Chords New M -Scaler

[barrows]

37 minutes ago, ElviaCaprice said:

If one excepts the premise that the upsampling and filtering of the Chord M-Scaler is far superior in SQ to any software approach via server, then I would be interested in why that is and what prevents the software approach via server from duplicating that accomplishment?  

The answer is nothing.  It is easy for the exact same approach as used by Chord to be accomplished in software.  In fact, I suspect that Jussi (miska) believes the oversampling/filters he has developed for HQPlayer are actually superior to what Chord does in Blu/Mscaler.  Rob Watts could certainly reproduce exactly the same (or even better, 2 million taps would be easy for a decent computer) via using his approach in a computer.

With Chord offering these as hardware solutions, we have only one way to get to somewhere, there is no reason we cannot to the same (or an even better) place through oversampling in software.  Anyone who believes differently is just fooling themselves, all it is required would be to run the same code int he software oversampling program.  Chord, of course, is a hardware company, so they offer their approach in hardware.  

If one wants to reproduce what Chord does in DAVE via software, take a look at the Stereopjhile test measurements of DAVE's filter response, and make an analogous filter in iZotope with Audirvana +, You will have to use isotope's RX-6 to get a graphic representation for comparing the results of the settings, but you can get very, very close to the same response as to what DAVE does.

 

Of course a listening test requires one to listen to other aspects of the DAC's performance, all aspects of sound quality are certainly not governed solely by the filter response-so how to do comparisons?  You cannot remove the other aspects of the DAC's performance from the equation.

[barrows]

15 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

One thing I love is that we have options. Custom HQP or M Scaler or whatever. 

 

All very cool. 

Yes, and we must remember that not all audiophiles are going to be interested in setting up, and learning the ins and outs of a sophisticated HQPlayer software based oversampling system.  For them, the ability to just purchase a hardware based solution which is plug and play is a good thing.

Ultimately, it is clear to me that a well sorted HQPlayer set up, with an appropriately stout computer, and a Renderer (NAA) feeding the audio DAC is more flexible, and also allows for virtually unlimited filter choices in the future.  But again, this is not going to be for everybody.

[barrows]

10 minutes ago, ElviaCaprice said:

This is where I would disagree.  A renderer is less flexible than a single server due to it's confines to lacking a flexible OS.  A well implemented server with clean power and clocking is far more flexible to stream to an M Scaler.  And until a software solution only upon a server is shown to match the performance of a hardware solution such as M Scaler, it will not be the desired approach, let alone the complexity of setting up that software for the common audiophile.    

In turn this is/will bode well for Chord DAC's and future DAC/AMP designs for driving speakers/headphones direct, bypassing any need for separate pre-amp/amp.

Say What???

 

My post re a Renderer was about using HQPlayer, first of all.  Second of all, a good Renderer will give better performance with either an mScaler or a DAC.  A full featured server will never achieve the lower noise footprint of a well designed, high end, Renderer.

[barrows]

27 minutes ago, ElviaCaprice said:

Debatable at best.  I would say it's already been surpassed, the renderer.  Due to it's reliance on the preceding stream initiation.  It is becoming more and more an unnecessary fixer component that only adds inflexible complexity.

Just factually wrong, this is not debatable at all.  The noise footprint of a full server is easily measurable to be way larger than that of a well designed Renderer.

[barrows]

5 minutes ago, ElviaCaprice said:

What facts?  Show us the listening test results and the comparable measurements.

You can choose to believe what you want, but that does not make it true.  This is simple stuff here, I have made the measurements, but one hardly needs measurements anyway.  It is pretty easy to see why a well designed, high end, Renderer has a lower noise footprints than any server, just power consumption alone will answer this for you, without even having to go into details such as onboard regulator types, or processor power, etc.

How do you suppose that a full computer using say even a low 60 watts, is going to produce less noise than a Renderer running on 5 watts?

