[Whazzzup]

I just get lost, sometimes drift into a semi conscious state drifting on song imagery. then something in the track pops from somewhere and i realize, how long i have been listening. No m scaler needed, just saying

 

[Jawed]

I'm guessing @Rob Watts didn't do a presentation at Singapore CanJam about his research findings in the development of Quartet M Scaler as there's been no mention that I can find...

Oh well, maybe Munich is when we'll find out.

 

[miketlse]

I'm guessing @Rob Watts didn't do a presentation at Singapore CanJam about his research findings in the development of Quartet M Scaler as there's been no mention that I can find...

Oh well, maybe Munich is when we'll find out.

It looks like he did at least one presentation

 

[Rob Watts]

@Rob Watts

We met at CanJam SoCal 2022, and it was great talking to you. I'm eagerly anticipating the Quartet MScaler. Based on my experience listening to Chord DACs and observing the progression from Mojo to TT, TT2, DAVE, and Blu MK2/MScaler, it became quite evident how the longer WTA filters improved quality of music reproduction. It was easy to discern how more sinc-based taps contributed to improved depth, transients, and resolution.

However, there seems to be significant resistance from established figures in the industry regarding the use of longer linear filters. Below is a quote from a prominent DSP expert copied from another thread here. At first glance, the argument appears convincing, yet it fails to align with my experience with your DACs. Could you shed some light on your thoughts regarding the line of reasoning I've included below? I'm asking because such arguments are bound to become more pronounced with the addition of more taps.

Clearly the writer doesn't have a clue how sampling theory works - the diatribe is just mumbo-jumbo. To say that with more taps "they will end up blending to each other, keeping the "build-up" in between at higher level. Closer these are to each other, higher the build-up. In other words, these transients will "collide" with each other." is just plain wrong. As you increase the tap length using a sinc-function interpolation the absolute opposite happens - interpolated transients become more independent and stop modulating the timing of one another. This is proven by using a bandwidth limited impulse response (energy at FS/2=0) in that increasing tap lengths reduces pre and post ringing; indeed an infinite tap length sinc function filter will perfectly reconstruct the original bandwidth limited signal. So perhaps I can hear you asking that real recordings are not perfectly bandwidth limited (mine with my ADC will be of course!) - but this doesn't change the fact that making your transient timing invariant (that is not being constantly modulated) is still tap length dependent when using the ideal sinc function filter even with non bandwidth limited recordings.

But one can prove things mathematically - at the end of the day it's the sound quality that matters and the fact is that using the same WTA algorithm, and careful listening tests, the doubling of tap length has always led to a corresponding improvement in sound quality - and the improvements are exactly in line with what mathematical proofs tell us about transient timing reconstruction - better timbre variation, better low frequency pitch reproduction, soundstage and instrument separation and focus.

What I love about the transparency of Chord and MDave specifically is that I find it easy to hear if someone plays his instrument with heart or just with very good technique. It’s so easy to follow the rhythm of piano that you can feel the intention/heart behind each key being pressed. I did not like piano before MDave, but now it’s one of my favorites. I even have favorite types of piano now because each one has such a specific timbre to it. That is not to say that the M Scaler is worse with the other Chord Dacs, just Dave is really special to me when it comes to timbre variation (which is the most important thing to me.
On the Quartet i’ve not yet decided if I get it immediately or as soon as possible, we’ll see

Agreed - reproducing piano music convincingly is a huge challenge for digital audio. My journey started with Hugo 1 when I switched from not liking the piano to really enjoying it.

It's very simple actually, I used to play a lot of guitar and have been around a lot of live music. I also get to hear a lot of high end DACs and to me they all sound overly processed, often times overly-liquidy with bloated bass, which some love, and frankly dead boring, they don't move me at all. People can be debate all day long about DAC topologíes and other DACs, at the end of the day Rob's DACs are the only ones that move me really. That is my litmus test.

My two sons both play guitars - and Daniel the piano - and so I get to hear live music every day. So I get reminded every day what live instruments sound like!

My litmus test is getting emotional listening to music, I usually get that from live music. I suspect his focus on transient resolution, small signal accuracy and transparency is doing something which is creating the same response I get from live music. So, I love his DACs, but that's just me. I'm sure others love other DACs and that's fine, I know what I like.

Agreed - and from a psychoacoustic POV transient timing are perceptually vital for the brain to create the audio illusion. Simply put, with transient timing errors the brain can't create that illusion of tangible instruments in real space; and if the brain struggles to make sense of the sound, it's not free to get emotional. Additionally, also emotion comes from the sheer beauty of the sound; and that beauty is being shredded by reproduction process.

I'm guessing @Rob Watts didn't do a presentation at Singapore CanJam about his research findings in the development of Quartet M Scaler as there's been no mention that I can find...

