Chord Qutest

[Browniesbane]

Well, for the time being I’ve fixed this simply by fulliy powering down the rogue Sphinx and turning it back on again. We will see if the condition reappears. What is curious is how hot the qutest got, it is now room temp 

[zek4u]

Ayre QB9 Twenty was wonderful with my full Ayre system but went back to Chord. This time a Qutest with my Supernait 2. I probably owned a 2Qute 5 times. Guess you have to hit me over the head for me to know a good thing.

 

Powering my Qutest with a Uptone LPS-V1 to perfection. I liked my cell phone's battery pack better the the stock PSU so went for something as close as I could get to a battery, another ultra cap like my Uptone LPS-V1.2 powering my ultraRendu. AQVOX switch was also a huge upgrade!  Was tempted to go tubes but so happy with my system right. Finally updated my signature. Hope it shows up.

[audiophile911]

Is USB straight from a computer to a Chord DAC; like the Qutest the best connection possible?  Has anyone here tested their Qutest connected directly to a computer / laptop with USB vs a network streamer?  I connect my Quest directly to my Mac Mini, which dedicated to only running ROON Core with an AudioQuest Diamond USB and I think it sounds great.  But could it sound significantly better if I eliminated the computer from the stream???  I've read lots that taking a usb connection directly from a computer is just a 'bad' idea but I've also heard that it really depends on how usb is implemented in the source and the DAC?  Specifically, I heard from Rob Watts himself that Chord DAC's are optimized for USB direct input.  So, I'm trying to decide if I need to try something like a SOTM SMS-200 Ultra or a Sonore UltraRendu but I'm hesitant to go to the expense and hassle of more boxes.   I recently read this about his $150K system: https://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/opinion/1392-after-25-years-is-this-the-worlds-best-audio-system  Specifically:

"Some Facebook readers criticized me for not using an audiophile-grade music server or USB link. I responded that if anyone can show me a music server or USB link that actually sounds better that what I have in terms of resolution, tonality, soundstaging, imaging, whatever -- I’m all ears. But so far, I’ve heard nothing that has proven itself better-sounding or more versatile -- my computer plays any digital music format and file type from streaming services and my local music drive, and my USB link, with its lengthy length, transfers the bits just fine.

The reason I can get away with using a laptop has to do with the next component in the signal chain: the EMM Labs DA2 Reference DAC ($25,000). Designed by Ed Meitner, who’s been creating digital-audio products since the 1970s, the DA2 Reference seems immune to swaps of USB links, as well as differences in source components."

 

Am I missing something??

[barrows]

1 hour ago, audiophile911 said:

Is USB straight from a computer to a Chord DAC; like the Qutest the best connection possible?  Has anyone here tested their Qutest connected directly to a computer / laptop with USB vs a network streamer?  I connect my Quest directly to my Mac Mini, which dedicated to only running ROON Core with an AudioQuest Diamond USB and I think it sounds great.  But could it sound significantly better if I eliminated the computer from the stream???  I've read lots that taking a usb connection directly from a computer is just a 'bad' idea but I've also heard that it really depends on how usb is implemented in the source and the DAC?  Specifically, I heard from Rob Watts himself that Chord DAC's are optimized for USB direct input.  So, I'm trying to decide if I need to try something like a SOTM SMS-200 Ultra or a Sonore UltraRendu but I'm hesitant to go to the expense and hassle of more boxes.   I recently read this about his $150K system: https://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/opinion/1392-after-25-years-is-this-the-worlds-best-audio-system  Specifically:

"Some Facebook readers criticized me for not using an audiophile-grade music server or USB link. I responded that if anyone can show me a music server or USB link that actually sounds better that what I have in terms of resolution, tonality, soundstaging, imaging, whatever -- I’m all ears. But so far, I’ve heard nothing that has proven itself better-sounding or more versatile -- my computer plays any digital music format and file type from streaming services and my local music drive, and my USB link, with its lengthy length, transfers the bits just fine.

The reason I can get away with using a laptop has to do with the next component in the signal chain: the EMM Labs DA2 Reference DAC ($25,000). Designed by Ed Meitner, who’s been creating digital-audio products since the 1970s, the DA2 Reference seems immune to swaps of USB links, as well as differences in source components."

 

Am I missing something??

