CHORD M-Scaler Review (Upsampler)

[solderdude]

The interpolated sample values between the original samples are calculated based on current, previous and later sample values using an algorithm.
One can easily 'look' into the future by buffering the stream of bits and that's why the audio is lagging in time because samples are stored so they can be used to calculate what the interpolated values should be. The algorithm for these calculations and the number of samples available makes the sharp filter possible.

So it basically calculates what the 15 in-between values between 2 samples (44.1kHz) should be, based on previous and future known sample values.
All DS DACs and oversampling DACs do this but use less samples in between or use different algorithms and/or only look at less future/previous values or make a different 'mix' of number before/after samples. It is just calculations.

 

[axbarker]

Characterize yes... but you did notice you mentioned amplitude and phase response so it cannot be fully characterized with just FR.
Explains why I cannot always 100% correlate step and FR plots (there is a relation but not 100%) and the mains reason I post both as well as a very short 'personal impression' of how I perceive the sound which also does not have full relation to my (flawed) measurements, which of course differ from standards and other people's perception.

Yes, BW limited with lots of resonances at various frequencies. In the end it is the actual wavefront arriving at the ears that determines what the brain makes of it.
At least that's what I got from JJ.

I have to admit the math involved goes completely above my head. I see measurement results and correlate.

Of course this all has nothing to do with the Chord which this thread is about. A new thread about perception and measurements would be needed.

Frequency response is magnitude and phase all captured in a unique impulse response. Nothing else needed.

 

[solderdude]

So either IR or magnitude + phase response but not only frequency response.
Thus one needs to show IR (and understand how to interpret it) or show amplitude and phase (in one plot, like REW does) and understand what the sonic implications are.
Not only posting a frequency plot and then conclude that says everything about how it sounds.

 

[dc655321]

So either IR or magnitude + phase response but not only frequency response.
Thus one needs to show IR (and understand how to interpret it) or show amplitude and phase (in one plot, like REW does) and understand what the sonic implications are.
Not only posting a frequency plot and then conclude that says everything about how it sounds.

It's a pet peeve of mine that so many refer to plots of amplitude vs frequency as The Frequency Response.
It's not - it's the amplitude or magnitude response. I know you know this (not directed at you).

FFT[ f[n] ] = F(w) = A(w) * exp(j*P(w)), for amplitude A and phase P of Frequency Response F.

 

[Jimi Floyd]

It's a pet peeve of mine that so many refer to plots of amplitude vs frequency as The Frequency Response.
It's not - it's the amplitude or magnitude response. I know you know this (not directed at you).

FFT[ f[n] ] = F(w) = A(w) * exp(j*P(w)), for amplitude A and phase P of Frequency Response F.

ehrrm, sorry bro, I don't know how to say this to you... There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your post

 

[dc655321]

ehrrm, sorry bro, I don't know how to say this to you... There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your post

ehrrm, wut? bro?

 

[Glint]

420Hz Best Hz, it would appear.

 

[Jomungur]

Too bad many Forums on the Internet fail to exchange useful information in favor of promoting Herd Mentality.

What I find particularly odd are the pages of positive Reviews from around the world that sing the M SCALER’s praises. It’s unlikely Rob Watts bribed/baffled them all with technical jargon.

And I’m assuming the vast majority of those on this Forum have never heard DAVE/TT2 with M SCALER to be making a truly informed comment.

Unfortunately, no one has been able to build a device to measure what is considered to be "sound quality".

I know what I’ hear and what I like and THAT is what matters most to me.

Cheers.

Long post, so bear with me. I’ve had the Topping DSE90 for a week now and compared it to the DAVE. Here are my subjective impressions. I think they'll be helpful for someone following this thread and wondering “how could all the glowing Chord reviews” be wrong.

Aside on blind testing since it's so often mentioned here. Blind would be ideal but I don’t think standardized blind testing will ever be the norm in audio except by the manufacturers. It’s too impractical for a consumer. (How can you really blind test headphones anyway, all of which feel different on your head? You can only really make a mock Utopia if you’re Focal). And I can’t imagine how you would do double blind testing on audio components. I don’t think subjective tests are pointless, though. The point of blind testing is to isolate causal factors to get rid of confounders (bias being the chief one here), but there are many areas in science where you cannot blind test. You get around this by increasing your data set. You measure the tested variable under many different circumstances and then use linear regression to determine whether the “causal” influence or weight to the tested variable. The idea being that with a large enough data set, the statistical noise added by possible confounders washes out.

