Chord Hugo M Scaler - Stereophile Review (measurements also)

[Purité Audio]

Me too, but those more expensive products aren’t marketed solely on aesthetics are they, they are marketed as being ‘better’.
Keith

 

[spooky]

Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. That’s the difference between silly beliefs and well-founded beliefs.

Rather than 'silly beliefs' you could more reasonably use the word 'theory' or simply 'belief'. Using the word 'silly' indicates a bias and I am not sure what 'silly beliefs' you are referring to. As I said before, there's no point in this discussion.

 

[spooky]

Me too, but those more expensive products aren’t marketed solely on aesthetics are they, they are marketed as being ‘better’.
Keith

Are the expensive products that you sell not better? Do you sell the cheap products as well? If not then is the business model to take advantage of gullible people with more money than sense? It's not a judgement on you by the way - there's nothing wrong with identifying a market and running a business to serve that market.

I am curious though - when someone is in your shop looking at an expensive purchase do you tell them that they could get the same performance for a lot less money but it wouldn't look as nice?

 

[EdW]

I would like to see that happen. Apparently he can listen better than any Audiophile, so I would also be interested in his subjective listening tests.

More importantly Amir would search diligently in the measurements until he found differences, if any. Understanding that might direct the sort of listening tests.
It might also be interesting to get a DCS DAC in for comparison with their proprietary upscaler. I suspect that the Chord Dave standalone would probably only measure very slightly better than the OktoResearch DAC 8 stereo in terms of SINAD but would of course have a brick wall linear phase filter which mathematicians prefer.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Me too, but those more expensive products aren’t marketed solely on aesthetics are they, they are marketed as being ‘better’.
Keith

Quite so, and a lot of them are so expensive maybe a lot of people wouldn't buy them just for styling and functionality.
I have a Chord Blu CD transport which I like for its looks, lid mounted clamp and remote. I am not prepared, any more, to buy a separate DAC on the same basis since an integrated amp with built in DAC can be more convenient and sound the same.
I accepted years ago that DACs all sounded the same, but I already had several

 

[SIY]

Rather than 'silly beliefs' you could more reasonably use the word 'theory' or simply 'belief'. Using the word 'silly' indicates a bias and I am not sure what 'silly beliefs' you are referring to. As I said before, there's no point in this discussion.

A theory has evidence behind it. A silly belief is one that has no evidence and runs counter to the evidence that exists.

I won’t use euphemism.

 

[spooky]

More importantly Amir would search diligently in the measurements until he found differences, if any. Understanding that might direct the sort of listening tests.
It might also be interesting to get a DCS DAC in for comparison with their proprietary upscaler. I suspect that the Chord Dave standalone would probably only measure very slightly better than the OktoResearch DAC 8 stereo in terms of SINAD but would of course have a brick wall linear phase filter which mathematicians prefer.

DCS would be interesting.

 

[spooky]

A theory has evidence behind it. A silly belief is one that has no evidence and runs counter to the evidence that exists.

I won’t use euphemism.

I thought evidence was used to prove a theory. Surely if there is already evidence to support it then it is no longer a theory…

 

[spooky]

Quite so, and a lot of them are so expensive maybe a lot of people wouldn't buy them just for styling and functionality.
I have a Chord Blu CD transport which I like for its looks, lid mounted clamp and remote. I am not prepared, any more, to buy a separate DAC on the same basis since an integrated amp with built in DAC can be more convenient and sound the same.
I accepted years ago that DACs all sounded the same, but I already had several

I have been pleased with my TT2 directly into active speakers. I don’t believe the TT2 has been measured here?

 

[SIY]

I thought evidence was used to prove a theory. Surely if there is already evidence to support it then it is no longer a theory…

No.

 

[Frank Dernie]

DCS would be interesting.

I have a dCS DAC. It was one of the several I blind tested a few years ago and found to sound near enough to the same as the others when listened to level matched that I couldn't be sure which was which.
I can hear the difference between some of the different reconstruction filters.

 

[spooky]

No.

Ok then, hypothesis.

 

[spooky]

I have a dCS DAC. It was one of the several I blind tested a few years ago and found to sound near enough to the same as the others when listened to level matched that I couldn't be sure which was which.
I can hear the difference between some of the different reconstruction filters.

Which model and what did you compare it to? Off-topic of course and I’m happy to move it to PM if you like.

 

[Purité Audio]

Are the expensive products that you sell not better? Do you sell the cheap products as well? If not then is the business model to take advantage of gullible people with more money than sense? It's not a judgement on you by the way - there's nothing wrong with identifying a market and running a business to serve that market.

I am curious though - when someone is in your shop looking at an expensive purchase do you tell them that they could get the same performance for a lot less money but it wouldn't look as nice?

