We are agreeing - but I cannot accept the Chord DAC somehow cannot be perfectly described by its frequency response and that some how its time domain response is in someway decouple from this. For total system yes - but that's not where Watts was coming from.
-
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
solderdude
Grand Contributor
It can be derived from frequency response with the final (upsample) bitrate in mind.
That's where the Chord excels at compared to other DACs using their own or embedded reconstruction filters.
Of course this becomes all moot when one does upsample to well above 192kHz with a similar steep filter reproduced by a cheaper DAC that can run at that frequency.
There are more issues with things RW claims and says. This is all 'advertising' for his own products. He and his co-workers have to make a living and as the prices of his products are rather high has a limited market/sale numbers potential.
That's where the Chord excels at compared to other DACs using their own or embedded reconstruction filters.
Of course this becomes all moot when one does upsample to well above 192kHz with a similar steep filter reproduced by a cheaper DAC that can run at that frequency.
There are more issues with things RW claims and says. This is all 'advertising' for his own products. He and his co-workers have to make a living and as the prices of his products are rather high has a limited market/sale numbers potential.
Speaking of luxury products with good measurment results, Mola Mola Tambaqui has a filter which is not too different from typical DAC chips. In fact, the filter is slightly softer than the sharpest available filters on typical chips.
www.audiosciencereview.com
Another thing is that both Chord and Mola Mola have their own custom DAC stages. Chord for example, apart from M Scaler, the DAC products use a customized "pulse array" DAC. The FPGA on the other hand is mainly used for digital filtering.
Typical DAC chip filters are doing something in-between (in terms of steepness), so can't be particularly wrong.
Mola Mola Tambaqui DAC and Streamer Review
This is a review and detailed measurements of the Mola Mola Tambaqui USB DAC and Ethernet streamer. It is on kind loan from a member which is quite special when you consider it costing US $11,500 (£8,999). As it should be the Tambaqui weights a lot relative to its size with generous use of...
www.audiosciencereview.com
Typical DAC chip filters are doing something in-between (in terms of steepness), so can't be particularly wrong.
solderdude
Grand Contributor
Yes, Chord is not the only one and the Mola Mola is in a similar price class as the M-scaler + Chord DAC.
And yes, typical on-board chip filters can be good (some really aren't but that's a market thing, people ask for crappy filters)
In practice the good filters (and even some lesser ones) can certainly be good enough and 'transparent'.
So the need for such excellent filters is another thing. But no matter how we twist and turn Chord (and Mola Mola) DACs measure well.
My E30 measures and sounds good enough for me as well though.
And yes, typical on-board chip filters can be good (some really aren't but that's a market thing, people ask for crappy filters)
In practice the good filters (and even some lesser ones) can certainly be good enough and 'transparent'.
So the need for such excellent filters is another thing. But no matter how we twist and turn Chord (and Mola Mola) DACs measure well.
My E30 measures and sounds good enough for me as well though.
Hi,
I have a question on the efficacy of the mscaler when the input is standard CD 16bit/44.1kHz.
The input datastream is 16bit dithered, which i expect means that there is a maximum +/- 1/2LSB error with the dither added to this.
Will the mscaler which uses the interpolation algorithm such as whittaker-shannon, therefore be operating on errored data which results that the interpolation samples between two points of the 16bit datastream, also being in greater error ?
Or will the long filter (1 million taps) "average" out this dither noise, such that the interpolation samples are more accurate than the 16bit samples themselves ?
The S/N of CD cannot be improved, so will any noise shaping creating a noise floor at -300dB be entirely moot as the S/N of the signal cannot be greater than 96dB ?
(Is the -300dB a per Hz or across the audio band ???)
Thanks and regards,
Shadders.
I have a question on the efficacy of the mscaler when the input is standard CD 16bit/44.1kHz.
The input datastream is 16bit dithered, which i expect means that there is a maximum +/- 1/2LSB error with the dither added to this.
Will the mscaler which uses the interpolation algorithm such as whittaker-shannon, therefore be operating on errored data which results that the interpolation samples between two points of the 16bit datastream, also being in greater error ?
Or will the long filter (1 million taps) "average" out this dither noise, such that the interpolation samples are more accurate than the 16bit samples themselves ?
