[betula]

I have got on loan the iFi Pro iCan and Pro iDSD. I am playing with them and my 2Qute, CMA600i and Liquid Platinum.
One of the unexpected revelations of this game so far is that there is better DAC than my 2Qute. 2Qute does hold up quite well against the 4-5 times more expensive Pro iDSD, but no doubt, the Pro iDSD is the overall better DAC.

This discovery made me extremely curious about the Qutest, as the Qutest might be just as good or better than the Pro iDSD keeping all the Chord DAC strengths I like. Chord's strengths in my opinion are the soundstage depth and lifelikeness. In this two things even 2Qute is better than the Pro iDSD. The Pro iDSD however has a much better control and coherency, especially at the low end. And the top too. Slightly more resolving, wider soundstage better dynamic control. I do miss soundstage depth though. What stroke me with the iDSD is the bass control and authority vs. the 2Qute.

Since I do not need the versatile feature arsenal of the iDSD and I don't have £2500 for a DAC, I am very seriously considering the Qutest. I heard the Hugo2, so I am pretty sure Qutest is much better than my 2Qute.

My question is, does the Qutest have much better low end control and authority vs. the 2Qute? This is a key factor for me. Thanks.

 

[stevedlu]

I have got on loan the iFi Pro iCan and Pro iDSD. I am playing with them and my 2Qute, CMA600i and Liquid Platinum.
One of the unexpected revelations of this game so far is that there is better DAC than my 2Qute. 2Qute does hold up quite well against the 4-5 times more expensive Pro iDSD, but no doubt, the Pro iDSD is the overall better DAC.

This discovery made me extremely curious about the Qutest, as the Qutest might be just as good or better than the Pro iDSD keeping all the Chord DAC strengths I like. Chord's strengths in my opinion are the soundstage depth and lifelikeness. In this two things even 2Qute is better than the Pro iDSD. The Pro iDSD however has a much better control and coherency, especially at the low end. And the top too. Slightly more resolving, wider soundstage better dynamic control. I do miss soundstage depth though. What stroke me with the iDSD is the bass control and authority vs. the 2Qute.

Since I do not need the versatile feature arsenal of the iDSD and I don't have £2500 for a DAC, I am very seriously considering the Qutest. I heard the Hugo2, so I am pretty sure Qutest is much better than my 2Qute.

My question is, does the Qutest have much better low end control and authority vs. the 2Qute? This is a key factor for me. Thanks.

If you've heard the Hugo2 then the Qutest is a near identical match with a slight edge going towards the Qutest. Qutest will be a big upgrade in the low end compared to 2qute. I use the Qutest CMA600i combo, it could use a very slight improvement in bass impact, however for the price and considering the overall sonics the Qutest is a phenomenal value.

 

[Hummer25]

I have had the Qutest on loan for a weekend and tried it with a MacBook Pro / Audirvana and an Innuos Zen mini. The laptop combination was ok but easily surpassed in every way with the Innuos Zen so I would say source components do make quite a difference even with well sorted DACs like Qutest.

Qutest is a superb DAC and highly transparent, detailed and easy to listen too for long periods. I have compared it to DAVE and it is 70% there but with an m-scaler I think it could take it up to 80-90%. However DAVE with the m-scaler is a seriously great combination that I believe cannot be matched by anything on the planet for its smooth analogue like sound and huge soundstage and depth.

I have not heard a Qutest with an m-scaler but would be interested to hear if anyone has tried this combination. M-scaler technology took DAVE To another level that once heard makes going back to DAVE on its own difficult. I am sure the same would be the case with Qutest.

 

[jwbrent]

I have had the Qutest on loan for a weekend and tried it with a MacBook Pro / Audirvana and an Innuos Zen mini. The laptop combination was ok but easily surpassed in every way with the Innuos Zen so I would say source components do make quite a difference even with well sorted DACs like Qutest.

Qutest is a superb DAC and highly transparent, detailed and easy to listen too for long periods. I have compared it to DAVE and it is 70% there but with an m-scaler I think it could take it up to 80-90%. However DAVE with the m-scaler is a seriously great combination that I believe cannot be matched by anything on the planet for its smooth analogue like sound and huge soundstage and depth.

I have not heard a Qutest with an m-scaler but would be interested to hear if anyone has tried this combination. M-scaler technology took DAVE To another level that once heard makes going back to DAVE on its own difficult. I am sure the same would be the case with Qutest.