My opinion would be Yes.  Standard consumer computers are not designed for high end audio, their USB outputs are generally quite poor, and contaminated with lots of noise.  A really good dedicated Rendererr such as ultraRendu you mention (or even better the opticalRendu) is designed specifically to produce a super clean USB output to a USB DAC.  Yes, I work with Sonore, and of course I would say this, but this is the reason we make Sonore products in the first place: to get noisy commercial computer gear out of the high end audio system.

Sonore Renderers also have no sample rate limitations, they are capable of PCM up to 768 kHZ, and DSD up to at least DSD 512 (probably 1024 as well, but I have never had a DAC capabl;e of that to test here). 

Take a look at Chris' review of the EMM labs DV-2 here where he mentions using it with a Sonore Signature Rendu SEoptical to get best sound:

 

If one is interested in getting the best performance from any USB DAC, the source component matters, and one should try some better sources to become familiar with the advantages.  Do not take my word for this though (or even Chris'), try it yourself and make your own determination.

[audiophile911]

Just as an example: https://www.audio “science” review/forum/index.php?threads/new-optical-ethernet-streamer-from-sonore-systemoptique-sopt.7479/

 

Is it surprising I'm confused and skeptical?  Very frustrating!!!  Why should I have to go to the expense and hassle of buying everything, rewiring my house just so I can test this??  Then reviews (who get all the gear for free to test) say -we'll you have to trust your own ears!

[Blake]

1 hour ago, audiophile911 said:

Just as an example: https://www.audio “science” review/forum/index.php?threads/new-optical-ethernet-streamer-from-sonore-systemoptique-sopt.7479/

 

Is it surprising I'm confused and skeptical?  Very frustrating!!!  Why should I have to go to the expense and hassle of buying everything, rewiring my house just so I can test this??  Then reviews (who get all the gear for free to test) say -we'll you have to trust your own ears!

 

Do you trust your ears, mostly trust your ears, tepidly trust your ears or completely distrust your ears and believe measurements tell you everything you need to know about how something will sound? 

 

If you tend to fall more toward the former group, and you have an interest in experimenting, then there are lots of choices and options at different price points, and you should buy and try in your own home to find what sounds best to you (and there are lots of threads here on Audiophilestyle to help guide and inform).

 

If you tend to fall more toward the latter group, buy whatever audio gear measures best for the least amount of money (you will also very much enjoy the ASR site).

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

50 minutes ago, audiophile911 said:

Why should I have to go to the expense and hassle of buying everything, rewiring my house just so I can test this??

Nobody is forcing you to do anything you don’t want to do. Many people find the exercise enjoyable. 
 

Are you suggesting that you don’t want to test yourself, you want reviews to tell you the answer (as if there was a single right answer), and that because a review sample isn’t paid for the reviewer should give you a conclusive answer that solves the issue for what you will hear?

 

I’m a bit confused. 

[beerandmusic]

since the qutest thread popped to the top, i thought i could ask the owners here does the qutest have the ability to either upsample everything that goes to it (e.g. NOT just from a music player) but everything on a windows pc...like if i am playing a youtube video will the audio automatically be upsampled?  And if so, does it also have the ability to play native dsd without modifying it?

 

I want a dac that has multiple modes, where in one mode i can have it upsample everything going out the windows pc, and then another mode where if i am using a player playing a native dsd file that it can play it without modifying it?

 

[davide256]

6 hours ago, audiophile911 said:

Is USB straight from a computer to a Chord DAC; like the Qutest the best connection possible?  Has anyone here tested their Qutest connected directly to a computer / laptop with USB vs a network streamer?  I connect my Quest directly to my Mac Mini, which dedicated to only running ROON Core with an AudioQuest Diamond USB and I think it sounds great.  But could it sound significantly better if I eliminated the computer from the stream???  I've read lots that taking a usb connection directly from a computer is just a 'bad' idea but I've also heard that it really depends on how usb is implemented in the source and the DAC?  Specifically, I heard from Rob Watts himself that Chord DAC's are optimized for USB direct input.  So, I'm trying to decide if I need to try something like a SOTM SMS-200 Ultra or a Sonore UltraRendu but I'm hesitant to go to the expense and hassle of more boxes.   I recently read this about his $150K system: https://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/opinion/1392-after-25-years-is-this-the-worlds-best-audio-system  Specifically:

"Some Facebook readers criticized me for not using an audiophile-grade music server or USB link. I responded that if anyone can show me a music server or USB link that actually sounds better that what I have in terms of resolution, tonality, soundstaging, imaging, whatever -- I’m all ears. But so far, I’ve heard nothing that has proven itself better-sounding or more versatile -- my computer plays any digital music format and file type from streaming services and my local music drive, and my USB link, with its lengthy length, transfers the bits just fine.

