[endre83]

maybe you can try dedicating a cpu to just processing roon, you can do that with utilities like process lasso, or fidelizer, but process lasso has a free version or its cheap anyway:
https://bitsum.com/
browsers can be terrible cpu hogs, keep them closed if possible.

mhm i have to try the setup without browsing hifi product reviews

 

[ecwl]

No i thought about buying one to minimize the difference between Spotify and Tidal because i like Spotify UI and playlists way more. Now that i can import spotify playlists on Tidal i have no need for a M Scaler because i'm very happy with Tidal quality.

Hmmm... Think of it this way. Let's say DAC A is better than DAC B. Lossless music is better than lossy music.
You're enjoying listening lossless music via DAC B
You can't "FIX" lossy music by upgrading your DAC B to DAC A.
You'll still get better sound with DAC A than DAC B for lossless music
You'll still get better sound with DAC A than DAC B for lossy music
You'll still get better sound with lossless music than lossy music
Now whether you care about the differences in sound is another matter.

 

[Progisus]

No i thought about buying one to minimize the difference between Spotify and Tidal because i like Spotify UI and playlists way more. Now that i can import spotify playlists on Tidal i have no need for a M Scaler because i'm very happy with Tidal quality.

You could use Soundiiz to transfer playlist favorites etc. I transferred everything from Qobuz to Tidal with very few unmatched.

 

[Deolum]

You could use Soundiiz to transfer playlist favorites etc. I transferred everything from Qobuz to Tidal with very few unmatched.

I use tunemymusic now. Very nice.

 

[Progisus]

HQPlayer has introduced new sinc-l filter with 2M taps.

 

[koven]

HQPlayer has introduced new sinc-l filter with 2M taps.

Meh, wait 'til Rob pushes that 3M firmware update. Ah, wait..

 

[ecwl]

HQPlayer has introduced new sinc-l filter with 2M taps.

Come on, if you’re going to advertise for Jussi and HQPlayer, don’t sell him short. He said 2 million taps at 705.4/768kHz but at DSD512, it’s 64 million taps.

Of course, once we accept that DAVE goes to 104MHz with its 20 elements, then the poor 1 million taps at 705.4kHz/768kHz of the M-Scaler would just become only 128 million taps output at 104MHz. But who cares, it’s not about the numbers...

Seriously though, he actually says that the new Sinc-L is designed completely different than the Sinc-M/Sinc-S filters which actually try to “mimick” M-Scaler more (although probably not identically since I think Sinc-M is an apodizing linear phase filter while I think WTA is non-apodizing linear phase filter).

Anyway, I think even though computationally intensive upsampling and noise shaping underlie the principles of HQ Player and Chord DACs, philosophically, the two designers have a big difference in viewpoint. Rob Watts actually thinks that using the Sinc filter and attempting to most accurately restore the original analog waveform as recorded by the ADC is the way to go. But Jussi has openly talked about how he thinks different filters just sound different. He talks about how he thinks different minimum phase or apodizing filters make differently recorded music sound better. Just like the MQA people in some ways, he thinks that if people want to, by applying different filters, he can “compensate” for ADC issues with poor recordings. But to me, that’s like saying a recording sounds harsh so play it back with a tube amp.

Different philosophies. If people are enjoying their own music with their different setups, why not...

 

[edwardsean]

Come on, if you’re going to advertise for Jussi and HQPlayer, don’t sell him short. He said 2 million taps at 705.4/768kHz but at DSD512, it’s 64 million taps.

Of course, once we accept that DAVE goes to 104MHz with its 20 elements, then the poor 1 million taps at 705.4kHz/768kHz of the M-Scaler would just become only 128 million taps output at 104MHz. But who cares, it’s not about the numbers...

Seriously though, he actually says that the new Sinc-L is designed completely different than the Sinc-M/Sinc-S filters which actually try to “mimick” M-Scaler more (although probably not identically since I think Sinc-M is an apodizing linear phase filter while I think WTA is non-apodizing linear phase filter).

Anyway, I think even though computationally intensive upsampling and noise shaping underlie the principles of HQ Player and Chord DACs, philosophically, the two designers have a big difference in viewpoint. Rob Watts actually thinks that using the Sinc filter and attempting to most accurately restore the original analog waveform as recorded by the ADC is the way to go. But Jussi has openly talked about how he thinks different filters just sound different. He talks about how he thinks different minimum phase or apodizing filters make differently recorded music sound better. Just like the MQA people in some ways, he thinks that if people want to, by applying different filters, he can “compensate” for ADC issues with poor recordings. But to me, that’s like saying a recording sounds harsh so play it back with a tube amp.

Different philosophies. If people are enjoying their own music with their different setups, why not...

