CHORD M-Scaler Review (Upsampler)

[Leporello]

None of what I typed Rob has spoken. He doesn’t even measure his own DACs in the ways I have stated. You can literally visit the Reference Audio Analyzer website yourself and look at the DAC measurements. Now tell me the WTA filter makes no difference. I’ll laugh at your face as clearly measurements debunk your misinformation.

Do you not find it curious that so far no one has been able to demonstrate any audible benefits when using the M-scaler?

 

[theREALdotnet]

The correct set of tests you should do are as follows:

1. Energy Time Curve
2. Impulse Response
3. Phase accuracy
4. Step response

Can you point to these tests performed on a DAC with and without M Scaler? Has anyone published test results like that? What do they show? Or are you speculating that such tests might show differences?

BTW I’m familiar with 1, 2 and 4, but what exactly do you mean by “phase accuracy”?

 

[BDWoody]

Do you not find it curious that so far no one has been able to demonstrate any audible benefits when using the M-scaler?

Nobody has measured it correctly.

Which has nothing to do with the question.

Demonstrating audible differences doesn't require anything more complicated than a voltage meter and a listening test with some controls.

So far, no one has shown it gives an audible difference, let alone superiority.

 

[abdo123]

Nobody has measured it correctly. How about someone send one to Reference Audio Analyzer with a DAVE and let them perform tests?

Until reviewers start pulling their finger out, actually perform deep research into the science of our hearing and the complex mathematics that is needed for high performance digital filters - they’re nothing but a slightly smarter layman. Anyone can use an APx555, perform a few frequency domain tests and call it a day. The only barrier that stops 99% of people interested in measurements from doing this is the price of high-end measuring equipment like this. You don’t have to be a genius to learn basic frequency domain tests or to use devices like the APx555. I find it funny how laymen are so easily fooled by the proficiency of a reviewer just because they throw up a few THD or noise plots. Wow, well done for doing the absolute most basic signal measuring task. Pat yourself on the head.

The review for the M-Scaler on here is some of the most bare bones testing I have seen for a DDC.

Are you aware that Amir worked in Microsoft for several years specifically in audio signal processing?

If anyone is going to discover the magic of the M-scaler in the sea of 'slightly smarter laymans' he would have a very good chance.

your statements just make you like a teenager rambling that 'no one understands them'.

 

[theREALdotnet]

Read my above reply. Chord DACs have been tested and show the WTA filter is superior to anything else tested at what it’s supposed to do; reject ultrasonics and improve timing performance over stand DAC chips.

M-Scaler isn’t a DAC, it’s a DDC. Therefore like you said, it needs to be paired with a DAC and measured in the same way Chord DACs have.

Are you able to link to ETC, impulse response or step response measurements with and without M Scaler? I’d really like to take a look.

 

[abdo123]

Yet he hasn’t perform the relevant tests to actually test the manufacturers claims. Funny how that works isn’t it? That makes your reply a simple appeal to authority. No critical thinking involved.

Aren't you appealing to authority just as well by saying their tests are (more) relevant without actually demonstrating why the tests conducted here are lacking?

 

[abdo123]

Reread my reply.

Yes it has been discussed already in this thread that Chord Electronics doesn't advertise a better sound with the use of the M-scaler.

Which makes you think what is the purpose of the M-Scaler other than increasing the numbers on their bank accounts.

 

[BDWoody]

I find it funny how laymen are so easily fooled by the proficiency of a reviewer just because they throw up a few THD or noise plots.

You're new here.

Whether one can hear a difference is completely irrelevant.

Not here. Claims of better sound need to be supported. The rest is more blah blah blah.

I think that's enough for this thread.

Maybe more reading would be good.

 

[mansr]

Reread my reply.

Are you from Scarfolk?

 

[Jimi Floyd]

Nobody has measured it correctly. How about someone send one to Reference Audio Analyzer with a DAVE and let them perform tests?

Until reviewers start pulling their finger out, actually perform deep research into the science of our hearing and the complex mathematics that is needed for high performance digital filters - they’re nothing but a slightly smarter layman. Anyone can use an APx555, perform a few frequency domain tests and call it a day. The only barrier that stops 99% of people interested in measurements from doing this is the price of high-end measuring equipment like this. You don’t have to be a genius to learn basic frequency domain tests or to use devices like the APx555. I find it funny how laymen are so easily fooled by the proficiency of a reviewer just because they throw up a few THD or noise plots. Wow, well done for doing the absolute most basic signal measuring task. Pat yourself on the head.

The review for the M-Scaler on here is some of the most bare bones testing I have seen for a DDC.

I am browsing the Reference Audio Analyzer site and I must say it is quite interesting. Really advanced site build, my compliments.

Anyway, there is something I don't understand in their measurements of the impulse response, which in turns allows for the calculation of the Energy Time Curve for DACs.

Let's take as an example the Hugo TT. this is the impulse response function as measured by Stereophile

It is possible to see very many oscillations there, which is coherent with the Chord philosophy of using a large number of taps. More taps = more oscillations of the impulse response function, and this by definition. Besides that one can see that the filter is time symmetrical and FIR-type.

