[MarkParity]

Lots of worrying again about jitter and noise and USB and Optical. Yes all of these things can and do effect some people but not everyone's setup, there are many external variables at play.

I'd suggest just using whatever connection you like or suits the budget and listening to it. If there is an issue you'll hear it and if you don't hear it then its not an issue or your ears aren't "good enough"

Spend your money on music and you limited time on the planet enjoying it.

 

[thePhones]

As to jitter, then this issue is also extremely complex. Again, it's not FPGA DAC's but the actual implementation. Now source jitter can be eliminated, and to do this I use a fixed crystal oscillator (the master clock) that has very low low frequency jitter. To convert from the input signal to the local clock, I have designed a digital phase lock loop; this creates a new clock, of exactly the same long term frequency as the source, but locked to the local crystal oscillator. A buffer is used, and data is extracted from the buffer by this new jitter free clock. Jitter from the source is eliminated as 2uS of incoming jitter has no measurable effect at all.

From a 2017 post

 

[GuiltyRocker]

I'm near Winchester in the UK.
If you'd be happy to lend yours I'd be very grateful!

I would, but I'm in Massachusetts in the US. There has to be someone here in the UK that can lend you one. Anyone?

 

[GoldenSound]

From a 2017 post

This doesn't correlate with what I've found when testing.
Far lower amounts than 2us, 25ns for example, did cause the DAVE (and Mojo 2) to both show measurably higher jitter

 

[Meridian7]

@GoldenSound
I know you value both hearig tests and measurements and try to asses both independably.
In you experience, do they match/co-ax always? Amir says yes (except for speakers). What is your take please?

We know Rob Watts hinges heavily on transients perfection. Is this part of natural biodynamics (for lack of a better word) fully covered by measurements that we can do? Is it perfectly quantifiable? Or still a missing link? Thanks..

 

[GhiAB]

Do you believe that ferrite bnc cables would make a difference or would it be better cu go usb into the MScaler?

 

[thePhones]

I just started a reddit thread for the Nvidia Shield+Quartet Scaler combo. If everyone interested would upvote this, maybe someone with knowledge would respond www.reddit.com/u/NvidiaShieldEnjoyer/s/UCfa9jnSsR
I am assuming Nvidia would not change the setting for us few audiophiles, but who knows

 

[GoldenSound]

@GoldenSound
I know you value both hearig tests and measurements and try to asses both independably.
In you experience, do they match/co-ax always? Amir says yes (except for speakers). What is your take please?

We know Rob Watts hinges heavily on transients perfection. Is this part of natural biodynamics (for lack of a better word) fully covered by measurements that we can do? Is it perfectly quantifiable? Or still a missing link? Thanks..

My general view is that everything where I've ever been able to hear a genuine difference also had something measurable that was different and offered a plausible explanation for what was being heard.
In instances where there was literally 0 measurable difference whatsoever (and I mean when testing thoroughly, NOT just 'does it have the same SINAD') I have never been able to then hear a difference. Fuses etc. (And to be clear I always listen before measuring to avoid having the measurements bias my perception, also it's interesting to see if I can call out what I think might be happening ahead of time then check if it's correct later)

If someone says "There are things we can hear but can't measure" quite frankly they're wrong and do not understand how insane the accuracy of modern metrology equipment is.
But I also disagree with some of what various people claim are the audible thresholds for certain factors given as the study/evidence behind those claims is often either not actually there, has issues that leave open the question of how conclusive it actually is, or there is contradictory evidence and people are just choosing the one that happens to suit their belief.

People often make the claim that upsampling makes no difference for example despite the fact that there is no study showing that, various reasonable explanations as to why it could make a difference, and there IS literature which shows that a small number of people were able to audibly discern between higher sample rate recordings and redbook for example.

There's often things which could likely be the cause for what is being heard subjectively but we can't be sure until that behaviour + subjective effect is then found again in other devices to build up a stronger correlation. Certain distortion vs output level profiles affecting perceived 'slam' etc.

Our ability to interpret how something will sound from the measurements is limited but there's still a lot of areas where we can get a lot of useful info and gain insight into how specific characteristics may be presented.

Ignoring measurements entirely and "just using your ears" in sighted testing is silly, claiming something is transparent cause it has 120dB sinad and looking no further into other aspects of behaviour/performance is also silly. (In fact I have a video demonstrating that high performance upsampling can make a demonstrable audible difference coming this week)

 

[thePhones]

If someone says "There are things we can hear but can't measure" quite frankly they're wrong and do not understand how insane the accuracy of modern metrology equipment is.

To understand your claim in the context of Chord Dacs. Are you saying: “all the things attributed to Chord dacs are possible to hear and therefor are measurable” or “some things attributed to Chord dacs are impossible to hear because they are not measurable”?
To give one example of a claim: Better depth perception comes from -350db performance of the noise shaper in the digital domain and it is not measurable in the analog domain. Is this claim false to you because it actually is measurable or because it’s impossible to hear?

