[AndrewOld]

No I don't think 384/24 is indistinguishable with 48/24 or  certainly not 44.1/16 - but my feeling is that the standard is much less important than the recording method, so in that sense M scaler is a great equalizer - although this was true with Dave too, certainly with the ability to enjoy older recordings. For example, Decca recordings from 1960 to pre dolby 1967 redbook recordings do things that modern 192/24 kHz recordings are incapable of doing - notably being able to record speed and impact of real instruments. Modern recordings are smooth and refined but seem incapable of reproducing timbre variations and raw impact like the classic 1960's recordings. So simple microphone and short signal paths with sound optimized custom built mixers and amps are more important than 44.1 or 192. That said, my older recosrdings benefit much more from M scaler - which is what one would expect.

Future recordings with Davina will allow us to evaluate exactly what the losses are in sample rate and reconstruction. With the tremendous change M scaler offers clearly the next question is how much further can we take this, and Davina will tell us exactly how close 1M taps to ideal actually is.

Rob

Decca were famous for using an arrangement of microphones which became known as the Decca tree for recordings of that time; the arrangement is still used. Three or sometimes five omni-directional microphones were used arranged in a tree roughly above the conductor.. (So you'll need more than two channels of Davina to record like that!).

Here's an interesting article about the Decca sound with pictures of some of those recording sessions, including Solti,

http://www.polymathperspective.com/?p=2484

and here's the wiki

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decca_tree

 

[Crgreen]

Since acquiring a DAVE, I have found myself listening less to LPs. I have a decent deck - an SME 20/2A and SMEV arm - and a friend asked me to play Bowie's Blackstar on vinyl and as a 96/24 file through the DAVE. The latter did sound better, but there are probably no reliable general conclusions which can be drawn from this. I suspect the master is the digital file and the LP was taken from that. (By the way, the Bowie - Last Five Years documentary on the BBC broadcast last weekend was very good.)

As for archiving LPs, I've done that with some unavailable in any other format, but it's a slow, rather boring exercise, and to be frank, life's too short.

The fact is, many will remain attracted to vinyl as its cool and different from what their friends have, quite aside from issues of sound quality. And in many respects, it still represents the benchmark in terms of musicality, it's just that the DAVE has in closed that gap and improved things in some areas. Still finding it difficult to believe that the M-Scaler will improve it even more, but it rather sounds as if provides a substantial improvement.

 

[Crgreen]

The BBC documentary about Solti's recording of Götterdämmerung, available on DVD, is fascinating, and gives you quite an insight into the Decca recording process in Vienna, where some of the best recordings were made, and John Culshaw's involvement. I also recommend his "Ring Respunding" about the recording of the whole Ring cycle, and his autobiography, "Putting the Record Straight".

 

[miketlse]

 
I would not buy "unheard ".
 

 
I am not surprised. Your posts reveal that you are passionate about live music, and the quality of the music recording process, so i expected that you would be unlikely to gamble on buying a Hugo 2 unheard.

 

[oscarnr]

The USB port is bi-directional, so it can input any sample rate/32 bits and at the same time output any sample rate/32 bits. USB is galvanically isolated. I suppose that via an appropriate app one could then transmit to Dave via USB. But the BNC outputs are galvanically isolated too so that won't represent a SQ degradation as its the galvanic isolation that makes by far the biggest difference.

Rob

Thank you, Rob.
So will Davina have 1 or 2 USB ports? If it has one I'll have to output the signal from BNC ports (given I'll use the USB port as input for the music). Anyway, I have no problem with that since it has galvanic isolation.

 

[Sonic77]

I'm going to buy the Blu unheard, I bought the Dave unheard, Rob and Chord make the very best audio equipment why would I doubt them now?

 

[oscarnr]

I'm going to buy the Blu unheard, I bought the Dave unheard, Rob and Chord make the very best audio equipment why would I doubt them now?

