• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

CHORD M-Scaler Review (Upsampler)

Rate this product:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 358 88.2%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 13 3.2%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther

    Votes: 7 1.7%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 28 6.9%

  • Total voters
    406

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
15,891
Likes
35,912
Location
The Neitherlands
I think they start with the appearance of the cabinet during production.

Many product development starts with specifying functionality, basic specs, appearance and cabinet. To design the PCB one has to know what the cabinet looks like (controls, LEDs, connectors) anyway. Often an iterative process.

The product is not intended for measurements, nor does the company wish it to be.

When you mean it is not designed as measuring equipment... yes.
Chord designs usually measure really well so I don't think they fear measurements. In this case M-scaler measures fine on Chord gear but seems to have compatibility issues with a specific Topping DAC. We have no idea how other DACs go with it.
The M-scaler, however, is a nonsense product but obviously it sells and people like it so there is a market.
Chord is in the business to make a (good) living for themselves and need to provide for their co-workers as well.

They are expensive because:
A: Not produced in large quantities so to make a living one has to up the price.
B: expensive casings (for the expensive line)
C: Exclusivity (think different looks, just like Quad looked very different from other gear) you pay for that.
D: Production not in low wages countries and not able to buy parts in huge numbers makes it more expensive than a mass produced product made in ME.

Talking about Quad. It looked old-fashioned but it was very well engineered. You could complete take one apart using just 1 flathead screw-driver instead of needing multiple tools, look for hidden screws and secret 'clips'.

Chord is not 'better' than other brands though, just different and higher priced. It's a choice not made for the mass market.
 

Lukino

Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2022
Messages
64
Likes
175
Location
Slovakia
Many product development starts with specifying functionality, basic specs, appearance and cabinet. To design the PCB one has to know what the cabinet looks like (controls, LEDs, connectors) anyway. Often an iterative process.



When you mean it is not designed as measuring equipment... yes.
Chord designs usually measure really well so I don't think they fear measurements. In this case M-scaler measures fine on Chord gear but seems to have compatibility issues with a specific Topping DAC. We have no idea how other DACs go with it.
The M-scaler, however, is a nonsense product but obviously it sells and people like it so there is a market.
Chord is in the business to make a (good) living for themselves and need to provide for their co-workers as well.

They are expensive because:
A: Not produced in large quantities so to make a living one has to up the price.
B: expensive casings (for the expensive line)
C: Exclusivity (think different looks, just like Quad looked very different from other gear) you pay for that.
D: Production not in low wages countries and not able to buy parts in huge numbers makes it more expensive than a mass produced product made in ME.

Talking about Quad. It looked old-fashioned but it was very well engineered. You could complete take one apart using just 1 flathead screw-driver instead of needing multiple tools, look for hidden screws and secret 'clips'.

Chord is not 'better' than other brands though, just different and higher priced. It's a choice not made for the mass market.
Certainly you are right. Therefore, you have my like ... but this product should be a model of technology mainly and thus design. In so many spectachers from the DAVE, DAC for 150 dolar.And you want to be deceived technologically there is a journey of the company chord.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 11516

Guest
You seem not to understand that measurements and blind listening tests are meant to exclude emotion from the issue altogether.
I do understand and love measurements, but if that is the case as you say I wonder why in this forum (and headfi which is allowed to have emotins) the seas of emotions and loathing runs so high.....
 

Leporello

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
401
Likes
806
WOW, fantastic to read all the above Love & Hate and same over at HeadFi...what can I say....I love my Mscaler and Yes I can hear a positive difference and that's what counts IMHO.

I am glad to see there is so much emotions involved on both sides of the fence, engaging to say the least.
Many people report positive differences with the M-scaler, just like you do. Here at ASR many people know this quite well.

What many people here at ASR wonder however is whether the M-scaler actually sounds any different: real vs. imagined differences. You personally have no obligation to care about this at all. To you that is what counts and that's perfectly acceptable - to you. Just do not expect that ASR members accept this as evidence - just because you say so.
 
