CHORD M-Scaler Review (Upsampler)

[JohnA]

There are really only two possible explanations for his (public) behaviour: incompetence or dishonesty. Either way, trusting him is a mistake.

After watching Rob answer the carefully-phrased questions I know which way I'm leaning on now..

Reminded me a bit of the prince Andrew interview

 

[Human Bass]

So either the people who find audible improvements are all wrong, the improvement detected isn't really an improvement or it's doing something that isn't being measured.

I would have liked to have seen it tested using the higher upsampling settings. If that was not going to be done then the review should state that no difference was detected by the reviewer using the lowest setting but he did not have the opportunity to try the higher settings and therefore cannot draw a conclusion about how those settings might perform.

I'm not sure that it's reasonable to say the M-Scaler does nothing when the higher settings were not tested.

If it's modifying an electrical signal, it can be measured just fine. We are not talking about actual sound and acoustics that have way more variables, but signals that are yet converted into sound.

The main weakness of the M-Scaler is that ignores the concept of diminishing returns. Forcing 384 or 768khz is meaningless for our hearing.

 

[Rednaxela]

The most interesting bit is around the 27 min mark where it's about transients and how important they are. Read the literature he says! He also keeps repeating listening tests but never gives any information on how these are done. Nor does the interviewer ask about these.

Agree.

If you can’t be bothered to watch the entire video, fast forward to this question indeed and watch on for about five minutes. At one point he says about a listening test he did to evaluate the audibility of different levels of noise floor modulation

[...] and the shocking thing is that there seems to be no limit to how sensitive the brain is in terms of noise floor modulation.

I think right there, in the highlighted part, you have the core of the entire controversy.

 

[vlad335]

Reading the comments to the video I see there is no hope for some of these people. My favorite fanboy comment, ( i cannot find it, must have been deleted) said something to the effect of "measurements are dangerous and should only be done by those that are qualified." Oh my...

 

[tomita]

Rob talks about the fact that Amir should've measured transient response and not stable (fixed) signal. Is there any such measurement and would it be meaningful in any way?

 

[nyxnyxnyx]

I've ordered a Topping D90SE DAC and get it on Saturday. I want to compare it side by side with the DAVE now after more research in my audio systems since it's less than 1/10 of the price. This is just subjective listening tests for myself, but it shows how much I am getting disturbed by Chord's marketing claims.

I revisited the official Chord white paper, which really reads more like a marketing brochure. I've included some quotes from it, and then below them why they seem problematic. Please correct me if I'm not understanding the concepts correctly, as this stuff is new to me (I'm a lawyer, not an engineer).

1. Thirty-five years after the introduction of the CD, some would think that huge leaps forward would be improbable at this point. The Chord Hugo M Scaler proves without doubt that is not the case. It may in fact be the single greatest advancement in digital sound reproduction ever. The Hugo M Scaler offers the world’s most advanced upscaling technology, taking digital files from any source and transforming them into audio that’s virtually indistinguishable from the original analog performance.

This is impossible, right? Through upscaling or upsampling (not sure what the correct term is so I'll use them interchangeably), you cannot recreate the original analog performance from a digital file that was sampled at 44.1hz/16 bit. That is, the best you can do is remove (through sampling, filters, etc.) audible artifacts that are an inevitable byproduct of the analog to digital conversion.

2. At 44,100 samples per second, there’s a gap between samples—22 microseconds to be exact. The problem is musical timing and transient information also occurs in these gaps and whatever information that exists in the gaps is lost when creating the digital file. DACs can’t recover missing timing information—they simply miss the start of the transient. Blurring of transients is the result. That gets confusing for the ear and the brain. Which means we won’t perceive timbre or soundstage or the pitch of bass instruments properly.

This might be true, but not for the reasons stated? That is, the problem with sampling at 44,100khz is that you introduce aliasing from the folding in of frequencies above (.5 * 44,100khz), which distorts the recreated analog waveform. But the distortion is not created by the gaps between samples, the gaps are mathematically filled in by reconstructing the wave form through the inverse Fourier transform? And you can address the aliasing to a large degree through filters and perhaps upsampling.

3. The Hugo M Scaler acts like a “pre-DAC”. It takes the digital file and repairs it, adding back the information lost between the samples, then it sends the repaired file to the DAC. The M Scaler increases the sampling rate from 44,100 times per second (44.1 KHZ) by a multiple of 16, to 705,600 times per second (706.6 KHz). With 705,600 samples per second, a huge amount of important information that was lost when creating the 44.1 digital file is now recovered. The more samples, the closer you get to the original analog signal. In essence the Hugo M Scaler places 15 additional new musical samples in between each original musical sample resulting in an astounding improvement in the recreation of the original music signal.

