[GryphonGuy]

The Apparent Chord Electronics Big Picture From A Humble Consumer
 
Guys, before I summarise my perspective of what Chord appears to be offering us, there is a bit of theory (yawn!) to be said and I think Rob has already stated something similar. But basically, the human hearing resolution is somewhere around 384kHz and is thought to be outstripped by 768kHz samples. So any analogue audio being digitised accurately at 768kHz should be able to be decoded back to analogue with no theoretical differences that we can detect with our hearing system.
 
First up, Chord has made us a DAC and pre-amp in one box called the DAVE. Arguably a state-of-the-art DAC that certainly rocks my world with whatever genre of music I ask it to decode into analogue music.
 
Chord has announced a digital audio box (in the traditional digital audio sense meaning no new USB stuff) that will add CD playback and other traditional digital audio sources to be up-sampled into the super-duper digital signal ready for a DAC. There is a designed synergy between the new digital audio box and DAVE in that together, when using the S/PDIF protocol over the BNC terminated Coax cables they will perform better than if just used singularly (blu2 without DAVE or DAVE without blu2).
 
So the traditional digital audio signals are catered for and according to reports of the Blu2 + DAVE synergy, sound stupendously realistic and are awe inspiring. We even have the designer on record saying that the increase in SQ by this synergy was just not expected.
 
We are also promised Davina, a 768kHz ADC box with USB capabilities and the M-Scaler technology that is in Blu2. Given that no affordable or mass-market software exists to record an ADC signal from Davina at 768kHz, the purpose of Davina MUST be to plug in analogue devices (like a Phono pre-amp, for example) that will digitise the analogue signal in real-time beyond the resolution of human hearing so that when the combo of Davina and DAVE are used, the sound SHOULD theoretically be identical to the sound that the phono pre-amp would have made in an all analogue audio system.
 
So analogue audio signals (and USB audio) seem to be catered for.
 
Then in the future as well there is mention of a digital amp after DAVE that will drive the speakers of an audio system.
 
So it appears to me from the snippets of information emanating from Chord, that it is inventing an end-to-end digital stereo system that should, in theory, sound like no other digital audio system and cater for pure analogue audio as well.
 
A marvellous adventure and venture for the boys at Chord and one which I hope they will be very successful and suck some more money out of my thinning wallet.
 
Just my thoughts on why Chord is doing what it is doing and why we as consumers should probably sit back and wait for the resources of Chord to deliver on what appears to be a grand vision of a totally digital audio system that behaves like a purist analogue audio system.
 
Cheers
GG

 

[icebear]

.... In practice the classical recordings that give the most improvements to me seem to be 16 bit 44.1 from the 1960's - and I am sure this is down to the recording techniques and optimised equipment that Decca and Mercury used at the time, rather than the file format. Modern recordings don't have the timbre variations or the ability to portray the speed and power and sheer impact of the best of the 1960's recordings.
 
Rob

 
I totally agree that these "golden era" Mercury and Decca recordings sound fantastic, they have been able to capture the sound of the concert hall not just the individual instruments. You get the impression of the true Klangkörper, the orchestra as a unified body to produce the sound, yet still you can hear a tiny triangle way back in the last row. I totally enjoy a lot of these recordings with my current equipment.
 
I just can't make any sense of the first part of the paragraph

If a remastering has been done using 16/44 and put on to a CD, can this possibly sound better with Blu2/Dave up scaling/filtering than a new remaster using better technique going back at the original master tapes- if at all still possible. How can recalculating the 0s and 1s make it sound better?

 

[icebear]

....  
We are also promised Davina, a 768kHz ADC box with USB capabilities and the M-Scaler technology that is in Blu2. Given that no affordable or mass-market software exists to record an ADC signal from Davina at 768kHz, the purpose of Davina MUST be to plug in analogue devices (like a Phono pre-amp, for example) that will digitise the analogue signal in real-time beyond the resolution of human hearing so that when the combo of Davina and DAVE are used, the sound SHOULD theoretically be identical to the sound that the phono pre-amp would have made in an all analogue audio system.
..... Cheers
GG

 
?? So why not just plug the phono preamp into the power amp directly

 

[EVOLVIST]

 
Sure "You do not need to use the ADC function" of the proposed Davina. But you do need to pay for it.
 
