CHORD M-Scaler Review (Upsampler)

[Galliardist]

Implementation? Something like a polished turd?

I don't have time to go through this now, but try comparing the measurements of those first generation CD players with the worst measuring DACs of those reviewed here. Or consider that if they hadn't worked, CD and 16/44.1 would have died like so many other innovations over the years.

 

[Blumlein 88]

And so we write off the first generation of CD players: which generally show good numbers, and which won over tens of thousands of people, and were highly reviewed subjectively before the "digital bad" idea worked its way through the press. In practice the newer NOS devices are too often made to sound "different" according to the ideas of their designers: we pay our money and we take our choice. It's the implementation that counts.

Yes, glad to see someone remembers they were reviewed quite favorably by subjective publications for a couple years. Lauded for the lack of surface noise, speed stability especially for piano recordings, and the fine frequency response from down low all the way into the treble. Then TAS started this idea digital was flawed, that sampling missed details between sample points and it took on a life of its own that still hasn't been stamped out. So the specialist makers were on the path to make digital gear that didn't sound "digital." Which necessarily meant it was of lesser fidelity for the most part or just wishful thinking about as often as not.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Yes, glad to see someone remembers they were reviewed quite favorably by subjective publications for a couple years. Lauded for the lack of surface noise, speed stability especially for piano recordings, and the fine frequency response from down low all the way into the treble. Then TAS started this idea digital was flawed, that sampling missed details between sample points and it took on a life of its own that still hasn't been stamped out. So the specialist makers were on the path to make digital gear that didn't sound "digital." Which necessarily meant it was of lesser fidelity for the most part or just wishful thinking about as often as not.

Sure after a while CDs and digital became a commodity and margins shrunk, especially for the smaller manufacturers, so sth else had to be cooked up. Nothing cheaper to go back to already invented stuff (eg Vinyl) and just invest into some marketing bla bla.

 

[Snoopy]

Sure after a while CDs and digital became a commodity and margins shrunk, especially for the smaller manufacturers, so sth else had to be cooked up. Nothing cheaper to go back to already invented stuff (eg Vinyl) and just invest into some marketing bla bla.

Exactly for that reason we have SMH CD, "blu" audio CD in Japan. That are made in Blu-ray manufacturing plants.

Better material is suddenly supposed to make the exact same file sound better.

And let's not forget the UHQCD with MQA files that they are selling. That is for some reason supposed to sound better than the same file in LPCM.

People believe everything if the marketing blah blah is good enough.

 

[mansr]

Exactly for that reason we have SMH CD, "blu" audio CD in Japan. That are made in Blu-ray manufacturing plants.

That doesn't make any sense. In order to be readable by a CD player, the pit depth has to be ¼ of the laser wavelength, 780 nm. Since Blu-ray uses a 405 nm laser, that manufacturing process produces pits that won't be detected by a CD player. Moreover, the data layer is 1 mm closer to the disc surface, so a CD pickup might not even be able to get it in focus. The reason Blu-ray uses a shorter wavelength laser is that it can be focused to a smaller spot, thus allowing the track pitch and pit length to be reduced. For a CD player to work, the pit geometry must be within the bounds specified in the CD standard.

If the CD manufacturing process were to be improved, the only thing I can think of would be to use tighter tolerances than originally required. This could allow discs to be reliably manufactured with track pitch and pit length closer to the minimum allowed by the format. The benefit of this would be a slightly extended playing time. I suspect this has already happened, given that modern CDs often do have a longer duration than the nominal 74 minutes.

 

[Snoopy]

That doesn't make any sense. In order to be readable by a CD player, the pit depth has to be ¼ of the laser wavelength, 780 nm. Since Blu-ray uses a 405 nm laser, that manufacturing process produces pits that won't be detected by a CD player. Moreover, the data layer is 1 mm closer to the disc surface, so a CD pickup might not even be able to get it in focus. The reason Blu-ray uses a shorter wavelength laser is that it can be focused to a smaller spot, thus allowing the track pitch and pit length to be reduced. For a CD player to work, the pit geometry must be within the bounds specified in the CD standard.

