Watts Up...?

[Rob Watts]

Happy new year all.

For Rob a couple of queries to bring in the new year.

What is the mscaler doing deep down to produce that well reported relaxed slowing down of tempo and analogue presentation of the music where the edginess and tension is removed? This is instantly noticeable for me with mscaled music.

Can you think of the usb input on mscaler as being asynchronous with timing coming from the fpga and optical/coax in on mscaler using the DPLL for timing accuracy as with your dacs or does the mscaler operate with a completely different mechanism?

Finally something unrelated. How can a sensitive headphone not be very efficient at the same time? My Oppo planar is 102 sensitivity but still requires high volume settings at times not for loudness but to dig deep and feel the dynamics of the music as it should be heard.

So the perception of tempo depends upon being able to perceive the starting and stopping of notes - which is all about transients. If the transient timing is constantly shifting backwards and forwards then it becomes more difficult to get the tempo. Additionally, the modulation of transient timing by other instruments degrades the brain's ability to separate individual sounds out into discrete entities - which results in poorer instrument separation and focus. When you get poorer instrument separation, then the lousdest instrument tends to dominate - and ones attention is drawn to the loudest instrument at that moment - this creates the impression of snapping backwards and forwards, which artificially spices up the tempo. So by reducing the transient timing modulation, things sound more focused and relaxed - making tempo appear slower.

The M scaler works in the same way as the DACs in regard to timing.

As to headphone sensitivity - this spec is rated against 1mW of power. But the volume setting on the DAC is voltage; so the actual volume you hear depends upon the headphone impedance and the driving voltage. Moreover, perceived volume level is not the same as actual volume - it depends upon frequency and also the perception of volume doubling is not linear either.

 

[AndrewOld]

What is the mscaler doing deep down to produce that well reported relaxed slowing down of tempo

I am sorry but I just don’t believe the M Scaler changes tempo. Tempo is simply the speed of a piece of music, the beats per minute, it is really easy to discern over the poorest system and can’t be changed unless there is a gross error in the system, like a clock, or turntable or tape drive capstan running at the wrong speed.

 

[thePhones]

I am sorry but I just don’t believe the M Scaler changes tempo. Tempo is simply the speed of a piece of music, the beats per minute, it is really easy to discern over the poorest system and can’t be changed unless there is a gross error in the system, like a clock, or turntable or tape drive capstan running at the wrong speed.

That is not what is meant here. It is only the brains perception of tempo that changes. The M Scaler "just" reproduces the transients in a more accurate manner which makes it easier to follow the tempo like reducing the motion blur in a racing game so it seems slower.

 

[kennyb123]

I am sorry but I just don’t believe the M Scaler changes tempo. Tempo is simply the speed of a piece of music, the beats per minute, it is really easy to discern over the poorest system and can’t be changed unless there is a gross error in the system, like a clock, or turntable or tape drive capstan running at the wrong speed.

Rob’s WTA filter enhances our perception of tempo - and even more so at a million taps. This point was driven home to me in a profound way several years ago when a friend and I compared the Mojo to a DAC ten times the price of the Mojo, a Playback Design MPD-3. The Mojo was profoundly better in conveying the tempo in a way that caused us to react to it - by tapping our toes or engaging in ways one usually responds to tempo. The MPD-3 actually sounded slow and boring in comparison. I had never before experienced such a profound contrast in time domain performance. Same music with the same tempo but the perception of it could not be more different. One of the albums we compared was Neighborhood by the drummer Manu Katche. Same drum set and same tempo but the MPD-3 softened the transient attack to the point where it drained energy from his playing. And yet Mojo, with its fraction of the M Scaler’s taps, brought his playing to life.

In fairness to the MPD-3, tonal colors were far more saturated. It made instruments and voices sound beautiful.

It would have been interesting to hear the MPD-3 again when I still had M Scaler feeding a TT2.

 

[Bleach-Free]

Rob’s WTA filter enhances our perception of tempo - and even more so at a million taps. This point was driven home to me in a profound way several years ago when a friend and I compared the Mojo to a DAC ten times the price of the Mojo, a Playback Design MPD-3. The Mojo was profoundly better in conveying the tempo in a way that caused us to react to it - by tapping our toes or engaging in ways one usually responds to tempo. The MPD-3 actually sounded slow and boring in comparison. I had never before experienced such a profound contrast in time domain performance. Same music with the same tempo but the perception of it could not be more different. One of the albums we compared was Neighborhood by the drummer Manu Katche. Same drum set and same tempo but the MPD-3 softened the transient attack to the point where it drained energy from his playing. And yet Mojo, with its fraction of the M Scaler’s taps, brought his playing to life.

In fairness to the MPD-3, tonal colors were far more saturated. It made instruments and voices sound beautiful.