[* Warning: This is a post re: HQP. A small percentage of individuals may experience nausea or involuntary eye rolling when exposed.]

First, I have to say, I'm not shilling for Jussi, and I'm not trolling MScaler. I recently bought a DAVE and I'm using it with HQP and I'm considering whether to add an Mscaler. I'm not trying to sell you on HQP. I want to know if I should buy an Mscaler. If that's not on topic here I don't know where it is.

First of all to @ecwl, Thank you. Sincerely. I've read that Rob Watts believes that Jussi is miscalculating the amount of taps in his filters, but I didn't track down the details. I didn't know it had to do with the 104Mhz noise shaper and the pulse array modulator in the DAVE. However, I don't know how this affects the factor at which Jussi is miscalculating taps. That's not a challenge. I mean I really don't know and would like to learn. In a DAVE, Jussi's filters, as well as Mscaler, are replacing WTA1 no? After upscaling it all has to go to the pulse array for conversion right? If someone could point me to where Rob Watts explains the math of the tap lengths between his filters and Jussi's I would really appreciate it.

I'd like to get a better handle on that part of the discussion, though I think we agree, It can't be a game of tap-lengths in the end. I don't find a necessary correlation between tap length and the performance of HQP filters, no matter how it's being calculated. I think all sides are considering the entirety of the algorithm and the final result most of all.

This is where I'm at so far. I've read the posts of people I respect saying they prefer DAVE alone over HQP. To be fair on all sides, they freely admit they did not spend real time with HQP trying to optimize it. Nevertheless, this was enough for me to try DAVE on its own against HQP. I would not really have tried that without these discussions. It's not hard for me to understand why someone might prefer DAVE alone. There was a natural, analog effortlessness and fullness which was pleasing. However, I vastly preferred the greater spaciousness that HQP provided, while I found any shift in analog fluidity a matter of taste, and it suited my taste. So, I know I prefer DAVE+HQP to DAVE alone.

Presently, I'm trying to work out whether I might prefer DAVE+Mscaler over DAVE+HQP. The only way to know for sure is to get an MScaler, of course. However, I don't have enough information yet to decide if it would be worth the effort of obtaining one and then having to turnaround and sell it or pay a restocking fee. It would be great if there are people here who have earnestly explored both routes and have taken the pains to setup up HQP properly, both software settings and hardware setup. It seems MScaler improves SQ just by being in the chain even before it's engaged. I don't know if this is due to the added galvanic isolation on the BNCs and bypassing the USB receiver chip or other elements. So, it'd be good to get accounts of those who really gave HQP a full effort and still found a clear advantage in Mscaler.

Thanks!

[Now, back to regularly scheduled programming.]

 

[Triode User]

Presently, I'm trying to work out whether I might prefer DAVE+Mscaler over DAVE+HQP. The only way to know for sure is to get an MScaler, of course. However, I don't have enough information yet to decide if it would be worth the effort of obtaining one and then having to turnaround and sell it or pay a restocking fee.

I would expect Chord dealers to have a loan Mscaler for you try in your own system. Certainly the ones I buy from in the UK do that. Make the dealer work for their money.

It seems MScaler improves SQ just by being in the chain even before it's engaged.

Well not when I try it like that, I prefer Dave on its own compared to Mscaler on pass through. And that is why in the end you just have to hear stuff for yourself and in your own system.

 

[hypnos1]

I would expect Chord dealers to have a loan Mscaler for you try in your own system. Certainly the ones I buy from in the UK do that. Make the dealer work for their money.

I'll drink to that TU!! .... especially given the cost lol .

 

[iamoneagain]

[* Warning: This is a post re: HQP. A small percentage of individuals may experience nausea or involuntary eye rolling when exposed.]

First, I have to say, I'm not shilling for Jussi, and I'm not trolling MScaler. I recently bought a DAVE and I'm using it with HQP and I'm considering whether to add an Mscaler. I'm not trying to sell you on HQP. I want to know if I should buy an Mscaler. If that's not on topic here I don't know where it is.

First of all to @ecwl, Thank you. Sincerely. I've read that Rob Watts believes that Jussi is miscalculating the amount of taps in his filters, but I didn't track down the details. I didn't know it had to do with the 104Mhz noise shaper and the pulse array modulator in the DAVE. However, I don't know how this affects the factor at which Jussi is miscalculating taps. That's not a challenge. I mean I really don't know and would like to learn. In a DAVE, Jussi's filters, as well as Mscaler, are replacing WTA1 no? After upscaling it all has to go to the pulse array for conversion right? If someone could point me to where Rob Watts explains the math of the tap lengths between his filters and Jussi's I would really appreciate it.

I'd like to get a better handle on that part of the discussion, though I think we agree, It can't be a game of tap-lengths in the end. I don't find a necessary correlation between tap length and the performance of HQP filters, no matter how it's being calculated. I think all sides are considering the entirety of the algorithm and the final result most of all.

