Timbo21

DAC Off Part 2: Qutest vs RME ADI-2 DAC

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Blackmetalboon said:

Upscales to 705.6kHz from 44.1kHz and 768kHz from 96kHz. Yes it requires the dual BNC cables to do this.

Then it must be doing 768kHz from 48kHz (16x), which makes more sense... Must be a mistake on the webpage.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rdale said:

The implementation of the filters in HQPlayer is different, and just because it can have a million taps and upscale to the same frequencies as the Chord doesn't mean it is the same. I can't say I've personally heard either.

They are indeed different beasts:

https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/46501-chords-new-m-scaler/?do=findComment&comment=852962

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dealer
14 hours ago, PuritéAudio said:

There you go, here is the effect of the ‘four’ Chord Qutest  filters ,as you can see although there are nominally four there are really aren’t.

9-BD3-C5-A1-A269-4-CDE-BCF5-D5-B2-C7-B6-

Keith

I have asked Rob Watts about this and he has told me, “There is no measured difference between the FS16 or FS256 WTA filter option - not in the audio bandwidth. You would see differences above 384 kHz.... You would also see very clear differences if you applied an impulse using 768 kHz too - one would be a symmetric linear phase ringing, the other would be second order RC type response.”

In other words the Audio Science information is not sufficient to say that there is no difference between some of the filters. And that is the difficultly with just accepting stuff on the internet at face value. 

Edit. And don’t worry, that warning applies to me as well. 

Edited by Fourlegs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheFlash said:

Perhaps you miss my point. You and Keith have always referred to the differences, for example, which those who prefer vinyl enjoy, and used the word distortion, consistently, to describe this; I have always thought this rather disparagging but you claim that it is not a value judgment you're making, it is simply a fact that any modification to the original signal is, by definition, a distortion of that signal.

Here we find ourselves talking about filters which do "stuff" to the original signal; but the word distortion is not being used to describe the changes.

Why?

2 hours ago, tuga said:

I see your point but, unlike digital, with vinyl we are talking about quite a wide panoply of distortions and their magnitude is incomparably larger.

See here for an example of a wide panoply of distortions of considerable magnitude...ouch:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/borderpatrol-digital-analogue-converter-se-measurements

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Fourlegs said:

I have asked Rob Watts about this and he has told me, “There is no measured difference between the FS16 or FS256 WTA filter option - not in the audio bandwidth. You would see differences above 384 kHz.... You would also see very clear differences if you applied an impulse using 768 kHz too - one would be a symmetric linear phase ringing, the other would be second order RC type response.”

In other words the Audio Science information is not sufficient to say that there is no difference between some of the filters. And that is the difficultly with just accepting stuff on the internet at face value. 

Edit. And don’t worry, that warning applies to me as well. 

What do you mean by that? There's no denying the roll-off in two of the filters:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/chord-electronics-qutest-da-processor-measurements

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, tuga said:

Then it must be doing 768kHz from 48kHz (16x), which makes more sense... Must be a mistake on the webpage.

I believe your correct, the manual appears to state 768kHz is possible from 48kHz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dealer
21 minutes ago, tuga said:

What do you mean by that? There's no denying the roll-off in two of the filters:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/chord-electronics-qutest-da-processor-measurements

It is not what I mean that matters as I am merely quoting Rob Watts but i think he means that there are factors in all the filters that make them sound different (to him at least) but that the Audio Science and Stereophile measurements are too simplistic to capture the differences.

In other words roll off is not the only thing which affects the sound.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Dealer
12 hours ago, Metatron said:

Remind me tomorrow and I can probably PM them.

I have Wilson Benesch A.C.T. speakers.

I got a smoother treble response graph with them than the 8C. Same in bass actually as there were more undulations in the 8C response when both were var-smoothed. However, I preferred the 8C bass which is more likely a result of perfect phase accuracy and alignment. However, on busy layered music, they didn't resolve the layers so well, sounding muddier.