This is impossible? You cannot "repair" a digital file and add back information that was never there; what you can do through upscaling is mitigate sonic artifacts by shifting the Nyquist threshold to higher frequencies.

4. Rob Watts, Chord’s Digital Design Consultant, has developed his exclusive WTA (Watts Transient Alignment) technology, which incorporates the most advanced interpolation filter of its kind in the world. That mammoth processing power allows for a huge breakthrough in what’s known as tap length of the filter—to a previously unimaginable 1,015,808 taps.

Perhaps a little unfair because this was written a few years ago, but HQ Player can match or exceed the number of taps listed here? More importantly, this implies that the *way* the interpolation filter works matters more than the simple number of taps, and yet it boasts about the number of taps, not sure which factor is meaningful (or both). That is, can filter "quality" matter vs. filter quantity?

5. Simply put, taps are a measure of device’s capacity to reproduce the original waveform. The longer the tap length of the filter, the closer it gets to the original analog signal.

This is incorrect, right? Tap lengths help to a point but they yield diminishing or no returns on reconstruction of the analog waveform?

6. With this ingenious technology, the M Scaler doesn’t do a crude interpolation like all other filters or “guess” to fill in the dots between each step. It peers deep into the actual data itself, as if looking under a microscope, and reconstructs the missing waveform in its exact original form thus creating an almost perfect new digital version of the original analog performance.

This is simply false, and perhaps absurd?

7. The Hugo M Scaler quite literally represents the realization of a lifelong dream for Rob Watts. Half a million lines of code and hundreds of listening tests later, listeners can now experience something they never could before— a huge difference in resolution, bass definition, sound staging, instrument separation and focus and more varied instrument timbre.

Perhaps (it's a subjective claim), but it seems the hundreds of listening tests where done on one (or a few) persons who have an interest in promoting the device?

8. Works With Everything. The Hugo M Scaler is inserted in your system ahead of the DAC— it is not a DAC and it does not replace your DAC. The M Scaler improves the sound of all digital audio systems. It works with all digital files and streaming services and all digital source components; streamers, smart devices, computers, CD/DVD players and video systems. The M Scaler works with all DAC brands so you don’t need a Chord Electronics DAC to get the benefits of upscaling. Even if you have an older DAC that only accommodates 4 or 8 times upscaling, you will still get a very worthwhile improvement in sound quality when adding the M Scaler to your audio system.

This is just plain false, based on testing but also Rob's own posts in the Headfi forums.

I was going to include the testimonials in the white paper but decided not to because it feels like kicking a dog at this point. They are pretty outrageous though.

Have you received your D90SE and try some listening tests? I was curious after reading your post so I want to see your follow-up .

 

[dc655321]

Rob talks about the fact that Amir should've measured transient response and not stable (fixed) signal. Is there any such measurement and would it be meaningful in any way?

I would like to hear Mr. Watts' methodology for such a test, and why Chord marketing has not amplified the "miracle transients" message.

He's so full of crap...

 

[raif71]

I like Passion For Sounds channel... just another avenue to get reviews and opinions on audio gears just like this awesome site. Enjoyed his interviews with Jason Stoddard and Rob Watts.

 

[Rottmannash]

Chord's new marketing slogan: "Measures worse-sounds better! "

 

[AlephAlpha001]

I like Passion For Sounds channel... just another avenue to get reviews and opinions on audio gears just like this awesome site. Enjoyed his interviews with Jason Stoddard and Rob Watts.

OTOH, I blocked his, Darko's, and several other channels because I see these as being conduits for sales-marketing-snakeoil viruses being piped through my eyes into my brain and getting me into a hypnotic fugue state where I click around and buy over-priced gear I don't need. I already do *that* anyway, so why exacerbate the problem? YMMV.

 

[Ronnie99]

Hello:

I've been using TT2 & M Scaler through KEF Blade Speakers and an A-S3200 Yamaha Integrated for a while now.
M SCALER required around 100 hours to come around (even more pronounced than Hugo TT2).

DAVE with or without M SCALER was a bit too analytical for my liking but I can understand the appeal.

My Source is a home-built (pc-based) A/V Server with SoTM components (clock and dedicated USB).
I primarily listen to FLAC and DSD files from SSD.

With M Scaler turned onto "High", it sounds fantastic; there exists a musical realism that simply isn't there with it bypassed or eliminated from the equipment chain.
The "Maximum" Upscale setting on M SCALER I didn't care for.

