I'm doing my best not to waste any time talking about measurements and my first post had nothing to do with that.
-
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)
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Then why the question and talk about error correction and network is better than USB?
From the website - usb and 2xBNC cables are included in the box. So no need to buy cables.
Also from the website:
The Hugo M Scaler brings the unrivalled advantages of our ground-breaking FPGA-based WTA (Watts Transient Alignment) filtering technology to digitally connected audio devices, dramatically improving sound quality. Although optimised for use with selected Chord Electronics DACs (for the maximum 768kHz upscaling/decoding benefit), the Hugo M Scaler can be used with other DACs with suitable inputs, subject to their decoding capability.
I'm wondering what are "suitable inputs" and the required "decoding ability". All very vague, or should it just be used with a Chord DAC with 2xBNC inputs?
If the filters are shown by the measurements to operate, is it the case that improved sound quality is entirely subjective and system dependent? If only I had the money to find out.
Also from the website:
The Hugo M Scaler brings the unrivalled advantages of our ground-breaking FPGA-based WTA (Watts Transient Alignment) filtering technology to digitally connected audio devices, dramatically improving sound quality. Although optimised for use with selected Chord Electronics DACs (for the maximum 768kHz upscaling/decoding benefit), the Hugo M Scaler can be used with other DACs with suitable inputs, subject to their decoding capability.
I'm wondering what are "suitable inputs" and the required "decoding ability". All very vague, or should it just be used with a Chord DAC with 2xBNC inputs?
If the filters are shown by the measurements to operate, is it the case that improved sound quality is entirely subjective and system dependent? If only I had the money to find out.
There are 203 posts on this thread and you are not the OP. It will help if you linked that post you mention.
I didn't state an opinion - I just asked a question. If he heard no difference with 2x then one more button press would have given 4x, so he would have gone from what he perceived as no difference at 2x to the next highest setting. With a TT2 that was where I noticed the difference became evidence - at 4x.
In my experience using bypass was not the same as removing the M-Scaler from the chain, so using bypass might be flawed anyway (I believe bypass might be very slightly louder but I'm going from memory).
My first post in the thread was basically asking why he only conducted the listening test with 2x upsampling when he could also have tried 4x and 16x.
The files were bypassed and 2x - not 16x or 4x and he didn't try listening with 4x or 16x, which was what I was questioning.
He thought there is no reason in his own mind, he doesn't value listening tests, he didn't think of it, he didn't have the time, he wanted to tend to his garden instead, etc., etc. Take your pick...
You seem to forget that he is doing it as a hobby. He is not charging for these tests. However, you are critiquing him as why he didn't push a button?
May I suggest you start helping the forum by becoming a donor and then critique the tests.
What a strange and somewhat aggressive response to a simple question. Relax buddy, there's no need to be quite so defensive.
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2020
- Messages
- 168
- Likes
- 1,089
I use "D/A processor" for a complete product that incorporate a D/A converter - "DAC" - chip or circuit.
John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile
Because shit happens? I did not say network is better, I said they are getting momentum. In the case of this product, there is obviously a problem, we don't know if it's Jitter, noise, or corruption and rounding error in the resampling process. Or maybe you do? The comment was "DACs should be immune to what happens prior." My point is no, it's not.
AudioSceptic
Major Contributor
Thanks, but most call the complete product a DAC, and the actual converter the DAC *chip*. No consumer buys the naked chip.
Here brick wall filter attenuation is more than 120db while in amir's measurements it is 80db. did I get anything wrong ? The main idea behind m scaler is filtering and if it is 120db brick wall attenuation then it is ok i think.Chord Electronics Hugo M Scaler upsampling digital processor Measurements
Sidebar 3: Measurementswww.stereophile.com
Is this the same model?
Isn't the actual M Scaler needed to be heard in person if we are going to hear the full effect of the upscaling?
If I listen to those files in my system another upscaling will occur before the signal goes to my DAC.
REK2575
Active Member
"It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $5,295 (some show it as $5,650)."
Astonishing. I just can't help but think of how much actually good and useful audio equipment you could buy for that much money. Like a complete audio system from source(s) to speakers, for instance...
Astonishing. I just can't help but think of how much actually good and useful audio equipment you could buy for that much money. Like a complete audio system from source(s) to speakers, for instance...
According to Google there are about 420m entries for "D/A processor" and 370m for "DAC".
Marc v E
Major Contributor
So this product is in essence an fgpa with a brick wall filter programmed into it?
I am not sure I want to know the result
AudioSceptic
Major Contributor
Well, colour me surprised.According to Google there are about 420m entries for "D/A processor" and 370m for "DAC".
Has the term ever been used (not just quoted) in ASR?
Similar threads
- Poll