Although I tried to EQ both to the Bruel+Kjaer curve, I found the 8C fitted better in the lower mids, while my speakers fitted better in the bass and treble.

I expected the 8C to display close to the BK curve just setting the distance from side and front wall but that didn't happen.

Yes please, did Steve install the 8Cs?

Keith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Fourlegs said:

It is not what I mean that matters as I am merely quoting Rob Watts but i think he means that there are factors in all the filters that make them sound different (to him at least) but that the Audio Science and Stereophile measurements are too simplistic to capture the differences.

In other words roll off is not the only thing which affects the sound.

I agree with your last sentence. But JA has made several measurements, not just frequency response, which characterise other aspects of sound quality or fidelity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dealer
32 minutes ago, tuga said:

I agree with your last sentence. But JA has made several measurements, not just frequency response, which characterise other aspects of sound quality or fidelity.

Thanks. In fact it was the audio science plots which were quoted by K and they were purported to show that two pairs of the filters were the same. I have now looked at the JA stereophile tests and they do nor seem to suggest that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Wammer

I occasionally enjoy a recap.

Whilst I don't get too excited by DACs, I am intrigued by the differences people might hear (and measure, of course!) between DACs at around the same price point, that being £1,000 here. And I suspect other wammers might share that interest. We've had a minor excursion into a very different price territory recently.

The original DAC-off thread started with these:
* Audiolab M-DAC+ - £800 rrp
* Bluesound Node 2 DAC and network streamer- £500 rrp
* Chord Electronics Qutest - £1,195 rrp
* Focusrite Clarett Pre 8 - £700 - £1,000

This second instalment started as a shoot-out between the "winner" Qutest and the intriguing RME ADI-2 FS. @ChemMan has also mentioned the Schitt Gungnir Multi-bit Gen 5. There appear to be other (non rackmount) models in the RME DAC range, including the Pro FS, not sure if anyone has heard/plans to hear this, particularly those who have enjoyed the ADI-2 to date.

Is this where we are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Dealer

The ADI-Pro is a D/A and A/D, it is equally cool, more expensive though.

Keith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PuritéAudio said:

Yes please, did Steve install the 8Cs?

Keith

All in a PM I've sent you :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, TheFlash said:

I occasionally enjoy a recap.

Whilst I don't get too excited by DACs, I am intrigued by the differences people might hear (and measure, of course!) between DACs at around the same price point, that being £1,000 here. And I suspect other wammers might share that interest. We've had a minor excursion into a very different price territory recently.

The original DAC-off thread started with these:
* Audiolab M-DAC+ - £800 rrp
* Bluesound Node 2 DAC and network streamer- £500 rrp
* Chord Electronics Qutest - £1,195 rrp
* Focusrite Clarett Pre 8 - £700 - £1,000

This second instalment started as a shoot-out between the "winner" Qutest and the intriguing RME ADI-2 FS. @ChemMan has also mentioned the Schitt Gungnir Multi-bit Gen 5. There appear to be other (non rackmount) models in the RME DAC range, including the Pro FS, not sure if anyone has heard/plans to hear this, particularly those who have enjoyed the ADI-2 to date.

Is this where we are?

That’s about it, I reckon!

I am still intrigued why Chord DACs, especially from Qutest upwards, seem to attract either intense loyalty to their extraordinary detail, or revulsion at their excessive brilliance.  (Reminds me of my view a few years ago of most Focal speakers)

I’d love to know if they really do uncover what most pass by, or simply present what any DAC can retrieve in a unique (and sometimes headache inducing) fashion.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Nopiano said:

I am still intrigued why Chord DACs, especially from Qutest upwards, seem to attract either intense loyalty to their extraordinary detail, or revulsion at their excessive brilliance.  (Reminds me of my view a few years ago of most Focal speakers)

The two, "detail" and "brightness", don't necessarily go together.

If the top end Chords are as good as people say that they are, and as measurements seem to indicate, if there's brightness there is a fair chance that the cause is elsewhere in the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.