D

Deleted member 11516

Guest
Maybe because of comments like yours that are meant to provoke emotions? Or is there any technical content hidden in your message?
No, my point was not to provoke, quite the opposite, found it rather interesting reactions from the 2 camps, I rather felt that you and a few other were and are trying to provoke and shows very high negative emotions regarding the measurements which I agree are not top notch but there is also the aspect of listening and make up your on mind whether you like it or not on a subjective level, don't see the point on to keep loathing it just because of the measurements without having listen to it in its right element. Do understand this forum is measurement's only.....
 
D

Deleted member 11516

Guest
Many people report positive differences with the M-scaler, just like you do. Here at ASR many people know this quite well.

What many people here at ASR wonder however is whether the M-scaler actually sounds any different: real vs. imagined differences. You personally have no obligation to care about this at all. To you that is what counts and that's perfectly acceptable - to you. Just do not expect that ASR members accept this as evidence - just because you say so.
I agree, my subjective listening is ofc not proof of anything, it would be like the purist vinyl fanatics always argue that vinyl sounds better than streaming HD from Qobuz or similar, dont take my word for it, listen to it at full upscaling if you have the opportunity, but I can hear a diff, same as I can hear a diff in Roon when upsampling or on the Auralic Aries G1, if it is worth the $$ spent I cannot say, some people buy Rolex for 20K $$ and swear by it wile a 3 $$ Casio probably keeps time better.
 

Leporello

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
401
Likes
806
I agree, my subjective listening is ofc not proof of anything, it would be like the purist vinyl fanatics always argue that vinyl sounds better than streaming HD from Qobuz or similar, dont take my word for it, listen to it at full upscaling if you have the opportunity, but I can hear a diff, same as I can hear a diff in Roon when upsampling or on the Auralic Aries G1, if it is worth the $$ spent I cannot say, some people buy Rolex for 20K $$ and swear by it wile a 3 $$ Casio probably keeps time better.
Sure, we already know you think you hear a difference. However, the whole discussion has already moved to the next phase: are these perceived differences real or imagined? Btw, this is not about measurements per se. The true test is whether those differences can be heard in a properly controlled level matched blind test. Another 'I can hear a difference' testimonial - while no doubt genuine and sincere - does not add to the discussion at this phase.
 

PassionforSound

Member
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 24, 2022
Messages
45
Likes
12
@amirm I've signed up here at the encouragement of some of your subscribers to raise a few questions about the measurements of the M-Scaler. For those who haven't seen my video where I interviewed Rob Watts to ask him about some of the results in the measurements you produced, my intentions are as follows:
  • I am not looking to make anyone right or wrong - I am seeking open discussion for clarity and exploration of what I believe to still be some ambiguous areas of measurements and their relation to human auditory perception
  • I am asking these questions to explore, not to criticise and I openly acknowledge that I do not have an engineering background or qualification. For the record, my primary qualifications and studies are in hearing and speech (speech pathology/therapy or pre-audiology) and organisational psychology
  • I am writing a full explanation of the concepts I am discussing for clarity of my perspective, not to suggest that anyone reading it doesn't understand
I should add before I continue that I may use the wrong terminology or (more likely) avoid it altogether. My aim is to discuss the concepts, not get caught up on whether I used the right specific word.

With that said, let's start with one specific measurement (or conclusion) that I felt was misleading in relation to an upsampler like the M-Scaler - specifically the performance with the 1kHz test tone. My belief is that an upsampler's purpose is to convert the incoming signal (let's say 48kHz) to a higher sample rate (ideally 768kHz in the case of the M-Scaler). In doing so, every frequency being received in the digital input signal should be faithfully recreated with no alterations to the frequencies in terms of frequency response.

As I understand it, there are two potential benefits of upsampling:
  1. That it improves the available range in which to apply noise shaping to push processing noise outside the audible band and allow for steeper attenuation filters
  2. In the specific case of the M-Scaler, the purpose stated by Chord / Rob Watts is to improve the timing accuracy of transients in a musical signal (i.e. where the DAC is reconstructing the rapid fluctuations of the output waveform of complex musical signals)
So, with all that in mind, I thought it was misleading to criticise the M-Scaler for providing no benefit when upsampling at 2x to 4x with a 1kHz tone. That is 100% accurate performance as far as I understand it. What benefits would you expect to see from an upsampler with a 1kHz test tone?
 
