CHORD M-Scaler Review (Upsampler)

[Jmart]

You are aware there has been scientific research into audibility of certain effects? We know what kind of changes the human ear can pick up and what changes our too small to can be heard. You are arguing that audiophiles somehow have such superior healing they are beyond mere mortals. Have you considered contacting the Guinness Book of Records or a medical school, because I'm sure such incredible hearing capabilities are a perfect candidate for a PhD research paper.

If your claim is that modern medicine understands everything about hearing, its interpretation, and integration ( not even including subjective confounders) then you are grossly mistaken.

 

[Koeitje]

If your claim is that modern medicine understands everything about hearing, its interpretation, and integration ( not even including subjective confounders) then you are grossly mistaken.

If you claim that modern medicine understands nothing about hearing, its interpretation, and integration ( not even including subjective confounders) then you are grossly mistaken.

You are making claims about being hundreds of kilometers away from some dogs and hearing them barking a fraction of a dB less loud than before.

 

[Veri]

Let me see if I can hunt down a review I just watched by Hans B. He was talking about Ethernet switches and how when using a specific DAC, and audiophile dac didn’t make a difference at all. He mentioned that the DAC itself was less susceptible to the problems in Ethernet switches (I definitely don’t claim to understand it).

Oh noooo you didn't just quote Hans as a quote for making a point somehow did you? He literally just talks out of his ass, no creds whatsoever.
Audiophile ethernet switches

 

[Geert]

You’ve heard excellent equipment, so have many reviewers. In terms of subjective listening, you are both the “physicians.” Which one to believe?

Reviewers without knowledge or experiences which challenged their hearing and believes are like hamsters in a wheel, running a lot of miles but getting nowhere.

 

[Jmart]

There are a lot of engineers reading and discussing Amirs reviews and interpretation of data on this forum. If his conclusions were invalid, if would have surfaced already in these 89 pages of comments. And when I mention engineers it's not just experts in electronics, but also sound engineers and others experts with relevant expertise. Where does that leave your Youtube reviewers?

The you tube reviewers have actually heard the products. I doubt all of these engineers have done that. Perhaps some on here have also listened to the m-scalar, and their opinion would be as valid as anyone else’s, by the way

 

[Koeitje]

The you tube reviewers have actually heard the products. I doubt all of these engineers have done that. Perhaps some on here have also listened to the m-scalar, and their opinion would be as valid as anyone else’s, by the way

If you are listening to a product in an uncontrolled environment that data is just useless. The raw measurements will tell you much more in such a situation. I don't know any reviewer, on Youtube or otherwise, that does controlled listening tests.

Lol, I wonder how many people here are anti vaxxers and don’t believe COVID was a real disease. That would be an interesting thread. Not to digress.

Oh the irony. You don't even realise you are using the same arguments as anti-vaxxers do you?

Can I ask you what kind of education you have? Because it seems you have a fundamental misunderstanding on how to design experiments and control for external factors.

 

[Geert]

The you tube reviewers have actually heard the products.

Yes they've heard the products. Without implementing basic controls to avoid bias, deal with our limited auditory memory or even simply match volumes. Some even listen in very poor acoustic conditions and so on ...

 

[Jmart]

Reviewers without knowledge or experiences which challenged their hearing and believes are like hamsters in a wheel, running a lot of miles but getting nowhere.

Based on what standard? Your fearless leader includes subjective listening tests because, presumably, he recognizes that there is a portion of data that can only be collected on a subjective basis.

Why can’t that subjective data be determined by other people as well? It seems rather brainwashed to me that you guys would actually believe that people can’t make a subjective claim without a real world measurement. I mean, most people on here seem to not have heard many of these products, but look at the measurements and draw the conclusion that there cannot be a subjective measurement.

If we had all the measurements, and therefore all of the answers, why does this review even include a subjective listening test?

 

[Jmart]

If you are listening to a product in an uncontrolled environment that data is just useless. The raw measurements will tell you much more in such a situation. I don't know any reviewer, on Youtube or otherwise, that does controlled listening tests.

Oh the irony. You don't even realise you are using the same arguments as anti-vaxxers do you?

Can I ask you what kind of education you have? Because it seems you have a fundamental misunderstanding on how to design experiments and control for external factors.

Does it matter what education I have? Will you respect me more if I have a higher degree than you?

 

[Geert]

Why can’t that subjective data be determined by other people as well?

It can. But as explained over and over, in controlled conditions. Otherwise the data is irrelevant to others.

 

[Jmart]

If you are listening to a product in an uncontrolled environment that data is just useless. The raw measurements will tell you much more in such a situation. I don't know any reviewer, on Youtube or otherwise, that does controlled listening tests.

Oh the irony. You don't even realise you are using the same arguments as anti-vaxxers do you?

Can I ask you what kind of education you have? Because it seems you have a fundamental misunderstanding on how to design experiments and control for external factors.

Also I beg to differ. Subjective sound quality differences are not as important as life saving vaccinations. They don’t need the same level of rigor as much as everyone on this forum will likely want to preach that it matters.

I would consider myself rather educated on designing experiments, by the way.

 

[Jmart]

It can. But as explained over and over, in controlled conditions. Otherwise the data is irrelevant to others.

I would disagree. Irrelevant is the wrong word here. I would say less relevant than a properly designed study (which we don’t have).

So we either complain that no one knows how to perform an accurate study, or we use the data.

Even a poorly controlled study can contribute to the greater summation of data.

 

[Koeitje]

Does it matter what education I have? Will you respect me more if I have a higher degree than you?

No, it helps me understand where you are coming from and why you have trouble differentiating between useful and useless data.

