Jump to content

Chord Electronics Owners & Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Music2496 said:

Not a chance

The devil is in the details.... and it's quite possible that somebodys software upscaling does something wrong, no matter how long/good filters they try to use.

 

... but the basic premise, that "you could do this better with a computer", if we ignore the caveats, is true beyond any reasonable denial.

 

I really really doubt Chord are hosting a copy of it on their website if there's a fundamental issue with it  ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



16 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

I really really doubt Chord are hosting a copy of it on their website if there's a fundamental issue with it  ;) 

 

Rob has a fundamental issue with software up-sampling with his (Chord) DACs ?

 

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/chord-electronics-dave.766517/page-693#post-14110123

 

"Never use up-sampling from your source into one of my DAC's, even a Mojo; up-samplers do not have the processing power, nor do they have the WTA algorithm."

 

So absolutely no chance he would agree with "" in which respect it’s even better than the M Scaler."

Edited by Music2496
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Music2496 said:

"Never use up-sampling from your source into one of my DAC's, even a Mojo; up-samplers do not have the processing power, nor do they have the WTA algorithm."

 

So absolutely no chance he would agree with "" in which respect it’s even better than the M Scaler."

My understanding is that the "WTA algorithm" is nothing particularly special (marketing speak) .... and the "processing power" part is exactly what this is about.   Computers have orders of magnitude more processing power.... it's not even remotely close.

 

In fact, on more general purpose silicon (a computer) you could do a much better job of "windowing sinc" .... as you could literally compute it differently for every sample.    This is what xxhighend appears to be doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

My understanding is that the "WTA algorithm" is nothing particularly special (marketing speak) .... and the "processing power" part is exactly what this is about.   Computers have orders of magnitude more processing power.... it's not even remotely close.

 

In fact, on more general purpose silicon (a computer) you could do a much better job of "windowing sinc" .... as you could literally compute it differently for every sample.    This is what xxhighend appears to be doing.

You are thinking that I'm disagreeing with your technical points and the technical points of the article. I don't disagree at all... I've mentioned a few times I use HQPlayer... I thought the article was a great read...

 

The only point I made was the article is 100% incompatible with Rob Watt's long time and public views on software up-sampling with his (Chord) DACs... I hope that is obvious by now... 

 

Rob Watts: "Never use up-sampling from your source into one of my DAC's"

 

So, it is very obvious to me that Chord didn't check with Rob, before linking that article on his M-Scaler's page... For background, Rob is a contractor... he doesn't consider himself a Chord employee...

 

It made me chuckle to see it on the M-Scaler page, that's all ? Nothing life or death here, just gave me a good chuckle.

 

I should tell him about it. He'll probably have it removed from the M-Scaler page if he's made aware...

 

Edited by Music2496
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

My understanding is that the "WTA algorithm" is nothing particularly special (marketing speak) .... and the "processing power" part is exactly what this is about.   Computers have orders of magnitude more processing power.... it's not even remotely close.

 

In fact, on more general purpose silicon (a computer) you could do a much better job of "windowing sinc" .... as you could literally compute it differently for every sample.    This is what xxhighend appears to be doing.

Thats a pretty big put down of Rob Watts work. You have anything to back that up?

Also from my understanding FPGA'a can do parallel processing unlike a microprocessor.

Quote

"processing is concurrent in an FPGA, in contrast to the sequential processing that occurs in a microprocessor. An FPGA, for example, can process 10 data streams in parallel (meaning concurrently), whereas in software each stream would have to be buffered and processed one at a time." LINK

 

Edited by rocky500
Link to comment
Share on other sites



All I will say, get your hands on one, borrowed or bought, and have a listen. Only then will it’s convenience/cost be worth it or not. It’s pretty spectacular. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Music2496 said:

The only point I made was the article is 100% incompatible with Rob Watt's long time and public views on software up-sampling with his (Chord) DACs... I hope that is obvious by now... 

No, I understand.... I just don't agree that RW would disagree, if it was phrased in the right way.

12 minutes ago, Music2496 said:

Rob Watts: "Never use up-sampling from your source into one of my DAC's"

.... because they don't use the right interpolation filter.... and because they do not use long enough filters.

 

But we are talking about a (theoretical) case, where both these things are done right.    By what grounds could he disagree?!

12 minutes ago, Music2496 said:

For background, Rob is a contractor... he doesn't consider himself a Chord employee...

Yes, am aware.

12 minutes ago, Music2496 said:

He'll probably have it removed from the M-Scaler page if he's made aware...

It would be interesting to hear the justification .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, rocky500 said:

Thats a pretty big put down of Rob Watts work.

That wasn't the intention.     It is just giving something a "proprietary sounding name" .... gives people visions that it is something unique and special.

 

It is much less sexy to tell people "we do the basics better than the other people" ..... People are much more inclined to believe in magic, than simple hardwork and diligence.