It would have been interesting to hear the MPD-3 again when I still had M Scaler feeding a TT2.

Buying my mojo was one of the best decisions I've ever made in this hobby!

 

[jarnopp]

Buying my mojo was one of the best decisions I've ever made in this hobby!

Totally agree. Had never heard of Chord, but this was the post that stated it all for me:
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/fin...our-months-to-go.763905/page-88#post-11991631

 

[AndrewOld]

That is not what is meant here. It is only the brains perception of tempo that changes. The M Scaler "just" reproduces the transients in a more accurate manner which makes it easier to follow the tempo like reducing the motion blur in a racing game so it seems slower.

Firstly the brain does not perceive anything. It is an organ. It is you that perceives things, your brain mediates that perception. That the MScaler might make it easier to follow tempo (for someone with pretty poor musical skills) is credible, just, but the earlier claim was that it made music sound slower. But when you tap your foot along with the music your foot taps aren’t going through the M Scaler, so how can an M Scaler make your foot tap perceptibly slower?

 

[kennyb123]

Firstly the brain does not perceive anything. It is an organ. It is you that perceives things, your brain mediates that perception. That the MScaler might make it easier to follow tempo (for someone with pretty poor musical skills) is credible, just, but the earlier claim was that it made music sound slower. But when you tap your foot along with the music your foot taps aren’t going through the M Scaler, so how can an M Scaler make your foot tap perceptibly slower?

I think you are struggling with what it means to perceive tempo. We are talking about our reaction to the tempo and how it causes the music speak to us. Remove the drum track from just about any pop or rock song and listeners will react differently to the track. Even just simply substituting a different drummer playing the same notes can change our perception of the tempo because how the drummer attacks the notes will differ.

I am pretty sure that no one said that "an M Scaler make your foot tap perceptibly slower". You seem to be going out of your way to avoid considering the arguments others have made to the point of absurdity. No one should have to explain that how the notes are attacked influences our perception of tempo. Every musician understands this. Accurately reproducing the musician's intent is what this hobby is all about. The better the system is at accurately reproducing the rise and fall times of notes the better this will be conveyed to us. Rob's WTA filter does the best job of this among competing approaches in my humble opinion - even with as few taps as found in the Mojo. Increase the number of taps to what's found in the DAVE and the accurate reproduction of the rise and fall times of notes gets even better - significantly so. Increase it to a million taps with an M-Scaler and the improvement is even more profound. The differences we are talking about here matter as far as convincing us that we are hearing live instruments presented in front of us in our listening room. Screw up time domain performance and this will get lost.

 

[jagwap]

So the perception of tempo depends upon being able to perceive the starting and stopping of notes - which is all about transients. If the transient timing is constantly shifting backwards and forwards then it becomes more difficult to get the tempo. Additionally, the modulation of transient timing by other instruments degrades the brain's ability to separate individual sounds out into discrete entities - which results in poorer instrument separation and focus. When you get poorer instrument separation, then the lousdest instrument tends to dominate - and ones attention is drawn to the loudest instrument at that moment - this creates the impression of snapping backwards and forwards, which artificially spices up the tempo. So by reducing the transient timing modulation, things sound more focused and relaxed - making tempo appear slower.

That is an interesting way of explaining it. I have found a similar effect when the group delay at low frequencies is reduced in a system. Less phase shift at LF tends to make a slower more relaxed tempo, but in reality a far more accurate and musical one. More effortless, and tight. Part of this could be that the LF fundamentals aligning better with their corresponding harmonics, making transient bass notes tighter, and less boomy as the harmonics happen simutainiously in the time domain. The other is the perceived moment the note takes place is better defined because the transient shape is aligned in time, rater than smeared. So when it is played is better defined and then can align with the other musicians better, if the other musicians are good enough.

The comparative group delay across LF can be in milliseconds, not the microseconds I suspect you are discussing.

This is why I find sealed box/infinite baffle speakers generally suffer less from this, as they have a much less steep roll off. However skilled acoustic engineers I know have managed good results with ported speakers. Also the electronics can contribute to this too. Alas there are few DC coupled brands out their...

 

[rkt31]

extremely cleanly recorded album throughout, true to chesky standards. no vocals though.

 

[Christer]

extremely cleanly recorded album throughout, true to chesky standards. no vocals though.

Hello rk31, my "CC" commnent,
sorry I just could not resist responding.
No offence intended, just my take on the music.

Honestly I would a 100 times rather listen to Agnes Obel in MONO than this type of Jazz ,which just makes me jittery.

I agree with your take of SQ though.

Chesky has made some very nice recordings SQ wise.
Too bad they record so much "Jittery Jazz" that just keeps going up and down, on and on, without really getting anywhere.
Each to his or her own, "Delectat non disputandum" and all that, but for me this "music" is about as interesting musically as listening to someone practicing scales and mainly" black key" chords.