[barrows]

15 minutes ago, mansr said:

That difference only matters if the noise is coupled through to the DAC output at a level that is a) audible and b) correlated to the power consumption. If the computer manages to keep the noise contained, or the DAC can keep it out, your argument goes nowhere.

And then, for those who believe that the noise does not matter, they may as well just run a standard laptop into their DAC via USB, I am fine with that if that is what they want to do.

 

But I know form experience that doing so will leave a lot of audio performance on the table, I have have never heard a single DAC which does not produce significantly better sonic performance when fed from a high end, low noise source component.  It would be nice if DACs were indeed immune to source component quality, but in the real world I have never come across one that is.

[barrows]

deleted, Chris is right...

[barrows]

2 hours ago, ecwl said:

I think system synergy sometimes matters more. With class D amplifiers, the switching frequencies are usually in the 400-1000kHz range. If DAVE's transient timing is more accurate because of the upsampling to 768kHz 24-bit, that transient timing accuracy is going to be slightly lost due to switching frequencies of the class D amplifiers.

That point of view is well known to be nonsense.  Rise time of any decent class D amplifier well outstrips what is possible from the loudspeaker.

[barrows]

I think it is all important to step back a second, and take a breath...  Ahhhh.

 

Now it seems to me that comparisons between the HMS and, say, perhaps HQP are a bit odd in the first place:

 

Rob Watts is clearly an advocate for PCM, and only begrudgingly added a DSD mode to DAVE (not available on other Chord DACs, which convert DSD to PCM).  He clearly designs his DACs to perform best using his filters/oversampling and with PCM. Those using Chord DACs are finding good synergy with blu and likely will with HMS in the same way.

 

Miska (Jussi) is clearly an advocate for DSD, and designed both HQPlayer and his DSC-1 DAC to get the best out of oversampled DSD.  The DSC-1 DAC approach is now available (or very similar approaches) from various DAC makers, and those using that approach have found superb sound quality using HQP to oversample to DSD 256 or 512, with a DSC-1 style DAC.  Also many chip based DACs with AKM and ESS hardware will likely benefit from high rate DSD input (I personally love dSD 256 into the ESS 9038 here).

 

To me it seems clear that HQPlayer's big strength is in DSD oversampling, especially when combined with a discrete DSD DAC, not to say that it's PCM oversampling approaches are weak.  And expecting the Chord DAC to do really well with DSD, when Rob Watts himself shows little interest in DSD performance seems a bit odd.  The same could be said for expecting HQPlayer style oversampling/filtering to work as well as m scaler with Chord style DACs.

 

So, just perhaps: HQPlayer is "best" for DSD oversampling into a DSD style DAC, and m Scaler is best for oversampling into a Chord DAC.

 

Clearly we have advocates for both approaches, and hey, choices are good.

 

[barrows]

Higher sample rates also allow for a very simple, discrete component, D/A conversion stage.  Such as Chord's Pulse Array, or Jussi's DSC-1 approach.

Many people feel there are sonic advantages to these simple, discrete component, conversion stages.

[barrows]

25 minutes ago, esldude said:

I'm not looking for feelings.  I liked to know more than that. 

 

 

Then you should likely listen to one yourself.

 

Of course some of these style (simple, discrete) DACs are among the best measuring DACs for distortion and SNR, such as the Mola Mola, and DAVE.

[barrows]

1 hour ago, ecwl said:

Regardless, I have to admit this post seems to be dragging us more and more off-topic since we are now talking about DAC architecture, rather than HMS's initial upsampling filter.

Yes, perhaps.  But it is not going to be very informative to discuss the M Scaler in a vacuum, with no comparisons to other approaches.  The M Scaler is specifically one way to do oversampling, as there are other ways, it makes sense to make comparisons.

[barrows]

I do not really think measurements are going to show us anything here.  All the design approaches being discussed have examples with convincing measurements which generally say the approaches are doing what they say they are doing.  Certainly Rob Watts/Chord does.  The questions are really psychoacoustic: which things really matter (most) for best perceived sound quality.

