Veri
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2018
- Messages
- 9,598
- Likes
- 12,040
I wonder if anyone ever tested if it makes the signal slightly louder... now that would reveal a scam~
Last edited:
-
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!
Matrix Audio X-SABRE Pro MQA: Best Audio DAC in the World?
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
This whole subjectivity nonsense with Chord's products is getting pretty tiresome, especially considering how off topic it is for this thread. This is a forum where engineering and science come first, hence the name of the forum. There are a myriad other places on the internet to discuss subjectivity, and dozens of other threads on this site for Chord.
It's pretty interesting that the X-Sabre Pro can decode a 768 kHz PCM stream. If its jitter performance is any worse at that sampling rate, then any possible advantage of digital upsampling will have been defeated. On the other hand, if it performs well at that frequency, then there is no use for the expensive M-scaler. Most computers are powerful enough these days to perform the same upsampling as the M-scaler in real-time. It's just a FIR-filter and the SoX resampler is more than enough. Set the phase to 50, quality to VHQ, and passband to 99. The number of FIR taps SoX uses with these settings is over 100,000.
This is unnecessarily high but it is to prove a point: if you can't hear a difference by experimenting with this, you most certainly won't hear a difference from shelling out thousands for the M-scaler. If upsampling is audible, then all it means is that the filtering used by the DAC is atrocious. This should not be the case for a high-performing DAC like the X-Sabre Pro, and absolutely isn't in the Benchmark DAC3, a DAC in which care was taken in designing the DSP and choosing the filter. Note that the built-in digital filters of the ESS chips all roll off far before coming close to the Nyquist frequency of the 768 kHz sampling rate. The only advantage of upsampling, then is to ease the design of the digital filter that has the flattest and cleanest response in the audible band. Spoiler alert: any competent DAC will already do this, because upsampling is very well understood by DSP folks.
The marketing behind the M-scaler is bunk. It is exactly as @amirm has said earlier - upsampling with a million FIR taps is like washing the dish the food is served on a hundred times. It does nothing to improve the taste of the dish. Taste and hearing are mostly in the mind. Adjusting one's attitude and perspective will have the greatest bearing on the sound quality, followed by having good ears, good headphones, good source material, a good amplifier, and finally a good DAC. It's about priorities - priorities that marketers like to dismiss for the sake of lining their own pockets.
It's pretty interesting that the X-Sabre Pro can decode a 768 kHz PCM stream. If its jitter performance is any worse at that sampling rate, then any possible advantage of digital upsampling will have been defeated. On the other hand, if it performs well at that frequency, then there is no use for the expensive M-scaler. Most computers are powerful enough these days to perform the same upsampling as the M-scaler in real-time. It's just a FIR-filter and the SoX resampler is more than enough. Set the phase to 50, quality to VHQ, and passband to 99. The number of FIR taps SoX uses with these settings is over 100,000.
This is unnecessarily high but it is to prove a point: if you can't hear a difference by experimenting with this, you most certainly won't hear a difference from shelling out thousands for the M-scaler. If upsampling is audible, then all it means is that the filtering used by the DAC is atrocious. This should not be the case for a high-performing DAC like the X-Sabre Pro, and absolutely isn't in the Benchmark DAC3, a DAC in which care was taken in designing the DSP and choosing the filter. Note that the built-in digital filters of the ESS chips all roll off far before coming close to the Nyquist frequency of the 768 kHz sampling rate. The only advantage of upsampling, then is to ease the design of the digital filter that has the flattest and cleanest response in the audible band. Spoiler alert: any competent DAC will already do this, because upsampling is very well understood by DSP folks.
The marketing behind the M-scaler is bunk. It is exactly as @amirm has said earlier - upsampling with a million FIR taps is like washing the dish the food is served on a hundred times. It does nothing to improve the taste of the dish. Taste and hearing are mostly in the mind. Adjusting one's attitude and perspective will have the greatest bearing on the sound quality, followed by having good ears, good headphones, good source material, a good amplifier, and finally a good DAC. It's about priorities - priorities that marketers like to dismiss for the sake of lining their own pockets.
