• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Chord quest, Vs Rme adi-2 dac fs + tap count.

Joined
Apr 4, 2021
Messages
40
Likes
16
#1
Hi everyone my first post!

I have a Chord Quest that I'm happy with, but I'm looking for an eq solution for my problematic room. I thought about testing the highly acclaimed Rme Dac. I have seen most reviews on YouTube, most seem to think qutest is the best, but only by a slight margin. The general consensus is that the qutest is slightly smoother and Rme is crisp and sharp. One reviewer believes that it is because of the much higher tap count of the chord. And also said that it can't be equlized away because it's not about frequency but probably because of tap count.

I saw Amir write this in the end of his review of the chord: I wonder how good of a DAC Rob could design using an off-the-shelf DAC chip. Likely would be just as good and cost a lot less....

So my last question would be, is there any science saying that a higher tap count is not necessary? Because it makes a lot of sense to have a higher count.
 

Purité Audio

Major Contributor
Industry Insider
Barrowmaster
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
4,544
Likes
3,171
Location
London
#2
None whatsoever, what we have is Rob stating that increased tap length equals better SQ but absolutely no substantiation.
I strongly suspect you would not be able to tell the two dacs apart, comparing unsighted.
Keith
 
OP
G
Joined
Apr 4, 2021
Messages
40
Likes
16
Thread Starter #3
None whatsoever, what we have is Rob stating that increased tap length equals better SQ but absolutely no substantiation.
I strongly suspect you would not be able to tell the two dacs apart, comparing unsighted.
Keith
That's what I hope for, but I'm interested in the science behind your statement, if there is a company that's basing all its products on a certain technique, then I think it's worth a solid explanation if you call it all bullshit. After all it's a very solid DAC with top notch measurements.
 

Purité Audio

Major Contributor
Industry Insider
Barrowmaster
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
4,544
Likes
3,171
Location
London
#4
Amir has measured at least two Chord dacs, the measurements are excellent, but in the contemporary audio market that apparently isn’t enough , you need a USP, hence the tap length, Rob/Chord have never published any data/testing which substantiates their claim and there is nothing extraordinary in their measurements.
Compare for yourself, without knowing which you are listening to.
Keith
 

BDWoody

Chief Cat Herder
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
4,086
Likes
10,066
Location
Mid-Atlantic, USA. (Maryland)
#5
That's what I hope for, but I'm interested in the science behind your statement, if there is a company that's basing all its products on a certain technique, then I think it's worth a solid explanation if you call it all bullshit. After all it's a very solid DAC with top notch measurements.
It's not calling it bullshit, it's saying that whatever it does won't change the way the music sounds.

As stated above, they are generally respected in terms of engineering. What is missing is any controlled testing that demonstrates any audible difference or preference between it any competent run of the mill DAC.
 
OP
G
Joined
Apr 4, 2021
Messages
40
Likes
16
Thread Starter #6
It's not calling it bullshit, it's saying that whatever it does won't change the way the music sounds.

As stated above, they are generally respected in terms of engineering. What is missing is any controlled testing that demonstrates any audible difference or preference between it any competent run of the mill DAC.
Well if he is saying that it does not do what they claim, then it is calling their claims bullshit.

Well well, I'm just interested to know if someone can explain scientifically why it would not make a difference sonically? You know I would like to have a DAC as good as the qutest but with all the features and the Rme.

What better place to ask these questions than on Audioscience forums? :)
 
OP
G
Joined
Apr 4, 2021
Messages
40
Likes
16
Thread Starter #7
Amir has measured at least two Chord dacs, the measurements are excellent, but in the contemporary audio market that apparently isn’t enough , you need a USP, hence the tap length, Rob/Chord have never published any data/testing which substantiates their claim and there is nothing extraordinary in their measurements.
Compare for yourself, without knowing which you are listening to.
Keith
Well I think I might order an Rme, and let my girlfriend switch DACs so I can test. Though she starts getting a little annoyed with all my blind testing at home
 

Racheski

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
1,105
Likes
1,552
Location
Chicago
#8
To move this thread along because I find it interesting, here is what Rob Watts claims:
What I have done is to make no assumptions about whether something makes a difference to the sound unless I actually do a listening test. And listening to increasing tap lengths always improves the sound quality. With Dave, I am at 164,000 taps, and I know that that is not the end of it and that further improvements are possible.
https://www.the-ear.net/how-to/rob-watts-chord-mojo-tech

I think ASR would call BS on listening tests always revealing that more taps equals improved SQ.
 

BDWoody

Chief Cat Herder
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
4,086
Likes
10,066
Location
Mid-Atlantic, USA. (Maryland)
#9
Well if he is saying that it does not do what they claim, then it is calling their claims bullshit.
For people who do their listening impressions without controls, it likely will sound better. They paid for it or designed it to after all.