It is indeed much more about the MUSIC than SQ as far as I am concerned, and this type of Jazz is simply NOT AT ALL my thing,no matter how well it has been recorded.

But your other example recently, Agnes Obel. WOW she has me really hooked with her very TRULY creative and VERY inspiring music in spite of less than ideal SQ and mixing on the tracks and concerts I have heard by her.
One of my favourites from her is still her Live in Paris concert from 2017. Although via speakers it reveals both a non ideal mix and the limitations of two speakers plain stereo reproduction.
It is mostly still quite narrow mid-centre soundstage wise and the appplause after the wonderful concert sounds as if it is coming from a narrow spot BEHIND the performers.

Exactly the opposite of how it would have sounded live in the hall from a good mid hall seat.

Anybody who has ever been to a live concert knows the applause surrounds you for any decent seat. And so does the music to a more or less obvious extent.
But in any good hall there is always musical reverb information surrounding you.

And there are quite a few works in the classical repertoire that were composed to accent and excel in being surrounded by the music.

Maybe the best and most obvious examples of that are the Berlioz and Verdi Requeims where choral sections and brass sections are often placed behind and above the audience on the balconies.
And many conductors rightly place the choristers in Debussy´s Nuages/Fetes /Sirenes on a back balcony where they magically fade away gradually into silence. No plain stereo recording can reproduce that correctly via only two speakers.

Someone posted about HRTF and such things recently and imho and experience, the only two? ways to reproduce spatial information reasonably correctly and realistically are either with binaural recordings and via headphones ,(Chesky has made some very good binaural recordings), OR with multichannel recording and at least 4 speakers.

It would of course become ABSOLUTELY ridiculously expensive with Chord gear ,but MCH is the most accurate way to reproduce a real acoustic event via speakers.
Stereo is just a "second best", but still clear compromise ,and very flat in comparison to MCH done right.
Cheers CC

 

[rkt31]

Hello rk31, my "CC" commnent,
sorry I just could not resist responding.
No offence intended, just my take on the music.

Honestly I would a 100 times rather listen to Agnes Obel in MONO than this type of Jazz ,which just makes me jittery.

I agree with your take of SQ though.

Chesky has made some very nice recordings SQ wise.
Too bad they record so much "Jittery Jazz" that just keeps going up and down, on and on, without really getting anywhere.
Each to his or her own, "Delectat non disputandum" and all that, but for me this "music" is about as interesting musically as listening to someone practicing scales and mainly" black key" chords.

It is indeed much more about the MUSIC than SQ as far as I am concerned, and this type of Jazz is simply NOT AT ALL my thing,no matter how well it has been recorded.

But your other example recently, Agnes Obel. WOW she has me really hooked with her very TRULY creative and VERY inspiring music in spite of less than ideal SQ and mixing on the tracks and concerts I have heard by her.
One of my favourites from her is still her Live in Paris concert from 2017. Although via speakers it reveals both a non ideal mix and the limitations of two speakers plain stereo reproduction.
It is mostly still quite narrow mid-centre soundstage wise and the appplause after the wonderful concert sounds as if it is coming from a narrow spot BEHIND the performers.

Exactly the opposite of how it would have sounded live in the hall from a good mid hall seat.

Anybody who has ever been to a live concert knows the applause surrounds you for any decent seat. And so does the music to a more or less obvious extent.
But in any good hall there is always musical reverb information surrounding you.

And there are quite a few works in the classical repertoire that were composed to accent and excel in being surrounded by the music.

Maybe the best and most obvious examples of that are the Berlioz and Verdi Requeims where choral sections and brass sections are often placed behind and above the audience on the balconies.
And many conductors rightly place the choristers in Debussy´s Nuages/Fetes /Sirenes on a back balcony where they magically fade away gradually into silence. No plain stereo recording can reproduce that correctly via only two speakers.

Someone posted about HRTF and such things recently and imho and experience, the only two? ways to reproduce spatial information reasonably correctly and realistically are either with binaural recordings and via headphones ,(Chesky has made some very good binaural recordings), OR with multichannel recording and at least 4 speakers.

It would of course become ABSOLUTELY ridiculously expensive with Chord gear ,but MCH is the most accurate way to reproduce a real acoustic event via speakers.
Stereo is just a "second best", but still clear compromise ,and very flat in comparison to MCH done right.
Cheers CC

you are probably mistaking me for someone else. I did not post about Agnes atleast recently . Jazz is many a times full of improvisation where at first listen you may not find any "certain tune". You would need to listen at least 2 to 3 times to appreciate it fully. If you listen to art Tatum you may find him playing random notes initially. Only after few listens you come to know the complexity and beuty. Did you know that a very big renowned classical pianist once said thank God Tatum is not into classical music. It is other thing that he could play any classical music also not even needing any sheet. There are many jazz composers who composed jazz music in a "definite tune", instead of pure improvisation. Sonny Rollins has a very good blend of tune and improvisation.

