[Sonic77]

I didn't think you were referring to me specifically...so no butt hurtedness on my end! Just adding my 2 cents here like everyone else.

As for the price, while Chord needs to make a return on their investment, simpler is better and will insure a higher adoption rate by folks that aren't necessarily owners of Chord DACs (assuming it will work with other brands). 

I wouldn't hold my breath for that.

 

[Articnoise]

 
​I think people are getting stuck on the cd part of the Blu mk II, and neglecting the fact that you can stream thru it, that's what I will mostly be using it for, although 1 million taps are going to be insane when playing cd's which I like a lot of people here own lots of. I think a lot of people here would have preferred to have a streamer only using the 1 million taps, instead of having a cd attached, but Chord have already hinted that a lot of Asian countries still use cd players and from what I understand there are a lot of music lovers in Asia, (Big market)

 

So you want to go computer or streamer -> USB -> DDC -> SPDIF -> Blu2 -> SPDIF -> DAVE.

 

All this for a DAC, DAVE, which is said and promoted to be practically immune to the source. 

 

[Rob Watts]

It would be nice to get a deeper insight into the improvements brought about by Blu2 and Dave. Has Chord moved onto a new show does anyone know?

Now that the dust has settled and I have had some time to collect my thoughts on the M scaler, I thought I would post some impressions, based on what people heard at the show.
 
Firstly, some background. I first heard the 512,000 tap WTA filter in late July - and was pretty much knocked out by the changes in performance, so then started work on the full M scaler, which I got to listen too in late November. The final version, once all the audibly changing bugs was fixed, was last Christmas eve. So we are talking about very recent developments.
 
Now part of the difficulties about designing is appreciating the scale of what one achieves. Its easy to say this improvement has this effect in SQ and sometimes it easy to get tunnel vision and to exaggerate how significant a change actually represents, and I am very aware of these dangers; ones own natural enthusiasm can let one get carried away. But assessing scale of changes is vitally important - just to give you an example, it took 3 months to code verify and test the M scaler - and this is based upon merely modifying from 512,000 to the full 1M taps. So you are making decisions that will have important SQ consequences based upon previous listening tests, so balancing the importance of different tests is crucial. I always find it amusing when a audio companies blurb talks about no compromise this or that; design is always about balancing resources to get the best performance you can; compromise, fine tuning or balancing is essential part of the process. So getting a sense of scale based on listening tests is absolutely crucial, as I need to be able to accurately predict at the design stage what a decision will mean. But appreciating how much of a difference actually represents is difficult - for example, when listening to depth, it often just resolves down to A being deeper than B. But what of listening test conducted 2 years ago where C was deeper than D? How can you relate A improvement to the C improvement? This is where getting a perspective on the scale of a change is really important - and it becomes crucial when designing lower cost devices such as Mojo, where you are limited by cost and resources and important compromises have to be made.
 
So whenever I get to do a listening test, appreciating the scale of the change is vital, as the results will get logged into my mind and used maybe in design decisions 5 years hence. Now with the M scaler I was already knocked out by the change - I knew that increasing tap length would sound better, but I had not expected it to be transformational - and my listening tests and actually using it to enjoy music was telling me this. Because it was so big, I doubted my own opinion, and wanted others to hear it and get their feedback, so I can get a more accurate measure on the scale of the changes. I had been talking to @romaz during the process, and I was deliberately being neutral about the change and my intense excitement, so that when he heard it at CES I would get a unbiased view.
 
Now trying to asses scale is important, but you need to be aware that listening in strange surroundings, with unfamiliar gear reduces ones sensitivity, so listening at home will give a much more profound and accurate view. It's one reason why we tend not to do AB tests at trade only shows, as the dealers and press will get to grips with it in their own homes soon enough.
 
So Romaz (Roy) was only the second audiophile to hear the M scaler properly - and you can read for yourselves his impressions. And doing the AB was amazing - you could immediately hear the effects of plugging the M scaler in - and absolutely everything improved. So much so that after 1 minute Roy declared "I gotta get one of those."
 
