[GuiltyRocker]

Coffee is very subjective, you can measure it‘s compounds but it‘s not very helpful. In that sense it‘s even more subjective than Hifi, but you can still rate it.
In order to rate products that are meant for subjective experience you need a group of people that are calibrated to each other.
So like with coffee you would have to agree on parameters that are important like timbre variation, dynamics etc…
Then you let the group listen to different gear and everybody rates each variable, after which they compare their findings. If your experience, of let‘s say brightness, is way of compared to the others you would adapt a bit (calibrate to each other, so you speak the same „language“). When all are calibrated you pick the gear you wanted to test and rate it again on the same parameters as before. Now everybody would be very close to the other in their rating as they are speaking the same language and the goals (what good sound would sound like) are clearly defined.

Now, if you would have a calibrated group of people comparing every other DAC to a Dave it would be the winner in terms of timbre variation (the gap between the brightest/hardest sound and the warmest/softest sound is the biggest). There are a lot more variables in which Dave would be better but this is one of the most obvious imo.

When Rob said some people are just not good at listening tests it would mean that a person is not able to calibrate to the group that are performing the test together.
Such a person would always be way of to the others even after lot‘s of comparisons. This is not a problem of course, you can still enjoy your Hifi. Just don‘t work as a tester

Excellent.

 

[thehutch]

Coffee is very subjective, you can measure it‘s compounds but it‘s not very helpful. In that sense it‘s even more subjective than Hifi, but you can still rate it.
In order to rate products that are meant for subjective experience you need a group of people that are calibrated to each other.
So like with coffee you would have to agree on parameters that are important like timbre variation, dynamics etc…
Then you let the group listen to different gear and everybody rates each variable, after which they compare their findings. If your experience, of let‘s say brightness, is way of compared to the others you would adapt a bit (calibrate to each other, so you speak the same „language“). When all are calibrated you pick the gear you wanted to test and rate it again on the same parameters as before. Now everybody would be very close to the other in their rating as they are speaking the same language and the goals (what good sound would sound like) are clearly defined.

Now, if you would have a calibrated group of people comparing every other DAC to a Dave it would be the winner in terms of timbre variation (the gap between the brightest/hardest sound and the warmest/softest sound is the biggest). There are a lot more variables in which Dave would be better but this is one of the most obvious imo.

When Rob said some people are just not good at listening tests it would mean that a person is not able to calibrate to the group that are performing the test together.
Such a person would always be way of to the others even after lot‘s of comparisons. This is not a problem of course, you can still enjoy your Hifi. Just don‘t work as a tester

Where are the audio Q graders!?

 

[stemiki]

I have until the 4th quarter to get funds lined up to snag the Q,MS........

So, when do I sell my current M scaler????

As John Franks said, it's time to save your "pocket money" for the new QMS.

I don't know how many years ago I got my last pocket money and those who get pocket money now will perhaps be able to buy QMS at least in 10 years.

 

[FunkyBassMan]

Coffee is very subjective, you can measure it‘s compounds but it‘s not very helpful. In that sense it‘s even more subjective than Hifi, but you can still rate it.
In order to rate products that are meant for subjective experience you need a group of people that are calibrated to each other.
So like with coffee you would have to agree on parameters that are important like timbre variation, dynamics etc…
Then you let the group listen to different gear and everybody rates each variable, after which they compare their findings. If your experience, of let‘s say brightness, is way of compared to the others you would adapt a bit (calibrate to each other, so you speak the same „language“). When all are calibrated you pick the gear you wanted to test and rate it again on the same parameters as before. Now everybody would be very close to the other in their rating as they are speaking the same language and the goals (what good sound would sound like) are clearly defined.

Now, if you would have a calibrated group of people comparing every other DAC to a Dave it would be the winner in terms of timbre variation (the gap between the brightest/hardest sound and the warmest/softest sound is the biggest). There are a lot more variables in which Dave would be better but this is one of the most obvious imo.

When Rob said some people are just not good at listening tests it would mean that a person is not able to calibrate to the group that are performing the test together.
Such a person would always be way of to the others even after lot‘s of comparisons. This is not a problem of course, you can still enjoy your Hifi. Just don‘t work as a tester

Brilliant.

 

[Jawed]

I have until the 4th quarter to get funds lined up to snag the Q,MS........

So, when do I sell my current M scaler????

It will be built to order and there'll be a queue of orders ahead of yours when you place your order, so it could be six months or a year before you get yours, after you place your order.

To be fair, Chord is finalising a new building, so it will at least have more space for the construction of gear - but getting newly recruited employees up to speed with building gear will take time.