If the CD manufacturing process were to be improved, the only thing I can think of would be to use tighter tolerances than originally required. This could allow discs to be reliably manufactured with track pitch and pit length closer to the minimum allowed by the format. The benefit of this would be a slightly extended playing time. I suspect this has already happened, given that modern CDs often do have a longer duration than the nominal 74 minutes.

Blu-spec and blu-spec 2 Are the names of those CDs.

"Blu-spec CD describes a Red Book Compact Disc manufactured by a proprietary process introduced by Sony Music Entertainment Japan in late 2008. It employs the Phase Transition Mastering, the technology developed for mastering of Blu-ray discs, to further perfect the characteristics of Blu-spec CD.

Instead of a traditional infra-red laser, a blue laser is used for recording the pits on the CD master that is needed for disc replication. According to Sony, the blue laser creates about 10 times more precise pits than red laser, causing less distortion in the optical read-out proces

The applied Blu-ray Disc polycarbonate polymer material introduces half the jitter (noise) and thus, high-quality audio reproduction. Sony claims that the produced "Blu-spec CD" discs offer a quality similar to the master"

 

[voodooless]

That doesn't make any sense.

Marketing rarely does...

If the CD manufacturing process were to be improved, the only thing I can think of would be to use tighter tolerances than originally required.

That is basically what they did. They use (parts of) the mastering process for Blu-ray to create more precise and better-defined pits than a normal CD has:

They also use a different polycarbonate so less light is lost. The data layer is still at the same spot on the disc.

The question is just: why should anyone care...?

 

[mansr]

That is basically what they did. They use (parts of) the mastering process for Blu-ray to create more precise and better-defined pits than a normal CD has:

They also use a different polycarbonate so less light is lost. The data layer is still at the same spot on the disc.

The question is just: why should anyone care...?

The fact they're skirting around is that if it can be read by a standard CD player, it won't sound any different to a standard CD.

 

[Snoopy]

Marketing rarely does...

That is basically what they did. They use (parts of) the mastering process for Blu-ray to create more precise and better-defined pits than a normal CD has:
View attachment 237596
They also use a different polycarbonate so less light is lost. The data layer is still at the same spot on the disc.

The question is just: why should anyone care...?

Because there are already people that claim u lose the benefit of such a disc by ripping it. And the Bit perfect rip would suddenly sound less good.

I've read the same stuff about SMH CDs.
There are really nutjobs out there that believe all that stuff

 

[voodooless]

it won't sound any different to a standard CD.

Yeah, thanks Captain Obvious

 

[Galliardist]

Yes, glad to see someone remembers they were reviewed quite favorably by subjective publications for a couple years. Lauded for the lack of surface noise, speed stability especially for piano recordings, and the fine frequency response from down low all the way into the treble. Then TAS started this idea digital was flawed, that sampling missed details between sample points and it took on a life of its own that still hasn't been stamped out. So the specialist makers were on the path to make digital gear that didn't sound "digital." Which necessarily meant it was of lesser fidelity for the most part or just wishful thinking about as often as not.

There was one way in which CD actually could sound bad in the early days, and that was that the output of CD players was 2v (sometimes more) and the inputs on some amps couldn't take it. Oddly, the response from some of the specialist makers was to launch their players with a higher output still at 2.2v which made them sound louder when used into the amps launched with CD that had a CD ready input... and if it's louder...

 

[bearcatsandor]

I remember buying one of the first CD players from a mall. It was a Technics SL-p420. https://goldenageofaudio.blogspot.com/2014/06/technics-sl-p420-class-aa-ff-1-multi.html I think it was $200 that freshman year of highschool. I'd worked at a Burger King to save up for it. My first CD was Helloween's Keeper of the Seven Keys, an important album for Power Metal. I still have that album. I was so exicited to play it, until I realised that the unit's case was so empty that if someone closed my dorm room door too hard it would skip.

edit: Apologies for being slightly off-topic, but i got caught-up in nostalgia.