I bought it unheard, too. I had previously a Chord Hugo and expected the best, as DAVE confirmed. And I believe that Blu MKII will be a priceless addition. But now I am reluctant to buy a new device (similar price as the Dave -not inexpensive-) that requires an intermediate converter (more money) to fit my use. The CD spinner could be a good addition (I buy a lot of CDs but I rip them all), but not a need. I would prefer the more elegant solution of an USB directly from my Mac to ¿Davina? and from that to DAVE.
Perhaps I am trying to convince myself that I can wait

 

[Sonic77]

I bought it unheard, too. I had previously a Chord Hugo and expected the best, as DAVE confirmed. And I believe that Blu MKII will be a priceless addition. But now I am reluctant to buy a new device (similar price as the Dave -not inexpensive-) that requires an intermediate converter (more money) to fit my use. The CD spinner could be a good addition (I buy a lot of CDs but I rip them all), but not a need. I would prefer the more elegant solution of an USB directly from my Mac to ¿Davina? and from that to DAVE.
Perhaps I am trying to convince myself that I can wait

I'll be your guinea pig

 

[Rob Watts]

I'm going to buy the Blu unheard, I bought the Dave unheard, Rob and Chord make the very best audio equipment why would I doubt them now?

Thank-you for your vote of confidence. But you won't be disappointed - I am still getting to grips with how good the M scaler is - and too many people has said its a bigger difference in SQ than Dave. I am trying to understand and comprehend why it is doing what it does, and understanding this intellectually is proving challenging.
 
Of course we are not listening to an M scaler; I am absolutely convinced that an M scaler on another DAC, would just sound like an ordinary improvement in tap length - not this radical change I and others are appreciating. After all Dave is the only DAC on the planet that can reconstruct timing and reproduce it in the analogue domain to 88 nS accuracy.
 
The first two demos of M scaler (@romaz) and a respected Japanese reviewer and Dave owner - both ordered a Blu M scaler based on only 2 minutes of AB testing. Now of course both are Dave owners, and so are primed - they know how unusual Dave actually is. What I can't get my head around is why just a sixfold increase in tap length can transform the sound. After all, we are starting at such an elevated level with Dave.
 
And you know I am listening today, and maybe I am just relaxing after the stress of the show - but today it is sounding just better and better. This version of code I am listening too is new - I fixed a audible bug on Christmas eve - and perhaps brain break-in is playing its role again.
 
Rob

 

[JaZZ]

Rob, I'm sure it's FPGA code burn-in.

 

[Mython]

Originally Posted by JaZZ /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
 

  .... I am still getting to grips with how good the M scaler is - and too many people has said its a bigger difference in SQ than Dave. I am trying to understand and comprehend why it is doing what it does, and understanding this intellectually is proving challenging.
 
Of course we are not listening to an M scaler; I am absolutely convinced that an M scaler on another DAC, would just sound like an ordinary improvement in tap length - not this radical change I and others are appreciating. After all Dave is the only DAC on the planet that can reconstruct timing and reproduce it in the analogue domain to 88 nS accuracy.
 
What I can't get my head around is why just a sixfold increase in tap length can transform the sound. After all, we are starting at such an elevated level with Dave.
 
And you know I am listening today, and maybe I am just relaxing after the stress of the show - but today it is sounding just better and better. This version of code I am listening too is new - I fixed a audible bug on Christmas eve - and perhaps brain break-in is playing its role again.
 
Rob

 
 
Rob, I'm sure it's FPGA code burn-in.

 
 
 
I reckon the sheer speed of m scalers number-crunching has created a torsion field and sent Rob unwittingly through a stargate, into another dimension of perception.
 
There is no other rational explanation.
 
 

 

[Rob Watts]

 

No I don't think 384/24 is indistinguishable with 48/24 or  certainly not 44.1/16 - but my feeling is that the standard is much less important than the recording method, so in that sense M scaler is a great equalizer - although this was true with Dave too, certainly with the ability to enjoy older recordings. For example, Decca recordings from 1960 to pre dolby 1967 redbook recordings do things that modern 192/24 kHz recordings are incapable of doing - notably being able to record speed and impact of real instruments. Modern recordings are smooth and refined but seem incapable of reproducing timbre variations and raw impact like the classic 1960's recordings. So simple microphone and short signal paths with sound optimized custom built mixers and amps are more important than 44.1 or 192. That said, my older recosrdings benefit much more from M scaler - which is what one would expect.

Future recordings with Davina will allow us to evaluate exactly what the losses are in sample rate and reconstruction. With the tremendous change M scaler offers clearly the next question is how much further can we take this, and Davina will tell us exactly how close 1M taps to ideal actually is.

