rayl1234

So just return it... psa is great about returns and even pays for shipping. https://www.psaudio.com/audition/

I will admit that I have not conducted an evaluation of DSD content so cannot comment. I will also admit that in choosing Chord, I was well aware that DSD may be a weakness (and certain MQA *is* a weakness).... and the choice was made in light of the fact that I haven't seen any value in MQA after having tried it with the Brooklyn for a few months, and I had little DSD content. DSD is a complicated topic bec we live in an unfortunate world. DSD was invented to get consumers to buy reissues in DSD... but that did not prove out. There are only 2 pure DSD post-production systems today (Sonoma and Pyramix) -- yet despite PCM post-production systems, many studios in fact use DSD for masters... I guess I am agreeing and saying that my high satisfaction with MScaler and Chord applies to PCM. DSD is a small part of my library and I express no opinion on MScaler and DSD. I can understand finding Chord's broad statements regarding DSD being better rendered through a PCM intermediate state as not being substantiated by independent listeners. All the more reason for wanting to hear impressions vs. MSB, which has invested in both DSD and PCM paths. ?

I believe many have already conceded that it is 100% achievable on a PC with some amount of either CPU or GPU resources. I certainly believe so. Just that there is not yet an off-the-shelf solution for doing so that has tested to my satisfaction, and this includes being able to work with streamed audio content to a Windows web browser as a requirement for me. I stand by that statement. I am not here to defend Chord per se -- I am always looking for something better. Software doing the same thing -- it might be cheaper -- but I am looking for something better. I feel this thread has turned into one of attacking Chord bec it is "just" filtering, which everyone "knows" can be done in software... This seems to have touched upon a nerve. "What audacity to claim an improvement if it can be 'simply' done in software?" Is that the rationale? Isn't the FPGA code also software? Of course it is. Is it that some are offended that "software" costs USD 4.5k? Heck, I paid USD 9.5k for the same "software" 7 months ago bec it works well, it is packaged, and it is supported. Chord/RW have every right to be proud of their product -- why is that suddenly interpreted as a big FU to the rest of the world instead of simply being creators' pride? Would we believe a product is better if its creators were NOT proud to speak highly of their product???? That's crazy. Or is the only acceptable way to express pride to provide full disclosure? I don't see GitHub repos for any of the software packages being discussed here.... So why the double standard?

I will readily concur with the "isn't" (present tense) portion based on having spent an intense 1.5 months following RMAF 2017 trying almost everything under the sun, both software and hardware (up to around USD 30k), before pulling the trigger on swapping out the Direct Stream / Huron for a Chord stack. I wish we could hear a comparison -- instead of arguing over software vs hardware -- to what might potentially be a real contender and is shipping (reports of some delays due to metal work notwithstanding) today: namely the MSBs.... At the time, there was only the Select 2, which at USD 90k to start, I didn't bother to evaluate. But now there are the Reference and the Premier, the latter quite within in the price range. Honestly, it is the only competitor on my radar for the next upgrade cycle (say in 5-7 yrs) at this time...

I am the innocent type of person... the more innocent possible explanations I see are: 1. RW is a silicon guy. Software is not his expertise. Chord can't step in bec Chord does not own RW's designs. Chord manufactures/sells them and pays RW a royalty, but as has been publicly disclosed, the arrangement is subject to unilateral termination for convenience by either party.... 2. There is more to the story than upsampling though, as replacing traditional DACs with a hybrid DAC/amp combination (DX amps in Chord speak) is very much the product direction for RW, so, together with Davina ADC project, creating a software version would be a huge distraction that does not fit the roadmap.

I will differ.... While Hugo mscaler is unreleased, Blu2 mscaler has been in purchasers’ hands since spring 2017.... The pudding has been delivered, just not a new dish for it. And on miska’s comment, there is a difference between 1mm for 1 bit vs PCM, but that isn’t really the point. I had tried some (not all or even many) hqp settings, albeit maybe not in combo with the best dac for hqp... but that’s a big part of what made me end up dumping my entire dac chain for bku2+Dave. Of course I tried a bunch of products... lampi, dcs... heck, it was a big purchase. But Chord was a packaged solution that worked great (very natural/at ease would be my best short phrase) out of the box for all my use cases, even with EDM tracks, not just orchestral. (Not surprising as I recall RW mentioning listening to quite a bit of edm.) That’s my bottom line. This thread suggested that I may have missed an alternative, but short of building quite a few pieces (on the hqp thread), I do not believe that to be the case. If so, great—I can upgrade my office rig. Would still have no regret over the chord experience.