 

[rkt31]

Hello rk31, my "CC" commnent,
sorry I just could not resist responding.
No offence intended, just my take on the music.

Honestly I would a 100 times rather listen to Agnes Obel in MONO than this type of Jazz ,which just makes me jittery.

I agree with your take of SQ though.

Chesky has made some very nice recordings SQ wise.
Too bad they record so much "Jittery Jazz" that just keeps going up and down, on and on, without really getting anywhere.
Each to his or her own, "Delectat non disputandum" and all that, but for me this "music" is about as interesting musically as listening to someone practicing scales and mainly" black key" chords.

It is indeed much more about the MUSIC than SQ as far as I am concerned, and this type of Jazz is simply NOT AT ALL my thing,no matter how well it has been recorded.

But your other example recently, Agnes Obel. WOW she has me really hooked with her very TRULY creative and VERY inspiring music in spite of less than ideal SQ and mixing on the tracks and concerts I have heard by her.
One of my favourites from her is still her Live in Paris concert from 2017. Although via speakers it reveals both a non ideal mix and the limitations of two speakers plain stereo reproduction.
It is mostly still quite narrow mid-centre soundstage wise and the appplause after the wonderful concert sounds as if it is coming from a narrow spot BEHIND the performers.

Exactly the opposite of how it would have sounded live in the hall from a good mid hall seat.

Anybody who has ever been to a live concert knows the applause surrounds you for any decent seat. And so does the music to a more or less obvious extent.
But in any good hall there is always musical reverb information surrounding you.

And there are quite a few works in the classical repertoire that were composed to accent and excel in being surrounded by the music.

Maybe the best and most obvious examples of that are the Berlioz and Verdi Requeims where choral sections and brass sections are often placed behind and above the audience on the balconies.
And many conductors rightly place the choristers in Debussy´s Nuages/Fetes /Sirenes on a back balcony where they magically fade away gradually into silence. No plain stereo recording can reproduce that correctly via only two speakers.

Someone posted about HRTF and such things recently and imho and experience, the only two? ways to reproduce spatial information reasonably correctly and realistically are either with binaural recordings and via headphones ,(Chesky has made some very good binaural recordings), OR with multichannel recording and at least 4 speakers.

It would of course become ABSOLUTELY ridiculously expensive with Chord gear ,but MCH is the most accurate way to reproduce a real acoustic event via speakers.
Stereo is just a "second best", but still clear compromise ,and very flat in comparison to MCH done right.
Cheers CC

Imo this chesky album of paquito is a very very good listen. Jazz is a music which you enjoy more while doing your routine work.

 

[Christer]

Imo this chesky album of paquito is a very very good listen. Jazz is a music which you enjoy more while doing your routine work.

Oops, mea culpa sorry, I mistook you for STR1,who was the one who posted an Agnes Obel track here recently.
As far as this album goes, still not my thing, but there are other Chesky albums I like. And nice that people post music examples instead of only pure tech stuff here imho.
Personally I basically NEVER listen to music while doing something else. Either the music is interesting enough to occupy my FULL attention or I do not listen to music at all.
And the few times I have tried both listening to music and doing routine work like indexing/or editing my photos, my work has been sloppy ,not work well done.
Many think they can multi-task and do it well, but they can not.
I smile when I see recommendations on YT like:
"Music for reading and studying and such."
There is music ,and there is reading and studying and learning ,but they do not mix well imo.Unless you are actually trying to learn some music of course but that is a different situation.
In our modern world music is FAR too often abused and used as aural wallpaper.
Cheers CC

 

[STR-1]

Oops, mea culpa sorry, I mistook you for STR1,who was the one who posted an Agnes Obel track here recently.

I‘m glad I was able to introduce you to new music that you liked, Christer. I know you set high standards for what you listen to.

The funny thing is I did not realise the first video I posted was mono. My music system at the time was disassembled into its component parts and my first listen to that video was from my tv, which is a relatively small 48 inch Sony with the whole screen acting as a speaker (no sound bar or external speakers), so no sound stage to speak of. I just assumed it was a stereo video recording like others from Agnes Obel that I had listened to through my Focal Utopia headphones.

Yes, that Paris concert is one of the several Agnes Obel YouTube videos I have saved - a good mix of early and later stuff. Many of her live videos, especially the small studio sets, are as much a joy to watch as they are to listen to - the musicians’ versatility, the incongruity of seeing classical musicians operating elaborate pedal boards to create loops and other sound effects, and the 2-mic setups Agnes often uses to allow her to pitch-shift her voice. I must try to get along to a concert the next time she is performing in London.