Rob

Decca were famous for using an arrangement of microphones which became known as the Decca tree for recordings of that time; the arrangement is still used. Three or sometimes five omni-directional microphones were used arranged in a tree roughly above the conductor.. (So you'll need more than two channels of Davina to record like that!).

Here's an interesting article about the Decca sound with pictures of some of those recording sessions, including Solti,

http://www.polymathperspective.com/?p=2484

and here's the wiki

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decca_tree

I am sure there is more too it than mic layout. I bought myself a Christmas present of all three volumes of Mercury living presence CD's - about 160 CD's in all. Now some of the recordings sound a bit ropey, but again the 1960 plus ones are great. In particular, the recordings that absolutely stand out are the ones that are recorded using 35mm magnetic film tape - and these bring me out in goosebumps. Now all these recordings share a simple omni directional mic technique - but with the Mercury its the ones that use the 35mm tape that really is extraordinary. Additionally Decca modified their tape machines. Now I suspect it is Decca's tape recorder modifications, and Mercury using 35mm tape that is playing a key role here - its not just mic technique.
 
One of the issues with analogue tape is bias - now this is a HF tone, normally 50 kHz or greater to linearize the hysteresis. Now bias could be looked at as a simple analogue sampling, and as such would have timing errors on transients too. But you can adjust the amplitude of bias and the frequency and so reduce these timing errors. I wonder if they went for higher frequency bias with different amplitude (tuned by listening tests of course) and unwittingly improved timing errors? Just a thought. 
 
But for sure, in the 1960's recording engineers were proactive and practical people - they often built their own kit, modified things, and listened carefully. I remember going round Doug Sax Mastering Lab, and it was full of hand made one off kit...
 
It's a shame that today we have lost that innovation, as pro gear is just too complex. How many people could design their own ADC's from scratch? How many ADC's are designed from the bottom up and actually listened too at every stage? None. People don't listen and experiment when designing silicon... and ADC design from scratch (not using a chip) is not a simple exercise.
 
Rob

 

[Sonic77]

  Thank-you for your vote of confidence. But you won't be disappointed - I am still getting to grips with how good the M scaler is - and too many people has said its a bigger difference in SQ than Dave. I am trying to understand and comprehend why it is doing what it does, and understanding this intellectually is proving challenging.
 
Of course we are not listening to an M scaler; I am absolutely convinced that an M scaler on another DAC, would just sound like an ordinary improvement in tap length - not this radical change I and others are appreciating. After all Dave is the only DAC on the planet that can reconstruct timing and reproduce it in the analogue domain to 88 nS accuracy.
 
The first two demos of M scaler (@romaz) and a respected Japanese reviewer and Dave owner - both ordered a Blu M scaler based on only 2 minutes of AB testing. Now of course both are Dave owners, and so are primed - they know how unusual Dave actually is. What I can't get my head around is why just a sixfold increase in tap length can transform the sound. After all, we are starting at such an elevated level with Dave.
 
And you know I am listening today, and maybe I am just relaxing after the stress of the show - but today it is sounding just better and better. This version of code I am listening too is new - I fixed a audible bug on Christmas eve - and perhaps brain break-in is playing its role again.
 
Rob

​I'm excited and really looking forward to listening.

 

[ecwl]

I presume Rob Watts hasn't tried Blu Mk II on his home video system. I wonder if it would introduce too much latency for video. DAVE was fine for video viewing for my system.

 

[Rob Watts]

Actually I have had the half M taps since September on my home theatre. With Blu there is a dither switch for CD - but when you are using the SPDIF this switch controls the delay, and there is a video mode which reduces the latency from 0.66 seconds to 100 mS which is fine for projectors and audio delay set to 0.
 
But over Christmas I discovered a cool feature with JRiver. I play Blu ray discs with JRiver, and you can set the delay up to 2.5 seconds, so the audio is delayed by 2.5 seconds. Then I thought what if it accepted a negative delay? That is delaying the video not the audio? And it works - setting it to -0.56 gave me perfect lip sync! So I can play a blu ray disc with JRiver and the full 1M taps with the M scaler engaged.
 
Rob