 

[GoldenSound]

To understand your claim in the context of Chord Dacs. Are you saying: “all the things attributed to Chord dacs are possible to hear and therefor are measurable” or “some things attributed to Chord dacs are impossible to hear because they are not measurable”?
To give one example of a claim: Better depth perception comes from -350db performance of the noise shaper in the digital domain and it is not measurable in the analog domain. Is this claim false to you because it actually is measurable or because it’s impossible to hear?

Chord DACs sound different to many other DACs to me, but also have various aspects that are measurably different to others so it's impossible to determine how much or if any of that is due to the noise shaper design specifically.
But it would be measurable. You'd need excessively long FFTs to do it but still possible. FFT gain allows you to look below Johnson noise levels if you want to.
In terms of whether that is/isn't audible we'd kinda need to be able to try the same DAC with the 'good' vs 'bad' noise shaper which we can't currently do unless Chord were to provide some sort of test/evaluation firmware

 

[Meridian7]

Thank you @GoldenSound for the answer.

My question came from the puzzle in my head and part is clarified now, but puzzle is not finished.

On one side the measuring is not to be underestimated important and thus very revealing about the gear. For yourself the corrolation measure vs hearing-effect is definite.

On the other side extracting sonific ratings solely on the base of those measurements is still limited.

Now I could live with that if not for the following gordian knot:

Amir measures gear A and B which I happen to own both. Gear A measures better than B with a margin.

* I desperately want this to be true but B to me sounds way ahead "better".
* In the audiofile world gear B is consistendly in the top section of tier lists, not A, not even close.

Admitted gear A sounds very precise, this must reflect the better measuring but it sounds like a flatter wall, more dead, B sounds alive and whole and frankly more addictive. Gear A tires me sooner. Both gear are known for not colouring sound, its not about B being tubes and preferring that colour.

And I do not need Amir for this effect of discrepancy between precise vs preference.

My Focal Stellia is way more presice/accurate that my Meze's planars. But the Focal looses hands down, its more dead and flat while being more correct.

My point being: I'd like to see the deadness or flatness of gear reflected in measurements too.

Its painful to see the devision between those actually ridiculising mscaler on behalf of a measuring site result, and those who cant live witout for what it does in their setup, the latter being insulted as audiofools.
Thanks for that upscaling link!

 

[Meridian7]

From that link you gave:
"...Results showed a small but statistically significant ability of test subjects to discriminate high resolution content, and this effect increased dramatically when test subjects received extensive training..."

This saved my day , thanks @GoldenSound

 

[FunkyBassMan]

@Rob Watts

What would be the best way to come AES/EBU out of the M-Scaler?

Thanks in advance!!

 

[GuiltyRocker]

Thank you @GoldenSound for the answer.

My question came from the puzzle in my head and part is clarified now, but puzzle is not finished.

On one side the measuring is not to be underestimated important and thus very revealing about the gear. For yourself the corrolation measure vs hearing-effect is definite.

On the other side extracting sonific ratings solely on the base of those measurements is still limited.

Now I could live with that if not for the following gordian knot:

Amir measures gear A and B which I happen to own both. Gear A measures better than B with a margin.

* I desperately want this to be true but B to me sounds way ahead "better".
* In the audiofile world gear B is consistendly in the top section of tier lists, not A, not even close.

Admitted gear A sounds very precise, this must reflect the better measuring but it sounds like a flatter wall, more dead, B sounds alive and whole and frankly more addictive. Gear A tires me sooner. Both gear are known for not colouring sound, its not about B being tubes and preferring that colour.

And I do not need Amir for this effect of discrepancy between precise vs preference.

My Focal Stellia is way more presice/accurate that my Meze's planars. But the Focal looses hands down, its more dead and flat while being more correct.

My point being: I'd like to see the deadness or flatness of gear reflected in measurements too.

Its painful to see the devision between those actually ridiculising mscaler on behalf of a measuring site result, and those who cant live witout for what it does in their setup, the latter being insulted as audiofools.
Thanks for that upscaling link!

Because Amir only has one tool, measurements. The guy is clearly deaf thinking something like an RME ADI DAC sounds great, that DAC is a pile of junk, sorry had to say it. I heard it several times and it is horrible. He can talk measurements all day, but clearly he has no idea what music sounds like. That goes for all that Chi-Fi nonsense he likes too, that stuff sounds like Borgs out of Star Trek. I was also chasing measurements at one point, until I came across Rob's DACs.

 

[GuiltyRocker]

The measurements can look beautiful and fluffy, yet on 99% of these so called high-SINAD stuff the music sounds sterile and dead, like a clean hospital floor, FLAT. If you don't feel emotionally engaged with the music, then the whole thing is a complete waste of time. Rob's DACs get me emotionally engaged, and I've been around live music my whole life. I see these people making fun of the M scaler and insulting Rob, it's just sad, they have no idea. Oh well.