[TG04]

Yes indeed.  Simple isn't easy.

 

[elviscaprice]

http://forums.linn.co.uk/bb/showthread.php?tid=35624
 
Quote:

  Ok fair enough.  Do you think other format variations like Dolby or DTS are different in this respect?  And doesn't Philips/Sony as inventors of both the CD and DSD formats operate on the same basis to begin with?  What's wrong with good old Patent & IP Law anyhow, isn't it supposed to work this way?
 
But please don't get all worked up, just an innocent question from someone who doesn't know how the industry works

​I don't have a problem with MQA from a licensing prospective for software/media players only.  It's the line they are crossing in forcing licensing from all avenues, including hardware across the industry.  This is the worst kind of DRM that will cost you and I in the long run and yet have no effect on master quality control or mastering.  I think Jim Collison of Linn nails it fairly well in the above link. 

 

[Dobrescu George]

The Japanese are selling their music mostly in digital 192KHz / 24 bit these days. Found some really good albums in those formats. No idea if there is an audible difference, but there is a trend of this.

 

[JaZZ]

 

  Well, I am not a Chord employee and I do not have any financial interest in the company or any other aspect of the music business, nor was I ever given free product even as a loan. Just an average Joe audiophile schmuck... 
 
In any case, myHTG opinion is that I think RW is spot-on as I have been deeply disappointed with HiRez and DSD. In my view the average music lover is way far better off finding good old CDs at at the local thrift, polishing it off with some CD-cleaner liquid if needed, and ripping it, then discarding the sorrowful remains (feel bad about the landfill though).  Maybe buffing the rip a little with a computer tool like XiVera Audiorepair can only help.  The results are guaranteed to amaze, especially if you're lucky enough to own a Chord Mojo!
 
Incidentally, I tried to make the case for MQA at Linn's website but was tarred-and-feathered, railroaded out of town, banished, gone.  They seem to operate in quasi-religious terms, consider this kind of thinking apostasy, heresy, or whatever.  They even started the old Nazi-this-Stasi-that routine - wow - these Linnies are vicious! Didn't dare bring up the Chord name ... but was exiled from their "community" before I could have anyway 

 
This info is consistent with what others have stated in the sound science forum on Head-Fi. I've read that 16/44 with high level of taps is actually really good and anything above 16/44 may not produce audible benefits. There was as comparison to adding light to a display that we cannot see (like ultraviolet, etc.). Made sense. 

 
I wouldn't rely too much on established opinions in the sound-science forum. Rob Watts itself still considers 44.1 kHz not quite as good as higher sampling rates, even with DAVE + Blu 2 transport as M-scaler, enabling 1 million taps for his WTA filter, which is quite close to the required infinite number of taps compared to average DACs. Even the sound-science forum would have to acknowledge that only a perfect reconstruction filter with infinite steepness will really fulfill the theoretical requirement for a perfect reconstruction according to the Shannon-Nyquist theorem – which actually refers to a bandwidth-limited signal. So there's still the problem that for digitizing an analogue signal with a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz it has to be low-passed filtered beforehand, which won't be possible without some losses.
 
To my ears DAVE and even Hugo make hi-res less of a necessity for demanding ears, but there's still a small difference – which I for one can easily live with.

 

[Dobrescu George]

I wouldn't rely too much on established opinions in the sound-science forum. Rob Watts itself still considers 44.1 kHz not quite as good as higher sampling rates, even with DAVE + Blu 2 transport as M-scaler, enabling 1 million taps for his WTA filter, which is quite close to the required infinite number of taps compared to average DACs. Even the sound-science forum would have to acknowledge that only a perfect reconstruction filter with infinite steepness will really fulfill the theoretical requirement for a perfect reconstruction according to the Shannon-Nyquist theorem – which actually refers to a bandwidth-limited signal. So there's still the problem that for digitizing an analogue signal with a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz it has to be low-passed filtered beforehand, which won't be possible without some losses.

To my ears DAVE and even Hugo make hi-res less of a necessity for demanding ears, but there's still a small difference – which I for one can easily live with.

I actually tested this when building my audio playback software project: this is very much correct.

The DAC reconstruction presented in the Nyquist theorem was perfect - we didn't have a perfect DAC until now ,- the most we can do is to assume that 1000 taps should be audibly perfect to our ears.

In theory, I am a very big supporter of 192KHz / 24 bit format because it can relax the DAC processing and strain ,- but I need more tests.

I am against vinyl rips - even the best of the best vinyls will introduce some noise from the vinyl process and that is not what music is about, but 192Khz / 24 digital should be an amazing solution and sound d considerably better with today's technology.

People over sound science consider that a phone sounds the same as a dap, and while the difference might not always by earth shattering - I have experienced the differences and anyone would be able to tell them apart. This does this mean there aren't phones that sound good. Just not at the level of daps good and not at level of Hugo good.

 

[miketlse]

  Absolutely not, I have no idea where you are employed.  Sorry if I caused you any embarresment, I assure you that was not my intent.  
 
Don't know about you but at least for me there's the Atlantic ocean in between.  I did ask Linn to close out my account and wipe any personal information I supplied when registering, guess you just can't be too careful.  
 
