CHORD M-Scaler Review (Upsampler)

[DavidEdwinAston]

Surely, if their missionary quest ends them up with a $450000 turntable and ancillaries, they are going to be delighted?

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Surely, if their missionary quest ends them up with a $450000 turntable and ancillaries, they are going to be delighted?

Yep. It’s the gurus and preachers who benefit financially

 

[brandall10]

Okay... now it's time to get the DAVE in. A buddy of mine with a bit too much $$ to burn is still haunted by his experience trying one out at a CanJam a few years back.

It's weird to square a company like Chord. They're capable of good engineering, you can see it in their baseline products. Then you reach for the stratosphere and the products get wonky.

 

[CN211276]

The Dave, TT2 or Qutest would suffice as they all have dual BNC inputs. 765kHz through a Y adapter is not the same.

 

[mansr]

The Dave, TT2 or Qutest would suffice as they all have dual BNC inputs. 765kHz through a Y adapter is not the same.

What on earth makes you say that? It's the same signals, only using a more compact connector.

 

[srkbear]

I just detest this company and its self-anointed guru more and more. This review left me feeling a disquieting combination of grumpiness and schadenfreude. I can only imagine what pettiness Watts is peddling after reading this objective assessment of his ongoing larceny—and to think that this is meant to be an accessory!

 

[CN211276]

What on earth makes you say that? It's the same signals, only using a more compact connector.

There is more to it than that and a Google search should provide an explanation.

 

[BDWoody]

There is more to it than that and a Google search should provide an explanation.

Ok, either you have no idea where you are, or you are just here to troll.

That's enough for you in this thread. Feel free to do more reading.

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

Yep. It’s the gurus and preachers who benefit financially

Yes but just imagine that device, spinning as silent as the grave, and with greater accuracy than the atomic clock! Forever! Mind you, things will go downhill when you put a record on it!

 

[mccririck]

Trying to win against math? You pick hard battles I must say.


Yes we can see that you are not clearly, just as clearly as the fact that you do not know those things.

Well that was an informative response. Not.

 

[Rednaxela]

Yep. It’s the gurus and preachers who benefit financially

And spiritually I’d say. I think we shouldn’t underestimate how addictive it is to have a following.

 

[DonR]

There's a lot wrong with your post there. Human ears are less sensitive to lower frequencies. Amir has talked about this in one of his videos.

When you say "a sound has to be sampled only twice in order to be properly reconstructed" I don't think you understand what "properly reconstructed" means. It does not mean it's going to be perfect.

I'm not a sound engineer or electrical engineer and I know those two things. Don't be ignorant.

Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem posits exactly that. When the sampling frequency is > 2 X the sampled analog frequency, the original signal is mathematically the only solution.

 

[pma]

Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem posits exactly that. When the sampling frequency is > 2 X the sampled analog frequency, the original signal is mathematically the only solution.

A small note, 2x the highest frequency component of the sampled signal. In case of musical instruments, the highest frequency components in their transients are easily up to about 80 kHz. So 192 kHz sampling is needed to do the job properly.

 

[DonR]

A small note, 2x the highest frequency component of the sampled signal. In case of musical instruments, the highest frequency components in their transients are easily up to about 80 kHz. So 192 kHz sampling is needed to do the job properly.

The theorem expects the original signal to be appropriately bandwidth limited.

 

[Blumlein 88]

A small note, 2x the highest frequency component of the sampled signal. In case of musical instruments, the highest frequency components in their transients are easily up to about 80 kHz. So 192 kHz sampling is needed to do the job properly.

Some are more than 120 kHz. But we don't need to sample those because we cannot hear that and almost all microphones don't reach that high either. Being generous there's nothing to be gained audibly at more than 96 khz.

 

[earlevel]

A small note, 2x the highest frequency component of the sampled signal. In case of musical instruments, the highest frequency components in their transients are easily up to about 80 kHz. So 192 kHz sampling is needed to do the job properly.

Beat to death in:

High Resolution Audio: Does It Matter?

High Resolution Audio: Does It Matter? By Amir Majidimehr [Note: This article was published in the January 2015 issue of Widescreen Review Magazine. This is a slightly revised edition.] Yes! Thought I give you the short answer first in case you are impatient like me. If you have read my...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[DSJR]

Products like this genuinely appeal to those who insist they can hear things that cannot be measured and their systems have two or three items which ASR tested badly yet they insist beyond shadow of doubt they heard improvements, not realising sadly how our eyesight and sense of touch and feel makes such a huge effect on what we think we hear. I doubt they can be convinced though sadly and I had to leave certain forums because I was peeing in the wind too much - and some call posters here closed-minded...

 

[amirm]

A point that needs making is that the Mscaler is designed to enhance the performance of DACs with dual BNC inputs. This is limited to the Qutest, TT2 and Dave. It does not include Chord's mobile DACs such as the Hugo 2, where it is merely compatable.

So a more expensive Chord DAC needs more help than a cheaper one? If so, that proves that longer tap filters are worse, not better!

 

[DSJR]

I repeat, in the Chord presentation, there was *definitely* a difference - I thought the music had a deeper and more atmospheric soundstage as RW claims on 'The Wam' site apparently. What stumped me (but none of the other listeners it seems) is that the mean volume seemed slightly reduced with the M-Scaler working. sadly, I wasn't able to return and listen again under my terms and as I said earlier, I've had similar things with absolute phase in systems sensitive to it and slight level differences, especially with half a minute or so between A and B, will screw it up for the listener anyway. As for trusting the ears alone (and the mind behind them) to tell things that measurements can't - FECK OFF - especially if you're over 60 years old (or close to it). Thank heavens in my case as *everything* now 'sounds' wonderful and eff subjective differences now

 

[DonR]

I repeat, in the Chord presentation, there was *definitely* a difference - I thought the music had a deeper and more atmospheric soundstage as RW claims on 'The Wam' site apparently. What stumped me (but none of the other listeners it seems) is that the mean volume seemed slightly reduced with the M-Scaler working. sadly, I wasn't able to return and listen again under my terms and as I said earlier, I've had similar things with absolute phase in systems sensitive to it and slight level differences, especially with half a minute or so between A and B, will screw it up for the listener anyway. As for trusting the ears alone (and the mind behind them) to tell things that measurements can't - FECK OFF - especially if you're over 60 years old (or close to it). Thank heavens in my case as *everything* now 'sounds' wonderful and eff subjective differences now

Certainly makes the hobby cheaper for us as time goes on.