[kerisabe]

I had the Qutest (after Hugo 2) then added an MAcaler and then replaced the Qutest with the TT2.

The Qutest is a great and really fun DAC. I enjoyed it a good bit more than the Hugo 2 due to depth, bass and for lack of a better term, a lot more substance to the music.

When MScaled, the Qutest improves a lot with soundstage and imaging.

However, the TT2 is on another level. Soundstaging is better, imaging is better, clarity is better, depth is better, bass is better. Is just a significant step up. The first time I listened to TTS/HMS it felt like the music was in the room with me. It was wild.

@JM1979 thank you for the detailed feedback much appreciated.

 

[rkt31]

Hi, I hope I can ask an amplifier related question in this thread or perhaps you can point me to a more relevant thread...I'm using a chord dave+mscaler with aesthetix stereo atlas eclipse and vandersteen 5a carbons, with the dave as a preamp...I'd like to know if you guys think a chord stereo amplifier or one of the integrated amps would be a better match for the dave+mscaler combo, and if so which one? Thanks, James

You may check benchmark ahb2 power amp. I am using it with Hugo 2. Hugo 2 feeds directly into power amp. Best part of this amp apart from extremely low thd figures is the variable gain/input sensitivity setting. For normal listening levels you can set the gain as medium or even low. Even high gain setting has lower gain than other power amps so it requires full 2v input for full 100w rms which is good for modern high output digi pre sources like chord dacs and benchmark's own DACs but with conventional pre amps it may reach 100w only at full volume setting. This may give an impression that ahb2 is not powerful enough which is not obviously the case.

 

[Rob Watts]

Except that's nonsense. Metrum DACs do nothing of the sort. They are absolutely neutral and add zero colour of any kind to the resultant audio.

They don't oversample, so are far more faithful to the original audio than other designs.

You clearly have no understanding of what you are talking about.

The NOS term is actually a non sequitur; as NOS (no oversampling) does actually oversample through use of the simplest digital filter possible, the sample and hold filter. Technically it is known as the zero order hold filter; and it's the crudest digital filter possible, and it creates huge levels of timing and aliasing distortions. If you listen to a zero order hold filter against a WTA filter (which I have done on my DACs) things sound soft flat and out of focus, due to the enormous timing errors; transients are reconstructed with huge errors, which confuses the brain, so then one can't perceive starting and stopping correctly; if one can't perceive edges, then things sound unnaturally soft.

The uselessness of "NOS" or rather zero order hold oversampling filters is apparent to any engineer who has any technical understanding at all, but arguing with a NOS fanatic is like having an intelligent conversation with a flat-earther or a moon landing conspiracist....

 

[ZappaMan]

You clearly have no understanding of what you are talking about.

The NOS term is actually a non sequitur; as NOS (no oversampling) does actually oversample through use of the simplest digital filter possible, the sample and hold filter. Technically it is known as the zero order hold filter; and it's the crudest digital filter possible, and it creates huge levels of timing and aliasing distortions. If you listen to a zero order hold filter against a WTA filter (which I have done on my DACs) things sound soft flat and out of focus, due to the enormous timing errors; transients are reconstructed with huge errors, which confuses the brain, so then one can't perceive starting and stopping correctly; if one can't perceive edges, then things sound unnaturally soft.

The uselessness of "NOS" or rather zero order hold oversampling filters is apparent to any engineer who has any technical understanding at all, but arguing with a NOS fanatic is like having an intelligent conversation with a flat-earther or a moon landing conspiracist....

Hey Rob, let’s not equate USA moon landing sceptics with flat earthers

 

[rkt31]

You clearly have no understanding of what you are talking about.

The NOS term is actually a non sequitur; as NOS (no oversampling) does actually oversample through use of the simplest digital filter possible, the sample and hold filter. Technically it is known as the zero order hold filter; and it's the crudest digital filter possible, and it creates huge levels of timing and aliasing distortions. If you listen to a zero order hold filter against a WTA filter (which I have done on my DACs) things sound soft flat and out of focus, due to the enormous timing errors; transients are reconstructed with huge errors, which confuses the brain, so then one can't perceive starting and stopping correctly; if one can't perceive edges, then things sound unnaturally soft.