Now let's see the Hugo TT impulse response function as measured by Reference Audio Analyzer

Reversed polarity, and this might be, but the shape is something totally weird: no ringing. Usually is the NOS DACs which show such a behaviour but Chord proprietary filtering is the exact opposite of NOS. This impulse response function measurement is not compatible with the Stereophile one and seems not compatible with the theory of time symmetrical FIR filters and far away from Chord's approach.

There is something I don't understand here. Any help from anybody will be appreciated.

 

[abdo123]

You're new here.



Not here. Claims of better sound need to supported. The rest is more blah blah blah.

I think that's enough for this thread, as you aren't really getting it.

Maybe more reading would be good.

Chord Electronics made no claims of better sound with the M-scaler by the way. It’s just cleverly insinuated.

It’s just an upscaler.

 

[BDWoody]

Chord Electronics made no claims of better sound with the M-scaler by the way. It’s just cleverly insinuated.

It’s just an upscaler.

That is clever. Definitely my error.

I wonder how many of those who own one don't believe it makes any audible difference.

Seems a strange hill for some to die on, defending a premium product that doesn't do anything identifiable by ears.

 

[DonR]

What happened to all @TopG's posts?

 

[voodooless]

What happened to all @TopG's posts?

I think that uses doesn’t exist anymore… was probably not voluntary. That’s seems far too quick, give the dude a chance to come up with some rebuttals…

 

[DSJR]

That is clever. Definitely my error.

I wonder how many of those who own one don't believe it makes any audible difference.

Seems a strange hill for some to die on, defending a premium product that doesn't do anything identifiable by ears.

But it does make a subjective difference - to a lay person with no proper level matching or other controls!!!

Slightly louder and one appears to hear more detail. In this case slightly quieter and it appears to give more 'depth of image/soundstage.' I've heard this for myself and it's only because I did crude comparisons previously with other gear trying to get levels right that I proved to myself how easily we're fooled.

Once again, the song played to show the 'difference' the M-Scaler made

I doubt anyone who's bought and is using one is going to even attempt to compare with and without while closely matching levels. They splashed out loads of money to buy it, stuck it in their system, 'heard' a difference and that's that. For them it does the job subjectively without the need or even desire to question (one poster earlier eased off this thread went back to his usual forum home totally angry that his subjective non level matched findings were questioned here, as well as the review finding itself - apparently we're the blinkered ones blinded by the test results as he heard a difference with the M-Scaler - and a couple of other audiophile tweaks we've dismissed apparently - and he kept it - he's firmly convinced we hear things that cannot be measured - I've heard that before many times around the subjectivist forums (and sadly, nobody ever looks at the psychology involved in our decision making).

Matters not to me, as I can get a dac with balanced outputs as well as single ended with almost state of the art performance, in a simple box and even with a display? for under two hundred quid. Job done for me

 

[keatonhj]

I just wanted to interject here with my situation and why it works wonders for me. I love great indie music and for some reason I can only find the recordings on bandcamp.com. whilst they offer wav and aiff, the underlying sample rate is barely above 48khz. Secondly, I play videogames, with this, games tend to compress their music to save space and there is nothing I can do about it. Until the M-Scaler. So if you are stuck with poor sample rates due to the rest of the world not caring, plus the added bonus of video mode, this thing does wonders.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

Secondly, I play videogames, with this, games tend to compress their music to save space and there is nothing I can do about it. Until the M-Scaler

Sorry but the M scaler does nothing to reverse compression in music.

 

[Axo1989]

I am browsing the Reference Audio Analyzer site and I must say it is quite interesting. Really advanced site build, my compliments.

Anyway, there is something I don't understand in their measurements of the impulse response, which in turns allows for the calculation of the Energy Time Curve for DACs.

Let's take as an example the Hugo TT. this is the impulse response function as measured by Stereophile

View attachment 223963
It is possible to see very many oscillations there, which is coherent with the Chord philosophy of using a large number of taps. More taps = more oscillations of the impulse response function, and this by definition. Besides that one can see that the filter is time symmetrical and FIR-type.

Now let's see the Hugo TT impulse response function as measured by Reference Audio Analyzer

View attachment 223967

Reversed polarity, and this might be, but the shape is something totally weird: no ringing. Usually is the NOS DACs which show such a behaviour but Chord proprietary filtering is the exact opposite of NOS. This impulse response function measurement is not compatible with the Stereophile one and seems not compatible with the theory of time symmetrical FIR filters and far away from Chord's approach.

There is something I don't understand here. Any help from anybody will be appreciated.

RAA was interesting. I think you can just make out the ringing (viewed there, not at the image resolution posted here) but the vertical scale is treated differently. I don't know what that means (about the test method, etc). It isn't so useful as a diagnostic of filter type, for example.

 

[Palladium]

I have seen better plastic exteriors on $5 counterfeit legos.

 

[Axo1989]

I have seen better plastic exteriors on $5 counterfeit legos.

As it's not plastic, what does that say about you?

I've seen better wooden exteriors ...