Based on what standard? Your fearless leader includes subjective listening tests because, presumably, he recognizes that there is a portion of data that can only be collected on a subjective basis.

Why can’t that subjective data be determined by other people as well? It seems rather brainwashed to me that you guys would actually believe that people can’t make a subjective claim without a real world measurement. I mean, most people on here seem to not have heard many of these products, but look at the measurements and draw the conclusion that there cannot be a subjective measurement.

If we had all the measurements, and therefore all of the answers, why does this review even include a subjective listening test?

There are some things that are hard to determine from measurements alone. For line-level equipment like DACs the measurements tell the entire story. For headphone amplifiers it is useful to see how they handle harder to drive headphones to determine if you can get enough SPL from them. For loudspeakers it is also useful to play them loud and listen if you can hear resonances or to see how loud they can go. Nobody it telling you subjective data holds no value. You just seem to have trouble differentiating between useful and useless subjective data.

Also I beg to differ. Subjective sound quality differences are not as important as life saving vaccinations. They don’t need the same level of rigor as much as everyone on this forum will likely want to preach that it matters.

I would consider myself rather educated on designing experiments, by the way.

So if a product produces a placebo effect in a listener its not a scam? Because that is the standard of subjective reviews that is good enough for you. I think we are done with this discussion then. Your background in experimental design doesn't show by the way.

 

[Geert]

Even a poorly controlled study can contribute to the greater summation of data.

Even 'poorly controlled' does not apply to how subjective reviewers operate. It's totally uncontrolled, and making crucial mistakes.

 

[Jmart]

If you claim that modern medicine understands nothing about hearing, its interpretation, and integration ( not even including subjective confounders) then you are grossly mistaken.

You are making claims about being hundreds of kilometers away from some dogs and hearing them barking a fraction of a dB less loud than before.

Im not making that claim. I’m recognizing that science does not always have an explanation to everything at the present time.

You saying that sound engineering and medical science are both advanced enough that there couldn’t possibly be anything new is just flawed. Just plain wrong, frankly.

 

[Jmart]

No, it helps me understand where you are coming from and why you have trouble differentiating between useful and useless data.



There are some things that are hard to determine from measurements alone. For line-level equipment like DACs the measurements tell the entire story. For headphone amplifiers it is useful to see how they handle harder to drive headphones to determine if you can get enough SPL from them. For loudspeakers it is also useful to play them loud and listen if you can hear resonances or to see how loud they can go. Nobody it telling you subjective data holds no value. You just seem to have trouble differentiating between useful and useless subjective data.


So if a product produces a placebo effect in a listener it’s not a scam? Because that is the standard of subjective reviews that is good enough for you. I think we are done with this discussion then. Your background in experimental design doesn't show by the way.

A placebo effect would be a scam, in my opinion. But there isn’t anything I have seen here that proves this. It’s just the assumption.

The placebo effect argument goes down the drain once there is consistency in the details described. That would actually support consistency. The question isn’t only “is there a difference,” but also what the difference is. Granted there are some things that aren’t very helpful, but general changes to frequencies can usually be described consistently across experienced reviewers.

We haven’t been discussing study design up until now. The reason we haven’t been discussing it is because no one here is planning on starting a large randomized control trial. We are merely discussing the validity of data interpretation. Maybe you kicked the horse too soon and jumped into study design mode. I’m just talking about multiple reviews that are detailed, seemingly consistent in description, and the rare disagreement on a rather biased forum.

Whoa there fella

 

[Koeitje]

Im not making that claim. I’m recognizing that science does not always have an explanation to everything at the present time.

You saying that sound engineering and medical science are both advanced enough that there couldn’t possibly be anything new is just flawed. Just plain wrong, frankly.

You ARE making that claim by saying that any subjective review has the same value as a review with objective data. Saying science doesn't know everything is such a flawed argument that has been used by conspiracy theorists and nut jobs for decades. You are literally using the same argument as anti-vaxxers right now. They also deny that science knows everything and use that to handwave away any argument. Its completely pointless to have a discussion with someone like that who's entire argument consists of hand-waving and straw man fallacies. So that is also the last I'm going to say on the subject, because just like arguing with anti-vaxxers this is just a waste of time.

 

[GXAlan]

@Jmart do you own this upscaler? What tracks do you think you hear differences with? Maybe it is just as simple as this device handling intersample overs which you can identify scientifically.

Intersample Overs in CD Recordings

Intersample Overs are a Common Occurrence in CD Recordings We have frequently used Steely Dan's Gaslighting Abbie from Two Against Nature in our listening tests. This is a spectacular CD recording with lots of dynamics and a low noise floor. Nevertheless, in a little over 5 minutes, this track...

benchmarkmedia.com

Have you tried Sony DSEE (free via Music Center PC app) or PGGB-Foobar? For all the love there is for tweaks, there are some great free ones that can beat expensive gear.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

I’m recognizing that science does not always have an explanation to everything at the present time

No-one seriously claims that it does.
There is however, a perfectly good explanation with lots of science behind it, which superbly explains why people hear differences in these sorts of products

 

[Jmart]

You ARE making that claim by saying that any subjective review has the same value as a review with objective data. Saying science doesn't know everything is such a flawed argument that has been used by conspiracy theorists and nut jobs for decades. You are literally using the same argument as anti-vaxxers right now. They also deny that science knows everything and use that to handwave away any argument. Its completely pointless to have a discussion with someone like that who's entire argument consists of hand-waving and straw man fallacies. So that is also the last I'm going to say on the subject, because just like arguing with anti-vaxxers this is just a waste of time.

Science doesn’t know everything… it’s just a fact. That can be recognized while still analyzing all the current available data. I’m not sure why that’s so triggering to y’all.