CHORD M-Scaler Review (Upsampler)

[AudioSceptic]

I guess we are wasting money on large telescopes. We can just use a postage stamped frame and create massive images from it! All we have to do is filter them! Oh wait, filter takes things away, not add them! Only in going after layman can you get away with such nonsense.

No, you have to *upscale* the image to create the extra information!

 

[tmtomh]

Can someone answer a more basic question? Don't all competent modern DACs oversample in order to reduce problems with the brick wall filtering? If so, what further advantage does upsampling give; if not, what is the purpose of oversampling? (I thought I understood the basics, but I now realise that I probably don't!)

No, I actually think you understand perfectly well. There’s nothing you’re missing - the device really is that superfluous.

 

[AudioSceptic]

No, I actually think you understand perfectly well. There’s nothing you’re missing - the device really is that superfluous.

4x oversampling was already the norm in the late 80s, and I remember that Cambridge Audio made a 16x player around then, so what is new anyway?

 

[mansr]

4x oversampling was already the norm in the late 80s, and I remember that Cambridge Audio made a 16x player around then, so what is new anyway?

Make that early 80s. The very first Philips CD player, the CD100 from 1982, had 4x oversampling. Only the early Sony players didn't.

 

[AudioSceptic]

Make that early 80s. The very first Philips CD player, the CD100 from 1982, had 4x oversampling. Only the early Sony players didn't.

Thanks. My recollection is that there was some controversy about which was better, 14 bit oversampled, or 16 bit NOS, but the 16 bit players soon had oversampling too.

 

[raif71]

Can someone answer a more basic question? Don't all competent modern DACs oversample in order to reduce problems with the brick wall filtering? If so, what further advantage does upsampling give; if not, what is the purpose of oversampling? (I thought I understood the basics, but I now realise that I probably don't!)

Not sure if someone have quoted this or if you have read it...but here, I upsample this again

What does this actually do?

https://chordelectronics.co.uk/product/hugo-mscaler/ Keith

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[mansr]

Thanks. My recollection is that there was some controversy about which was better, 14 bit oversampled, or 16 bit NOS, but the 16 bit players soon had oversampling too.

Yes, the first generation Philips players were 14-bit (TDA1540) with oversampling and noise-shaping. By 1986 (CD160), they had switched to a 16-bit DAC chip (TDA1541), also oversampling.

I have a few of those early CD players. Maybe I should run a comparison.

 

[AudioSceptic]

Not sure if someone have quoted this or if you have read it...but here, I upsample this again

What does this actually do?

https://chordelectronics.co.uk/product/hugo-mscaler/ Keith

www.audiosciencereview.com

To my unqualified but sceptical eye, it looks like 16x upsampled nonsense.

 

[tmtomh]

Yes, the first generation Philips players were 14-bit (TDA1540) with oversampling and noise-shaping. By 1986 (CD160), they had switched to a 16-bit DAC chip (TDA1541), also oversampling.

I have a few of those early CD players. Maybe I should run a comparison.

Didn't the first Philips players use 14-bit DACs because when the Philips-Sony partnership began, Philips was proposing a 14-bit rebooks standard to Sony's 16-bit proposal, and by the time the dust settled and 16-bit won out, Philips was already pretty far along in design and production of their hardware?

Also, do I recall correctly that some of the early Philips players (perhaps the ones just after the very first-generation machines?) used 2x of the 14-bit TDA DAC chips in tandem to create a 16-bit capable signal path?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Can someone answer a more basic question? Don't all competent modern DACs oversample in order to reduce problems with the brick wall filtering? If so, what further advantage does upsampling give; if not, what is the purpose of oversampling? (I thought I understood the basics, but I now realise that I probably don't!)

That is a little over-simplified. For most DACs you can consider them a black box that output what is equivalent to a 24 bit dac with good filtering or in increasingly common products selectable filtering.

So why oversample the normal 44.1 or 48 khz file? You can upsample in a way that provides a better filter. I posted an actual example where upsampling a 48 khz file eliminated some ultrasonic leakage that was there without upsampling and had eliminated some low level imaging. So a better if not necessarily audible result. The M-scaler can do even more advanced filtering as can something like HQplayer. Of course one can upsample with a lousy filter and get worse results like happens with MQA or other upsamplers like the early versions of the Secret Rabbit code upsampler.

Here is the example I posted.

Aliasing, imaging and upsampling a real example.

A couple of clarifications. Aliasing is when content above the Nyquist frequency (half the sampling rate) is folded back down into the recording by an ADC. Imaging is when content below the Nyquist frequency shows up mirror imaged above the Nyquist frequency during playback by a DAC. So what...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[AudioSceptic]

Didn't the first Philips players use 14-bit DACs because when the Philips-Sony partnership began, Philips was proposing a 14-bit rebooks standard to Sony's 16-bit proposal, and by the time the dust settled and 16-bit won out, Philips was already pretty far along in design and production of their hardware?

Also, do I recall correctly that some of the early Philips players (perhaps the ones just after the very first-generation machines?) used 2x of the 14-bit TDA DAC chips in tandem to create a 16-bit capable signal path?

IIRC the first Philips "CD" prototype design was 4 inches diameter with 60 mins playing time. Perhaps 14 bits were the most that would "fit" with the tech of the time?

 

[johnwmclean]

 

[Blumlein 88]

So Mr. Watts hasn't read the review. The interviewer seems to have not taken any notes or been especially careful in reading the review. So in short neither has good info about the ASR review and its results which is the topic for nearly an hour? I also noticed the graphs shown in the video keep having pertinent info chopped off the edges. So why am I supposed to keep watching this?

 

[Dogcoop]

I will leave review of his technical ’gibberish’ to those with a better technological understanding.

What amazes me is that watts says that he hasn’t read Amir’s review. This means he doesn’t have to directly address the results of Amir’s testing. As this review has generated so much interest in many forums and on many websites; it is amazing that from an engineering aspect I would think you would want as much verifiable information about your product as possible. I guess I should have expected such a response. Oh well.

 

[Dogcoop]

So Mr. Watts hasn't read the review. The interviewer seems to have not taken any notes or been especially careful in reading the review. So in short neither has good info about the ASR review and its results which is the topic for nearly an hour? I also noticed the graphs shown in the video keep having pertinent info chopped off the edges. So why am I supposed to keep watching this?

You beat me to it…..lol…..cheers

 

[voodooless]

So why am I supposed to keep watching this?

The most interesting bit is around the 27 min mark where it's about transients and how important they are. Read the literature he says! He also keeps repeating listening tests but never gives any information on how these are done. Nor does the interviewer ask about these.

 

[Rednaxela]

FYI

 

[Rednaxela]

(Makes me wonder if they’re gonna capture and discuss post #817 as well? )

 

[Dogcoop]

FYI

View attachment 218967

So the answer is that @amirm didn’t understand what the ‘product is actually designed to do’?
My non-technical response is that the product is designed to separate an uneducated ‘audiophile’ from his money. Just my opinion.

 

[Rednaxela]

So the answer is that @amirm didn’t understand what the ‘product is actually designed to do’?

…to what he understood from what people shared with him on another forum about a review elsewhere - yes I guess so.