 

[Galliardist]

I remember buying one of the first CD players from a mall. It was a Technics SL-p420. https://goldenageofaudio.blogspot.com/2014/06/technics-sl-p420-class-aa-ff-1-multi.html I think it was $200 that freshman year of highschool. I'd worked at a Burger King to save up for it. My first CD was Helloween's Keeper of the Seven Keys, an important album for Power Metal. I still have that album. I was so exicited to play it, until I realised that the unit's case was so empty that if someone closed my dorm room door too hard it would skip.

edit: Apologies for being slightly off-topic, but i got caught-up in nostalgia.

Can't resist... one of my early experiences of CD was in the Manchester HMV store where Sade's Diamond Life was playing... and it stuck. I couldn't say it was a noise like a machine gun really, but an old guy a few feet away from me immediately dived down flat onto the floor and had to be treated for shock.

I'm pretty sure he stayed with vinyl...

 

[ahofer]

Archimago throws a little shade on the M-Scaler along the way here:

Using low-power Beelink Mini S as Linux Roon streamer - HQPlayer (PCM 8x, DSD256), and HDMI multichannel. (A superior DIY M-Scaler?)

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

There you go! An inexpensive Beelink Mini S computer transformed into a low power (less than 17W peak), very acoustically and electronically quiet machine that can handle Roon multichannel 7.1 streams through HDMI as well as high quality filtering through HQPlayer to a good USB 2-channel DAC in Linux/Ubuntu OS.

HQPlayer Desktop costs around US$215, plus US$180 for the Beelink Mini S machine, so in total for around US$400 plus a bit of DIY time & know-how, we can achieve "megatap" PCM upsampling easily equivalent (and actually superior) to the Chord Hugo M-Scaler which they're asking US$5000+ for. Furthermore, HQPlayer is more versatile with many filtering algorithm options and the ability to convert PCM to DSD adds another dimension of listening/experimentation.

Again, let's not forget the ability to stream multichannel content. This is what "value" looks like! Yeah, I know, Roon and the music server computer also cost money. Plus you need at least a good amp and some great speakers to gain from all this processing. Nobody said audiophilia is totally without some base cost even if we keep the cost of parts like the computer down!

 

[shoto]

Simple question:
The D70s review shows the poor jitter performance from coax input, but we dont see a SINAD measurement for it.

Can it be possible the bad performance is caused D70?

I wish review had more investigation to rule measurement errors or external problem, even though if it worked perfectly the product is not worth spending a cent on.

 

[MacCali]

Simple question:
The D70s review shows the poor jitter performance from coax input, but we dont see a SINAD measurement for it.

Can it be possible the bad performance is caused D70?

I wish review had more investigation to rule measurement errors or external problem, even though if it worked perfectly the product is not worth spending a cent on.

I am not certain what you mean, I dont think sinad will change. It's just jitter is changing and honestly it's really hard to notice. I am not sure about the d70, but the D70s is an amazing dac. In fact I actually tried to purchase two of those since I was so happy with the first one. I will say though I am a AKM fan boy and was really searching for a quality AKM dac and since the fire there were hardly any dacs available.

I currently have the liquid platinum dac which uses the AKM4499 and it's great, I have not put it into my main system to get any real thoughts or differences. But at this time I feel the D70s has no issues overall and I got mine for 15% off too, so the price was even better. *the LP dac doesn't have i2s which is what I am using.

 

[ahofer]

Here we go again.

Post in thread 'Serious Question: How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent? Are that many confused?'
https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...rent-are-that-many-confused.9245/post-1369163

 

[Purité Audio]

Yes it’s the measurements they don’t show everything of course, and then there are measurements we just haven’t dreamed of that will be revealed to us one day in a halo of light.
Keith

 

[ahofer]

it is just a combination that appears to made in heaven, detailed, spacious and lushious sound, simply a pleasure to listen

Forgive me, but you seem interested in discussing the sound characteristics of DACs.

 

[Purité Audio]

Expensive furry dice.
Keith