This is where I'm at so far. I've read the posts of people I respect saying they prefer DAVE alone over HQP. To be fair on all sides, they freely admit they did not spend real time with HQP trying to optimize it. Nevertheless, this was enough for me to try DAVE on its own against HQP. I would not really have tried that without these discussions. It's not hard for me to understand why someone might prefer DAVE alone. There was a natural, analog effortlessness and fullness which was pleasing. However, I vastly preferred the greater spaciousness that HQP provided, while I found any shift in analog fluidity a matter of taste, and it suited my taste. So, I know I prefer DAVE+HQP to DAVE alone.

Presently, I'm trying to work out whether I might prefer DAVE+Mscaler over DAVE+HQP. The only way to know for sure is to get an MScaler, of course. However, I don't have enough information yet to decide if it would be worth the effort of obtaining one and then having to turnaround and sell it or pay a restocking fee. It would be great if there are people here who have earnestly explored both routes and have taken the pains to setup up HQP properly, both software settings and hardware setup. It seems MScaler improves SQ just by being in the chain even before it's engaged. I don't know if this is due to the added galvanic isolation on the BNCs and bypassing the USB receiver chip or other elements. So, it'd be good to get accounts of those who really gave HQP a full effort and still found a clear advantage in Mscaler.

Thanks!

[Now, back to regularly scheduled programming.]

I already posted about this but I’ll sum up my thoughts.

The Sinc-m lns15 setting brought out the spaciousness and tightness of bass but lacks the warmth and texture of the mscaler. The mscaler also feels more open in its space. Also thought sinc-m made vocals too bright on some music. I’d rather listen to the Dave alone than with that setting.

I also listened to the ext2 lns15 setting at Jussi’s request. This was more to my liking in terms of tone. Warmer, sweeter, more texture. But compared the the mscaler, the mscaler did it all a little better. Also this filter is not as spacious. But for me, I’d take tone and texture over spaciousness but mscaler gives both. I didn’t didn’t compare this setting against the Dave alone, so don’t know if I’d take it over it.

The few other tidbits about the mscaler is the delay is only 0.6 seconds and not noticeable. Even roon’s scrolling lyrics are still in sync. I also find optical input sounds better into the Dave and into the mscaler. If you use HQPlayer, can only feed usb.

I have no bias here. I already own HQPlayer and have been a user for years. His filters led me to Chord in the first place. If I liked his filter over the mscaler, I wouldn’t hesitate to sell it. To be fair, Jussi was recommending some other filter settings before I gave up but the mscaler already sounded amazing and I was done playing around. Wanted to get back to listening.

 

[watermad]

Thanks for sharing your set up! I have a pair of Sonus Faber Concertos that are not currently hooked up that have a very similar look to those speakers. What are those 'tweeters' on the top of your speakers? I looked at DCS Bridge but it seems it does not have a USB output and I would like to have that option.

The Super Tweeters are the Tannoy ST100 super tweeters, a great sonic and aesthetic match for my Electa Amator 2s, the Tannoy's have been discontinued a long time ago. Equivalent are the https://www.analogueseduction.net/all-speakers/ST300Mg.html, not a fan of the steam punk aesthetic, or the https://www.analogueseduction.net/t...s/townshend-audio-maximum-super-tweeters.html.

My Electa Amator 2s have a passive ABR on the back, so they go DEEP but TIGHT BASS, not BOOM, I've had them new 20yrs next year. I have not heard a standmount that gives me the musicality they do. However the Vimberg Amea and Marten Parker Duo are on my radar as replacement birthday presents next year .

As for your question on USB, dCS Network Bridge does not support USB audio, however S/PDIF physical and audio connection, does your DAC not support it?

 

[edwardsean]

I already posted about this but I’ll sum up my thoughts.

The Sinc-m lns15 setting brought out the spaciousness and tightness of bass but lacks the warmth and texture of the mscaler. The mscaler also feels more open in its space. Also thought sinc-m made vocals too bright on some music. I’d rather listen to the Dave alone than with that setting.

I also listened to the ext2 lns15 setting at Jussi’s request. This was more to my liking in terms of tone. Warmer, sweeter, more texture. But compared the the mscaler, the mscaler did it all a little better. Also this filter is not as spacious. But for me, I’d take tone and texture over spaciousness but mscaler gives both. I didn’t didn’t compare this setting against the Dave alone, so don’t know if I’d take it over it.

The few other tidbits about the mscaler is the delay is only 0.6 seconds and not noticeable. Even roon’s scrolling lyrics are still in sync. I also find optical input sounds better into the Dave and into the mscaler. If you use HQPlayer, can only feed usb.