Unless most of your customers are professional users, nearly every Davina you might sell will have a completely wasted ADC section. Do you think that is sensible? Elegant? Respectful of resources?  

 
Andrew, I dig your arguments, because it's always good to see more than one side. However, enlighten me. I don't think you answered, and if you did, I apologize. So if Chord had released a standalone M-Scaler with all of the fancy IOs, with a $9500 USD price tag - never marketing the Blu2 - wpuld you have balked at the price for 1 million taps?
 
Personally, for the life of me I can't figure out why USB wasn't included in the Blu2, especially since it is the industry standard these days. But hey, that's just me...and at the moment, that's why I'm not even close to buying a Blu2. It's not the principle. I don't want a converter in the way, no matter how good it is, or how much it costs.

 

[Hermitsden]

1. Mojo ideas:

"Hugo2 will have its own matching unit with additional desk top features of course."
 
Since it's a desktop add-on, is it possible to include a mini-Mscaler to super-charge the sound quality of Hugo2?

 

[maxh22]

 

1. Mojo ideas:

"Hugo2 will have its own matching unit with additional desk top features of course."
 
Since it's a desktop add-on, is it possible to include a mini-Mscaler to super-charge the sound quality of Hugo2?

 
HAHA!!!

 

[kennyb123]

We are also promised Davina, a 768kHz ADC box with USB capabilities and the M-Scaler technology that is in Blu2.

Has it been confirmed that the DAVINA will have a USB input?

 

[x RELIC x]

I totally agree that these "golden era" Mercury and Decca recordings sound fantastic, they have been able to capture the sound of the concert hall not just the individual instruments. You get the impression of the true Klangkörper, the orchestra as a unified body to produce the sound, yet still you can hear a tiny triangle way back in the last row. I totally enjoy a lot of these recordings with my current equipment.

I just can't make any sense of the first part of the paragraph
If a remastering has been done using 16/44 and put on to a CD, can this possibly sound better with Blu2/Dave up scaling/filtering than a new remaster using better technique going back at the original master tapes- if at all still possible. How can recalculating the 0s and 1s make it sound better?

Fundamentally the 0's and 1's simply represent a sample of the original continuous data (analogue). Digital (sampled data) is a small portion of the original and the goal of the DAC is to recalculate the missing information, not really recalculate the original samples, to get back to the continuous analogue data. Filling the gaps so to speak. So, when there is less of the original samples, with more 'gaps', those digital files will benefit the most with the better scaler/DAC filling the gaps.

This may be especially true for well recorded older music, which may have better preserved cues from the venue/instruments, where the few samples are less altered compared to the modern production/mastering process.

 

[EVOLVIST]

This may be especially true for well recorded older music, which may have better preserved cues from the venue/instruments, where the few samples are less altered compared to the modern production/mastering process.

Define "modern," though. It's really the heavy-handed mastering that we've used since the mid-60s that has taken away from recorded music. Now, when I say "taken away," it's a double edged sword, really. Today's modern mastering really came out of EMI with the Beatles, and without those sounds music would not have moved forward like it has. Put on any Beatles' recording and compare that with what Deram (Decca) was doing in that same time, like The Moody Blues Days of Future Passed and David Bowie's first self titled album. There was a crossroads, and studio became the playground, as opposed to the simple canvass.
 
Classical? It's never really suffered from heavy mastering - and I'm not talking about this super-compressed dynamically compromised mastering, which started in the early 90s - some of my favorite music to test new gear on is tracks like Prince's "Controversy" because of it's mix of analog and digital instruments, or Metallica's "Battery," in that it's distorted but very articulate, but all very well-recorded music. I think with any genre it comes down to how well it was mastered, or the lack thereof. God, there's so many factors.
 
I'll give a perfect example. I probably own 8 versions of each of The Doors studio albums, maybe more in some cases. Just recently, in 2013, Analog Productions "re-mastered" the whole catalog. Okay, what have we got here? Vocals, drums, guitar, bass and keyboards, mostly with minimal overdubs, so really, there was no reason for any of the previous masterings to sound muddy or wonky, unless it was recorded that way. Lo and behold, Analog Productions put out what was essentially flat transfers, with only minimal balancing to make sure one track was not louder than the other. It was a revelation! The albums sound exactly like the sparse instruments would dictate they should sound. Unbelievable. No overtly conflicting frequencies. All instruments in their own space. It almost made me want to cry when hearing these through my DAVE and Focal Utopias.
 