The reason I can get away with using a laptop has to do with the next component in the signal chain: the EMM Labs DA2 Reference DAC ($25,000). Designed by Ed Meitner, who’s been creating digital-audio products since the 1970s, the DA2 Reference seems immune to swaps of USB links, as well as differences in source components."

 

Am I missing something??

Internal hard drives are no friend to USB out audio quality. Best to stream from your mini to a disk less endpoint. Your midrange will improve 

[davide256]

23 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

since the qutest thread popped to the top, i thought i could ask the owners here does the qutest have the ability to either upsample everything that goes to it (e.g. NOT just from a music player) but everything on a windows pc...like if i am playing a youtube video will the audio automatically be upsampled?  And if so, does it also have the ability to play native dsd without modifying it?

 

I want a dac that has multiple modes, where in one mode i can have it upsample everything going out the windows pc, and then another mode where if i am using a player playing a native dsd file that it can play it without modifying it?

 

that’s a function of the media player. With a chord mojo I have all PCM rates and using Roon/Stylus have all music upsampled to  705 khz. So you would need to know what your video player allows 

[barrows]

32 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

since the qutest thread popped to the top, i thought i could ask the owners here does the qutest have the ability to either upsample everything that goes to it (e.g. NOT just from a music player) but everything on a windows pc...like if i am playing a youtube video will the audio automatically be upsampled?  And if so, does it also have the ability to play native dsd without modifying it?

 

I want a dac that has multiple modes, where in one mode i can have it upsample everything going out the windows pc, and then another mode where if i am using a player playing a native dsd file that it can play it without modifying it?

 

Yes, the Qutest over samples all incoming PCM to an extremely high rate in an FPGA using Rob Watts unique “long” oversampling/filtering algorithms.  No the Qutest does not convert DSD natively, it re-modulates DSD into a multi-bit format (a version of PCM) before conversion.

[beerandmusic]

8 hours ago, barrows said:

Yes, the Qutest over samples all incoming PCM to an extremely high rate in an FPGA using Rob Watts unique “long” oversampling/filtering algorithms.  No the Qutest does not convert DSD natively, it re-modulates DSD into a multi-bit format (a version of PCM) before conversion.

 

hmmm...your response seems to conflict with davides response above (although he said mojo but i asked about qutest), but this is closer to what i understood...but can you clarify a little please...

 

so whether my windows 10 pc is playing a 128k mp3 file from windows media player, or playing a youtube video from youtube.com, or a native dsd file from jriver, it will ALWAYS and with no other options, play everything at this "high rate fpga rate" you speak of?

 

do you know what this high rate is?  I couldn't seem to find it anywhere...

 

Also if that is the case does it work for both optical or usb the same way?

 

[atxkyle]

16 hours ago, audiophile911 said:

Is USB straight from a computer to a Chord DAC; like the Qutest the best connection possible?  Has anyone here tested their Qutest connected directly to a computer / laptop with USB vs a network streamer?

I have the previous gen Chord 2Qute and every time I’ve improved my digital sources it has improved the SQ.  Big changes going from unoptimized PC to optimized server /streamer with good power supplies. Also a big boost from putting the EtherRegen in front of my streamer. 

[audiophile911]

14 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Nobody is forcing you to do anything you don’t want to do. Many people find the exercise enjoyable. 
 

Are you suggesting that you don’t want to test yourself, you want reviews to tell you the answer (as if there was a single right answer), and that because a review sample isn’t paid for the reviewer should give you a conclusive answer that solves the issue for what you will hear?

 

I’m a bit confused. 

I would be happy to test myself but it's difficult to do this now with quarantine as I can't borrow any gear.    With regards to your second question, YES! Actually, I do look to reviews to guide me and give me answers.  Why is that unreasonable?  Isn't that their JOB!!!

[ecwl]

16 hours ago, audiophile911 said:

Is USB straight from a computer to a Chord DAC; like the Qutest the best connection possible?  Has anyone here tested their Qutest connected directly to a computer / laptop with USB vs a network streamer?  I connect my Quest directly to my Mac Mini, which dedicated to only running ROON Core with an AudioQuest Diamond USB and I think it sounds great. 

 

I think different DACs have different designs so it is probably unfair to overly generalize, even though all DACs would run into some fundamental issues with streamers/computers.

