I didn't believe in expensive cables until I tried Monster cable. It was like smoking crack for the first time. And I wasn't the only who noticed the huge improvement. My girlfriend was in the kitchen doing the dishes as she should be and started crying and I said to her "I hope you're not crying because of hormone imbalance because of a pregnancy you have not told me" and she replied " No the music sounds so good". The dog was also waging it's tail more than usual. Even my grandmother got up and started dancing. And she's been dead for 20 years. Highly recommended!
That's why it's called "Monster Cables". You should be happy only your grandmother woke up. I use Monster cables in my gym room and they get my dog to jump on the treadmill. My dog's name is "Cookie Monster" in perfect synergy with the cables.
So... some people aren't going to catch on to this one ;). "My girlfriend was in the kitchen doing the dishes as she should be..." Thanks, blå blä. People that hear cables should be kept in padded rooms; you never know when the cables will start telling them to do terrible things. They are monsters, after all.
@@antibrevity Anti woke to the bone. I don't understand this insane world any more. Feels like in one decade the world became a looney tune asylum. A man is a man and woman is woman. Period. No pun intended. What's next. Animals are the same as humans. I hate all this pc crap. Everything can be taken out of context. If I say "blacks are funny" it can be spinned to racism. Fortunately I live in a country where this is at least not yet a problem.
Many comments on ASR have the same ignorant and bullying tone. And the next commentator needs give some more bite to the comments. Please, stop! Only displays juvenile. Sluta, blå bär med dina löjliga liknelser. Din farmor skulle ha gett dig smisk.
We have to also thank the members that sent in their units for analysis, member keep it going to Amir. A big thanks from me to Amir and you guys out there .
Think about how bad the hi end market gear is no real test gear just some liars swearing sounds like your in the studio or at the live concert !!! All Lies and 90 percent reviewers and builders can not hear ! 😮😮😂 Facts R facts
In image processing, we typically use Sinc or Lanczos filters, as they produce the best balance of sharpness and low aliasing. Gaussian filters are only used where you don't need high-frequency information, or in some math (unsharp masking for instance) where you are in fact trying to isolate HF components. In signal processing theory, you can get a triangle (aka linear) filter by cascading two impulse response filters (aka 'nearest neighbour' or 'box') and you can get a cubic filter by cascading three impulse responses, and so on. There's always a trade-off with the width of the filter kernel (equivalent to the time-domain in audio), whereby two wide a filter loses you HF information, while two narrow a filter is more sensitive to noise and aliasing. Simply stating that a gaussian filter is superior to a triangle filter makes no sense, because it depends on the application. If you upscale, you want to use a sharper filter ; if you downscale you want to use a smoother filter ; but it also depends on the total impulse response (aka 'modulation transfer function') of you entire reproduction chain. For instance, contrary to theoretical logic, it was discovered back in the early 90s that when transferring digital images onto film, you had much better results by NOT filtering the output, because both the cathode ray tube's flying spot and the film's MTF would take that responsibility for you. Adding digital filtering would only make your images blurry. In audio, I have never seen any vendor take into consideration the cumulative impulse response of the reproduction chain, as a decision factor. Understandably, if you sell modular components, you need each link in the chain to perform to the best possible spec, but if you do have some control over the whole chain - as is the case with active speakers with digital crossovers - you have the luxury to pick the options that produce the best results in the air before the sound reaches your ears. We live in a ridiculous world today where people spend money on snake oil gear that may measure great (or not), but the effect of which is negated or mitigated by how the reproduction chain is assembled. As much as I love my Topping D90, I would never feed it to a pair of LS-50WII, a Buchardt A500 or a Genelec The Ones. My D90 feeds a fully analogue pair of Genelecs, for this reason. Amir, I'd be curious if you could eventually - because you own a Klippel system - show the impulse response of the whole system (with different output transducers), as opposed to the individual components. I am certain that much of the BS that some audio engineers hallucinate about, would be totally drowned into the compound impulse.
DSP engineer here. This product is not only a complete waste of money, it's not even doing its job correctly. Everything this product claims to do can be done in software (although it makes literally no audible difference). In fact, software will do it better, because the filter design is clearly wrong (and poorly implemented), as you can see in the reduced stopband attenuation. There's even some visible passband ripple! What a joke. Folks, this is basic DSP math - building an antialiasing filter is not rocket science, and it is the job of your DAC. If you want to learn how this process really works, I recommend reading the documentation of the free and open source tool called "SoX" - its sample rate converter is exceptionally well-implemented, with correct stopband attenuation, and uncompromised parametric control over phase, filter order, and even filter length - all the way up to 100k coefficients (or "taps").
