• 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). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

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

OP
G

Gurra1980

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2021
Messages
44
Likes
26
Well it looks a lot more advanced than this. But is it really?
Screenshot_20210405-113219.jpg
 
OP
G

Gurra1980

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2021
Messages
44
Likes
26
Indeed, nothing wrong with it, just limited to the 5. If you have in-room measurements in REW, you can see how far you can get with 5 PEQ’s using the EQ tool.
Well I actually thought it was almost endless in its capabilities. I may have to rethink this. Thanks.
 
OP
G

Gurra1980

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2021
Messages
44
Likes
26
Yes it is. What you show is a fixed 5 band GEQ.
Yes that's what I thought, so what you can do I guess is choose one of the five and then shape the curve around it? Is this correct?
 

Jimbob54

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
9,126
Likes
11,673
Yes it is. What you show is a fixed 5 band GEQ.
And its 5 plus the 2 shelf filters. But as others have said, depends what the OP room needs and how far they want to go.

As regards the chord dacs vs any other well measuring example from these pages I suggest the OP buys one from amazon, does their own (level matched and reasonably well controlled) tests and flogs the chord if they can't discern the difference or returns the amazon one if the chord is audibly superior.
 

Jimbob54

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
9,126
Likes
11,673
Yes that's what I thought, so what you can do I guess is choose one of the five and then shape the curve around it? Is this correct?
I think you need to find articles on using parametric eq. Simply put, for each of the bands you tell the device what frequency to vary, by how much and what gradient the curve is around that freq (how steep or broad the "hill" is around the freq)

Edit, hill or valley of course.
 
Last edited:

voodooless

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
5,069
Likes
8,289
Location
Netherlands
If you want more EQ options, check out the Motu interfaces that can run as standalone units. The ultra lite MK4 is quite powerful, and within budget.

Edit: also the Motu only has a limited number of EQ’s available it seems :( is otherwise much more powerful though.
 
Last edited:

Phorize

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 26, 2019
Messages
1,288
Likes
1,705
Location
U.K
The FPGA’s extraordinary capability enables a number of key sonic benefits, including significantly improved timing and the best noise-shaper performance of any known DAC. DAVE’s technology delivers music with unmatched reality and musicality, with an unrivalled timing response.

They claim it has sonic benefits, unmatched musicality and realism.

What do you believe is concrete or specific about claiming ‘sonic benefits’, ‘unmatched musicality’ or ‘realism’? I posit that these claims are in absolutely meaningless. Do you disagree? If so, I’d be genuinely interested as to why.:)
 
OP
G

Gurra1980

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2021
Messages
44
Likes
26
What do you believe is concrete or specific about claiming ‘sonic benefits’, ‘unmatched musicality’ or ‘realism’? I posit that these claims are in absolutely meaningless. Do you disagree? If so, I’d be genuinely interested as to why.:)
Haha sorry, but I'm not really interested in debating who says what and why. Let's get back on topic :)
 
OP
G

Gurra1980

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2021
Messages
44
Likes
26
If you want more EQ options, check out the Motu interfaces that can run as standalone units. The ultra lite MK4 is quite powerful, and within budget.

Edit: also the Motu only has a limited number of EQ’s available it seems :( is otherwise much more powerful though.

Hmm, I will look into that! :)
 

Phorize

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 26, 2019
Messages
1,288
Likes
1,705
Location
U.K
Haha sorry, but I'm not really interested in debating who says what and why. Let's get back on topic :)
Fair enough, I’m certainly not debating it or questioning your right to discuss any of this:)I’m merely pointing out that chord haven’t actually made a claim that their dac sounds better than anyone else’s, but the fact that you feel that there may be some reason based on science and engineering to look more deeply at the fully resolved question if whether a dac can in reality be measured accurately demonstrates that they certain left you feeling that there is something in what they are saying ;)I’m not sure what should damage Rob Watts reputation as an engineer more, a sincerely held belief in magic, or an insincerely stated one to sell dacs.
 