Interesting experience. I keep going back and forth on using my MacBook Air with Audirvana+ or going to the new Project streamer or Innuos.

Anyway you can quantify the differences? Where did you hear the biggest improvements? Did you use the same USB cable with the Innuos as you did your MacBook Pro?

Appreciate any thoughts you might have ... or others, too!

 

[miketlse]

I have had the Qutest on loan for a weekend and tried it with a MacBook Pro / Audirvana and an Innuos Zen mini. The laptop combination was ok but easily surpassed in every way with the Innuos Zen so I would say source components do make quite a difference even with well sorted DACs like Qutest.

Qutest is a superb DAC and highly transparent, detailed and easy to listen too for long periods. I have compared it to DAVE and it is 70% there but with an m-scaler I think it could take it up to 80-90%. However DAVE with the m-scaler is a seriously great combination that I believe cannot be matched by anything on the planet for its smooth analogue like sound and huge soundstage and depth.

I have not heard a Qutest with an m-scaler but would be interested to hear if anyone has tried this combination. M-scaler technology took DAVE To another level that once heard makes going back to DAVE on its own difficult. I am sure the same would be the case with Qutest.

Hopefully @Christer could provide some feedback to you.
I think that he has tried the Qutest/MScaler combo, and been impressed.

 

[Hummer25]

Interesting experience. I keep going back and forth on using my MacBook Air with Audirvana+ or going to the new Project streamer or Innuos.

Anyway you can quantify the differences? Where did you hear the biggest improvements? Did you use the same USB cable with the Innuos as you did your MacBook Pro?

Appreciate any thoughts you might have ... or others, too!

The Innuos via the Qutest was much more vivid and dynamic especially in the bass area. My MacBook Pro was lightweight in comparison. I found that files from the Innuos were more three dimensions and had real presence where as the MacBook sounded a bit mechanical and thin.

 

[Hummer25]

Hopefully @Christer could provide some feedback to you.
I think that he has tried the Qutest/MScaler combo, and been impressed.

Anyone who has not heard an m-scaler with a Chord DAC should not underestimate what difference it makes. It took DAVE up a couple of levels. It reminded me when you are in the cinema watching the adverts at the beginning and then the curtains open up fully to reveal the whole screen for the main presentation. The added width and depth m-scaler added to DAVE was not subtle and I would say say there was a degree of extra smoothness that made it so addictive to listen too.

Hopefully Christer can let me know what m-scaler does with Qutest.

 

[jwbrent]

The Innuos via the Qutest was much more vivid and dynamic especially in the bass area. My MacBook Pro was lightweight in comparison. I found that files from the Innuos were more three dimensions and had real presence where as the MacBook sounded a bit mechanical and thin.

ok, thank you for your thoughts.

 

[Windseeker]

I have not heard a Qutest with an m-scaler but would be interested to hear if anyone has tried this combination. M-scaler technology took DAVE To another level that once heard makes going back to DAVE on its own difficult. I am sure the same would be the case with Qutest.

I've been using M Scaler alongside Qutest for a little more than a month. To me, the difference -- the improved naturalness, believability, intimacy of music -- is clear and non-trivial. I definitely wouldn't want to go back to a world without one (which, as you know, can be done with a simple press of a button on M Scaler).

However, after a month's use, I've got an impression that, to be able to really enjoy those benefits from M Scaler, one needs a reasonably revealing system to go along with reasonably well-recorded (read: with reasonable amount of air/texture/depth and not horribly compressed) material. So, other users' MMV.

Just my two cents.

 

[Hummer25]

I've been using M Scaler alongside Qutest for a little more than a month. To me, the difference -- the improved naturalness, believability, intimacy of music -- is clear and non-trivial. I definitely wouldn't want to go back to a world without one (which, as you know, can be done with a simple press of a button on M Scaler).

However, after a month's use, I've got an impression that, to be able to really enjoy those benefits from M Scaler, one needs a reasonably revealing system to go along with reasonably well-recorded (read: with reasonable amount of air/texture/depth and not horribly compressed) material. So, other users' MMV.

Just my two cents.

Thanks for confirming your thoughts on the Qutest / M-scaler. The benefits of using the m-scaler are much the same as the experience I had when listening to it with DAVE. As you mentioned you can easily hear the difference at the press of a button!

Having such a high level of resolution available however does reveal the truth about mastering and production quality of recordings. Coming from a high end vinyl/analogue background this is easily apparent but now digital playback has moved on to such a level it shows Rob Watts is going in the right direction. Much of his recent work with DAVE and the m-scaler is moving digital much closer to analogue in its delivery of sound and reproduction of the original recording.