 

3 minutes ago, rocky500 said:

You have anything to back that up?

Sure, the previously mentioned article on the M scaler.... and plenty of posts out there by RW explaining how the various DACs and the M Scaler work.    He says it himself.   It's no secret.

 

3 minutes ago, rocky500 said:

Also from my understanding FPGA'a can do parallel processing unlike a microprocessor.

A "microprocessor" can do parallel processing ..... the difference is that a FPGA depends on parallel processing to reach its full potential.

 

The wash up, is that a modern microprocessor has many orders of magnitude more processing power.

3 minutes ago, rocky500 said:

Quote

"processing is concurrent in an FPGA, in contrast to the sequential processing that occurs in a microprocessor. An FPGA, for example, can process 10 data streams in parallel (meaning concurrently), whereas in software each stream would have to be buffered and processed one at a time."

No, a computer microprocessor can do parallel processing ..... but there is also hardware for computers available which is more dedicated to parallel processing.... and many orders of magnitude faster.

 

The dedicated parallel hardware in my current PC, works at about 10 trillion calculations per second .... which in a super-worst case scenario, is about a billion filter taps for audio..... ie. one million times faster.

 

 

.... that's kinda moot, as longer filters increase the latency.... and I don't really see how much beyond a second of latency (like what is in the M scaler) would ever be acceptable.    In fact, they probably stopped at 1 million taps cos more latency would be not accepted by consumers.

 

It's a much more sexy story to make it sound like "we climbed this huge mountain and got to 1 million taps.... breakthrough!" .... rather than saying we could have had as many as we wanted, but more wouldn't have worked.    Makes you sound like much less of hero.

 

Not that I don't think RW is a hero  :) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



12 hours ago, Cruncher said:

Rob Watts has said that he wants a bit perfect source and nothing more e.g. no upscaling etc.

 

I have not seen him address the off line batch up-scaling on a computer question.

The article suggesting it "could be done offline", overlooks the reality that it can be done in real time with modern computers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

The article suggesting it "could be done offline", overlooks the reality that it can be done in real time with modern computers.

I have read really only competitors criticize the WTA filters and Rob Watts saying it may possible in GPU's not CPU's.

Aftificail intelligence seems to be moving forward at a fast pace because of now available FPGA's processing power.

 

So far I see a lot of Impressed customers and others who have heard the M Scaler to think he has a great product.

Edited by rocky500
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, rocky500 said:

criticize the WTA filters

I'm not trying to do that.     "Nothing special" doesn't mean they are bad.... it just means they're making up a name for something which is not unique.    This is very very very common in hifi.

 

53 minutes ago, rocky500 said:

and Rob Watts saying it may possible in GPU's not CPU's

It is more than possible in a CPU, evidenced by all the people doing it .... for example, default setting in HQplayer for DSD256 result in a filter which uses 4 million taps.   You can go waaaay further than this if you want.    That filter isn't necessarily a "good" filter .... but the point is that processing power is more than there.

 

The thing with a GPU, is that while the on GPU "parallel processors" have orders of magnitudes more throughput again than a CPU  (as I said before, a million times faster then the M scaler) ..... in practise, there are bottlenecks which are inherent to the "computer" architecture that mean, that it usually works out more practical to use the CPU.

 

Was the comment from RW a long time ago?   10 years ago, common CPUs could only just do it fast enough.

53 minutes ago, rocky500 said:

Aftificail intelligence seems to be moving forward at a fast pace because of now available FPGA's processing power.

Sure.... and CPU and GPUs for big AI....   and FPGA just being another form of programmable "computer" (like the CPU and GPU in a computer are)

 

53 minutes ago, rocky500 said:

So far I see a lot of Impressed customers and others who have heard the M Scaler to think he has a great product.

What's your point?     To be clear, I'm not saying it's not a good product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s interesting that since the m scaler really best mates up essentially with chord dacs that the buyers of these essentially then come in three clear budgetary tiers.

 

Upmarket upscalers - the Dave buyers: m scaler cost is from a perspective much less of a challenge given they are used to spending at the higher end. Most all the Dave owners I’ve read (who have either a Blu 2 or m scaler) seem to think m scaler is fairly much a no brainer choice as it adds considerably to the Dave and wouldn’t they be without it.

 

The Mid Market upgrade upsamplers - the TT2 buyers: seem to see the mscaler as an expensive but natural partner... most are seemingly loving their m scalers and very happy

 

Budget busting McScalers - the Hugo 2/Qutest crowd for whom the purchase of a mscaler is (relatively) a then super large investment against the cost of their current dacs... Yet still again most everyone I’ve read see their big m scaler outlay as ultimately a great move even if it seems a crazy big dollar upgrade given their dac’s price point. Most common comment here again is that they wouldn’t then go back to a non m scaler system now that they have one in the chain.