I have no bias here. I already own HQPlayer and have been a user for years. His filters led me to Chord in the first place. If I liked his filter over the mscaler, I wouldn’t hesitate to sell it. To be fair, Jussi was recommending some other filter settings before I gave up but the mscaler already sounded amazing and I was done playing around. Wanted to get back to listening.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I've read your posts before and it was that discussion with others that encouraged me to see how far I could get with HQP. I'm not a fan of sinc-M. I actually find it too warm and diffuse, missing proper definition. That might be what you mean when you say it lacks texture. I also wasn't crazy about the new Sinc-L filter either. This only underscores for me that tap count is just a part of the equation.

I had the same impression of ext2 that it has good definition but the dimensions collapse. For me, poly-sinc long-lp with LNS15 has both spaciousness and definition. Also, if you can process a sample using HQPlayer Pro demo you'll find the off-line processed file sounds significantly better than real time conversion. It is both much more relaxed and fluid and also more clear and precise. HQPP is unfortunately priced for the professional market, but it does demonstrate the potential of the HQP algorithms. I do wish an offline consumer version would become availble.

In the end, it doesn't matter to me how closely HQP approximates Mscaler. I'm just looking for performance and how it sounds to my ears. From this discussion, I'm becoming convinced that HQP can do better than what others have found. It has been enormously helpful gaining external points of reference to assess the quality of what I'm hearing, It has made me satisfied with my results, and at the same time, I've also become persuaded that I need to arrange to get an Mscaler in home.

Thanks to everyone who weighed in both on the thread and in messaging. This has been really fruitful.

 

[iamoneagain]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I've read your posts before and it was that discussion with others that encouraged me to see how far I could get with HQP. I'm not a fan of sinc-M. I actually find it too warm and diffuse, missing proper definition. That might be what you mean when you say it lacks texture. I also wasn't crazy about the new Sinc-L filter either. This only underscores for me that tap count is just a part of the equation.

I had the same impression of ext2 that it has good definition but the dimensions collapse. For me, poly-sinc long-lp with LNS15 has both spaciousness and definition. Also, if you can process a sample using HQPlayer Pro demo you'll find the off-line processed file sounds significantly better than real time conversion. It is both much more relaxed and fluid and also more clear and precise. HQPP is unfortunately priced for the professional market, but it does demonstrate the potential of the HQP algorithms. I do wish an offline consumer version would become availble.

In the end, it doesn't matter to me how closely HQP approximates Mscaler. I'm just looking for performance and how it sounds to my ears. From this discussion, I'm becoming convinced that HQP can do better than what others have found. It has been enormously helpful gaining external points of reference to assess the quality of what I'm hearing, It has made me satisfied with my results, and at the same time, I've also become persuaded that I need to arrange to get an Mscaler in home.

Thanks to everyone who weighed in both on the thread and in messaging. This has been really fruitful.

I’ll give poly-sinc long-lp with LNS15 a try at some point.

What a meant by the sinc-m is especially with string instruments, you should hear the texture of the strings, those micro vibrations. Dave excels at this even without the mscaler. The sinc-m made it sound smooth. It took away what made the Dave special. The mscaler, on the other hand, increases the realism of this texture.

The reason I stopped playing around is because once I switched back to the mscaler, it just sounded right. HQPlayer was coming up short so figured made sense to just keep the mscaler and be done with it.

 

[edwardsean]

I’ll give poly-sinc long-lp with LNS15 a try at some point.

What a meant by the sinc-m is especially with string instruments, you should hear the texture of the strings, those micro vibrations. Dave excels at this even without the mscaler. The sinc-m made it sound smooth. It took away what made the Dave special. The mscaler, on the other hand, increases the realism of this texture.

The reason I stopped playing around is because once I switched back to the mscaler, it just sounded right. HQPlayer was coming up short so figured made sense to just keep the mscaler and be done with it.

Yeah, that's very much in line with what I've found with sinc-M as well.

As far as deciding to move on from HQP to Mscaler, that just makes good sense in your position. You would need a compelling a reason to keep pushing. My reasons are my own. I don't mind the financial investment for better sound, but I have a penchant for elegant technology. The DAVE is elegant tech. DAC, preamp, headphone amp in a ridiculously compact unit. I use it with headphones, but eventually I'll add in some super efficient speakers like the Omega Super Alnico. This will mean no headphone amp, no power amp, just the DAVE.

It is worth effort for me to try ad keep this minimalist setup. Upscaling in software meant no additional hardware. If I end up going Mscaler (not out of the question at all). I will also be looking at a connection like Opto-DX. All of a sudden that's six more boxes including the power supplies, then there's the clutter of interconnects and cables. Right now the Dave sits on its own tiny shelf attached to my laptop stand. It's so nice that way.