Again, my apologies. // TG

No probs.
You are doing a good job of making it sound like an audiophiles rite of passage, to visit the Linn forum, tease them a little, and get banned.
It sounds so different to the Naim forum - on that forum there are quite a few members posting about using Chord dacs, which do seem popular with Naim owners. I imagine that Naim are less than amused, but it does put the pressure on them to try and produce a dac that can perform as well as a Hugo or Mojo, especially in an all-in-one streamer/dac scenario.

 

[elviscaprice]

I am against vinyl rips - even the best of the best vinyls will introduce some noise from the vinyl process and that is not what music is about,

 
You obviously haven't heard some of Scott Davies remasters from vinyl rips, when the mastering source was lost.   Even my own are quite good.

 

[Dobrescu George]

   
You obviously haven't heard some of Scott Davies remasters from vinyl rips, when the mastering source was lost.   Even my own are quite good.

 
The needle process when using vinyl is introducing noise to the result... 

 

[skhan007]

 
To my ears DAVE and even Hugo make hi-res less of a necessity for demanding ears, but there's still a small difference – which I for one can easily live with.

Interesting! So if I'm understanding you, 16/44 on DAVE or Hugo will be more satisfying/pleasurable to listen to vs. high-res files? This is promising. 

 

[JaZZ]

 

 
To my ears DAVE and even Hugo make hi-res less of a necessity for demanding ears, but there's still a small difference – which I for one can easily live with.

Interesting! So if I'm understanding you, 16/44 on DAVE or Hugo will be more satisfying/pleasurable to listen to vs. high-res files? This is promising. 

 
Yes, that was my impression with the Hugo from the start. The Hugo² will be even better in this respect, I'm sure.

 

[514077]

For the most part, I don't like the background noise of a vinyl transfer.  Saying that, I've heard some excellent ones ripped to hi-res such as 24/192.  If carefully done, some enjoyable listening can be had.
And a quick note on MQA:  PSAudio, FPGA DAC makers stated they weren't going to submit to MQA as they don't wish to be forced to reveal propriatory information.  I suspect the same applies to Rob and Chord in general.
I have no real desire to try MQA as I'm a Hugo owner and (I hate to say) fanboy.  

 

[TG04]

Thanks, that's great, feel a little bit better already // TG

 

[x RELIC x]

Reading around Head Fi it's easy to spot that pretty much every DAC thread is full of those clamouring for the 'latest and greatest' MQA. I wonder how many actually consider the long term DRM licensing costs, usually paid by the end user, with these schemes. Others point to the MQA 'masters' as having nothing more than EQ applied to the 'master'. It's interesting to follow but I'll hold off any judgements until more is revealed about it.

I agree though, the demand that the DAC makers reveal propriety working of their DAC seems heavy handed to me, and I don't expect Chord to do this unless incorporating MQA in to something like the Poly, if possible, to satisfy a wider user base.

 

[TG04]

Reading around Head Fi it's easy to spot that pretty much every DAC thread is full of those clamouring for the 'latest and greatest' MQA. I wonder how many actually consider the long term DRM licensing costs, usually paid by the end user, with these schemes. Others point to the MQA 'masters' as having nothing more than EQ applied to the 'master'. It's interesting to follow but I'll hold off any judgements until more is revealed about it.

I agree though, the demand that the DAC makers reveal propriety working of their DAC seems heavy handed to me, and I don't expect Chord to do this unless incorporating MQA in to something like the Poly, if possible, to satisfy a wider user base.

I pointed this out before, as I understand it, AudioQuest will offer a free firmware update to existing Dragonfly owners which will do the first "unfold" similar to what Tidal accomplishes - if the rumor is to believed.  Maybe the Dragonfly would actually do the 2nd unfold when you play Tidal Master content, not quite clear to me.  Regardless, it would have been great if they had offered this functionality in the Jitterbug instead, then users of all manner of USB audio devices could benefit, including Chord die-hards (supposing they have a Jitterbug to begin with of course).  
 
Can't really see any harm in that as I do not give much credence to the Linn/Schiit claim that artists, labels, equipment manufacturers will all suffer (and implicitly passing that pain on to consumers) under the purported "land grab" (their term) by MQA

 

[gnomen]

   
Yes, that was my impression with the Hugo from the start. The Hugo² will be even better in this respect, I'm sure.

The readings I have done around the Shannon-Nyquist theorem suggest the ideal sampling rate should have been a little higher than the 44.1 originally chosen -- somewhere in between 44.1 and 96.  Because of that I purchase 96KHz when available, but not more.  For most material I find 44.1 difficult to distinguish from higher resolution formats under most circumstances with my current equipment but who knows what further improvements may be opened up by future developments.
 
Transient timing during signal reconstruction is a different matter, as Rob has explained many times, and we are still pushing the envelope with his newest designs. 
 
All of Rob's current DACs do a wonderful job of making 'normal' sources sound better than I have previously experienced.  The digital outputs from my Youview set top box and my Sony BD both sound very good indeed, which is a terrific bonus, especially for items like televised concerts or Blu-Ray classical performances.