Ok, I didn’t do quite that, just an amateur imitation of it. I tested the Topping vs. DAVE on multiple systems using 3 headphones and 2 loudspeakers. I also got my teenage age son to help me, which was partially a blind test because he doesn’t know the value difference of the DACs. I also tried tube amps and solid states. I tried on multiple days to minimize the “new toy” factor. I even tried in different rooms because my loudspeakers are in different locations. I used balanced XLR interconnects as well as unbalanced interconnects, although one of my amps only takes RCA interconnects. I tried CDs as well as Qobuz Flacs and Tidal MQA on Roon.

I was expecting a wash, but to my surprise the Topping D90SE was superior to the DAVE in every scenario. And the more expensive the speaker, the more the difference was noticeable for both me and my son. I have no idea about quality control or build quality of the Topping, I’ve only had it a week. But sonically, no contest for me.

I was shocked. I’m not even upset about the money factor, because my sound system, which I thought already sounded great, sounds even better. I was even thinking about letting anyone who is in NYC come check it out, but perhaps a better direction is: if you can afford the DAVE, the Topping is a less than 1/10 of the cost. So buy it, and compare honestly and see what you think. Take the DAVE out for a couple of days and see if you miss them. Meanwhile, I sent the DAVE in for measurements and let's see what they say.

I list the components below. As you can see, I have more tube amps right now than solid state so maybe that was a factor.

Rather than say all the usual things about sound quality, let me just say that I’m starting to think the point of a DAC is to simply to get out of the way as cleanly as possible. I feel like the Topping DE90 does that better than the DAVE. It allows my speakers and amp to do what they’re supposed to. If you like euphonic distortions, get a nice tube amp rather than go through the the DAC to get it.

And spend most of your budget on speakers, as opposed to 50% which is what most dealers will try to tell you.

I don’t want to bash Chord. The DAVE is a great sounding DAC. But it was released in 2015. I think it has been left in the dust with some of the newer products coming out now at a much cheaper price point.

Speakers used: BW 802D4 tower, BW 805D bookshelf, Hifiman Shangrila, Hifiman Susvara, Focal Utopia
Amps: Airtight ATM-300, Primaluna EVO 400, Danatone Headspace, Peachtree Nova 500

 

[Jimbob54]

Long post, so bear with me. I’ve had the Topping DSE90 for a week now and compared it to the DAVE. Here are my subjective impressions. I think they'll be helpful for someone following this thread and wondering “how could all the glowing Chord reviews” be wrong.

On blind vs. subjective testing, blind would be ideal but I don’t think standardized blind testing will ever be the norm in audio except by the manufacturers. It’s too impractical for a consumer. (How can you really blind test headphones anyway, all of which feel different on your head? You can only really make a mock Utopia if you’re Focal). And I can’t imagine how you would do double blind testing on audio components. I don’t think subjective tests are pointless, though. The point of blind testing is to isolate causal factors to get rid of confounders (bias being the chief one here), but there are many areas in science where you cannot blind test. You get around this by increasing your data set. You measure the tested variable under many different circumstances and then use linear regression to determine whether the “causal” influence or weight to the tested variable. The idea being that with a large enough data set, the statistical noise added by possible confounders washes out.

Ok, I didn’t do quite that, just an amateur imitation of it. I tested the Topping vs. DAVE on multiple systems using 3 headphones and 2 loudspeakers. I also got my teenage age son to help me, which was partially a blind test because he doesn’t know the value difference of the DACs. I also tried tube amps and solid states. I tried on multiple days to minimize the “new toy” factor. I even tried in different rooms because my loudspeakers are in different locations. I used balanced XLR interconnects as well as unbalanced interconnects, although one of my amps only takes RCA interconnects. I tried CDs as well as Qobuz Flacs and Tidal MQA on Roon.

I was expecting a wash, but to my surprise the Topping D90SE was superior to the DAVE in every scenario. And the more expensive the speaker, the more the difference was noticeable for both me and my son. I have no idea about quality control or build quality of the Topping, I’ve only had it a week. But sonically, no contest for me.

I was shocked. I’m not even upset about the money factor since I bought the DAVE before the Topping came out. I'm actually happy because my sound system, which I thought already sounded great, sounds even better. I was even thinking about letting anyone who is in NYC come check it out, but perhaps a better direction is: if you can afford the DAVE, the Topping is a less than 1/10 of the cost. So buy it, and compare honestly and see what you think. Take the DAVE out for a couple of days and see if you miss them. Meanwhile, I sent the DAVE in for measurements and let's see what they say.

I list the components below. As you can see, I have more tube amps right now than solid state so maybe that was a factor.

