Chord Hugo M Scaler - Stereophile Review (measurements also)

[DSJR]

I sat in on a dealer 'Chord presentation day' dem with dems by the rep and with RW giving a presentation first. The M-Scaler was switched in and out (bypass and active) of a full Chord Electronics/Dynaudio Confidence 60 system and I could definitely 'hear' a difference. What worried me was that I thought the 'sound' with M-Scaler switched in was slightly quieter, giving a 'superior' sense of depth and 'air' to the sound. I felt confused as the difference was either a better sense of dynamic range or an alteration in volume and as the rep had the remotes, I couldn't verify it myself. Apparently it was the latter difference in level, so my jury's still out on it...

 

[RustyGates]

I'm just saying there is nothing beyond anecdotal information to rely on. There is that inconvenient chasm between anecdote and evidence that hasn't been bridged yet. There is no reason to believe it improves anything audibly until that happens. Claims aren't evidence.

Fair enough. People's opinions of the sound, even through blind testing is still too subjective. It's all too wishy-washy.

So as to how we create objective tests, one which we can see in graphs? One thing I've noticed is there is too much frequency domain measurements going on and hardly any time domain measurements of M-Scaler or HQPlayer.

http://www.dspguide.com/CH14.PDF

Every linear filter has an impulse response, a step response, and a frequency response.

"Good performance in the time domain results in poor performance in the frequency domain, and vice versa"

RW's claim is "The WTA filter uniquely has both very close to ideal sinc in the frequency domain and very close to ideal sinc in the time domain." And the 1M+ order algo as well as a 0.7s delay on the audio signal was needed to achieve better than 16-bit transient accuracy of the interpolated data.

So how to test that? Where are the step response measurements? We already know in frequency it is brick wall, however, (RW) "the Kaiser measures better than the WTA - it's transition band is only 3Hz. But because almost all the coefficients are not sinc, the reconstruction of the timing of transients will be not as accurate as sinc."

How do we show this is ideal as it can get?

And then how do we connect transient accuracy to psychoacoustics? RW has an argument, after all that is one of the things he studied back in college, other than electronics.

Where did I say anything about price, and what makes you believe I'm worried?

I just got that idea from your last comment "excuse to drain more money from customers", but if not for you, price does seem to be a recurring complaint on this forum.

 

[EdW]

I sat in on a dealer 'Chord presentation day' dem with dems by the rep and with RW giving a presentation first. The M-Scaler was switched in and out (bypass and active) of a full Chord Electronics/Dynaudio Confidence 60 system and I could definitely 'hear' a difference. What worried me was that I thought the 'sound' with M-Scaler switched in was slightly quieter, giving a 'superior' sense of depth and 'air' to the sound. I felt confused as the difference was either a better sense of dynamic range or an alteration in volume and as the rep had the remotes, I couldn't verify it myself. Apparently it was the latter difference in level, so my jury's still out on it...

I too have heard the Mscaler/Dave demo at a local dealer. The Mscaler does have some attenuation (about 3dB) in all modes including bypass. I assumed this was to kill any intersample overs with the up to 16X interpolation. In fact the Chord DACs themselves have a similar protection which isn’t disabled when used with the Mscaler (perhaps it should?)
I heard a difference between bypass and Mscaler operational but only when switching from Mscaler operational to bypass. Time delays made it rather obvious which path was being used so a blind test might be difficult to set up. Nevertheless a difference was noted. My suspicion is that recovering the filtering in the Chord Dave when switching from 16X oversampled input from the Mscaler back to using the Dave to interpolate may have caused a momentary loss of quality? Who knows - but I certainly couldn’t hear any improvement or difference when switching from Mscaler in bypass mode to Mscaler operational with max interpolation.

 

[SIY]

Fair enough. People's opinions of the sound, even through blind testing is still too subjective. It's all too wishy-washy.

By "subjective" and "wishy washy," you mean "didn't get the results I wanted without peeking."

