I have been hyper busy over the last few weeks, so haven't had time to post, so apologies for that.
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?
I have been reluctant to reply to this as my reply could easily be considered as boasting or marketing BS. But adding Quartet into his system (one of which I have heard several times) was a huge change over the Hugo M scaler into his Dave. In short, things just sounded so much more real - it went from a very good audio system reproducing music into getting the illusion that real instruments were playing in tangible space. And we were both shocked and delighted by the change. When you hear someone else's system through loudspeakers, things normally sound poorer than what you have at home, partly because you are not used to the sound of the system, and the brain hasn't learnt the quirks of the acoustics. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times when a system gave the illusion of real instruments playing, and this was one of them.
Of course we could have been caught up in the moment (just hearing the improvement) and let enthusiasm run away with oneself. And it will be interesting to redo the exercise with him in September when I revisit Singapore, as I will have the finished article, and see whether we get the same emotional response. To answer your question, the track that gave this impression was a 1957 Coltrane recording. But other tracks (of which I don't have the provenance) gave similar changes.
I came away with several feelings - firstly, perhaps my son was right when he suggested that Quartet was the most important thing I have done. Secondly, that if you had decent hearing, and were present at that session, you would undeniably come away convinced that transient timing was absolutely essential for giving the impression of real instruments playing in space.
Just dropping a followup to my post a few days ago.
Okay now I’m starting to understand the HMS. Once I stopped rapid A/Bing and listened for a couple hours…I began unconsciously hearing the expanded sound stage, increased depth and clarity. Thanks again to all for the suggestions.
Good to hear. The best way to appreciate it is to simply enjoy music for a good length of time, then try to go back.
Hello, these days I'm really interested in Chord's technology and planning to buy a Qutest.
Meanwhile, I came up with a question.
Chord's proprietary digital filters and algorithms reduce errors in DA conversion and if so, AFAIK, the same can be achieved in AD conversion.
Because, in theory, the anti-aliasing filter for AD conversion and reconstruction filter for DA conversion are ideally identical.
So.. have ever Chord tried to apply its technology to AD converters for recording studio or even consumer recorders?
I know this is an unrealistic question that is obsessed with theory, but can't resist to ask here.
Yes it's something I have been working on, and I have created error free filters for anti aliasing. But the requirements for ADC decimation is very different to reconstruction. It's going to be very interesting hearing these new decimation filters.
Hmm.. the anti-aliasing filter for AD conversion should be an analog filter and the other is a digital filter..
Sorry guys I don't even know what I'm asking.
Early digital was all analogue anti aliasing filtering, but modern ADCs are mostly digital decimation, and a small amount of analogue filtering. For example, the pulse array ADC samples at 104MHz, and so requires analogue filtering at and above 52MHz - of which there is little energy which can be easily filtered.
The main problem still being the demands of the recording industry, which are often quite a bit different from Robs philosophy. But since it is mainly made for them he needs to play ball. Meeting these requirements but still achieving his own goals was/is the challenge from what I understand.
Correct. My son being trained as a recording engineer, and me meeting active engineers has given me valuable insight into what actually happens. Getting EQ, compression, reverb being done digitally and subjectively losslessly is the next huge hurdle - once the ADC is done of course!
Yea.. I think the recording industry won't be so interested in Rob's attempts but personally as a consumer I'll be more excited for reduced ad/da conversion error and better reconstruction of analog recording as it is in CD quality than the "Hi-Res" BS.
I do get nagged a lot by recording engineers to get on with the ADC. But although they are influential, it's a small segment of the industry.
{Thanks Rob. I also believe depth of the image is very underappreciated in the headfi scene. It seems to me most enthusiasts place a lot more importance on width with many even prefer artificially flat/wide one.
Having spent too much time reading on various headfi forums I am so tired of folks repeating cliche commentaries that are either oversimplying things, don't really understanding what they hear, or just flat out wrong. Some of my pet peeves include:
1. More depth = narrow soundstage = no separation
2. Less fatigue = roll off treble = dark
3. More resolution = more treble = bright
4. Less distortion = cold/analytical = thin
5. More instrument power = not focused = poor imaging
6. More neutral = flat = unemotional
It is one thing when someone state he or she "prefer" a certain attribute (I love me some tube distortion too!), but I just hate it when these subjective preferences are being described as objective rules or facts.
It is really refreshing to have you spending time to share your experience in how our brain perceive audio cues and how these cues (or lack of) affect pisitively or negatively our enjoyment of music. I would love to see a follow up on more details, or even a HOWTO guide, in setting up proper listening tests.}
All that to say - ditch the 'phones and get yourself some uber-expensive speaker system and an aucistically modified room/hall as a siund lounge.
I feel my wallet thinning and my bank accounr terminally rupturing.....
Soundstage depth always has been vital to me. Indeed, if a recording has good depth, you know immediately whether it's good or not, as if depth is good, everything else is normally good too.
Lateral imagery (side to side) is pretty much perfect compared to live sound - but depth is clearly nothing like as good.
Just kidding, it was the colour they had in stock. I'd try to keep them matching if buying multiple parts. I wouldn't bet against someone identifying sonic differences between the colours though!