 

Rocky’s point that the m scaler owners (post purchase) still all seem to be impressed (I’d add very and include myself to that list) and even tho since the m scaler is really not a cheap investment but that regular super positive feedback is in many ways the best recommendation that Rob Watts’ approach to upsampling in summation really does do the trick here.

 

Having used HQ player software and also heard a few other brands of proprietary upsampler hardware being used over the years I’d say the m scaler is overall the best and most impressive upgrade out of all of these devices and approaches in terms of sonic performance and particularly engagement in the music that I’ve heard yet. Much love here for the McScaler experience!

 

 

 

Edited by the sound of Tao
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



51 minutes ago, the sound of Tao said:

Having used HQ player software and also heard a few other brands of proprietary upsampler hardware being used over the years I’d say the m scaler is overall the best

To be clear, I wasn't necessarily saying that using these types of software is going to give a better result.... only that computers can run much(!) longer and more complex filters than the M Scaler.

 

So, it's possible to get a "better result" with a computer.    Most people probably wouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave, yes, and I do look forward to seeing how this and other competing approaches and hardware develop over the years to come. Up till now there’s always been a bit of a what if wish for me with digital but this one just kind of stops me asking for too much more anymore. I’d only consider improving on the analogue output stages of the dac so only am open to maybe do one final destination step in the next gen of mid to top chord dacs... but I could just as easily stay with what I’ve got in the end as it’s sounding that involving atm.

 

I also just put in a Sotm Snh-10g Ethernet switch in front of my Sotm ultra and this showed me that there’s even more levels of refinement in other parts of the streaming system to be had still but to be honest I’m enjoying the music too much to justify doing too much more at the front end. Great last words ofcourse but might just instead put the dollars into rolling some more tubes and eventually adding Qobuz to Tidal in my streaming subscriptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

To be clear, I wasn't necessarily saying that using these types of software is going to give a better result.... only that computers can run much(!) longer and more complex filters than the M Scaler.

 

So, it's possible to get a "better result" with a computer.    Most people probably wouldn't.

Again from what I have read people who have heard both seem to say the m scaler is a lot better.

I think my limited understanding is  CPU's have to have an operating system and a lot of extra going on with it & noise, ground planes,  timing, interference etc that puts the FPGA at an advantage in these instances.

Edited by rocky500
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, rocky500 said:

Again from what I have read people who have heard both seem to say the m scaler is a lot better.

I think my limited understanding is  CPU's have to have an operating system and a lot of extra going on with it & noise, ground planes,  timing, interference etc that puts the FPGA at an advantage in these instances.

None of those things are relevant from a USB source into a quality DAC as they are galvanically isolated and create their own signal and timing entirely. It's just data till then. An FPGA can make just as much RF noise as a CPU can, if not more because it's physically a lot larger and consumes more power than a modern efficient CPU on a die (though of course there are other components on a PC.)

Edited by Ittaku
Link to comment
Share on other sites



36 minutes ago, Ittaku said:

An FPGA can make just as much RF noise as a CPU can, if not more because it's physically a lot larger and consumes more power than a modern efficient CPU on a die (though of course there are other components on a PC.)

 

Yup. Which is why Rob has a big challenge ahead of putting 1 million taps (and the associated processing power and noise generated) inside a future DAC's housing...

 

Rob Watts: "The RF noise that the FPGA generates is a nightmare; it's 12A of correlated current with large amounts of 2GHz noise. In the long term I would like to integrate an M scaler with a DAC; but I have not been able to figure out how to do it without it compromising sound quality."

 

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/hugo-tt-2-by-chord-electronics-the-official-thread.879425/page-89#post-14376430

 

The M-Scaler (with it's isolated BNC outputs) allows him to take this powerful processing away from the analogue section of the DAC (an approach others do with other DACs + software up-sampling).

 

 

 

Edited by Music2496
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Music2496 said:

The M-Scaler (with it's isolated BNC outputs) allows him to take this powerful processing away from the analogue section of the DAC (an approach others do with other DACs + software up-sampling).

As some of us do in our PCs as well ;)

Edited by Ittaku
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ittaku said:

As some of us do in our PCs as well ;)

 

Yup that's what I meant by  "(an approach others do with other DACs + software up-sampling)"

 

Software up-sampling via another computer.

Edited by Music2496
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Music2496 said:

Yup that's what I meant by  "(an approach others do with other DACs + software up-sampling)"

 

Software up-sampling via another computer.

Which brings us to the experiment we're conducting next week. I would upscale to 384 if my PC was going directly to my DAC, but the DSP in the chain limits me to 96kHz max, so adding the mscaler after that point in the chain will be advantageous - if high tap upscaling helps an R2R DAC.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...
To Top