[birdlandbill]

thanks max. im sticking with tidal/roon it gives me plenty of jazz/classical as a big sax fan but also keeps me in touch with what's new. qobuz sounds a little too yuppiish to me. ill see if im wrong.

Try getting yuppie Wayne Shorter's Emanon or any other saxophone performances in high resolution on Tidal. Not saying Tidal and Spotify aren't nice ways to broadly sample a slightly different music subset, they just don't provide high resolution. The M Scaler is able to capitalize on high resolution, whether streamed or stored. In addition, purchasing high resolution music for download through Qobuz at remarkably good prices is also a benefit for those wishing to own and not just stream music they love. Great advantage over HD Tracks.

 

[musickid]

qobuz has advantages. but as an mscaler owner i'm more than happy to feed it redbook and let it do the work. with high res qobuz its still going to 705/768 and so is redbook. i get to a point where i just want to enjoy my music and if a 192 stream has a little more over redbook into an mscaler than i can live with that. actually some argue the case for redbook into hms being preferable. i may well give qobuz a trial as i'm sure the valued advice here on headfi can't be wrong.

 

[mlxx]

The wta algorithm took 30 yrs to develop following thousands of listening tests. If other hardware developers could develop dacs that utilise the full potential of mscalers with 1 million taps they would. The truth is all other audio manufacturers are using off the shelf dac chips because even though the hardware is here they cannot produce 1 million tap mscalers that work in real time and not because it's easier to throw in a DS chip. Secondly even if they could they could not back this up with suitable dacs that act as host for 1 million tap upscaler technology. There was no massaging around the edges rather 30 years of R&D. Ask yourself why is it easier for most to throw in a DS chip as you say if sound quality is the ultimate goal? The answer is because they know no other way otherwise they would be selling 1 million tap upscalers and accompanying dacs too. This is not an argument as all i'm doing is stating hard fact. The winner takes it all the looser has to fall as they say. That is how business works.

Ultimate sound quality is not always the goal, sometimes making money is.

 

[musickid]

Yes but when multiple awards globally are handed to the same brand that's ok. When thousands of hifi enthusiasts world wide all express a deep affinity for the sound of one particular brand and are willing to pay for it then that becomes more than okay. Look there is no need for negativity here it's quite simple-with chord my attachment to the music is stronger compared to other brands. That's all.

 

[mlxx]

Poor Mr. Watts with his ~ million lines of code must not have understood how simple this is. Not saying other approaches aren't worth trying.considering, just that writing the code for such things and the nuances involved in filtering and ensuring synchronization across a broad range of frequencies.amplitudes is more difficult than merely conceptualizing. Having coded DSP for analyzing electrical signals in biological systems (different application entirely), I can assure you that this is anything but simple. The devil is in the details and the details can be myriad.

Never said it was easy to do in hardware in real time, said it was simple in software and not in real time.

 

[musickid]

Also remember Rob does not design for commercial gain believe it or not. He designs audio for his own best use scenarios as a music lover. For example the mscaler was made with a portable battery power option so he could use it on flights. The drive is designing tools for personal music satisfaction and they have also become commercially viable and successful. It can happen this way in life sometimes it's not more usual but more unusual but it works very well here. This is quite rare in mass produced audio. But of course production etc etc must have been taken into account.

 

[mlxx]

Also remember Rob does not design for commercial gain believe it or not. He designs audio for his own best use scenarios as a music lover. For example the mscaler was made with a portable battery power option so he could use it on flights. The drive is designing tools for personal music satisfaction and they have also become commercially viable and successful. It can happen this way in life sometimes it's not more usual but more unusual but it works very well here. This is quite rare in mass produced audio. But of course production etc etc must have been taken into account.

Not sure why you think I might be against Rob or Chord, I think he has some of best DACs and the technology behind them is the most correct/accurate.
The comment about making money was aimed at those using DS not Chord.

 

[racebit]

Never said it was easy to do in hardware in real time, said it was simple in software and not in real time.

That would be enough for me however. I would convert my CDs to 705K files (I use 44.1K files from the CDs now anyway), and then feed Chord Dacs (Dave or Mojo) with it.
I suppose that although much simpler than HW real time, some key details are still important even in SW non-real time. I take this from what Rob has been kind to share with us here. But my knowledge is very limited there, so can't comment more.
Also, from what I have read, HQ Player does not compare with MScaler, even with Dave, so not a DAC issue.
I would love Rob and Chord to do a SW Mscaler for us. Real time or not, that would depend on each one HW, but that would come by itself with time, as GPUs get more powerful. no need for Rob intervention then.
But Rob and Chord have other priorities, so we have to respect that and thank what they have done for us already.

 

[musickid]

It's good to debate with constructive criticism etc. At the end of the day we want the music to sound the best it can for our hard to come by investments.

 

[Amberlamps]

The thing that I don’t get about all this upscaling.

The bnc ports are a max of 384khz, so are we hearing a 384khz max stream for each ear or are we hearing a 768khz stream for each ear ?

Apart from just upscaling tracks, how does the mscaler send the info to a dac.

What exactly is the process, after being upscaled from that point on until we hear it on our headphones, what happens to the audio ?

 

[Rob Watts]

Your hearing a 768k for each ear.

So regular AES3/SPDIF is left sample, then right sample, so two samples sent in a 384 kHz time period. Dual data is again two samples in a 384 kHz time period, but mono data; so it's 768 kHz sample rate. But of course we now need two cables, one for the left and one for the right.

 

[iDesign]

The answer is because they know no other way otherwise they would be selling 1 million tap upscalers and accompanying dacs too. This is not an argument as all i'm doing is stating hard fact. The winner takes it all the looser has to fall as they say. That is how business works.

Also bare in mind that companies like ESS Technologoy, Texas Instruments, Cirrus Logic, and Wolfson begin designing chipsets with specific objectives in mind in terms of design, cost targets, applications etc. These companies are not like Chord and competing for a niche. ESS Technology generates approximately $45-50M in revenue, they aren’t Rob Watts, it’s big business and they set out to achieve completely different objectives.

 

[analogmusic]

https://www.dcsltd.co.uk/reviews/shelf-life-how-and-why-dcs-does-dacs-differently/

 

[Amberlamps]

Your hearing a 768k for each ear.

So regular AES3/SPDIF is left sample, then right sample, so two samples sent in a 384 kHz time period. Dual data is again two samples in a 384 kHz time period, but mono data; so it's 768 kHz sample rate. But of course we now need two cables, one for the left and one for the right.

Cool, I just didn’t know if each ear was 384khz or 768khz, but 4 mono signals makes sense.

Cheers

 

[musickid]

The point is from a purely scientific perspective or theoretical physics stance chord dacs are the only commercial company manufacturing true digital to analogue based technologies (available to the average consumer) that adhere strictly to the laws of physics amazing as this may sound. Taking into account sinc function, interpolation filters, taps etc etc. This has nothing to do with the big players as they just have more manufacturing capability, assets and capital to invest. All other dac chips are in some way flawed when talking pure science. The key is reproducing the analogue signal as it was present in the ADC with no information missing, no flaws in design, just an exact copy of the analogue waveform before it was sampled. I studied this carefully even though my background is in military history and all other dac technologies are therefore somehow flawed. It's not my business to ask or be nosy. I am sure of what i say here though.