I've just glanced at a few of the comments above and I don't know what else to say except I'd like to drop a quote from A. Einstein- "Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted".

On a side-note, I did read an article about Speaker Cables and because the MEASURABLE differences were small between the various cables, the human-ear couldn't possibly detect a difference, according to the Author of the testing. Several cables later I found this simply wasn't true and finally settled on what I liked.

That article reminded me of the quote.

Lots of variables and opinions in high(er)-end Audio which (in part), makes it an interesting Hobby.

 

[BDWoody]

M SCALER required around 100 hours to come around (even more pronounced than Hugo TT2).

That's silly.

A. Einstein- "Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted".

But, anything that can be heard can be measured.
We get so many quotes from the great minds of history, when in this case, I'd bet a lot that Mr. Einstein would simply ask for evidence.

 

[amirm]

I've just glanced at a few of the comments above and I don't know what else to say except I'd like to drop a quote from A. Einstein- "Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted".

Measurements don't have to be complete to be useful. Indeed, they never are complete yet the world is built on it. Your doctor measures your vitals, has you take a few tests and diagnoses you. Yet, that limited set of measurements when applied to audio is not good enough?

I suggest not falling for talking points. They are sales technics designed to get you to believe in fantasies with no proof points.

 

[DonR]

I've just glanced at a few of the comments above and I don't know what else to say except I'd like to drop a quote from A. Einstein- "Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted".

Einstein never said anything like that. The quote that you misattribute is to a sociologist named Cameron in 1963 which is a comment on earlier findings on enumerated data in sociology.

 

[Somafunk]

M SCALER required around 100 hours to come around (even more pronounced than Hugo TT2).

Of course it does, don‘t forget to take your meds

 

[amirm]

He invites Rob Watts to respond to my review. Yet Rob doesn't bother to read my review to know what to address??? Why not pause the interview and let him read the review and then continue? If he had read the interview, he would have known that I also performed listening tests.

BTW, he threw buzzwords out there at 100 miles/hour. I am confident none of the people watching his channel and commenting has any idea what he is saying (and fallacies within).

 

[DonR]

He invites Rob Watts to respond to my review. Yet Rob doesn't bother to read my review to know what to address??? Why not pause the interview and let him read the review and then continue? If he had read the interview, he would have known that I also performed listening tests.

BTW, he threw buzzwords out there at 100 miles/hour. I am confident none of the people watching his channel and commenting has any idea what he is saying (and fallacies within).

A classic Gish Gallop of technospeak.

 

[Somafunk]

BTW, he threw buzzwords out there at 100 miles/hour.

If you talk fast enough with confidence and pepper the script with technical buzzwords/audio voodoo, then your “average Joe” would merely nod along sagely and think to himself “this guy obviously knows what he’s talking about, I’ll have some of what he’s selling”.

Its a shame as Rob Watts is no doubt a very capable engineer (I own a mojo2/poly) yet he often refers to what my limited understanding of electronics (BSc elec/mech engineering) would consider audiophoolery nonsense, if I had the time and inclination I’d sit down with that video and work through all that he says and attempt to verify but to be honest I fear it would burst my head.

 

[dc655321]

Hello:

I've been using TT2 & M Scaler through KEF Blade Speakers and an A-S3200 Yamaha Integrated for a while now.
M SCALER required around 100 hours to come around (even more pronounced than Hugo TT2).

DAVE with or without M SCALER was a bit too analytical for my liking but I can understand the appeal.

My Source is a home-built (pc-based) A/V Server with SoTM components (clock and dedicated USB).
I primarily listen to FLAC and DSD files from SSD.

With M Scaler turned onto "High", it sounds fantastic; there exists a musical realism that simply isn't there with it bypassed or eliminated from the equipment chain.
The "Maximum" Upscale setting on M SCALER I didn't care for.

I've just glanced at a few of the comments above and I don't know what else to say except I'd like to drop a quote from A. Einstein- "Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted".

On a side-note, I did read an article about Speaker Cables and because the MEASURABLE differences were small between the various cables, the human-ear couldn't possibly detect a difference, according to the Author of the testing. Several cables later I found this simply wasn't true and finally settled on what I liked.

That article reminded me of the quote.

Lots of variables and opinions in high(er)-end Audio which (in part), makes it an interesting Hobby.

Is there a bot somewhere that produces these messages?

There all so painfully similar and asinine.

 

[DonR]

Is there a bot somewhere that produces these messages?

There all so painfully similar and asinine.

You would think that for $6K they could have each unit sitting on a shelf for 4 days to ... ahem... "burn in" before shipping to the customer but apparently, shelf space and power is too expensive.