• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily 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)

Rate this product:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 318 90.3%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 8 2.3%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther

    Votes: 7 2.0%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 19 5.4%

  • Total voters
    352

JSmith

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
2,884
Likes
6,431
Location
Algol Perseus

voodooless

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
4,958
Likes
8,110
Location
Netherlands
HP9000 never claimed that one should downsample the output of the Chord back to 44.1 so see no value in that (thought) experiment.
Obviously not. But that way we can compare it to the original.
 

danadam

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 20, 2017
Messages
655
Likes
956
... Do a NOS "upsample" to 705.6 kHz (Zero Order Hold style) ...

I was figuring out how to do this in sox, but it looks like the rabbit filter that should do the upsampling is deprecated and removed from my version of sox.
 

Jimbob54

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
9,084
Likes
11,587
Thanks, but I'll stick to making my own decisions about what I'm interested in
Where is your review of the DAVE? I may be misremembering your posts but I thought you said you found you preferred the TT2 to the DAVE, but I cant find your review of the DAVE anywhere
 

voodooless

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
4,958
Likes
8,110
Location
Netherlands
Thanks, I knew @mansr had posted that somewhere recently :)

Can't really get it to work for my 16x NOS upsample, maybe @mansr can help. It also destroys stereo for some reason.. All it does is add zero samples in between, as the documentation says. That is not exactly what I'm after.
 
Last edited:

tmtomh

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
1,556
Likes
4,770
I have hesitated from making an explicit admission of being wrong in referencing a study about spatial hearing to back up my claim of 10us/100khz monaural time sensitivity. This is because I have (now had) been skeptical of why the brain would prove to have a 10us capability for two ears and not keep that capability when hearing with only one ear/the same way through both ears. To spare some words I also excluded pointing out the trend toward finer values that the range of microsecond-unit results take on.

"The shortest auditory click I was able to find in the literature, and which was used in a psychophysical context (i.e., audible to a human) was 10 microseconds..."
"The upper edge of human hearing is 20 kHz so it is unlikely that we could detect a difference between a 25 us impulse and a 10 us impulse (or even a 1 us impulse), but assuming sufficient energy, all would be detectable.", As in my previous post, where I talked about energy.
From: https://psychology.stackexchange.co...re-the-temporal-limits-of-the-auditory-system

I think it's no coincidence that this number is the same between left/right differential and amplitude/time differential.

~


As delta-sigma dacs/oversampling will only ever be useful as long as high res music is not played into it. You are attributing the issue of scarcity of higher bit and sample rate material to the dac.

[...]


Either you are taking issue with PCM/digital audio in general ('staircase'), are saying that the bit/sample rate is not sufficient (quantization error), or that no reconstruction filter is in place - not that one can't be added.

Hence my use of parentheses around the words, other people call them that.

My first comment on this thread was about how the square wave test is usually excluded. I'd like to see a class d amp tested in that way.

"Broken by design" has a specific meaning. It is to state that there is something innately wrong versus there being something exteriorly wrong.
In the case of a filter-less NOS dac, you can circumvent the problems posed by circumstances exterior to the architecture before having to swap architectures.

You keep saying these things, and they keep being untrue. The incorrectness of your statements is exceeded only by the certainty and frequency with which you are making them.

"Delta-sigma dacs/oversampling will only ever be useful as long as high res music is not played into it" - this is nonsense. As in, it literally makes no sense. DS DACs process higher sample rates and higher bit-depths just fine, and conversely a non-DS DAC (or an outboard upsampler like the Chord) does absolutely nothing to make "high-res" sources any better. The limitations of high-res digital sources in improving upon redbook are dictated by digital sampling theory and the range of human hearing, not by the type of DAC you run them through.

You say that you are using "(stairstep)" because "other people call them that." But they are not that. If you don't know that, then you misunderstand the basics of digital sampling theory and therefore of what allows this stuff to work at all.

If you do know that - and your last comment implies that you do - then you are not comprehending how this fact undercuts your argument here, as you have used the stairstep fallacy as the foundation (whether you know it or not, and whether you are willing to admit it or not) for your claims about "time resolution" being a problem that needs to be solved in DACs, and a problem that can somehow be solved in incremental, gradual ways.

RE a NOS DAC, you keep banging on about how such a device is not "broken" because an oversampler can be "added" to it. This is semantics - it's restricting the definition of "broken" until it's meaningless. If you have to augment a DAC's functionality by grabbing a digital signal out of your source in order to remedy a built-in deficiency in the DAC's design and performance, it is reasonable to call that design broken - "built-in deficiency" = "broken by design." And even more importantly, it is manifestly unreasonable to try to argue that it isn't. The only way out of that is to claim that NOS produces superior analogue output - which it most certainly does not. It's analogous to how any DAC that benefits from a "galvanic isolator" (and to my knowledge Amir has found only one, the Modi 2) is not "okay but can be taken to the next level" - rather, it is a broken design. It simply fails to do something basic that electrical, electronic, and/or digital data knowledge tell us can be done, and done fairly simply.

Now, when it comes to R2R vs Delta-Sigma, sure, R2R does not equal NOS - there are indeed oversampling R2R DACs. But that's not the point here at all.

Oh - and we still can't hear, detect, or sense 100kHz. That hasn't changed since your last incorrect comment. We'll keep monitoring the situation, though. :)
 
Last edited:

NTK

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Messages
1,677
Likes
3,474
Location
US East
"A quick lit search gives me 1.2ms (Irwin & Purdy, 1982). Also, people were shown to be able to recognize voice when stimuli were only 2ms long (Suied, et al., 2013)!" From the reddit link below.
This is snip of the web article you referenced.
medxpress.png

This is a snip of the paper the article referenced.
aalto_paper.png

Do you know the difference between "delay" and "group-delay"? It is obvious that the Medical Xpress "journalist" who wrote the web article doesn't either.
 

oscar_dziki

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2021
Messages
59
Likes
75
Please don't give Chord ideas about increasing their prices!
I have just realized that there is a Polish (same as me so I feel a little bad about it) company that makes tube amps and such. They are like Chord, PS audio and RG research unwanted baby. Guess how much they charge for their flagship DAC? 50K !! https://www.lampizator.com/horizon-dac And they have AC power filter(of course they do :)) - $1200 bargain.
 
Top Bottom