How do you get a loaned $6,000 piece of gear and say anything bad about it on youtube??? That aside, any listening tests should be blind. Otherwise it is trivial to "hear" differences that are not there. With barriers to entry for audio review down to zero, anyone can go and post praise for products. Plurality of such doesn't make them right.
Companies thrive from ignorance on the consumer end, without people like you it'd be out of control, at least we can make fun or people who swear by these "magic" devices since we know its a net loss for fidelity
They have such an advantage over the consumer. Throw out some big technical words and folks believe anything if the person is likable. Or the marketing material is nice. Or some random reviewer who is excited about getting expensive gear praises it.
@@command8783 It is like looking at the colour blue, if you look at it twice it turns bluer and looking at it four times maybe it turn to red, who knows.
Amir, I am consistently amazed at how some of these products are marketed to be significant upgrades to one’s music system and then turn out to be high priced electronic nothingness. People tell me all the time how certain components make “significant” or “astounding” differences in their systems but then castigate me for requesting blind testing. But blind testing works. Try blind testing where you feed a 3 db higher volume to one output. Any listener with working ears will get that choice right every time. No listening fatigue or test pressure. It’s just obvious.
It has truly become wild west in audio with no rules, no logic, no science, no nothing. Anything goes and folks line up to praise them. Sadly when you ask them to just use their ears for evaluation, they refuse.
I would think if you were in the market for a $6k sidecar to your DAC then the rest of your system is likely high quality. At that point, a sprinkling of some magic thinking may in fact be the thing you need to push your enjoyment to the next level. All said, maybe there is a specific situation with dynamic music being played through this system that creates a positive change for the user. But I suspect that few pick it out with blind listening tests. More likely, they pay the money and believe it sounds better, thus it sounds better. Doesn't that sound better?
@@erics.4113 You statement is a great paradox. If the system is going to be good, wouldn't a premium DAC player have all the options and functionality of this up sampler? I haven't come across one upsampler that made any difference in audio sonics when mated to a great DAC + HQ player. Of course there are supposedly perceived subjective "improvements" in an average digital to analog renderr. But then again what are the odds of someone spending USD 5 K+ on an upsampler has an "average" digital audio renderer? :-)
Before listening to a word of this review I was already skeptical of the claims. The bottom line, as you noted in closing, is that you cannot add detail that is not already present in the source material---end of story. "Upsampling" is not going retrieve detail that is not there to begin with. Better to spend the $6000 on recordings that don't need correcting, I would think. Thanks for all that you do.
I spend $10/month for 75 million songs on Spotify. $6k gets me all of the music for the rest of my life. Someday it’ll be lossless, not that I’ll be able to hear the difference…
I have a streaming subscription since years and I must say that if the source delivers more resolution the music becomes more deep and emotional. So it is a difference to me between the quality level of „CD“ and „MQA“ and my streamer can decode MQA. Imagine I would save money and cut the quality at the streaming source, would change my subscrition to lower resolution but would buy such a Chord upsampler. It would not help because It is the difference between upsampling and real source resolution. The upsampler cannot tell „additional stories“.
Hi sorry if I misunderstood but you said throughout about the noise but towards the end you said by the nature of the device it will always have noise? (I have no horse in this race btw)
It is a fundamental issue in signal processing. To multiply and add audio samples and not overflow, you have to use higher internal precision than input (i.e. > 24 bits). When you are done, you need to convert the samples back to integer samples or your DAC can't play them. This conversion cannot be done by just throwing away the extra accuracy. Doing so causes distortion. To avoid distortion, you add noise. That randomizes the distortion but then raises the noise floor. So the digital processing better have other value to be worth this cost.
Thanks Amir. I hope you will be able grow your channel and test more gear. With less and less places buyers can go to actually hear equipment this is a fantastic resource. Measurements aren’t everything, but they’re a great place to start. (You may actually like the coloration- no shame in that 😂). Keep up the great work. I’ll definitely be sending some funds. Thanks Amir!
Thanks. I am running as fast as I can with testing. It is such a large problem to solve given how much gear out there that has no proper engineering foundation. I hope by the time I am too old to do this, the industry changes for the good.
Thank you for another excellent video Amir. Just one question - you talk at some length around 19 mins mark about the higher noise floor after the sharp filter - but isn't al of this well outside the audible range? kind regards
I use Jriver on my PC to upsample 44.1 FLACs to 352.8 and apply a slow filter on my DacMagic 200M. I really enjoy the results and the sound of my music while still having enough money for a hip replacement surgery should I ever need one.