 

[BDWoody]

People's opinions of the sound, even through blind testing is still too subjective.

I'm not sure what that means exactly, but I'm not looking for anything more than identification of there being a difference, let alone a preference or other opinion at this point.

You basically dismiss blind testing and go back into propaganda mode. Let's start with a demonstration that anything new is actually needed.

 

[DSJR]

It's one of those things that purchasers of said box on other forums tend to feel the 'sound' is better for their substantial purchase and buyer's guilt doesn't appear to rear it's head. Whatever the objective double-blind outcome, so far they seem happy with their purchase some months or now years on. Only if they re-jig the system and leave it out altogether and genuinely miss aspects of the sound might it be interesting. Sorry to be all subjective here, but these seem to be 'heart purchases' as so much higher end domestic audio appears to be on the face of it.

 

[RustyGates]

I'm not sure what that means exactly, but I'm not looking for anything more than identification of there being a difference, let alone a preference or other opinion at this point.

You basically dismiss blind testing and go back into propaganda mode. Let's start with a demonstration that anything new is actually needed.

Example 1:

Multiple blind AB test between a SINAD 90 and a SINAD 110 DAC. A listener finds hardly a difference ends up choosing either option a similar amount of time.

Example 2:

Multiple blind AB test between a SINAD 110 amp and a tube amp. A listener chooses the tube amp most of the time.

Blind AB testing, is not objective evidence. Measurements are, theory is.

Now I've done multiple blind AB with the Scaler, a good critical listen with Focal Utopia's, reported what I've found. If that is being dismissed, then there's not much more I can say on that front.

If some others who've done a quick listen at some hifi show say they can't hear a difference, if you'd rather lean on that, then you sure as well just say Mscaler and HQPlayer are both unnecessary and leave it at that.

 

[SIY]

Blind AB testing, is not objective evidence.

Of course it is, assuming double blind, level matching, and normal controls. Measurement of electronics is just a hell of a lot more sensitive.

 

[BDWoody]

Blind AB testing, is not objective evidence.

Properly conducted, controlled subjective/sensory testing is indeed valid as evidence.

You seem to be making a point of missing the point.

 

[BDWoody]

If some others who've done a quick listen at some hifi show say they can't hear a difference, if you'd rather lean on that, then you sure as well just say Mscaler and HQPlayer are both unnecessary and leave it at that.

It has more to do with understanding why the idea of hearing differences as described is absurdly unlikely. This site is very much about pointing out how much nonsense there is out there, designed to capitalize on ignorance. This box falls in that category, at least to me.

 

[cany89]

Oh boy! 30 plus pages of argument to justify a purchase...

Mscaler and HQPlayer are both unnecessary

Yes IMO.

 

[RustyGates]

Properly conducted, controlled subjective/sensory testing is indeed valid as evidence.

You seem to be making a point of missing the point.

You seem to be missing the point of my examples. It is entirely possible that one's listening is not sensitive enough and there is entirely the possibility a well conducted blind AB is skewed by a sound preference.

Not that a couple of people who went to hifi shows, had a quick AB, is anything like a properly conducted, controlled sensory test.

By the outcome of ex 1, saying an upsampler is unnecessary is like saying the SINAD 110 DAC is completely unnessecary over a SINAD 90. Or lets close the gap, SINAD 110 v SINAD 121.

 

[Purité Audio]

Expensive placebo.
Keith

 

[RustyGates]

Expensive placebo.
Keith

Thank you for you highly objective input, I have been enlightened and the world has changed for the better.

I shall now proceed to sell all my audio gear, grab a $10 cheapo in-ear and use my phone jack from now on. In fact, no, $10 headphone is too placebo. I shall replace it with a couple of potatoes instead.

 

[BDWoody]

It is entirely possible that one's listening is not sensitive enough

Then they won't hear a difference... If no one can be found that can hear a difference, then we don't need anything new to explain said lack of difference.