D

Deleted member 11516

Guest
Sure, we already know you think you hear a difference. However, the whole discussion has already moved to the next phase: are these perceived differences real or imagined? Btw, this is not about measurements per se. The true test is whether those differences can be heard in a properly controlled level matched blind test. Another 'I can hear a difference' testimonial - while no doubt genuine and sincere - does not add to the discussion at this phase.
Well, I have no "golden Ears" for sure and using headphones using Hugo 2 and a TT2 I can clearly hear a difference (Real or Imagined) and I think I could seperate the 2 in a blind test(leaving the Mscaler aside), but I am sure that you would hear a difference especially on a pair of good headphones such the DCA Stealth and Susvara and even the old and trusty HD800, maybe more difficult on Speakers as the room acustics will be very much dependent on how it sounds.
 

Leporello

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
401
Likes
806
Well, I have no "golden Ears" for sure and using headphones using Hugo 2 and a TT2 I can clearly hear a difference (Real or Imagined) and I think I could seperate the 2 in a blind test(leaving the Mscaler aside), but I am sure that you would hear a difference especially on a pair of good headphones such the DCA Stealth and Susvara and even the old and trusty HD800, maybe more difficult on Speakers as the room acustics will be very much dependent on how it sounds.
Quite a few people are genuinely and sincerely convinced they could hear these perceived differences also in a blind test. But this does not really advance the discussion, since you have to do that blind test before appealing to its results.
 

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
15,891
Likes
35,912
Location
The Neitherlands
What benefits would you expect to see from an upsampler with a 1kHz test tone?

None, it is quite easy to reproduce a 1kHz tone whether it is 32kHz or 768kHz sampling frequency (as long as a decent, does not have to be perfect, reconstruction filter is applied). The result is no different. In any case it does not hurt to check if it does not get worse either. Without testing one does not know.
I would expect it to be good anyway (as good as the DAC can actually make it, which is the limiting factor. Not the calculations which will be fine.
Then the added dither might be seen or some unwanted spurious under certain circumstances. All that can be said is ... it does not make the response worse. Improve things (1kHz only) it can not.
What the measurements show is no improvement and no penalty in that area.

As has been mentioned in this thread, the impulse response of a digital generated pulse (1 sample width at 44kHz) is more interesting but was not tested.
The 22μs bit is total nonsense. A 20kHz tone can be reproduced perfectly and as that is not a multiple of the sampling frequency there you have the proof that resolution is far better than 22μs
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 11516

Guest
Quite a few people are genuinely and sincerely convinced they could hear these perceived differences also in a blind test. But this does not really advance the discussion, since you have to do that blind test before appealing to its results.
True, And I would love to do a blind test.
I have no argument against the measurements of the Mscaler, my only objection is the hate that this devise is getting by people who never listened to it and to say that it does noting.
That said to better explain the difference is to for those of you who use Roon, if you use the sample rate conversion in Roon and you can hear the difference there then you have an idea on what the Mscaler does but much improved (my subjective opinion), for lack of better word, so use Roon as a stage for your blind test and if you can hear a difference there I believe you would be able to hear same using the Mscaler.....is the Mscaler worth the price tag, that I cannot answer.
 

PassionforSound

Member
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 24, 2022
Messages
45
Likes
12
None, it is quite easy to reproduce a 1kHz tone whether it is 32kHz or 768kHz sampling frequency (as long as a decent, does not have to be perfect, reconstruction filter is applied). The result is no different. In any case it does not hurt to check if it does not get worse either. Without testing one does not know.
I would expect it to be good anyway (as good as the DAC can actually make it, which is the limiting factor. Not the calculations which will be fine.
Then the added dither might be seen or some unwanted spurious under certain circumstances. All that can be said is ... it does not make the response worse. Improve things (1kHz only) it can not.
What the measurements show is no improvement and no penalty in that area.