The S/N of CD cannot be improved, so will any noise shaping creating a noise floor at -300dB be entirely moot as the S/N of the signal cannot be greater than 96dB ?
(Is the -300dB a per Hz or across the audio band ???)
Thanks and regards,
Shadders.
Depends on the type of phase shift, but in general, yes, it can certainly affect amplitudes. With DeltaWave you can measure and plot phase differences directly, and as @Blumlein 88 pointed out, you can even correct for them to see if this makes an audible difference.
MacCali
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2020
- Messages
- 1,136
- Likes
- 543
I totally appreciate all this input and I wish more people would get into this comment. I am all team ASR without a doubt. I’m not saying @amirm is wrong by any means or questioning his review. I am actually questioning all the crap RW said in that video cause if he doesn’t say those things it’s going to look really bad on chord.My take on the review.
RW says he did not read the review at the start of the vid. He is lying though as further down when something in the comments and review itself was mentioned he knew directly what a specific measurement was about. This includes the hassle about the -300dB thingy.
About the -300dB thingy. What's funny is that RW explains the dither (which cannot be turned off) and is at 24 bit level (has to be for 24 bit capable DACs) so that noise will be far, far, far, far bigger than the 'computed -300dB signal level changes.
He still claims he can 'somehow and inexplicable' hear this. Not even counting the random noise in the electronics, (recording and reproduction as well as acoustic noise in a room and headphone). He can 'hear' it because he KNOWS what signal he is listening to.|
What RW or some golden eared listener should do is a blind test and get a really high score on that. Will never happen.
The -300dB matters claim by RW is bogus ... of course ... he or some of his followers should prove it (using DCA stealth obviously).
About tonality. I think RW is completely correct on this. Tonality is frequency response AND time response related.
Not only FR and not only time response.
What would be really interesting to see if RW's circuit is really that much better is the following setup.
requires the Hugo2 + M-scaler and regular DAC (which does not have the D70s incompatibility issue)
That D70s issue was NOT mentioned in the video which is odd. RW did clearly state that the M-scaler should only be used on Chord DACs (why mention this when he did not read the review and comments? Why not read such a review anyway as the designer ?)
Anyway... record the analog output with music and compare the output of the regular DAC vs upsampled using M-scaler vs upsampled using SW and have those files scrutinized by @pkane .
Maybe the A20d ?? would be great to test this with the M-scaler but sadly probably won't do much more than 192kHz at best with SPDIF or Toslink.
Too much work would be going into that so is probably not going to happen. It could clearly show the 'timing' thing difference. Thinking about this... phase shifts would be shown as amplitude differences ( @pkane ?)
Amir... you and all other ASR members (aside from Chord owners obviously).... you guys are not listening. You only look at plots. It must be so as RW tells you it is so.
Default line of thinking in the audiophool community.
It's funny how recordings in 44.1 are 'perfect' (despite real world ADC, filtering, DSP, mastering) and can only be correctly reproduced with a RWA filter and all other DACs can not. But... RW made a recording himself and witnessed first hand what the challenges of mic placement and listener position as well as 2 different room effects are.
So yeah... recording matters but just like the MQA story... it can be brought back to what originally was ..
In the end I agree about the tonality thing RW touched and suspect most ASR members know this.
That said.. this is more of a transducer/acoustics issue than the electronics IMHO.
Freely admitting that RW filter response despite the steep roll-off is very 'sharp' and arguably better than what most other DACs produce.
Audibility needs testing (possible with 192kHz and higher capable DACs or DSD) perhaps.
Would 'complete' the set of measurements if the impulse response (and or square waves) were measured by @amirm but requires a lot of extra effort ?
On top of this that reviewer owns the m scaler if RW came out and said the truth I can only imagine how he would feel.
My personal opinion has been everytime I hear that M scaler on any chord product it sounds worse than the chord dac solo and irony in this would be there is no blind testing and the bias that this product should enhance the sound and even then I don’t like it. To me this would make this original review extremely valid lol
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2020
- Messages
- 90
- Likes
- 73
This "review" of the M-Scaler came up on my feed and it is astounding. Not the performance but the trickery that's employed. The reviewer plays tracks and changes settings on the M Scaler then immediately switches off the music and then talks about how great the change was.