I shall now proceed to sell all my audio gear, grab a $10 cheapo in-ear and use my phone jack from now on. In fact, no, $10 headphone is too placebo. I shall replace it with a couple of potatoes instead.

Should probably stomp your foot too.

Let's move on now, unless there are any valid results from controlled tests to bring into the discussion, otherwise this is turning into simple trolling.

 

[SIY]

I've trouble discering subtle visual depth perception that others find clear to notice.
Zeos Pantera cannot for the sake of his life hear a difference between a Mojo and any 200 bucks shelfchip dac, while myself test after test it's very clear to me.
Brain/psycho processing where 2 sensors are involved (be that 2 eyes or 2 ears) is a snake pit.

2 comparing units that measure scientifically enough the same can hear te same to one and different to another as senses (and their biologically psychologically processing) are a different animal all together than a scientific measure, they are not even close, they are vastly different. Science can only see a millionth of what the living represent at large, too bad. Potential delusion (placebo) makes it even more complex and works in 2 ways, so also in denial-ism.

Just like various reviewers online I hear upsampling differences clearly, of both HQplayer and mscaler, to me it's stunningly clear, perhaps my deficit of visual depth perception is compensated by augmented transient perception? Happens often that one shortage of senses gets compensated by elevation of another senses that takes over the role of 'localisation' in my particular case here.

Transients is nothing about more or less db in base or highs or midrange, experience wise it shows mostly in the bass section how beautifull it is. Very clear, prominently present changing my hifi for the better, could not be more happier with anything else (hqplayer or scaler) baffled me so hard I have a hard time accepting that not everybody is wired the same, enjoying the same, but this is biological/psychological reality.

I"m convinced some people schould NOT invest money in transients augmentation just as glasses are not profitable for the blinds. This is hardware/psycho stuff and not to be taken personally, just as I don"t take it personally to lack in visual depth perception, it's being wired, just that.

Call me being fooled all day long, be my guest, imho the experience is the final judge. I love science as far as I understand it, donated to Amir, love it.
Like setting out the course of a trip, very important, informative, then on the trip itself I let the experience take over and not being surprised if that turns out in line or against the scientifical home work. If you hang your hat on sciense only, you are limiting yourself to that exactly, the fooling works both ways. Your complexity exceeds any well meant approach, one can only nail that much.

It was a good remark to include posibility of buyers guild, yet for me it limits to buying RME ADI2 FS before that little Mojo which was bougt for battery reasons, not to concur the RME onto a shelf,, I did not wanted that to happen. I know some wil prefer the RME over Mojo, this is the reality we live in and no scientifically report can or will ever change these things from happening, being wired differently. This realisation schould motivate to drop the guns.

Sincerely.

Uh huh.

 

[Jman]

Uh huh.

So for a truthful and honest addition I get reported here as suspisious? Really?

I'll take all your worries away, bye bye everyone, have it your ways.

 

[SIY]

I'll take all your worries away

You know my ex-wife?

 

[solderdude]

So for a truthful and honest addition I get reported here as suspisious?

There is no doubt it is your honest opinion and your findings.
It just doesn't jive with the technical evidence.
So the hard times you have been given is because your way of testing and your findings are deemed not trustworthy.

You enjoy the stuff, keep using it. Don't buy a $ 10.- dongle unless you need it. You will not be satisfied.
When you want folks to agree with you perhaps try more subjective forums or user experience sites. They will agree with you.

When you are interested in finding alternative ways of testing, with the chance of finding out that the differences you perceived may not be what you thought they were, then hang around and try to test alternative (less biased) ways of testing. You should ONLY do this for yourself, not as proof to others.

Enjoy your gear and your music.

 

[BDWoody]

Just like various reviewers online I hear upsampling differences clearly, of both HQplayer and mscaler, to me it's stunningly clear,

Sure thing...

So for a truthful and honest addition I get reported here as suspisious? Really?

I'll take all your worries away, bye bye everyone, have it your ways.

Just in time! Posted today...