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
4,611
Likes
10,350
Location
Hampshire
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?
How much maths have you studied?

The filters we're talking about can be represented as y(n) = b0 * x(n) + b1 * x(n - 1) * b2 * x(n - 2) ... bM * x(n - M), where x(n) is the input value of sample number n and y(n) is the corresponding output. Put differently, output sample n is a linear combination of the input sample and the M prior input samples. The constants b0 ... bM are the coefficients, and they are also equal to the impulse response of the filter. Graphically, the filter can be represented like this:
img593.png

Here we can easily see that the input signal is "tapped" at M+1 places in order to produce the output. The number M is also known as the order of the filter. Without going into detail, the higher the filter order, the closer it can be made to approximate a desired response.

An ideal low-pass filter, which is what we're aiming for, has a perfectly flat frequency response up to the cut-off, above which the input is fully attenuated. This is only possible with an infinitely long sinc filter, so some compromise is necessary. The deviation from the ideal can be described in terms of passband flatness (ripple), stop-band attenuation, and width of the transition band.

Suppose we want to resample CD audio to twice its original rate. We want to minimise ripple below 20 kHz and maximise attenuation above 22 kHz (half the input sample rate). The interval between 20 kHz and 22 kHz, transition band, is unimportant. It is inaudible, and besides, the recording/production process has probably already mangled the content in that range.

First, consider a case with modest requirements, 0.1 dB passband ripple and 80 dB stopband rejection. Plugging these constraints into the Matlab filter designer using the equiripple method, we get a filter of order 147 (that's 148 taps) with this magnitude response:
1617619102007.png


Zooming in on the passband, we can see that the ripple meets the requirement:
1617619620085.png


This might be good enough for, say, a portable audio player where cost and power consumption are more important than extreme performance. We are, however, building a high-end system and want something better. Hence, we tighten the specification to 0.0001 dB passband ripple and 180 dB stopband rejection. This produces a filter of order 394, and the magnitude response looks exactly as requested:
1617619810334.png


This level of performance far exceeds all established limits of audibility. Furthermore, it exceeds the capabilities of any amplifier. This is where any reasonable person would stop and call it good enough. But what if, like Rob Watts, we are not reasonable and believe we can hear things at -300 dB? Matlab can help. The equiripple design method doesn't work with this constraint, so we switch to the window method. Using a cut-off frequency of 21 kHz and suitable window parameters, we get a filter of order 1000 with this response:
1617623504269.png


Passband ripple is virtually non-existent (note the scale on the y axis):
1617623563336.png


Given the analogue limitations imposed by physical reality, overkill doesn't begin to describe this. And yet Rob Watts wants to use a filter that is ONE THOUSAND times longer again. It's beyond ludicrous.

It should also be noted that in the M-scaler tests published by Stereophile, it doesn't come anywhere close even to the second filter shown above, so all those taps are essentially wasted.
 
Last edited:

Veri

Master Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Messages
8,778
Likes
10,888
It should also be noted that in the M-scaler tests published by Stereophile, it doesn't come anywhere close even to the second filter shown above, so all those taps are essentially wasted.
Right. To that I can only ask, "how come". Is the premise of Chord's scaler, besides insanely overkill, also a marketing lie? Or is what Stereophile measured basically the target they intended...?
 

abdo123

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 15, 2020
Messages
6,459
Likes
6,509
Location
Brussels, Belgium
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.

Wouldn’t it be much cheaper to just get 4 subwoofers? 2 below the ceiling 2 on the floor in the middle of each wall instead of fixing the dip for just one person?
 
OP
G

Gurra1980

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2021
Messages
44
Likes
26
Wouldn’t it be much cheaper to just get 4 subwoofers? 2 below the ceiling 2 on the floor in the middle of each wall instead of fixing the dip for just one person?
It would be nice, but getting 4 subs and keeping my DAC, don't think I can afford that. My budget is already broken
 
Top Bottom