listen to much music on my HIFI, just used the idsd with headphones). Of course these dacs are in a different league from the ones I use. Cheers.

Hi all, This thread seems to be going around in circles, but I thought I might add that to me, there have been marked differences in the various dacs I have put in my system. I have gone through Arcam Rdac, Simaudio 100d, Asus Essence muses (didn't keep it long, too syrupy for my system), Resonessence Concero HD, Yulong DA8, and finally for now Chord 2qute. What's better differs from system to system and by taste of course, but I have found significant differences between these dacs in terms of presentation style as well as characteristics in diferent frequencies. I would not quite describe them as subtle, at least not in all aspects of playback. Some examples: the Concero HD had clearly less defined bass than the DA8, and the Chord has a MUCH tighter bass, to the extent where things just sound quite different. (much more texture to it, and you can make out what instrument is playing a lot better). On the other hand is could sound lacking in some systems, and with some music. Also, before selling the DA8 and the 100d, I compare them one last time, and again they were VERY different, the 100d being more nimble and the DA8 with more body. Both very nice with the appropriate music, but certainly not a subtle difference. I already had the 2qute which was clearly better than both for me, as my system needed a boost in dynamics which it gave me, and I liked the tighter bass with my setup, so that is what I am sticking with for now. My system consistes of Wandboard with voyage linux, chord 2qute, Jungson DA-200 integrated (200w AB heavily biased into class A), Totem Forest speakers. If I had my old Simaudio amp, maybe I would want a dac with less tight bass, who knows, but in any case it is a matter of choosing, not a mater of the different dacs sounding similar or only subtly different. Cheers