Next came up was @jude and I used a 1972 Decca recording of Vaughn Williams Fantasia on a theme by Tomas Tallis. Now this is recorded in London's Kingsway Hall, which has the underground nearby, so you often get to hear the rumble of subway trains. Now when the M scaler was switched on, you could hear a collective gasp by all those present - the rumble sounded completely different - before it was this vague noise - now you actually perceive the pitch of the rumble. Frankly, it was really weird. Next we noticed small ticks and noises from the musicians, and these little disturbances were really clear and precisely located in space.
 
So I was now getting pretty excited, and was demoing the differences whenever I could. The reaction was universal - everything changes, and it isn't small. Two people commented that the size (scale) of the change was bigger than Hugo to Dave (not sure about that but I can't disagree as it could be). One guy jokingly said I had distorted the direct feed - and I know what he meant by that, but the direct feed is bit perfect. So what changes? The first thing you notice is just clarity - everything is so much clearer and more transparent. Timbre variations are much better, together with pitch reproduction of bass notes. Rhythm's are much easier to follow, and instrument inner detail is easier to hear. Instrument separation and focus is much better, and its much easier to follow rapid variations. Now all of these are expected; they are the usual stuff from improving timing of transients accuracy. But what is also better is depth perception, which is usually nothing to do with timing but small signal amplitude linearity. Now this is better because I have done some more things than simply improve the tap length. One of the curious things was switching on the HF filter with Dave - with 44.1 it should not sound better - and this immediately told me that I needed to improve the WTA filter stop-band performance, and this was done by increasing the bit depth on the quantised coefficients. This worked; now M scaler sounds better with the HF filter off (exactly as it should do). But one unexpected benefit to this has been better depth perception.
 
Regrets? Yes - I should have trusted my gut reaction, that the M scaler was a profound musical and SQ change, even though my intellect was telling me it's only two and a half bits more accurate. And when launching the M scaler we should have done an AB test to the press at the launch so they can actually appreciate how big the change is. Chord will be doing AB demos of it at the Bristol Hi-Fi show in the UK in February.
 
Rob        

 

[TheAttorney]

An excellent explanantion Rob. And good on you for coming up with another ground breaking product.
 
And of course this is early days, so we can't expect all answers to all questions.
However, I hope you can appreciate that this can leave a sizeable proportion of Dave owners somewhat apprehensive. Those that have moved away from CDs.
 
We had a certain expectation that Dave was upgradeable if something new came along that justified the effort.
So the first such thing that has come along in practice is another £8k box that is clearly not designed for those non-CD owners.
And that has made some of Dave's commponents redundant.
And that needs more stacking space for no visible functionality (if you don'r count all the CD functions).
 
So, I repeat my suggestion to get those million taps into Dave as a chargeble upgrade.
Someone replied that that would be impractical. But I'm just stating a customer requirement- I leave it to the clever boys to come up with a solution.
And if that is truely impractical, then maybe a smaller box, with networking inputs, that can be tucked away round the back.
EDIT: Or another option would be a flat topped base that Dave could sit on with minimal impact to rack space.
 
As I said, I'm not expecting immediate answers, but I hope you'll be thinking about it.

 

[JaZZ]

I'm with you, Attorney. I'd like to have an affordable M-scaler in a compact size, now that Rob and Roy have made our mouths water.

 

[bmichels]

  I'm with you, Attorney. I'd like to have an affordable M-scaler in a compact size, now that Rob and Roy have made our mouths water.

 
AGREE, and it should have also USB input, not just BNC S/PDIF, so that it can be compatible with all Music servers

 

[AndrewOld]

Originally Posted by Rob Watts /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
..
 
One of the curious things was switching on the HF filter with Dave - with 44.1 it should not sound better - and this immediately told me that I needed to improve the WTA filter stop-band performance, and this was done by increasing the bit depth on the quantised coefficients. This worked; now M scaler sounds better with the HF filter off (exactly as it should do). 
 
..
 
Rob        

It has always struck me as strange that the HF filter improves DAVE with 44.1. Now that you have found an explanation and a solution will it be possible to incorporate this change into the DAVE?

 

[AndrewOld]

  I'm with you, Attorney. I'd like to have an affordable M-scaler in a compact size, now that Rob and Roy have made our mouths water.