I only sell really fine measuring and thus audibly transparent equipment, in the case of dacs, state of the art performance is really inexpensive.
I would always tell a customer for example that a ‘Tambaqui’ is not going to sound any better than anRME, but if they enjoy the Mola’s aesthetic...
The whole industry for the most part is organised to extract cash from customers with little technical knowledge.
I don’t agree with that, really good sound quality is all about the loudspeakers and the room interaction.
Keith

 

[KSTR]

We’re not really going to get to grips with understanding what the Mscaler does or doesn’t do unless there is an ASR member who lives in the Seattle area who has an Mscaler + Chord DAC who is prepared to lend it to Amir to allow him to delve into rather more deeply than John Atkinson did for Stereophile

It is completely known what the M-Scaler does and how it can be done even better in software.
And, this kind of stuff cannot be evaluated by measurements, these will just show different DAC reconstruction filters, with the M-Scaler showing the technically "more correct" one. Blind listening tests must be made, no way around it (preferably at emulated lower sampling frequencies like 32kHz or so).

 

[EdW]

It is completely known what the M-Scaler does and how it can be done even better in software.
And, this kind of stuff cannot be evaluated by measurements, these will just show different DAC reconstruction filters, with the M-Scaler showing the technically "more correct" one. Blind listening tests must be made, no way around it (preferably at emulated lower sampling frequencies like 32kHz or so).

It is also possible that Chord have highlighted just one aspect of what happens in the Mscaler. It wouldn’t be the first time that a company has chosen not to reveal all the features. Indeed we have limited knowledge about what happens in the DCS DACs except the ring structure.

Many DACs using off the shelf DAC ICs arguably have inadequate reconstruction filters (dense DSP is less compatible with semi-analog CMOS processes used in DACs and digital noise considerations may also come into play perhaps?) but the Chord Dave or TT2 certainly do not suffer here. It therefore begs the question what does a slightly more abrupt brick wall filter, as realised in the Mscaler, achieve?

 

[chris719]

It is also possible that Chord have highlighted just one aspect of what happens in the Mscaler. It wouldn’t be the first time that a company has chosen not to reveal all the features. Indeed we have limited knowledge about what happens in the DCS DACs except the ring structure.

Many DACs using off the shelf DAC ICs arguably have inadequate reconstruction filters (dense DSP is less compatible with semi-analog CMOS processes used in DACs and digital noise considerations may also come into play perhaps?) but the Chord Dave or TT2 certainly do not suffer here. It therefore begs the question what does a slightly more abrupt brick wall filter, as realised in the Mscaler, achieve?

Arguably is right. Interpolation filters were commonly in separate ICs until the early 2000s. If there were a real audible benefit then there was nothing stopping TI, AD, Cirrus, AKM, etc from continuing that and having an edge on their competition.

Anyway, we know what this box does because it’s been measured. It’s a windowed sinc interpolator. There is no mystery.

It’s not at all the same situation as the DCS DAC, and even then, who cares what they do? Data conversion is well understood and it’s unlikely that DCS has invented anything novel since it would have commercial implications beyond audio if it’s any good. The proof is in the analog output.

 

[blackmetalboon]

I can’t remember if it has been mentioned in this thread but there is a future product(s?) intended to be used with the M Scaler.

Rob Watts had briefly talked about an amplifier that the M Scaler connects directly to, the M Scaler then becomes the Pre Amplifier for the system.

 

[ahofer]

Trying something is a harebrained scheme?

You purposely misconstrue. Harebrained schemes are expensive new devices or tweaks that are unmeasured, are have no grounding in audio science. There are millions of them. Yet, for each one, there is somebody like you saying "If you haven't tried it, you can't comment". There isn't enough time to try all the harebrained schemes. Since it is likely that only one or two, if that, are breakthroughs, it doesn't make sense to try them all. The breakthrough will come up with a measurement or test that convinces us eventually.

You see? You are badly undervaluing our time.

 

[spooky]

You purposely misconstrue. Harebrained schemes are expensive new devices or tweaks that are unmeasured, are have no grounding in audio science. There are millions of them. Yet, for each one, there is somebody like you saying "If you haven't tried it, you can't comment". There isn't enough time to try all the harebrained schemes. Since it is likely that only one or two, if that, are breakthroughs, it doesn't make sense to try them all. The breakthrough will come up with a measurement or test that convinces us eventually.

You see? You are badly undervaluing our time.

I have not said "If you haven't tried it, you can't comment". I have simply said that someone cannot state as a fact that it doesn't do anything at all if they haven't tried it.

I do not place any value on your time - that is for you to do and you have used it to post that comment.