I read it differently. I read it as the particular set of coefficients that achieve a certain error bound but are computable on the particular FPGA's capacity -- computable in the sense that unlike math, you don't have infinite precision... The term "better than 16 bits" is thrown around, but unfortunately, that is one of the areas where I've not gotten a clear answer. Is the implication that: 1. Each coefficient is w/in 2^-16 of the coefficient of the mathematical 1MM windowed sinc? (This would say very little interesting as certain coefficients accumulate much greater errors than others, obviously) 2. Compared to using a mathematical 1MM windowed sinc, the results computed will match the mathematical computation when quantized to 16 bits? 3. For all bandwidth limited signals, the result of applying the filter will result in the equivalent digital values as a 705.6kHz sampling of the analog signal. (This would be the strongest defition, but this has not been confirmed much less had a proof presented). However, I think my original thesis still stands -- although technically "feasible" in software, I haven't seen a truly packaged solution even for offline conversion, much less for streaming. (I will say, not to bring up a big debate on the topic, that I have my reasons to be a bit skeptical of "5%" CPU bec my admittedly unoptimized offline test code when I tried it last fall was closer to 60% of a 4 core CPU... Of course, on a GPU with 2000+ DSP cores, it would be easy, but would probably consume around 70+ watts of power.) Thus, if you like what WTA does for you (and I do), all other chatter is just noise until this situation changes.

As a former DirectStream person who converted to Chord Blu2/DAVE last fall, I unfortunately agree.... (and matched my actions to that conclusion)

Listening is very possible today -- Blu2 has same MScaler today sans some 2GHz RF blocking on the output BNC connectors, which most Blu2 owners (myself included) have implemented via adding ferrites to the 75ohm cables to DAC. This will be built into the HMS. So it isn't pure speculation. I would suspect most folks chiming in as fans are actually Blu2 owners today.

The one I would love to see is a comparison betw HMS(or Blu2)+DAVE vs MSB Premier (same $ approx), Reference (more), or Select 2 (way more). I've already made my selection taking into account sampling dCS, Berkeley, Lampi (strange beast for my tastes) and a few others. At the time, the MSBs aside from Select 2 (way above $ range) were not yet out -- I am less motivated now to make a personal effort to seek out a personal comparison post-purchase but would love to read about it.

And it also looks like a DAC so it can be inserted anywhere a DAC can, without fuss. This is not true for software I’ve seen.

Again, we seem to have no real disagreement. Yea, fine tuning takes time, though there are at least tools to compute with arbitrary precision to get the coefficients calculation. But that's why I bought a Blu2 MScaler.... Windows is my platform at home. I don't want to build/configure/manage an extra Linux box.... so I paid for a package solution. I had misread the suggestion that there is a way to get a software-only equivalent solution working w/in my existing Windows-based PC environments (like my Windows box in the office) and my curiosity was sparked. I am by no means attacking HQP. But having said that, I am by no means regretting the Chord purchase either.

Sure... if the point is digital == software.... If I take a 6 month vacation, I can build a sinc upsampler that runs as a Windows driver like the way Dirac works and it would cost me nothing except maybe the cost of an EV code signing certificate to make my AV happy (though that runs $700 or so!)... "It's just software" as we like to say in the office (when there's nothing secret or patented involved). I don't think that changes the conclusion that some folks want something already packaged that works well and find value in that. Classic make vs buy. Or as I stated early on "Yes, I am paying for packaging."

Then I think we are in 100% agreement one one premise, but perhaps we have a misunderstanding on another premise. I have no doubt that whatever MScaler does digitally can be done in software on a general purpose CPU -- the fact that it's a disclosed algorithm helps! (Hardware analog noise would be another dimension, but just focusing on digital for my discussion.) I've actually argued the same with some of the Blu2 folks elsewhere and have even provided performance stats on some pretty dumb implementations showing a proof-of-concept speed-wise (though I did concede that wattage-wise, there may be a factor of 5x difference after optimization). Building a ahrdware box to pass thorugh the signal is not something I want to undertake. (That's why I suggested if someone put out a USB audio in -> USB audio out, I would gladly try it.) Where we had a bit of a misunderstanding is that I though the implication was that HQ today can already handle my needed data flows (WASAPI and Windows mixer) in a ready-to-go piece of software. I guess I am now back to where I started -- was I willing to pay 10k USD last year to get it all packaged for what I heard? Yes. So would I pay 5k USD today? Yes. Would I if a $500 software ready-to-go solution were available (or a $1000 mini Linux box with USB pass throughs?) Probably not ...unless a comparison proves a disappointment due to analog issues. But it doesn't appear that such an alternative solution is on offer.

I confess to having skipped this as the web site copy suggested that this is an OEM library and not something an end user can install on windows (some kind of signed driver I would expect). I am still confused though bec it says for Linux. Jusr to confirm: Is Embedded ready to go for the windows end user?