If your Mac Mini supports Toslink output (and I think most of them if not all of them do), you can buy a 3.5mm headphone jack to Toslink adaptor and the feed Qutest via Toslink. This would technically be more optimal than USB because you can still have subtle ground loop current noise leaking from the Mac Mini into the Qutest whereas you won't get that with Toslink. Qutest Pulse Array DAC design is different than other DAC designs so are significantly more jitter immune than other DACs (although almost all DACs are fairly jitter immune) so you can get away with Toslink's increased jitter. The downside is that you may not be able to feed DSD or >96kHz PCM audio into the Qutest via Toslink (even though Qutest accepts DSD over PCM & 192kHz PCM via Toslink but your source has to support it). The Chord DAC designer considers Toslink feed to be the reference sound (or laptop via USB running on battery, not plugged into mains/ground) if people want to hear what he intended as the DACs would then be free of ground loop noise.

If testing via Toslink is not possible or too cumbersome, another thing you can try is to get the Audioquest Jitterbug as an addition to to your AQ USB cable. I suspect by adding that in, I'd give it that there's a 1/2 chance there will be no change the sound, 1/3 chance the sound will improve, 1/6 chance the sound will get worse.

Of course all DACs are susceptible to ground loop noise, Qutest is not significantly more or less susceptible compared to others. Adding a streamer might or might not reduce it. As a customer, the Sonore products are great as I use an ultraRendu myself but in the end, I personally ended up switching back to a USB to Toslink converter (off the ultraRendu) to completely eliminate the ground loop noise.

With all this said, I can tell you that if you're already getting great sound off the Mac Mini and AudioQuest Diamond USB, you're not likely to gain a whole lot more by tweaking your system further. It's best to just enjoy the sound of the Qutest. The more you listen, the more you'll enjoy it.

[ecwl]

2 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

 

hmmm...your response seems to conflict with davides response above (although he said mojo but i asked about qutest), but this is closer to what i understood...but can you clarify a little please...

 

so whether my windows 10 pc is playing a 128k mp3 file from windows media player, or playing a youtube video from youtube.com, or a native dsd file from jriver, it will ALWAYS and with no other options, play everything at this "high rate fpga rate" you speak of?

 

do you know what this high rate is?  I couldn't seem to find it anywhere...

 

Also if that is the case does it work for both optical or usb the same way?

 

Yes. @barrows is 100% correct. Chord DACs always upsample. That's why you buy the DAC and it's also why most people enjoy the sound because the upsampling filter is generally superior to other products (although obviously some people would disagree). 

@davide256 just likes to upsample in software on his computer himself but that's his perogative.

Chord Qutest would upsample the same with optical & USB. Optical might sound better because there wouldn't be ground loop noise leaking from your PC to the Qutest via USB but Toslink is limited to 192kHz PCM and standard DSD over PCM if your PC supports it.

For most Windows PC, the bigger problem is making sure Windows is sending your music or YouTube sound natively to Qutest. JRiver would always send music natively to Qutest if configured properly (or by default). But Windows Media Player and YouTube would send sound based on your Windows settings so you should manually set Windows sound to 44.1kHz when using Windows Media Player and switch it to 48kHz when watching YouTube. What I actually do with my Hugo2/Mojo via Toslink from PC is that Windows is always set to 48kHz so that when I watch YouTube, it's playing natively. When I'm listening to music, I always use Tidal/JRiver/Roon so those apps would automatically switch to the correct sample rate to ensure the DAC gets native signal. Unfortunately, my PC doesn't support DSD over PCM or >96kHz PCM so I do have to downsample the Toslink to 88kHz/96kHz if it's playing at a higher sample rate.

[beerandmusic]

31 minutes ago, ecwl said:

Yes. @barrows is 100% correct. Chord DACs always upsample. That's why you buy the DAC and it's also why most people enjoy the sound because the upsampling filter is generally superior to other products (although obviously some people would disagree). 

@davide256 just likes to upsample in software on his computer himself but that's his perogative.

Chord Qutest would upsample the same with optical & USB. Optical might sound better because there wouldn't be ground loop noise leaking from your PC to the Qutest via USB but Toslink is limited to 192kHz PCM and standard DSD over PCM if your PC supports it.