Last edited:
Very good point. If it does, that means the DAC would perform above the 0db reference, which is not a good thing either.
Maybe in another life, some owner or shop would send a TT2/Qutest with M Scaler to @amirm... I don't think this is going to happen anytime soon.
I like the idea that if I drop a few thousand more dollars, I might be able to approach the performance of a $9 dongle or the $90 Behringer 404HD. Don't harsh my buzz, man!
AudioSceptic
Major Contributor
Oh boy, "night and day". This is with the DAVE, a £8k/$10k DAC? You do realise how absurd this is?
Is the M-Link a 12V trigger?
I would think in the presence of the great Rob Watts sighted is as good as blind.
I'm saving my money for his ' Del boy ' DAC.
I'm saving my money for his ' Del boy ' DAC.
I loved how this forum taking a scientific approach and evaluate based on facts not marketing. And I loved to see amirm slice and experience it him self.
The-theory-behind-M-Scaler-technology I found it in there website about how it works. And other videos on youtube
Sorry guys to be off topic about the upsampling talk and as I can't add value to this topic I will not comment about it > Gomen'nasai
Last edited:
I find some of the idiocy that emanates from Watts to be more infuriating than the out and out tweakos for the simple reason that he knows better and is actually an accomplished engineer. Chord products are in my opinion overpriced but they tend to be competently designed and perform well. I just find it sad when a very capable engineer who heads a pretty impressive company uses the same snake oil mysticism to conn the gullible as the full on scam artists.
I don't mind that, what irritates me is the dishonesty of buying gear because it looks nice, it comes from a particularly respected manufacturer such as Accuphase or Benchmark or if they just want to be part of a club but clinging to the sort of nonsense used by some to claim night and day differences in SQ and all the florid language (slam, rhythm, moving two rows forward blah blah blah).
If I met somebody and they told me "I just dropped $5000 on an Accuphase amp, to be honest it doesn't sound any different to something I could have bought for $200, but oh lordy lord does it look nice, it feels even better and it'll probably outlast me, and it's an Accuphase!" my probable response would be along the lines of "Hail kindred spirit, it's splendid to meet another person with fine taste in audio gear!".
I have a weakness for classic Japanese statement audio gear, and love Bnchmark and certain other modern gear (although sadly some of the gear made by once great companies such as Marantz, Denon and even Luxman really doesn't move me) but I hope I'm honest enough to admit I love it for the superlative build quality and the design expertise that was lavished on it rather than for the sonic qualities.
JBNY
Member
Via USB only.
If you buy into the MQA BS... 
There sure is a noticeable improvement with tidal, but I agree its not as good as my hi res library.
Its just good to know what inputs support mqa, for example my simaudio mind 2 streamer will do the first unfold of mqa but it does not have a usb out.
Its just good to know what inputs support mqa, for example my simaudio mind 2 streamer will do the first unfold of mqa but it does not have a usb out.
But is it thanks to the secret MQA soup, or just because of a better/different master?
Indeed. And then check levels. The problem is that most of us don't have access to the MQA encoder.
I tried a experiment and I always found my personal files sounded a little better. Things that would stick out is the soundstage would shrink and high frequencies would be slightly veiled.
Now this wasn't dramatic either.
But the convenience of sitting back and streaming tidal masters within roon is somthing that is worth the slight loss in quality. This also helped me purchase specific hi res music.
My room is acoustically treated, but my system may not be resolving enough to show mqa's weaknesses (if any)
Now this wasn't dramatic either.
But the convenience of sitting back and streaming tidal masters within roon is somthing that is worth the slight loss in quality. This also helped me purchase specific hi res music.
My room is acoustically treated, but my system may not be resolving enough to show mqa's weaknesses (if any)
I'm not sure at all there is an audible difference between a uncompressed Hi-res file and MQA, whatever the system. Some people claim to be able to distinguish WAV over FLAC, while I don't believe it's possible. Best thing in that case would be proper blind test. Very easy to operate in my opinion: some just has to create a playlist with Roon. Same song encoded FLAC, WAV (16 and/or 24b) and then from Tidal/MQA, played screen off. Of course the person tested must to ignore the playlist order.
Similar threads
- Poll
