Herb Reichert reviewed the Qutest in March 2019 (Vol.42 No.3):
I've met audiophiles who think all digital-to-analog converters sound the same. "If there's a difference," they declare, "it's in the filters or output stage." Some even believe that the whole "digital thing" was solved before we entered the 21st century. Not I.
By 2005, I'd begun to think the whole digital thing would never be solved. Worse yet, I'd stopped caring. "Mechanical Sound Forever" was the song I sang. Then an old friend gave me an inexpensive D/A converter, a Halide Design DAC HD ($495, discontinued). I laughed when he handed me that diminutive black doodad, about the size of Zippo lighter, captured midway in the length of a nice Wireworld cable with a USB connector at one end and a pair of RCA plugs at the other. He laughed back: "You haven't tried asynchronous USB—let me know what you think."
At the time, I didn't know what asynchronous meant, but I knew I liked the nonmechanical musicality of the Halide DAC. I was still using it when I began writing for Stereophile in 2014.
When manufacturers began asking me to review DACs, I always declined—I didn't feel I was knowledgeable enough to speculate on how specific engineering and design decisions might correlate with what I heard. Then I began to ask questions, read every DAC review, and study John Atkinson's measurements of the DACs reviewed in—which, unlike his measurements of amplifiers or loudspeakers, I still find difficult to correlate with what I hear.
What I do know is that all DACs sound disturbingly different from one another—but why? Two DACs using the same sigma-delta chip can sound radically dissimilar: one rich and supple, the other imitating a glass bottle smashed on a sidewalk. Likewise, one R-2R ladder DAC can sound profoundly rich and deeply transparent, while another R-2R sounds like a boom box under water. It also seems that every successful DAC manufacturer has created not a more perfect converter, but a house sound. My experiences at audio shows and salons, listening to digital products made by Chord, dCS, MSB, and Benchmark, are what first alerted me to this phenomenon of digital house sounds.
Today, I begin this Follow-Up on Chord Electronics' Qutest D/A processor ($1895) by acknowledging my comfort with and predilection for Chord's unique house sound. I'd always felt that Chord had something good going on, but hadn't been able to say what it was. At the 2017 Rocky Mountain Audio Fest, I attended a PowerPoint lecture by engineer Rob Watts, who designed Chord's well-regarded DAVE DAC as well as the Qutest. Watts said his design work was based on measuring and listening, and that he sought to make "the most transparent device possible"—one that would do its best to "re-create the experience of listening to a live unamplified orchestra in a concert hall." He suggested that the best digital minimizes listener fatigue. Whereupon, from my seat in the second row, I shouted, "Amen, Brother Rob!"
When the Qutest arrived and I plugged it into my floor system, the red light on the left of its top front edge indicated that its last listener had used its "Warm HF roll-off" filter. Likewise, the white light on the right indicated that, like me, that last user had used the Qutest's type-B USB input. The red light in the round "viewing glass" at the center of the top panel indicated that my first Tidal selection—pianists Alexander Melnikov and Olga Pashchenko playing Debussy's La Mer in the composer's own four-hands arrangement—had been sampled at 44.1kHz (16-bit/44.1kHz FLAC, Harmonia Mundi).
After swapping out my HoloAudio Spring "Kitsuné Tuned Edition" Level 3 DAC4 for the Chord Qutest, the first thing I noticed with the Warm HF roll-off filter was an increase in punch and detail, especially in the upper bass and lower midrange. The left-hand side of the piano was extra-weighty. The intensity of the Chord's sound made the HoloAudio DAC sound a bit staid in comparison, and Schiit Audio's Yggdrasil Analog 2 DAC slightly electronic. The Red-filtered Qutest played a touch softer than either.
Filters
The Qutest offers four reconstruction filters. While each subtly changes the tone, temper, and tempo of its sound, they don't appear to be standard linear- or minimum-phase rolloffs. Instead, according to Chord's succinct and attractive manual, they "change the way the FPGA handles the data." Of course, I tried them all.
The Incisive Neutral (white) filter was emphatically detailed and distinctly clear, and everything did seem incisive—but dang, the top two octaves bit like a steel snake. Incisive Neutral moved voices and instruments even closer to their microphones than had Warm HF roll-off (red). Ambience was truncated. In my system, the red filter seemed neither warm nor conspicuously rolled off. In contrast, Incisive Neutral was cold, dry, and sharp—its high frequencies could have used a little rolling off.