For most Windows PC, the bigger problem is making sure Windows is sending your music or YouTube sound natively to Qutest. JRiver would always send music natively to Qutest if configured properly (or by default). But Windows Media Player and YouTube would send sound based on your Windows settings so you should manually set Windows sound to 44.1kHz when using Windows Media Player and switch it to 48kHz when watching YouTube. What I actually do with my Hugo2/Mojo via Toslink from PC is that Windows is always set to 48kHz so that when I watch YouTube, it's playing natively. When I'm listening to music, I always use Tidal/JRiver/Roon so those apps would automatically switch to the correct sample rate to ensure the DAC gets native signal. Unfortunately, my PC doesn't support DSD over PCM or >96kHz PCM so I do have to downsample the Toslink to 88kHz/96kHz if it's playing at a higher sample rate.

thanks, i will read through closer and digest, but quick question...if the qutest "always" upsamples, then by davide upsampling to 705k First with software (seems like an odd number?), but then the qutest would upsample even more right?  Also what is the rate that the qutest upsamples to?

[ecwl]

13 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

thanks, i will read through closer and digest, but quick question...if the qutest "always" upsamples, then by davide upsampling to 705k First with software (seems like an odd number?), but then the qutest would upsample even more right?  Also what is the rate that the qutest upsamples to?

Qutest first upsamples 44.1kHz PCM music to 705.6kHz. And then it takes the 705.4kHz to 104MHz for the 10-element Pulse Array DAC.

If you do what davide does, Qutest would still take his 705.6kHz signal to 104MHz for the 10-element Pulse Array DAC. Bottomline is for your Chord Qutest, you should feed a native signal.

 

The second thing to recognize is that all DACs upsample. Some people argue that R2R ladder DACs with NOS filters don't upsample. But in reality, even those R2R DACs can't actually take the native 44.1kHz signal. What they're doing is repeating each 44.1kHz signal 8 times to upsample to 352.8kHz so that the R2R DACs can accept the input. Because of the ultrasonic noise generated by this non-oversampling upsampling filter, you need a stronger analog filter to remove that noise. If you actually upsample (in Chord/DSD/DAC chip DACs), you can get less ultrasonic noise so you can use a different analog filter to filter the noise out.

 

So for the DSD DACs or DAC chip DAC, the DACs have their native outputs. For DSD DACs, it might be 5.6MHz DSD or multiples of that. So any PCM music playing off a true DSD DAC has to be upsampled to 5.6MHz DSD or higher before playback.

Similarly, most DAC chip DACs might have 32-element or 64-element playing at 2.8MHz or 5.6MHz so the 44.1kHz music is often upsampled to say 352.8kHz first and then further upsampled to 2.8MHz and 5.6MHz. 

I'm simplifying things a little since the upsampling conversion to 5.6MHz DSD or multi-element 2.8/5.6MHz also includes noise shaping.

I know people who really understand DACs would be horrified by my simplifications. But I think this is a reasonable? explanation without being too much of a distortion from the truth.

[barrows]

3 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

so whether my windows 10 pc is playing a 128k mp3 file from windows media player, or playing a youtube video from youtube.com, or a native dsd file from jriver, it will ALWAYS and with no other options, play everything at this "high rate fpga rate" you speak of?

YES, and so will the Mojo.

 

Chord DACs oversample all incoming rates to very high frequency, using Rob Watts' custom very long filters, in an FPGA, and then the actual conversion to analog is done by a discrete converter consisting of switches and resistors.  

 

[barrows]

27 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

thanks, i will read through closer and digest, but quick question...if the qutest "always" upsamples, then by davide upsampling to 705k First with software (seems like an odd number?), but then the qutest would upsample even more right?  Also what is the rate that the qutest upsamples to?

Please do some research of your own here, there are many interviews with rob Watts on the net, and Chord has published a few documents as well describing how their DACs work.  I do not remember the exact frequency involved, and am not going to seek it out again, but this is all information which is published ion the Internet.

[davide256]

On 5/30/2020 at 10:50 AM, beerandmusic said:

thanks, i will read through closer and digest, but quick question...if the qutest "always" upsamples, then by davide upsampling to 705k First with software (seems like an odd number?), but then the qutest would upsample even more right?  Also what is the rate that the qutest upsamples to?

Unlike the Metrum Octave  and Gungnir NOS DAC's (which admittedly are limited to 192khz), I find that upsampling a 44.1/48khz to max PCM rate 705/753

in the player application makes a large difference over USB audio using a Chord Mojo vs using PCM native rate. Its one of the reasons I plan to buy a Qutest.

To do this the application needs to allow you to enable rate conversion vs only set the max rate supported by the DAC

[beerandmusic]

7 hours ago, davide256 said:

 I find that upsampling a 44.1/48khz to max PCM rate 705/753

in the player application makes a large difference over USB audio using a Chord Mojo vs using PCM native rate. Its one of the reasons I plan to buy a Qutest.