One of the greatest Mastering engineers was speaking a few years back and he mentioned that the problem with digital music was not the recording,which he thought was extremely good, but the reconstruction of the recording and that we had not yet fully worked out how to do this in a totally convincing way, unlike the best analogue playback systems. Chords DACs are closing in on this ability all the time especially with the introduction of the m-scaler.

I have mentioned before that DAVE / M-scaler sounds more like analogue master tape than anything else I have heard. Of course if you played the same recording in a demonstration you would hear the difference but I am sure they would be quite close in their overall delivery. A friend of mine quite often record s digital music onto a R2R machine and it interesting how much better it sounds rather than playing it back through a DAC.

So we are now moving into a period of digital music playback that is not just about detail retrieval but also more complex areas such as space and timing and the overall musical experience. Potentially I think Digital recording and playback has the potential to surpass even the best Analogue recordings as long as the production and mastering is done well. So much music today is destroyed by poor mastering and when you have highly revealing systems it becomes all to apparent and for me it's a deal breaker and I find it hard to listen too even if the music is great!

 

[Chester Rockwell]

@Windseeker @Hummer25 thanks both for your comments regarding Qutest and M Scaler. I’ve read a lot about the M Scaler but I’ve never really seen a clear opinion on how much improvement it makes to studio albums. There has been lots of talk regarding acoustic and live recordings, and even classical recordings but less so regarding a standard pop/rock studio album.

Now I know that all albums aren’t created equal and the M Scaler (nor any other component) can’t make up for badly mastered or recorded albums, but the most I have heard on the subject of studio albums is that the M Scaler improves everything to a certain degree. That’s fine and most likely true if you think about how it works, but if the improvments for your average studio album are much less noticeable, for someone like me who primarily listens to pop/rock albums from the last 50 or so years, it becomes a less urgent purchase at its current price.

The answer, no doubt, it that I should try it for myself and I may well do soon, I just wondered if either of you (or anyone else of course), had any views on this?

Thanks

 

[Triode User]

@Windseeker @Hummer25 thanks both for your comments regarding Qutest and M Scaler. I’ve read a lot about the M Scaler but I’ve never really seen a clear opinion on how much improvement it makes to studio albums. There has been lots of talk regarding acoustic and live recordings, and even classical recordings but less so regarding a standard pop/rock studio album.

Now I know that all albums aren’t created equal and the M Scaler (nor any other component) can’t make up for badly mastered or recorded albums, but the most I have heard on the subject of studio albums is that the M Scaler improves everything to a certain degree. That’s fine and most likely true if you think about how it works, but if the improvments for your average studio album are much less noticeable, for someone like me who primarily listens to pop/rock albums from the last 50 or so years, it becomes a less urgent purchase at its current price.

The answer, no doubt, it that I should try it for myself and I may well do soon, I just wondered if either of you (or anyone else of course), had any views on this?

Thanks

You are right that until you hear it for yourself you will never really know. However I probably listen to 80% studio albums and for me and those albums the MScaler is crazily awesome. And I'm talking about studio albums from the '60s through to this year. I don't listen to heavy metal but I listen to pretty much everything else. Of course Mscaler is great for classical and live acoustic but in my experience does the same stuff no matter what the type of music.

You have got to listen somehow at a dealer but have a look at this reviewer on YouTube. He has bought and uses the Mscaler and Qutest in his own system and he plays all sorts of music through them in his review videos and most of it is studio recorded stuff.
www.youtube.com/channel/UCrqva7JT_35j4zNcgan47bQ/videos

 

[Hummer25]

I think you may have answered your question yourself Chester in that the only real way to tell the difference will be to try one yourself. I think this would definitely be the best course of action as it is only in your system and with your music that you will be able to determine if the m-scaler makes a difference.

I would say however that the m-scaler makes a difference to all recordings and in my experience I have heard mainly rock and electronic music through DAVE and M-scaler. The difference is not subtle. The scale and depth of the recordings seem to be enhanced and there is an additional smoothness to the sound. The m-scaler seems to open up the recording somewhat and allow you to hear more of what is there!
Sorry if this does not come across as a technical appreciation, it's just what my ears hear.