 

[thePhones]

Excellent.

Brilliant.

Thanks for the kind words

 

[SteveHulk]

I have until the 4th quarter to get funds lined up to snag the Q,MS........

So, when do I sell my current M scaler????

You'll also need to get a buyer lined up for a kidney and a chunk of your liver by the sound of it...

 

[GuiltyRocker]

You'll also need to get a buyer lined up for a kidney and a chunk of your liver by the sound of it...

Hahahahahahahaha, damn.

 

[muhammedcakin]

The specs i know for now:

Chord Electronics DAVE:

-Price: 80000£

 

[Digital Enigma]

£80,000 eh

 

[nwavesailor]

I haven't heard of a cost that high but who knows????

 

[Rob Watts]

Thanks for heads up Rob.
I have a few years for you:

1. Why working for 5 years for Dave's add-on rather than a new Dave? You had Dave, then the M Scaler add-on and noq Quarter M Scaler add-on.

2. I understand that Quartet M scaler has got a separate 75W power supply and 5 FPGAs. Essentially, you are adding more processing power to Dave? I am oversimplifying things, I understand, but in the nutshell this is what it does?

3. I completely agree with you that from a technical perspective, I have not seen any other DAC in the market, which is so advanced, but at the end of the day, this is not about complexity but about musicality (sorry for a cliche). T+ A 200 DAC with its DSD section sounds at par with the Dave if not better and probably is not that advanced.
This is all about the source. Feeding my DAC with bit perfect data and no processing is needed.

4. Are you planning to modify Dave's power supply so that one power supply can feed both the Dave and Quartet M Scaler?

Thank you and looking forward to a new product.

1. I am free to do what I choose, as I am not under contract with Chord, and only receive payments once products enter production. So my choices on long term R&D are based on two things only - intellectual curiosity and the path that will give me the most musical rewards in the long term. In fact, intellectual curiosity is driven by the desire to give me musical rewards - it's only by understanding that one can truly make progress. Only time will tell if I would have gotten more musical benefits by spending time on DACs than M scalers - but I know for certain that the effort gone into Quartet has been worthwhile and essential.

2. In simple terms yes indeed adding an M scaler adds more processing power to the DAC.

3. Agreed - it's all about getting emotional with music, but where I disagree with you is DSD - this sounds nothing like real acoustic instruments playing in space. My work is all about achieving that illusion, and for me reproducing the illusion of real instruments in space is essential for getting emotional with music.

4. No - you need physical separation so that the processing noise within an M scaler does not corrupt the delicate and sensitive analogue conversion within a DAC. Common power supplies won't give you that separation.

I am sure from a technical point of view it is better.
Whether it sounds "better" is very very subjective.

Absolutely - but we can certainly be objective in characterising subjective impressions into whether a change is closer to the illusion of real instruments in space or not - so long as it is rigorously done by a sensitive listener who actually knows what real acoustic instruments sound like. Of course, there is also the issue that some don't want that goal, but creating a sound that is different, then it doesn't matter how good a listener or how objective you are.

 

[Red Rd Wolf]

Absolutely - but we can certainly be objective in characterising subjective impressions into whether a change is closer to the illusion of real instruments in space or not - so long as it is rigorously done by a sensitive listener who actually knows what real acoustic instruments sound like.

So true! As a dear friend once said to me, "the only real benchmark is live music itself."
I am blessed to live in a city that attracts some of the best talent the world has to offer as well as some of the greatest venues avaliable to enable their talents to shine, NYC.
I am happy to report that my Chord Dave and current MScaler continue to provide me that emotional imagery every time I turn on the system. I will definitely be in line to add my name to the list of pre orders for the new Chord Quartet MScaler in silver along with the matching rack.

 

[Meridian7]

Mr. Ron Watts or anyone inclined in the matter, could you please shed light on my question:

The localization of a sound source depends on which ear hears it loudest but also on the distance between ears in relation to speed of sound, aka one ear hears it first.
Am I correct that this 'first hearing' is part of the definition called transients?
Part or the whole definition? Just to be sure I am on the correct page.

My main question: is crossfeed not messing up this localization advantage?
Is this why soundstage seems to narrow with rising crossfeed?

Should crossfeed protocol not inject a calculated timing correction of say 'distance between ears' divided by 'speed of sound' when adding left stereo signal to right ear, and right stereo signal to left ear? Or does this happen already so in crossfeed protocols?

Wondering if such protocol would mess up signals that comes from say 45 degrees instead of pure left or right.

So far my wresteling with crossfeed, thank you.