To do this the application needs to allow you to enable rate conversion vs only set the max rate supported by the DAC

why would that be possible since the mojo or qutest will upsample it much higher?

so if you start with a 44.1k file and then upsample it to say 192k, it can't make new music that is not there, the software just guesses what "music would be there" right?  it can't make music that doesn't exist?  i would think the fpga algorithms would "guess" better which is what i thought we were buying when we buy an upsampling dac...one that sounds more natural.  Can you explain the "theory" where upsampling first to 192K then to mhz rate the mojo/qutest upsamples to vs just upsampling the 44k file to the mhz rate the mojo/qutest upsamples to?  it is just a subjective thought right, that the software does a better job of upsampling?  And if that is the case, why not just upsample to the same rate the dac can upsample to with software?  Not doubting, just questioning the theory?

[barrows]

7 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

why would that be possible since the mojo or qutest will upsample it much higher?

so if you start with a 44.1k file and then upsample it to say 192k, it can't make new music that is not there, the software just guesses what "music would be there" right?  it can't make music that doesn't exist?  i would think the fpga algorithms would "guess" better which is what i thought we were buying when we buy an upsampling dac...one that sounds more natural.  Can you explain the "theory" where upsampling first to 192K then to mhz rate the mojo/qutest upsamples to vs just upsampling the 44k file to the mhz rate the mojo/qutest upsamples to?  it is just a subjective thought right, that the software does a better job of upsampling?  And if that is the case, why not just upsample to the same rate the dac can upsample to with software?  Not doubting, just questioning the theory?

Here is some of the theory:

 

1.  The processor in a computer is many times more powerful than the one in a DAC. Therefore the software based oversampling algorithm can be mush more precise/sophisticated than the one in the DAC.

2.  The first oversampling step, is generally much more audible than subsequent ones, because any artifacts are at much lower frequencies-so the first oversampling step is the most important.

3.  Having the DAC do less "work" (processing) usually means the DAC will also produce less RF internally, and less internal RF often means better sound quality.

4.  No, of course you cannot get "more music" by oversampling, but what you can do is use a much simpler and more accurate conversion circuit for the final step of turning digital into analog when you have a much higher sample rate.  Many designers feel that the more simple conversion stage allows for better sound.

 

It should also be noted that even Chord themselves understands the above, and they make the mScaler external oversampling processor for precisely these reasons.

[davide256]

23 minutes ago, barrows said:

Here is some of the theory:

 

1.  The processor in a computer is many times more powerful than the one in a DAC. Therefore the software based oversampling algorithm can be mush more precise/sophisticated than the one in the DAC.

2.  The first oversampling step, is generally much more audible than subsequent ones, because any artifacts are at much lower frequencies-so the first oversampling step is the most important.

3.  Having the DAC do less "work" (processing) usually means the DAC will also produce less RF internally, and less internal RF often means better sound quality.

4.  No, of course you cannot get "more music" by oversampling, but what you can do is use a much simpler and more accurate conversion circuit for the final step of turning digital into analog when you have a much higher sample rate.  Many designers feel that the more simple conversion stage allows for better sound.

 

It should also be noted that even Chord themselves understands the above, and they make the mScaler external oversampling processor for precisely these reasons.

Drat... now Its sounds like I'm going to be tempted to buy an M-Scaler equivalent after I get a Qutest . More $$$ out.

[beerandmusic]

59 minutes ago, barrows said:

Here is some of the theory:

 

1.  The processor in a computer is many times more powerful than the one in a DAC. Therefore the software based oversampling algorithm can be mush more precise/sophisticated than the one in the DAC.

2.  The first oversampling step, is generally much more audible than subsequent ones, because any artifacts are at much lower frequencies-so the first oversampling step is the most important.

3.  Having the DAC do less "work" (processing) usually means the DAC will also produce less RF internally, and less internal RF often means better sound quality.

4.  No, of course you cannot get "more music" by oversampling, but what you can do is use a much simpler and more accurate conversion circuit for the final step of turning digital into analog when you have a much higher sample rate.  Many designers feel that the more simple conversion stage allows for better sound.

 

It should also be noted that even Chord themselves understands the above, and they make the mScaler external oversampling processor for precisely these reasons.

 

ok, thanks for the explanation...it seems to make sense to some degree, but if the computer software is more capable of upsampling, why not just use the computer to upsample to same rate as the chord does?