To move this thread along because I find it interesting, here is what Rob Watts claims:

https://www.the-ear.net/how-to/rob-watts-chord-mojo-tech

I think ASR would call BS on listening tests always revealing that more taps equals improved SQ.
Yeah...that's BS...i stand corrected.

Thing is, I'll bet he believes it. Doesn't mean they aren't well, or interestingly engineered, just means the claims of sonic superiority are anecdotal.
 
OP
G
Joined
Apr 4, 2021
Messages
40
Likes
16
Thread Starter #10
For people who do their listening impressions without controls, it likely will sound better. They paid for it or designed it to after all.



Yeah...that's BS...i stand corrected.

Thing is, I'll bet he believes it. Doesn't mean they aren't well, or interestingly engineered, just means the claims of sonic superiority are anecdotal.
Hm, so I guess then we don't really know, his claims are bold, but we have no solid proof yet that it's bs. It would be interesting if someone could do a controlled blind test, between maybe Rme, topping d90 and a higher end chord DAC. Maybe I can film my own little blind test when I get the Rme.
 

Racheski

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
1,105
Likes
1,552
Location
Chicago
#11
Hm, so I guess then we don't really know, his claims are bold, but we have no solid proof yet that it's bs. It would be interesting if someone could do a controlled blind test, between maybe Rme, topping d90 and a higher end chord DAC. Maybe I can film my own little blind test when I get the Rme.
We have no proof that it is true either.
 
OP
G
Joined
Apr 4, 2021
Messages
40
Likes
16
Thread Starter #14
The error with a normal number of taps is already far smaller than anyone can possibly hear. Making it more inaudible is pointless.
Ok, that's what I thought. How does taps differ from resolution? And can you point me in some direction to where I can find info about taps and what number is considered to be audible or not?

Btw I don't even think I could pass a blind test between 320kbps MP3 and cd. So if this somehow relates to that then I don't think I could hear it.
 

Phorize

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 26, 2019
Messages
695
Likes
774
Location
U.K
#16
Well if he is saying that it does not do what they claim, then it is calling their claims bullshit.

Well well, I'm just interested to know if someone can explain scientifically why it would not make a difference sonically? You know I would like to have a DAC as good as the qutest but with all the features and the Rme.

What better place to ask these questions than on Audioscience forums? :)
You seem to be saying that an unsubstantiated but falsifiable claim about Chords fpga requires rebutting. That’s a logical error; his dacs don’t measure any better than well implemented of the shelf dac chips costing considerably less to the end user. It’s Rob Watts that has to support his own claim with facts and so far he has failed.
 
OP
G
Joined
Apr 4, 2021
Messages
40
Likes
16
Thread Starter #17
The RME DAC only has limited EQ capabilities, so might not be enough to fix your room issues anyway.
The big issue is that my room has extreme bass dips in frequency at my listening position. It might help, at least Moore than my qutest.
 

tw99

Active Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
278
Likes
529
Location
West Berkshire, UK
#18
Room EQ is better at fixing peaks than filling dips. Personally I'd start by measuring the room using REW and a calibrated microphone, and then see what problems actually need fixing, rather than just jumping to a possible solution.
 

DSJR

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2020
Messages
496
Likes
575
Location
Suffolk Coastal, UK
#19
Just to put another boot in. I think audiophiles think commercial music recordings are actually better than they are and tend to latch on one aspect at the expense of the rest of the music mix as heard. You seemingly improve one aspect and the rest goes out the window. Just a thought, I'm still reeling/fuming over an M-Scaler dem I was at, hearing a difference with it switched in but feeling the volume might have been changed - apparently it is when switched in and with no correction for it...
 
OP
G
Joined
Apr 4, 2021
Messages
40
Likes
16
Thread Starter #20
You seem to be saying that an unsubstantiated but falsifiable claim about Chords fpga requires rebutting. That’s a logical error; his dacs don’t measure any better than well implemented of the shelf dac chips costing considerably less to the end user. It’s Rob Watts that has to support his own claim with facts and so far he has failed.
Well, of course he needs to provide proof, but so does the one saying he is making nonsensical claims. How can it be illogical to demand proof from booth sides? If one claimes a difference and one not, then booth need proof. I'm pretty new to measurements so I try to understand them, but I for one are just as critical to measurements as to random reviews. One area in specific has made me think this way, and that is tube amps, to my ears they sound better, more real, and this has always been the case for me, long before I was that in to audio, but according to measurements (if you don't understand them) tube amps would sound shit.

Ok, so the measurements of the DAC tells there is no difference at all, which measurement would be off when it comes to insufficient taps? And might it not be a measurement that is not performed? Or does not exist?


I'm sorry, but I just want to know, if Rob watts was a nobody then I might not have cared, but Chord is a reputable brand that has a lot of followers. Yes there are bullshit brands like nordost and transparent that has a cult following but, I think this is more complicated than cable measurements.
 
Top Bottom