Rather than say all the usual things about sound quality, let me just say that I’m starting to think the point of a DAC is to simply to get out of the way as cleanly as possible. I feel like the Topping DE90 does that better than the DAVE. It allows my speakers and amp to do what they’re supposed to. If you like euphonic distortions, get a nice tube amp rather than go through the the DAC to get it.

And spend most of your budget on speakers, as opposed to 50% which is what most dealers will try to tell you.

I don’t want to bash Chord. The DAVE is a great sounding DAC. But it was released in 2015. I think it has been left in the dust with some of the newer products coming out now at a much cheaper price point.

Speakers used: BW 802D4 tower, BW 805D bookshelf, Hifiman Shangrila, Hifiman Susvara, Focal Utopia
Amps: Airtight ATM-300, Primaluna EVO 400, Danatone Headspace, Peachtree Nova 500

Did you match the output levels from both DACs?

 

[Jomungur]

Did you match the output levels from both DACs?

Tried my best but hard to tell because their base output voltages are different. Topping I set to 5V base. Dave is 6V at -3db on balanced, so I tried to go a bit below that. But I can't say I matched it, no.

 

[Wunderphones]

Rather than say all the usual things about sound quality, let me just say that I’m starting to think the point of a DAC is to simply to get out of the way as cleanly as possible. I feel like the Topping DE90 does that better than the DAVE. It allows my speakers and amp to do what they’re supposed to. If you like euphonic distortions, get a nice tube amp rather than go through the the DAC to get it.

And spend most of your budget on speakers, as opposed to 50% which is what most dealers will try to tell you.

I like all my components to get out of the way as cleanly as possible, but the DAC especially should lack character. And cheap Topping DACs make even more sense when you consider that you could redirect that money to speakers.

 

[Blumlein 88]

If you didn't match volumes you need to redo your listening. No test works with mismatched volumes. Volume matching is job #1 for blind or sighted listening comparisons.

Matching must be measured. Level matching by ear is not good enough.

 

[srkbear]

I am prepared to give Rob the benefit of the doubt on this one. Our understanding of the brain is primitive and we have no proof that his claim is incorrect.
...But neither do we have any proof (or even indication!) that the claim is correct.

Nobody has managed to pick up any of these nuances in a proper blind test, not even Rob.
So the burden of proof is on his side..

Giving that the benefit of the doubt is no different than giving Russell’s Teapot credibility. Watts thinks he can simply string together a bunch of sciency sounding, inscrutable gobbledygook and rely on his own eminence to cause confusion and conjecture to pass as savant-level ingenuity.

It’s all part of his low-rent Dale Carnegie act—he and Paul McGowan are simply guileful salesmen posing as prodigious inventors. They’ve created such cults of personality that they can sell Rube Goldberg machines for $12,000. And their converts go for your jugular if you make any attempt to question the propaganda.

I’m at the point where I feel like these efforts to expose their fraud only fortifies their dominion—the disciplined reviews on here are QED at this point, and although they’re satisfying to me, I worry that only the folks on this forum are impervious to their hype. Every time one of these exposés appears on here, it just emboldens the anti-ASR villagers on Head-Fi to light more torches.

 

[srkbear]

And that it does.
Also there is no aliasing.
Chord DACs are the only one's I have seen that have such steep (near ideal) reconstruction filters.
Of course, in software one can do a similar thing and use any other DAC that can do at least 192/24 which is the cheaper solution.
That said...
The $1M question is whether or not such is audible which is where Rob W's claims mostly are about.
Rob has been known to make some outragious claims though... understandable given his target audience/buyers.



Nope, it certainly isn't.

To me the $1M question is how he arrives at his price points.

 

[srkbear]

1 bit is 6dB... so it would depend on what bit one toggles

The whole -300dB story is misinterpreted and then used to make people believe he claimed he can hear down to -300dB.
The explanation is very simple. Sighted observations.
A bit like applying some EQ (adjusting sliders a bit) with the actual EQ circuit (not knowing) being disabled.
While adjusting the sliders one actually hears the sound change but in reality nothing did.
So when comparing some algorithm sighted (and knowing it differs) it is easy to 'reliably and reproducible' hear differences even when there aren't any.
The EQ thing has happened to many (it did to me a few times) and shows how 'knowing' can alter perception.
So it really is not important if some measurement showed -300 or -294dB. One can still 'hear' differences when one believes there are differences.

That's why: blind, level matched and statistically valid testing (when possible) is gold and sighted 'rigorous' testing is fooling yourself.
Also stating something like this 'shows' people that hang to his lips how great he (and his hearing) is.