Does the M Scaler offer what is important for sound quality?  Clearly it does what it is saying it does (as measured), but does that approach equate to the best sound quality?  To Rob Watts POV on psychoacoustics it does.

But, is that approach to psychoacoustics the "right" one... or the only "right" one...

[barrows]

4 hours ago, Rexp said:

I think that the audible distortion is more often intrinsic within the recording rather than than caused by the DAC/conversion, what do you think?

It does not matter.  As audiophiles we have no control over how good the recording is (or not).  We can only try and find the best versions of the music we love.

So, we are concerned with the playback equipment and reducing its (unwanted) contributions to the music.

[barrows]

13 minutes ago, Andyman said:

 

Perhaps someone could develop an end to end solution such that the filters used during recording and mastering were well defined, and a complementary filter option chosen at the dac, thus authenticating the quality of the master...

Or perhaps, someone could pretend they are doing that and then market it to gullible audiophiles...

[barrows]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

 

There is little question that “jitter” or phase noise is a strong function of the IC chip and particular logic family. Lots of focus on getting a clock with perfect specs ...

I do not doubt the validity of the above point, but would also suggest, that given a specific "IC chip" and "particular logic family", IE what one is already dealing with,  a way to improve performance can be applying batter a better masterclock (given that the details are attended to).

In no way I am I suggesting avoiding the details of the former in favor of the latter.

In my experience of improving the masterclock (and I do not refer to applying an external clock here, but replacing the existing masterclock(s) with one of lower phase noise), I have yet to do so and not experience an improvement in sonics as a result.

 

I still have not got my hands on any of the really impressive XOs yet though (ones significantly better than NDK 2520 SDA series or Crystek 575 and 957 series, all of which are pretty closely grouped in general for close in phase noise).

 

 

 

[barrows]

I think it would be very interesting if Chord decided to sell a software MScaler package.  This could be, for example, sold as a plug in to ROON and/or Audirvana Plus.  I believe, as a software package it could be copyrighted, and would likely provide a nice additional income stream for Chord.  The customer for the hardware based MScaler would be very different than the one which would want the software version, and I doubt that they would lose sales of the hardware version.

This would make comparisons with other oversampling approaches easier and more interesting.  But there is still the fact that as far as i can tell from Rob Watts' explanations, the Chord oversampling approach is highly optimized to work best with the Chord DAC approach (Pulse Array).  

The DAC still really matters, of course.  It is cool that Chord has made MScaler oversampling available at a lower price point, after all, HQPlayer plus a computer capable of using its full capabilities is still more affordable than MScaler. 

[barrows]

19 minutes ago, mansr said:

Perhaps they don't want that.

I do not think it would really matter in the end from a sales perspective.  Those who are going to prefer their Chord gear will still do so.  I have worked in the high end for long enough to know that manufacturers are not sitting around and scheming about ways to dupe people, manufacturers are trying really hard to improve system performances and sound quality, and to do so also by making products which can distinguish themselves int he market place: that Chord has a somewhat unique approach which accomplishes that.

[barrows]

I would expect the M Scaler to include Chord's isolated USB interface which they use in their non-portable products (Qutest, Hugo TT2 and DAVE) vs the non-isolated interface used int eh Mojo.  My understanding is that RW feels the portables do not need the isolated interface as they will be hooked up to a portable player/computer running on batteries.

 

Bottom line, I think we can be confident the M Scaler will have a very good USB interface, as does DAVE and Qutest.

[barrows]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

I'm not disagreeing about that. I just find it disappointing when companies try to impose illegal restrictions on their warranties.

Most manufacturers add clauses such as this to avoid the possibility of being held responsible for very, very inappropriate use cases by the owner.  As Chord cannot control what power supply might be plugged into one of their components, they feel the need to protect themselves from liability if/when a customer does something really, really stupid.  This is also why most manufacturers will void a warranty if a product is modified, as they have no control over what mods might be done, and the quality of the workmanship of those mods.