I agree also. I've got a DAVE and it is a wonder. I would like the M-Scaler technology, but absolutely not interested in buying a redundant CD player or for that matter an ADC. Dropping the CD aspect of the BLU2 must surely reduce the cost substantially. Simple casework would be fine. Sufficient inputs to be viable domestically, including USB, with a remote control that actually lets you select them directly, and also bearing in mind interfacing optimally with whatever future Chord streamer evolves from the Poly.  And as a small extra, I would also hope that the USB input would not need third party add ons like the Jitterbug to improve performance. 

 

[TheAttorney]

  It has always struck me as strange that the HF filter improves DAVE with 44.1.

I've never found the HF filter to improve DAVE wiith 44.1. At best, it merely changes the sound, which might suit some preferences or recording quality.

 

[AndrewOld]

  I've never found the HF filter to improve DAVE wiith 44.1. At best, it merely changes the sound, which might suit some preferences or recording quality.

Just quoting the man himself:

 
 

   One of the curious things was switching on the HF filter with Dave - with 44.1 it should not sound better - and this immediately told me that I needed to improve the WTA filter stop-band performance, and this was done by increasing the bit depth on the quantised coefficients. This worked; now M scaler sounds better with the HF filter off (exactly as it should do). 
 
Rob        

 
 
 
If the DAVE should sound better with the HF filter off, then it should do. Now that Rob has figured out why it didn't it seems reasonable to ask whether this new knowledge can be incorporated into the DAVE.

 

[JaZZ]

 

  I've never found the HF filter to improve DAVE wiith 44.1. At best, it merely changes the sound, which might suit some preferences or recording quality.

Just quoting the man himself:

 

   One of the curious things was switching on the HF filter with Dave - with 44.1 it should not sound better - and this immediately told me that I needed to improve the WTA filter stop-band performance, and this was done by increasing the bit depth on the quantised coefficients. This worked; now M scaler sounds better with the HF filter off (exactly as it should do). 
 
Rob        

 
If the DAVE should sound better with the HF filter off, then it should do. Now that Rob has figured out why it didn't it seems reasonable to ask whether this new knowledge can be incorporated into the DAVE.

 
I belong to those who prefer the HF filter to be off (at least most of the time) – call it preference or a matter of synergy with my system. However, the most simple solution would be to have it switched on instead of sending your DAVE in for an FPGA update.

 

[Brushane]

  Next came up was @jude and I used a 1972 Decca recording of Vaughn Williams Fantasia on a theme by Tomas Tallis. Now this is recorded in London's Wigmore Hall, which has the underground nearby, so you often get to hear the rumble of subway trains.

 
Thanks for the music tip. A quick search led to a purchasable 16/44 FLAC. A very nice piece of music indeed and a nice recording. Evident also on the Mojo.

 

[miketlse]

Just thinking out loud here.
 
There is already a thread for music that sounds good with the Mojo http://www.head-fi.org/t/802832/mojos-greatest-hits
 
Does anyone think it would be worth creating a similar thread for music that really reveals the abilities of the DAVE plus soon the Blu 2?
 
It could prove a useful resource to capture tracks such as Vaughn Williams Fantasia, all in one common thread, making them easy to locate, especially for new DAVE owners.

 

[Sonic77]

I'm going to be spinning cd's like crazy! Yeah cd's!

Quote:

  Now that the dust has settled and I have had some time to collect my thoughts on the M scaler, I thought I would post some impressions, based on what people heard at the show.
 
Firstly, some background. I first heard the 512,000 tap WTA filter in late July - and was pretty much knocked out by the changes in performance, so then started work on the full M scaler, which I got to listen too in late November. The final version, once all the audibly changing bugs was fixed, was last Christmas eve. So we are talking about very recent developments.
 