The uselessness of "NOS" or rather zero order hold oversampling filters is apparent to any engineer who has any technical understanding at all, but arguing with a NOS fanatic is like having an intelligent conversation with a flat-earther or a moon landing conspiracist....

So true. Perfect reply to nos propaganda. You can't simply generate sound waves from discreet samples. There has to be some 'filling' in between the samples which is basically oversampling. Zero hold filter is like a horizontal line i believe.

 

[Clive101]

Hi, I am using a sonicorbiter i5 and sonore opticalrendu with chord dave+mscaler. Does the melco n10 take the place of the i5+OR combo? And is the melco roon ready? Thanks, James

Hello James,
Melco would take the place of the i5 and you would not need the OR but I guess you could use it if you wish as the Melco can output on ethernet as a player or USB direct to DAC.
Melco as far as I am believe is not roon ready but I guess you can use an roon endpoint.
Antipodes is Roon ready although I have been told gives a different sound signature than other software ( I have not tested ) that can be used.
Hope that helps.....

 

[MacedonianHero]

Forgive me, but I don't care how something measures, I care how it sounds. Listening to music trumps addiction to technical detail. For me.

It depends what you're after...a pleasing experience or a truly revealing and transparent source. Different horses for different horses as they say...

That said, in the end I prefer to spend my $ on the latter rather than the former.

 

[musickid]

Is anyone out there using the single bnc input as opposed to usb/optical? Can anyone give impressions here as this is an area hardly ever talked about.

 

[Triode User]

I have used the single bnc input to HMS when using the CD player output from the Chord Blu and I use the bnc input to HMS for my dab radio all the time. Both of these were because of Hobson’s choice. Both sound good but I have not done any comparison compared to other options I’m afraid.

 

[musickid]

Thanks Nick. Would you be able to do a quick a/b i'm quite curious about this when you get the chance. Many thanks. I only have an optical/usb source from my imac but im eye'ing the Elac music server £399 model. I want to improve on my imac within a tight budget.

 

[Triode User]

I am limited because my Innuos Zenith SE only has USB out and those other two sources I mentioned only have BNC out! The oft stated wisdom is to use optical but I am very happy with the USB from my Zenith.

As I do not have a choice of changing my input from the Zenith I am entirely happy within the context of the quote, "Comparison is the thief of joy."

You normally use optical if I recollect correctly and I doubt that there will be any issue with that.

 

[musickid]

My only hesitation is that the optical source is straight out of my imac roon core. I'm wondering if a small dedicated server like the elac might if at the very least break the connection from a large computer to the hms. I have no idea if sq will improve and you cannot home demo such things.

 

[ZappaMan]

I know tt2 has bnc and dbnc (dual) mode.
The former sounds like half a job.

 

[musickid]

I'm referring to bnc in on the mscaler meaning a bnc source.

 

[RustyGates]

@Rob Watts

Hey Rob, question about the DX controls on the M-Scaler and it's remote - the M-Scaler does not have dedicated DX outputs (BNC's) like the TT2 or DAVE, so how does this work and why are there DX controls on the M-Scaler? Also, on the flip side, the TT2 and DAVE have dedicated DX left and right BNC outputs for the new DX devices, but don't have DX controls on the unit itself or the remote? Whats going on here?

If I was to get two DX Power Pulse Array Monoblocks in the future, do I need my TT2 in the chain? Or can I just buy another M-Scaler to feed two DX monoblocks via DBNC (left/right channels), and keep my TT2/Mscaler combo as my headphone/table top audio system in a separate room?

I'm really trying to get an insight of the DX interface use case for these devices... the DX devices essentially being DAC's, I wouldn't see the need for having a TT2 or DAVE in the chain, and I assume the top end DX power pulse array DAC/Amp's would outclass DAVE in terms of pulse array element count, circuitry, FPGA sizing etc.

Thanks.