As has been mentioned in this thread, the impulse response of a digital generated pulse (1 sample width at 44kHz) is more interesting but was not tested.
The 22μs bit is total nonsense. A 20kHz tone can be reproduced perfectly and as that is not a multiple of the sampling frequency there you have the proof that resolution is far better than 22μs

Thanks solderdude. A key part of my question is that Amir specifically called out 'no benefit' on this graph which implies a negative. That's what specifically got me interested to explore this measurement in the first place
 

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
15,891
Likes
35,912
Location
The Neitherlands
A key part of my question is that Amir specifically called out 'no benefit' on this graph which implies a negative.

I don't see it that way. No benefit means no improvement in that area (1kHz), which it basically even can't. It can potentially mess things up only which it doesn't.
Mind you..... I don't give crap about SINAD and 1kHz measurements for electronics. That frequency is amongst the easiest one to reproduce flawlessly.

One would do best NOT to look at one measurement but the whole set of measurements. I think most of 'us' agree the set of measurements needed to show the interesting parts of the M-scaler were not done. No one can force Amir to spend more time on it. Only ask him if he is willing to do more measurements when he still has it and would like to go to the bottom of it.
 

Leporello

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2019
Messages
401
Likes
806
True, And I would love to do a blind test.
I have no argument against the measurements of the Mscaler, my only objection is the hate that this devise is getting by people who never listened to it and to say that it does noting.
That said to better explain the difference is to for those of you who use Roon, if you use the sample rate conversion in Roon and you can hear the difference there then you have an idea on what the Mscaler does but much improved (my subjective opinion), for lack of better word, so use Roon as a stage for your blind test and if you can hear a difference there I believe you would be able to hear same using the Mscaler.....is the Mscaler worth the price tag, that I cannot answer.
Those people may have good reasons to believe the M-scaler does nothing. They may be right. They could also be wrong, of course. They also may be quite correct in noting that the listening impressions so far have not been valid evidence since they have not been based on proper blind listening results.

If you would love to do a blind test, why do you not do it? Instead you are repeating you subjective impressions over and over again. But as stated in one of my previous posts, this will not give us any new useful information since the discussion has already moved to next phase.
 
Last edited:

PassionforSound

Member
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 24, 2022
Messages
45
Likes
12
I don't see it that way. No benefit means no improvement in that area (1kHz), which it basically even can't. It can potentially mess things up only which it doesn't.

I don't understand. If, on one hand, you're saying that an upsampler can't improve a 1kHz tone, then why say 'no benefit'? From what you're saying, the test should be considering if damage is being done and calling out 'no reduction in signal quality' or a reduction in signal quality.

I realise this will seem like I am defending the M-Scaler and it's not my intention. My point is that the data is intended to offer objectivity, but I feel like this test is both largely irrelevant (which you have sort of confirmed) and also creating a source of negative bias towards the meaning of the measurement by saying 'no benefit' instead of something that confirms that it is working as it should.
 

Geert

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
1,936
Likes
3,516
No, my point was not to provoke, quite the opposite, found it rather interesting reactions from the 2 camps, I rather felt that you and a few other were and are trying to provoke and shows very high negative emotions regarding the measurements

Me trying to provoke???

Me having negative emotions about the measurements???

Do you have your display upside down?
 

Geert

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
1,936
Likes
3,516
I don't understand. If, on one hand, you're saying that an upsampler can't improve a 1kHz tone, then why say 'no benefit'? From what you're saying, the test should be considering if damage is being done and calling out 'no reduction in signal quality' or a reduction in signal quality.

The 1kHz test is a standard test to measure distortion. In this case we notice "damage being done", as you called it. The "no benefit of upsampling" statement is still done in the context of evaluating distortion, meaning the increased distortion is still there. It's not meant to say anything about other performance criteria.

An evaluation of functional benefits of the M-Scaler is done with "Let's go back to basics and see if the M-scaler is doing what it is supposed to be doing by running our filter test". This test confirms the upsampling provides a sharper filter response.
 
Top Bottom