 

[Christer]

Anyone who has not heard an m-scaler with a Chord DAC should not underestimate what difference it makes. It took DAVE up a couple of levels. It reminded me when you are in the cinema watching the adverts at the beginning and then the curtains open up fully to reveal the whole screen for the main presentation. The added width and depth m-scaler added to DAVE was not subtle and I would say say there was a degree of extra smoothness that made it so addictive to listen too.

Hopefully Christer can let me know what m-scaler does with Qutest.

Hello Hummer.
I have been using my Qutest with an MScaler for roughly two months on an almost daily basis. And I can definitely say that it makes a BIG difference compared to Qutest on its own.
For me there is absolutely NO going back to Qutest on its own.
Qutest on its own is as I have said before an improvement over what came before it from Chord in the same or similar price range but it is NOT close to DAVE on its own imo.
It is far from perfect on its own.
I know Rob is not always happy when I quote him, but I think even he said that without Mscaling H2 or whichever dac he was using without Mscaling temporarily, sounding" pretty awful."

I am also quite difficult to please and DAVE was the first and ONLY DAC from Chord that had me really impressed with digital in most aspects except DSD which it did not excel at imo.

And good as the Qutest /MScaler combo sounds to me via headphones only so far, DAVE /MScaler is even better if as close as possible to how acoustic music actually sounds live is one's ultimate goal.
Acoustic music in general and large scale western classical in particular, still remains my one and only reference point.
I have not yet been able to A/B DAVE on its own with Qutest/MScaler under ideal conditions .
But in some respects Qutest /MScaler will beat DAVE on its own imo.
With DSD it does to my ears. And with 16/44.1 as well.
I am not sure how much the 1M taps matter with actual high sample native rates from 24/96 and higher.
But since the 164000 or whatever number of taps DAVE works at on its own, are not used anyway with an M Scaler into the equation, the main advantages of a Dave with an MScaler might entirely depend on more advanced/better analouge parts PSU and such used in it, than parts used in cheaper dacs like Qutest?
One thing that I don't understand at all is the "elements" 10 versus 20 in DAVE often mentioned by Rob.
Would increasing elements be as important as increasing the number of taps?
If so, why not make a dac with 100 elements or a 1000+ Or 1000000 elements?
Cheers Controversial Christer

 

[Windseeker]

@Windseeker @Hummer25 thanks both for your comments regarding Qutest and M Scaler. I’ve read a lot about the M Scaler but I’ve never really seen a clear opinion on how much improvement it makes to studio albums. There has been lots of talk regarding acoustic and live recordings, and even classical recordings but less so regarding a standard pop/rock studio album.

Now I know that all albums aren’t created equal and the M Scaler (nor any other component) can’t make up for badly mastered or recorded albums, but the most I have heard on the subject of studio albums is that the M Scaler improves everything to a certain degree. That’s fine and most likely true if you think about how it works, but if the improvments for your average studio album are much less noticeable, for someone like me who primarily listens to pop/rock albums from the last 50 or so years, it becomes a less urgent purchase at its current price.

I'm basically a 30% Classical, 30% Metal/Rock, 30% Jazz/Fusion, 10% Pop kinda person. Now, I'm first to admit that the benefit M Scaler technology brings to classical music (because depth -- one of the crown jewels of M Scaler -- matters in just about every single recording) appears to be so overwhelming, it almost feels like a no-brainer.

However, I do find subtle but non-trivial benefits for many Rock/Pop studio recordings. I say this because being a typical audiophile (LOL), as soon as I realized how darn good the Qutest+M Scaler combo really is, I started to revisit my favorite stuff all over again. And the pleasant surprises occured in many rock/pop recordings as well.

My early impression is any instrument directly recorded by microphone (vocals, drums, percussion, saxphones, acoustic guitars, etc.) with reasonable "texture" in tact (that is, not damaged beyond repair by compression / level boosting during the mixing process) can benefit, even more so if reverbs are applied. Now, bass is an interesting case. Regardless of acoustic or electrical, M Scaler appears to benefit the quality (timbre) of bass sound greatly in many recordings.

Well, in order to be able to perceive such benefits, one's system needs to be reasonably revealing, and in terms of bass, be able to go deep with reasonable precision. I happen to believe that head-fiers have relative advantage here, as it seems it's less costly to achieve this via reasonable headphones/iems -- as opposed to loudspeakers.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is, it all depends on your system and sound characteristics of your favorite recordings. M Scaler's not cheap, but if you feel intrigued & can afford it, it might well be worthwhile to do yourself a favor and try a demo with your favorite cans/tunes.