Oh well, maybe Munich is when we'll find out.

I think Chord will be showing Quartet at Munich - if PCBs arrive in time - but I won't be spilling the beans on Quartet until I have finished designing it! I still have a few things left to try.

One piece of good news - over Easter Saturday and Sunday I had to measure on the APx555 all the EQ curves from the settings, so had to do over 600 individual plots. They all passed perfectly.


Happy listening, Rob

 

[kennyb123]

at the end of the day it's the sound quality that matters and the fact is that using the same WTA algorithm, and careful listening tests, the doubling of tap length has always led to a corresponding improvement in sound quality - and the improvements are exactly in line with what mathematical proofs tell us about transient timing reconstruction - better timbre variation, better low frequency pitch reproduction, soundstage and instrument separation and focus.

You get this exactly right and you make it easy for anyone to hear this themselves when they listen to your products.

 

[Jawed]

I think Chord will be showing Quartet at Munich - if PCBs arrive in time - but I won't be spilling the beans on Quartet until I have finished designing it! I still have a few things left to try.

I wonder, is the development of QMS benefitting from the Ultima DAC prototype?

 

[Digital Enigma]

I quite understand the negative reactions. This thread is for champions of Chord's customised DAC code, so why wouldn't there be push back to anyone saying anything else. I'm no electronic engineer and I am not saying which chip is better. I'm just talking about what 'good' sounds like, and after decades of owning and enjoying some of the highest quality sound equipment available and listening to a broad collection of music ranging from classical to popular, large scale to solo, live and recorded, I think I am entitled to my opinion.

There were three separate, indepedent reviews of the Weiss Helios DAC published recently, each of which said it was the best DAC they had ever heard. I know, that's a wild claim. But I listened for myself and, for my tastes and my listening preferences, I agree. There will always be other products that compete with it, of course, but no-one in those reviews is saying the ESS chip is a limitation. Far from it.

I really admire the pioneering work Rob Watts has been doing with transient timing and the brain science of how we hear and how we locate sounds in space. For me, he joins a select group of audio engineers who have advanced the state-of-the-art for all of us over the past 50 years. I have used his products for the past decade, starting with the original Hugo, and put my money where my mouth is on many occasions. I will continue to follow Rob's posts and his researches. But there are other gifted audio engineers out there, all producing what they think is the best product with its own unique advantages. At this time, after extensive listening, I have decided I like Weiss better. I'm not reporting it here to have an argument, simply to share the experience with long-standing forum buddies -- this is what I discovered works for me in 2024.

Thank you for the sensible post, much needed when things can get overwhelming in chord threads from the more obsessive fans who only take robs word as gospel.

I myself have multiple dacs, one being an ESS in my Arcam amplifier, it doesn’t impart a particular sound over the music it actually sounds very pleasant to listen to, just as good as mojo 2 definitely only subtle differences imo.

You can still appreciate different types of DAC engineering without closing in on only one and the rest being “unlistenable”.

 

[6RS]

I got the impression that the Quartet Scaler will work only with Dave, but not with TT2?

 

[thePhones]

I got the impression that the Quartet Scaler will work only with Dave, but not with TT2?

IT will work with every dual bnc Chord Dac. It's just the same price category and form factor like Dave

 

[Kentajalli]

 

[miketlse]

I got the impression that the Quartet Scaler will work only with Dave, but not with TT2?

Whoa. This is early days. We have the hints that this will align with the Dave form factor, but please don't get stressed out about the physical decoding capabilities yet.

 

[Jxnkz]

Does the new Quartet scaler has a i2s input?

 

[GuiltyRocker]

Does the new Quartet scaler has a i2s input?

I doubt it, I remember Rob saying i2S is not needed.

 

[Rob Watts]

I wonder, is the development of QMS benefitting from the Ultima DAC prototype?

Partially as I have an initial DAC prototype working. But that doesn't mean you need a new DAC to appreciate Quartet - recently I have been showing the pre-production Quartet to a few selected audiophiles via a Dave against an M scaled Dave, and the subjective results were very much better than I or the other listeners expected.

I got the impression that the Quartet Scaler will work only with Dave, but not with TT2?

It will work with all current DACs.

Does the new Quartet scaler has a i2s input?

No that will just increase the possibility of more RF noise, as there is no benefit in having a dedicated bit clock (which would be useless anyway as it can't be used for the DAC master clock).

 

[Reactcore]

the subjective results were very much better than I or the other listeners expected.

Would you describe the perceived sonic differences a bit ..Did you hear new aspects in the sound?

I assume older pre Dolby 1968 records and non digital mixed like direct from mike to ADC benefit the most as with current Mscaler?