In reality, even when using headphones at 120dB SPL peak he cannot hear any change -100dB lower than those peaks (and most likely even -70dB)

At his age the most liberal estimations of his keen ears would put him at a maximum frequency detection of around 14,000hz—and given the amount of time he has likely spent exposing himself to high decibel ranges, accurate projections are probably lower than that. Those who make claims of possessing “golden ears” probably steer clear of audiometric testing—if @amirm could find a way to add those tools to his armamentarium this site could really topple some sacred totems.

 

[DSJR]

ALL Chord stuff is expensive, if not now in Naim's higher category (in the UK). I remember the stereo power amp they made decades back (SPM 1200?) which wasn't cheap to start with and with a very solid black brushed case and a recessed gold name badge. They re-clothed it in the steam punk stylee they seem to like and increased the price quite a bit, but sales increased (I have a memory of the head honcho there telling someone about this once at a UK audio show but it was a long time ago I admit). The 1200 was a very good solid tough amp which the BBC used in later versions of their active LS5/8's, but better than a third-the-price Quad 606 a gent brought in to be checked over, stone cold out of a taxi and which we directly compared (Chord had been powered on for a few hours)? Put it this way, my respect for the mk1 issue Quad 606 went up many notches after that (more to tell on this but not for now)

I think RW's portfolio is mainly the digital side I think, the amplifier side which seems a bit slimmed down these days.

---


After my recent hearing tests, the Audiologist showed my how a young persons ears would 'measure' on their gear, then a typical mid 60 year old and then me Believe me, a 60+ year old chap with good hearing would have hf sensitivity (mid khz frequencies) naturally well down on a twenty year old's hearing I suggest. I appreciate the brain makes up for some of it, but in my experience., nowhere near all... basic testing here stops at 9kHz, so no idea as to frequencies higher than this (at 16 years old, I certainly could hear 18kHz and the 15k TV line whistles in 405 line TV's used to hurt my ears, but that was a long time ago now...

 

[srkbear]

Too bad many Forums on the Internet fail to exchange useful information in favor of promoting Herd Mentality.

What I find particularly odd are the pages of positive Reviews from around the world that sing the M SCALER’s praises. It’s unlikely Rob Watts bribed/baffled them all with technical jargon.

And I’m assuming the vast majority of those on this Forum have never heard DAVE/TT2 with M SCALER to be making a truly informed comment.

I never met Albert Einstein and was going off Google to be the authority here on that particular comment regarding what can or can’t be counted. I thought it was appropriate.

I understand people not liking something for a variety of reasons, I get that.

Unfortunately, no one has been able to build a device to measure what is considered to be "sound quality".

I know what I’ hear and what I like and THAT is what matters most to me.

Cheers.

Is typing in italics meant to sanctify your views in some sort of omniscient way? You really must have gulped hard to ascribe “herd mentality” to this site, coming from the legions of Chord acolytes.

This site is fundamentally designed as an antidote to unfounded allegiances to brands who charge fortunes based on specious claims of “sound quality”—a term that you seem to be applying rather mystically. The truth is that our ears are nothing more than sensors for sound waves and vibrations that have been scientifically defined for a very long time now—sensations that can indeed be rendered via waveforms that can be visualized very accurately on oscilloscopes. And they certainly do provide precise estimations of what we can expect to be transmitted to our own auditory apparatuses—perhaps you should avail yourself of a rudimentary audiology textbook.

As to your claim that the folks on here probably haven’t heard the Chord + an M-Scaler, your conjecture being inaccurate is not nearly as important as the fact that Amir certainly did hear it, and did so with far more critical discipline than your crude method of relying on your own cognitive biases. Have you bothered to listen to the far less expensive options that have gotten raves on here, or do you only follow the mantra that price correlates with quality? And most importantly, if you’re so happy with your exorbitant investment, then why the need to grandstand in its defense on here?

 

[JohnA]

..... Every time one of these exposés appears on here, it just emboldens the anti-ASR villagers on Head-Fi to light more torches.

Let them light as many torches as they like. Truth always prevails in the end.

I lost time and money buying into the 'extra long tap' narrative.
I ended up learning more about myself and how it is indeed possible to have everyone around you deceived and self-deluded.

This lesson also transfers to other current affairs unfortunately...

 

[DonR]

Let them light as many torches as they like. Truth always prevails in the end.

It's also incredibly entertaining.

 

[JohnA]

It's also incredibly entertaining.

The more torches, the more enlightening ha ha..