I have a pretty good system and despite YouTube compression I was interested to see if i heard a difference. Not a chance. He will not allow the tracks to play for more than a second and he does this repeatedly.
solderdude
Grand Contributor
FiFO
OP
- Thread Starter
- #951
I saw that before my review. It is a garbage review of course. He measures, finds problems, sweeps them under the rug. Then he makes a bunch of absurd remarks about how it improves this and that DAC, but don't put it on this other one because it is waste of money.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #952
No. Your speaker+room is a timing soup. No way anything in the DAC in this regard is preserved, or is audible. Research clearly backs this that at most, phase is audible in anechoic chamber and headphone listening. And even then, the impact is very subtle and not at all the tonality of the sound. Here is Dr. Toole for example:
"There is no possibility of anything like
“waveform fidelity”; there simply is no single waveform that totally exemplifies
the sound of real musical instruments. This fact presages discussions later in
the book about the near inaudibility of phase shift compared to the dominant
role of spectrum (frequency response, in loudspeakers); to have waveform fidelity,
both are required."
A minimum phase system is also completely defined by its amplitude. This is mathematically proven and not subject to debate.
solderdude
Grand Contributor
As said before... I am not talking about the filter in a DAC but in general that for a reproduction system (so incl. transducers) that even when FR is 'flat' after EQ there can still be tonal balance differences in music due to drivers 'swinging in' taking different amounts of time at different frequencies and the first wavefront being important than the following waves.
Of course this does not happen in a DAC nor in an amp, but does in transducers. Regardless of what 'soup' is finally created by a room.
This is what I agree on about 'tonality'. Not that his DAC or M-scaler has 'better' tonality. It doesn't. I can't. Nor about theories being incorrect. Just about 'tonality' in general when looking at a whole reproduction system.
Of course this does not happen in a DAC nor in an amp, but does in transducers. Regardless of what 'soup' is finally created by a room.
This is what I agree on about 'tonality'. Not that his DAC or M-scaler has 'better' tonality. It doesn't. I can't. Nor about theories being incorrect. Just about 'tonality' in general when looking at a whole reproduction system.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #954
As I explained, even in that domain it is inconsequential. But here, in the context of this product, there shouldn't have been any agreement with Rob Watts. I made a statement clearly about this product, and his response was to it as well. So I don't see how there was agreement with him, and disagreement with me.
solderdude
Grand Contributor
For DACs and reconstruction filters yes... I don't agree with RW when he is talking about his DAC/M-scaler only and if he merely talked about this then he is very wrong.
When he was talking about tonality in general, when looking at transducers which ultimately are THE most important 'sound quality determinators' then RW has a point.
When he was talking about tonality in general, when looking at transducers which ultimately are THE most important 'sound quality determinators' then RW has a point.
Taps count does not have direct relationship with sample rate and oversampling ratio. It is even possible to use prime number in tap count.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #957
Ah, that's right. Thanks for the good information.
The measurement showed that the audible contribution of this device is zero. Man is a creature that tries to find at least 0.1 percent plus. Unfortunately, this can also bring a minus. The human ear and brain are subject to pseudo acoustics and the companies know that. Their business is built on it. The sensitivity of the measuring device is several times higher than hearing. You have to come to terms with that. Otherwise, it remains a pseudo search... Every day a different sound....
solderdude
Grand Contributor
I am not talking about phase response either though.
What I am talking about is the effect below. It is a behaviour not seen in electronics (other than expanders/compressors)
Different headphones, different response to a 100Hz burst.
Below 3 well known headphones. The Stax needs some time to 'swing' to the desired amplitude while once on that amplitude they all do the same.
When one measures FR with a few sine waves at every frequency then the FR plot would show similar FR but when one plays a note (more like an impulse with decay) then the Stax (assuming the amplitude of the first wavefront is the most important one) will have a different 'impression' of the bass compared to higher frequencies where this effect is not seen or even the other way around (peaking) which then gives the impression of being relatively bass-shy even when measured frequency response shows the proper amount of bass it might still be perceived as 'tonally weaker' in the bass.
Regarding this particular effect (not seen in electronics) I would say tonality (of transducers) is not completely characterized when listening to music by (measured) FR nor phase and furthermore is not properly correctable with EQ either. At least not with 'simple' parametric or graphic EQ.
Similar threads
- Poll