As long as the manufacturer is reasonable on how such restrictions are imposed I see nothing wrong with them, and do not blame a manufacturer for trying to exert some control over the use of the product, such that it is not damaged by the user.

 

For example, Chord cannot stop an enthusiastic but perhaps less than knowledgeable owner from plugging in a 15 volt power supply where a 5 volt supply was supplied.  I have seen this type of thing happen (even customers who thought more voltage would be "better"!), and of course over voltage could cause damage.  Most manufacturers are very lenient in how they apply such language in the real situation of a warranty repair, and will often still honor the warranty in most cases.

 

In my experience doing customer service, I have see some crazy things which customers sometimes do to products, including "mods" which actually broke the component.

 

I am not sure about the legality of such warranty restrictions, certainly these vary by country of use, most warranty statements are vetted by lawyers before being published, @mansr, are you certain this statement would be illegal?

 

Of course one can still use another power supply with the MScaler, no one will come to your house and stop you.  Just make sure the supply is the correct voltage and polarity.  Chord never has to know, and the will not know, unless you do actually overvolatage the unit and burn something as a result of that. 

[barrows]

2 hours ago, Advieira said:

How do you guys compare PSAUDIO Direcstream with Hugo 2/Qutest "scaled" by Blu Mkii dual BNC?

I would expect folks to hear big significant between the DS and Chord DACs, after all, the PS Audio DS uses a single bit/DSD approach, where Chord uses a multi bit approach.

It might take awhile for people to report in on this, as the M Scaler is only just becoming available, and I doubt anyone is using the Blu with Qutest or Hugo 2. 

[barrows]

1 hour ago, Shadorne said:

I am unable to eek out any benefit from upsampling with Roon with the DAC 3

Right. Is not this because no matter what you do externally, the DAC 3 is always sending the ESS 9028 211 kHz?  If you cannot defeat the built in OSF of the benchmark, then you cannot hear (potential) benefits of oversampling externally...  Or can you defeat the Benchmark's OSF? 

[barrows]

We know more than that about ESS.  My understanding for the 9018 is that it first makes an 8x pass, this is controllable and can be defeated (although this where the "jitter eliminator" works, as an asynchronous sample rate converter), then there is another step of up conversion, to very high MHz levels at 6-9 bits (bit rate is user selectable).

I am almost certain, that with DSD input, there is an SDM step, but I am not sure about how the sample rate is handled.  Remember that ESS volume control works with DSD, so there is processing going on.  Although ESS does seem to remain tight lipped about exactly what happens.  The ESS chip will not convert DSD if the first stage of processing (the "OSF") is turned off (true for 9018 and 9038).  It is clear the ESS chip is not operating as simply as a discrete DSC-1 type DAC, or even as simply as the recent AKM chips in pure DSD mode.

 

That said, I am very happy with the sonics of the ESS 9038 feeding it exclusively DSD 256, so I optimized my DAC build for DSD 256 and it sounds great.  I also run it synchronously, supplying Bit Clock and Master Clock from the same oscillator such that the DPLL completely drops out.

[barrows]

7 minutes ago, Miska said:

Not many DACs (end-user products) really do something like that, most just use analog filters optimized for PCM. Still they tend to perform better when running at DSD. And could be even better if optimized for DSD.

That is pretty cool if people take advantage of it.  I changed the analog filter in my DAC a bit (relaxed it for DSD 256 input).

Jussi, are the recommended analog filters in the AKM data sheet?

[barrows]

43 minutes ago, Em2016 said:

So we still don’t know to what MHz sample rate?

I used to know for the 9018, cannot remember now.  There was a huge thread )probably still there) at diyaudio.com about the ESS 9018, and designer Dustin Foremen talked a lot there about how the chip operates.  My understanding is that the final rate is related to the master clock rate (which has a wide possible range).