I feel as though I'm babbling, but really, I think it boils down to 16-bits is way enough to capture pretty much anything, no matter the genre, style, as long as the recording is handled as well as it possibly can be. I cite rock examples, because those are the most difficult to record right due to amplified instruments. It can either be sublime or crap. There is of course, a middle ground, see...most of the rest, pre-1992 or so.
 
Yeah, 1 million taps and a little of Rob's magick? I don't know how much closer we're going to get to the original analog sound of most of the music I listen to from let's say, 1952 to 1992.

 

[Mojo ideas]

The Davina receives the most mentions, so I presume that it is the next in the pipeline.

The digital amp receives occasional mentions, but maybe that is because Rob has less involvement in the development (I think that @Mojo ideas
 was the key actor in previous amps, so maybe he has the greater input into the digital amp - sorry if my memory has been fallible on this topic). 

No that's not the case at all Rob is the prime mover in the digital amp Design I'm strictly an analogue and power supply designer. I'll lay claim to the new TToby Amp that's designed to go with the Hugo TT but not the other stuff that's Robs domain

 

[x RELIC x]

EVOLVIST, clearly I just mentioned it may be affected by modern mastering techniques, being it seems a lot of the current popular music is more concerned with levelling every instrument to the max and adding effects to alter the sound rather than taking care to preserve the musical performance, if it even exists in the first place.

You've brought some great examples to the table that I would agree with. My whole point is that there is a large segment of music today, more than historically, that I see really no benefit of using the DAVE, or any DAC combined with the Mscaler, regardless of the bit depth or sampling rate, so for that segment of music it's a moot conversation.

 

[Rob Watts]

 

  We are also promised Davina, a 768kHz ADC box with USB capabilities and the M-Scaler technology that is in Blu2.

Has it been confirmed that the DAVINA will have a USB input?

Absolutely. And optical TX/RX, dual BNC inputs, dual BNC outputs. The USB can simultaneously receive and transmit with different sample rates.

 

[EVOLVIST]

EVOLVIST, clearly I just mentioned it may be affected by modern mastering techniques, being it seems a lot of the current popular music is more concerned with levelling every instrument to the max and adding effects to alter the sound rather than taking care to preserve the musical performance, if it even exists in the first place.

You've brought some great examples to the table that I would agree with. My whole point is that there is a large segment of music today, more than historically, that I see really no benefit of using the DAVE, or any DAC combined with the Mscaler, regardless of the bit depth or sampling rate, so for that segment of music it's a moot conversation.

Yeah, yeah, I wasn't being contentious; I simply wanted to add or jot down some of my thoughts and experiences with DAVE and without.

In a recent post I had subscribed to the belief that crap in/crap out with the DAVE or any DAC for that matter, but only a recent case of a highly fuxed-with studio album did the DAVE actually de-muddy the recording. Not entirely, but some sort of combination of magic happened that has not been the norm by any means. It is The Kinks "Something Else" album. Anything that came out of Pye studios from that time sounded gross.

Anyway, it sort of flies in the face of everything else I wrote in the quoted post. I guess there is just some hidden "air" in the recording. Or, is it really contrary given that the closer we get to 1 million taps that hidden music is revealed? It's been hinted at by more than one poster, and I believe where Rob said they heard the underground train more pronounced with 1 million.

What it doesn't fly in the face of, however, is that this music I speak of is still 16-bit. If there's all of this hidden information there, then wow! Yeah, it was still highly jacked with in the studio, but maybe now the thrill is hearing more clearly the jacked up bits. *shrug*

 

[analogmusic]

Will Davina use the same FGPA as Blu 2?

 

[Mavwong]

To Dear John and Rob,
 
All I ask is add the great great USB input you had done in Dave, to Blue 2, it will make us who stream or connect to server owner a better options than spend yet another thousands to get a USB to spdif converter.
 
Of course, stand alone M scaller with USB input is way to go and I hope one day it still would be a reality.