Now part of the difficulties about designing is appreciating the scale of what one achieves. Its easy to say this improvement has this effect in SQ and sometimes it easy to get tunnel vision and to exaggerate how significant a change actually represents, and I am very aware of these dangers; ones own natural enthusiasm can let one get carried away. But assessing scale of changes is vitally important - just to give you an example, it took 3 months to code verify and test the M scaler - and this is based upon merely modifying from 512,000 to the full 1M taps. So you are making decisions that will have important SQ consequences based upon previous listening tests, so balancing the importance of different tests is crucial. I always find it amusing when a audio companies blurb talks about no compromise this or that; design is always about balancing resources to get the best performance you can; compromise, fine tuning or balancing is essential part of the process. So getting a sense of scale based on listening tests is absolutely crucial, as I need to be able to accurately predict at the design stage what a decision will mean. But appreciating how much of a difference actually represents is difficult - for example, when listening to depth, it often just resolves down to A being deeper than B. But what of listening test conducted 2 years ago where C was deeper than D? How can you relate A improvement to the C improvement? This is where getting a perspective on the scale of a change is really important - and it becomes crucial when designing lower cost devices such as Mojo, where you are limited by cost and resources and important compromises have to be made.
 
So whenever I get to do a listening test, appreciating the scale of the change is vital, as the results will get logged into my mind and used maybe in design decisions 5 years hence. Now with the M scaler I was already knocked out by the change - I knew that increasing tap length would sound better, but I had not expected it to be transformational - and my listening tests and actually using it to enjoy music was telling me this. Because it was so big, I doubted my own opinion, and wanted others to hear it and get their feedback, so I can get a more accurate measure on the scale of the changes. I had been talking to @romaz during the process, and I was deliberately being neutral about the change and my intense excitement, so that when he heard it at CES I would get a unbiased view.
 
Now trying to asses scale is important, but you need to be aware that listening in strange surroundings, with unfamiliar gear reduces ones sensitivity, so listening at home will give a much more profound and accurate view. It's one reason why we tend not to do AB tests at trade only shows, as the dealers and press will get to grips with it in their own homes soon enough.
 
So Romaz (Roy) was only the second audiophile to hear the M scaler properly - and you can read for yourselves his impressions. And doing the AB was amazing - you could immediately hear the effects of plugging the M scaler in - and absolutely everything improved. So much so that after 1 minute Roy declared "I gotta get one of those."
 
Next came up was @jude and I used a 1972 Decca recording of Vaughn Williams Fantasia on a theme by Tomas Tallis. Now this is recorded in London's Wigmore Hall, which has the underground nearby, so you often get to hear the rumble of subway trains. Now when the M scaler was switched on, you could hear a collective gasp by all those present - the rumble sounded completely different - before it was this vague noise - now you actually perceive the pitch of the rumble. Frankly, it was really weird. Next we noticed small ticks and noises from the musicians, and these little disturbances were really clear and precisely located in space.
 
So I was now getting pretty excited, and was demoing the differences whenever I could. The reaction was universal - everything changes, and it isn't small. Two people commented that the size (scale) of the change was bigger than Hugo to Dave (not sure about that but I can't disagree as it could be). One guy jokingly said I had distorted the direct feed - and I know what he meant by that, but the direct feed is bit perfect. So what changes? The first thing you notice is just clarity - everything is so much clearer and more transparent. Timbre variations are much better, together with pitch reproduction of bass notes. Rhythm's are much easier to follow, and instrument inner detail is easier to hear. Instrument separation and focus is much better, and its much easier to follow rapid variations. Now all of these are expected; they are the usual stuff from improving timing of transients accuracy. But what is also better is depth perception, which is usually nothing to do with timing but small signal amplitude linearity. Now this is better because I have done some more things than simply improve the tap length. One of the curious things was switching on the HF filter with Dave - with 44.1 it should not sound better - and this immediately told me that I needed to improve the WTA filter stop-band performance, and this was done by increasing the bit depth on the quantised coefficients. This worked; now M scaler sounds better with the HF filter off (exactly as it should do). But one unexpected benefit to this has been better depth perception.
 
Regrets? Yes - I should have trusted my gut reaction, that the M scaler was a profound musical and SQ change, even though my intellect was telling me it's only two and a half bits more accurate. And when launching the M scaler we should have done an AB test to the press at the launch so they can actually appreciate how big the change is. Chord will be doing AB demos of it at the Bristol Hi-Fi show in the UK in February.
 
Rob        

 

[DaveRedRef-III]

I wouldn't hold your breath on much cheaper without the CD. The disc player is a tried and tested reliable and capable unit but it is also a defunct unit when I last looked (no longer in production), no related R&D to recover, whereas the M Scaler is superior in capability and significantly so in processor count than Dave which costs £8k on its own.