Then I switched to the Incisive Neutral HF roll-off (green) filter—at which point I began wishing some of my buddies had been here to double-check my impressions. On the Melnikov-Pashchenko Debussy recording I was suddenly farther away from the piano but more inside the recording venue. The green filter treated the attacks, sustains, and decays of piano notes with a more balanced energy than either Warm HF roll-off (red) or Incisive Neutral (white). To my ears, Incisive Neutral HF roll-off (green) was the most unaffected with the most atmosphere and the biggest soundscape. Notes expanded into a vaster, deeper space. Green was gentler, a little soft, less in-my-face than white, and green's bass fullness, detail, and impact were distinct audiophile pleasures with "Lastou Adri," a recording by my new love, Algerian singer-songwriter Souad Massi, from her El Mutakallimun (Masters of the World) (16/44.1 FLAC, Wrasse/Tidal). With Incisive Neutral HF roll-off, Massi felt provocative and sensual. Chord's glossy manual says it's rolled off, but this filter delivered (to my taste) the most true-to-life top octaves. In fact, through the green filter, instrumental harmonics seemed lifelike and full-spectrum.
So I stuck with Incisive Neutral HF roll-off a long while. Sun Ra was uncannily present. Everything on Gilles Peterson Presents Sun Ra and His Arkestra: "To Those of Earth . . . and Other Worlds" (24/96 FLAC, Strut/Tidal) was so there, it seemed almost lurid. The trumpet in "Space Loneliness" was more solidly present—more of an energy-moving tool—than I'd thought possible. The green filter took me from curious about the Qutest to flat-out admiring, and the more recordings I played, the more I fell under the Qutest's spell.
The Warm filter is orange. I assumed it would sound a little warm, a bit less incisive, but not too rolled off. Instead, it was even more organic than green: fuller, more present. Performers were, again, quite close to their mikes. Little faraway sounds were more distinct because they were solid. Familiar recordings, such as Puente Celeste's Nama (CD, MA Recordings M084A), sounded reborn and much denser than I'd remembered them. The Qutest made familiar music sound more tangible in a highly seductive way.
I need a lot more time to listen, but for me, Warm/orange might be the "just right" filter—it sounded most like my primary reference DAC, the HoloAudio Spring. Did it sound warm? I forgot to notice—I just listened to music. It definitely didn't sound cold.
Conclusion
Well, folks, when it comes to DACs, I'm still not knowledgeable enough to speculate on how specific engineering and design choices might correlate with what I hear—and especially with the Chord Electronics Qutest.
Compared to any DAC I know, the Qutest seemed to recast the body of music it reproduces. With every recording and every filter, I experienced the same menu of enjoyable effects: vivid, layered detail; sinewy density; and a tangible force that moved music forward naturally. I enjoyed these effects so much I was disarmed. It made me question my knowledge and expectations. Was what I experienced real? Can it be measured? Or is it simply some illusion Rob Watts has programmed into his fancy FPGAs?
Chord's Qutest made my other DACs sound strangely tentative. The Qutest had more vivo, tiny detail, and jump factor than Schiit's Yggdrasil Analog 2. It sounded more vivid and present—but not as natural or as transparent—as my primary reference DAC, the HoloAudio Spring. It had a denser verity than the Mytek Brooklyn. Overall, the Qutest sounded most like the last DAC I reviewed, iFi Audio's Pro iDSD—but punchier, more natural, more refined.
Overall, the Chord Qutest delivered blizzards of detail, and a weighty musicality that completely captivated my mind. It stimulated me in a way that suggested it might be doing something unusually right in the time domain. Something seemed musically correct in a way that's new to me. But why?
Now I'll go back and read JA's review—it will be interesting to see what his listening observations and measurements reveal. Meanwhile, the Chord Qutest is a must-audition for every serious audiophile—especially those who think all DACs sound the same.—Herb Reichert
The Qutest offers four reconstruction filters. While each subtly changes the tone, temper, and tempo of its sound, they don't appear to be standard linear- or minimum-phase rolloffs. Instead, according to Chord's succinct and attractive manual, they "change the way the FPGA handles the data." Of course, I tried them all.
Well, folks, when it comes to DACs, I'm still not knowledgeable enough to speculate on how specific engineering and design choices might correlate with what I hear—and especially with the Chord Electronics Qutest.
