advertisement


Chord 2Qute DAC anyone.

D

david12

pfm Member
Now the 2Qute is being replaced by the Qutest, any thoughts on looking for a 2Qute second hand or Exdemo. Most DAc's these days seem to include a Pre amp and headphone section, that I definitely don't need. I just need a good DAC with asynchronous USB, nothing else. If anyone thinks something else is better than the Chord, please tell me.

It's unlikely anybody has, but has anyone had a chance to compare the "Qute with the Qutest?
 
See my thread ‘chord Qutest has landed ‘ where I’ve moved from 2qute to qutest
2qute is still a dac to beat and you won’t be disappointed- (I would link the thread but can’t see how to do it on a phone)
 
I have. The 2Qute is a great DAC and more spirited than the Qutest. I found the Qutest to be more refined in several important areas, especially timbre and image depth. I noticed the differences most noticeably on orchestral, piano and string quartet recordings. Harder to define on jazz.

I am still using 2Qute, it wasn’t a walk over, but will probably change to Qutest soon.
 
Bundles....naim ndac, naim v1,hugo tt to mention a few...thought the tt was superb but so fineky with volume control and lights etc...so hopefully the qbd will solve all my problems..
 
meridian 508 said:
Bundles....naim ndac, naim v1,hugo tt to mention a few...thought the tt was superb but so fineky with volume control and lights etc...so hopefully the qbd will solve all my problems..
Click to expand...
Will be great to hear your impressions of SQ differences between the two. Are you using their balanced outputs?
 
A few reports now that 2Qute is just more engaging....? I wouldn't want to loose 'spirited'.
 
I’ve not had time to compare my Hugo 1 and Hugo 2 but will give it a go. The 2 sounded better out of the box though.
 
I've had a 2Qute for about a year now. Whilst I find the difference between many DACs to be too small to call in side by side comparison, I do find some leave me slightly irritated in the long term. The Benchmark is a case in point, and whilst a great bit of kit, after a while I start wanting to try something else. The 2Qute went into the system and has stayed there. No wondering if I should change it.

Maybe I could be even more content with the Qutest... arghhh

One feature that the Qutest does have is the ability to change the output voltage. The 2Qute is on the high side, and in my setup means using that the volume control on my amp is at a low, and rather sensitive, level.
 
Sod it, I’ve bought an Oppo 203 to go with the replacement TV. No new DAC for me.
 
Thanks for all the replies. It looks like I'll have to dem the "Qute and Qutest and go for the former unless the Qutest is significantly better
 
If You luv the 2qute then don’t listen to Qutest unless you can afford likely the extra £600. Buy the 2qute and walk out with a smile and enjoy...
 
camverton said:
I've had a 2Qute for about a year now. Whilst I find the difference between many DACs to be too small to call in side by side comparison, I do find some leave me slightly irritated in the long term. The Benchmark is a case in point, and whilst a great bit of kit, after a while I start wanting to try something else. The 2Qute went into the system and has stayed there. No wondering if I should change it.

Maybe I could be even more content with the Qutest... arghhh

One feature that the Qutest does have is the ability to change the output voltage. The 2Qute is on the high side, and in my setup means using that the volume control on my amp is at a low, and rather sensitive, level.
Click to expand...
I had some t pad attenuators made up for my ATC amp which gave me about -6db. They did not affect sq in the same way a l pad ones did. I now use Qutest on 1v and use almost half of the vol control..your welcome to borrow them if you like?
 
I'm a long-time fan of Chord DACs. I bought a DAC64 in 2006, and I've owned almost every model since. There's a distinctive family 'sound' (or lack thereof) consistent throughout the lineage. My experience is that Chord is not being disingenuous when they claim that the later/cheaper models improve upon the older/more expensive models. In other words, there seem to be genuine subjective gains from scaling the decoding algorithms as technology advancements permit FPGA chips which offer greater computing power and efficiency. Those gains can offset the disadvantage the cheaper models have in specification elsewhere in the circuit.

Of those I've owned, this would be my overall order of preference:

1 - Hugo 2
2 - QBD76 HD / HDSD
3 - Hugo / 2Qute
4 - DAC64 MkII
5 - Qute EX

The DAC64 & Qute HD/EX were near indistinguishable on an A/B comparison in my system (even with the buffer fully engaged on the DAC64). There's then a distinct step up to the QBD76 and the Hugo/2Qute. The QBD76 stands out a little. It's a bit more full bodied and smoother than the Hugo/2Qute, but equally resolving and engaging.

I think the Hugo2 (and presumably the Qutest) is another step forward. It offers even greater resolution, but is as refined and full bodied as the QBD76. The DAVE is probably better still, but I'm not interested at the price.

As a point of note on the Coral series (DAC64/QBD76/DAVE) vs the Chordette/Hugo models. The balanced outputs of the DAC64 & QBD76 are desirable, but IME the 6V XLR output can over-drive the input stage of many preamplifiers, and even when it doesn't, it doesn't sound any better than the SE outputs. So, although I use a fully balanced system, I wasn't at all concerned about the sacrifice of balanced connectivity when switching from the QBD76 HDSD to the Hugo 2.
 
Furyous said:
I'm a long-time fan of Chord DACs. I bought a DAC64 in 2006, and I've owned almost every model since. There's a distinctive family 'sound' (or lack thereof) consistent throughout the lineage. My experience is that Chord is not being disingenuous when they claim that the later/cheaper models improve upon the older/more expensive models. In other words, there seem to be genuine subjective gains from scaling the decoding algorithms as technology advancements permit FPGA chips which offer greater computing power and efficiency. Those gains can more than offset the disadvantage the cheaper models have in specification elsewhere in the circuit.

Of those I've owned, this would be my overall order of preference:

1 - Hugo 2
2 - QBD76 HD / HDSD
3 - Hugo / 2Qute
4 - DAC64 MkII
5 - Qute EX

The DAC64 & Qute HD/EX were near indistinguishable on an A/B comparison in my system (even with the buffer fully engaged on the DAC64). The same goes for the Hugo/2Qute (and rightly so). The QBD76 stands out a little from the rest. It's a bit more full bodied and smoother than the Hugo/2Qute, but equally resolving and engaging.

I think the Hugo2 (and presumably the Qutest) is another step forward, and it's the best of those I've owned. The DAVE is probably better still, but I'm not interested at the price.

As a point of note on the Coral series (DAC64/QBD76/DAVE) vs the Chordette/Hugo models. The balanced outputs of the DAC64 & QBD76 are desirable, but IME the 6V XLR output can over-drive the input stage of many preamplifiers, and even when it doesn't, it doesn't sound any better than the SE outputs. So, although I use a fully balanced system, I wasn't at all concerned about the sacrifice of balanced connectivity when switching from the QBD76 HDSD to the Hugo 2.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that’s a very useful insight. I’ve only had time to try the Hugo 2 with headphones and look forward to trying it with amp and speakers against the Hugo. I did try a TT and couldnt distinguish it from the Hugo via headphones but I dare say through the main system differences would have become apparent.
 
hifi-dog said:
I had some t pad attenuators made up for my ATC amp which gave me about -6db. They did not affect sq in the same way a l pad ones did. I now use Qutest on 1v and use almost half of the vol control..your welcome to borrow them if you like?
Click to expand...
Many thanks for your kind offer. I keep meaning to make up a pair. Just out of interest do you know what values were used? I'm interested that a T pad sounds different to an L pad; much of a difference do you think, assuming the L pad is used the correct way round of course?
 
Atc reccomended a T pad as it matched impedance better than l pad, The input impedance of the sia2-150 is 22.5k ohm so they suggested values of 7476 Ohms, 7476ohms, the bridge resistor is 30119 Ohms for -6db. They are theoretical ideal values so the resistors chosen were 7k5 and 30k. Compared to the l pad of -10db they did not rob the transients in the same way so the sound did not sound sat on as it could be said with l pad.
I compared using -6db in Roon DSP with the t pad and there was nothing in it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top