I appreciate that but if you can, a) make sure the levels are the same. Upsampling frequently changes level. And b) do a blind test 10 times and see if 8 out of 10 times you can identify upsampling. If you do, report back on exact setup and music selection and I will attempt to replicate.
In my very humble opinion, upsampling a digital value does not make it different at all. You may be able to apply a brick wall filter with sharper slope to the signal, but what is the advantage? It is like watching standard over the air TV signal on your 4K High resolution TV, nothing changes, it remains a standard signal, it does not become high resolution..... Shit in remains shit out, there is no magic.
@@AudioScienceReview my experience is totally subjective and I might not be able to tell the difference on a blind test, however, I love to tinker with my stuff and really enjoy the sound coming out of the speakers. On the other hand, sometimes I listen to the same files on a usb drive in my Bluray player on the same dac and no upsampling and they sound great too. Heck, the best source I have is my Marantz CD6006 cd player, it sounds better than flacs upsampled or not. So, in my opinion upsampling is a fun gimmick to play with if you have it but don't go spending money on exoteric gear with lofty promises.
Great review and thanks for being on the side of good audio engineering. There is too much snake oil around and those selling it will never get on your side, but so be it.
Motu 8d is 600 eur and will do sample rate conversion to 192k via aes or spdif over coax (could use a nasty adapter box to input optical). I'd be interested if you ever review it or even just one of those 10 dollar coax to optical boxes, that would be super interesting
you should do a segment on reclockers, I was thinking of about buying the wyred for sound remedy, jitter reclocker with femto crystal 400$. have you got an opinion on reclockers? this one's got optical input.
USB input runs asynchronously so you really should use that. If you want to use S/PDIF, I have tested the Remedy and results are not good: www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-wyrd4sound-remedy-reclocker.4036/ So I would not waste money on them.
The reason it costs $6000 is that if it only cost $600 everyone would think it sucks. They sell more units at six grand than they would sell if it was less expensive. This is really true.
Sometimes I catch myself wondering how much energy alone we waste with audiofoolery stuff. I sit there thinking about all these unnecessarily inefficient tubes, class-a amplifiers, power regenerators, ultra-high resolution DACs that no-one can hear a bloody difference anyways, all there sitting on a shelf somewhere, powered on 24/7.
I have a question if i take a 1000$ dac and measure it and it measures as a 10000$ dac are they then equal no difference in sound???? Some say more 3d sound and some say its only infront of you and so on.
No. I have measured $14,000 DACs that do very poorly. Ditto for multi-thousand dollar DACs that not only measure pooly, but sound poorly as well. So price is not a factor. If however, comprehensive DAC measurement at $99 show similar results to a $10,000 one, you can absolutely count on them sounding the same. I am happy to pay $1,000 if you can find such and in proper blind tests can tell them apart.
In light of dimensioning returns and poor hearing capabilities, I typically don't spend over about $500 on any single audio device. Due to the hearing issues, I did indulge in a SVS Ultra center channel about 6 months ago but, even now, question whether it was worth the expense or not. However, got my eye on a new Yamaha Aventage avr, maybe later ...
I sold some of my wife's purses and shoes to help pay for my Holo Spring 3 KTE. She's planning on divorcing me anyways because she says I listen to music more than I listen to her.
The only DACs that measure "the same" are the state of the art ones. Those absolutely sound the same. When you go the other extreme and there is noise and distortion, these never match each other so audibility will be different.
Should be called M-Downgrader. Thanks Amir for saving my hard earned money. Wondering how the other reviewers of this device are feeling now after reading this.
I can even understand if some one spend a lot on cables even it's dumb, but it's that simple as a fact that no way you can generate more/better sound from the source.
I'm so glad I'm not on this little mouse-wheel anymore! The amount of cash I've wasted on gear like this over the years upsets me. It was ASR that opened my eyes a couple years back. Now I have a minidsp SHD with a pair of Genelec 8341 active speakers with built in DSP. Can't go wrong. 👌
Thanks, Amir... I hope that you've started a trend that will help the industry. BTW, how about a similar review on this Upsampling Processor: AURALiC Sirius G2.1
Can you hear the difference because of the jitter? Are you measuring relevant factors that make a difference. You said no. Then you said it can make an impact. Which is it? Fascinating test including subjective samples.
I have a question, you have shown that the analogue output isn’t as good using the m-scaler as it is with your standalone dac. If the premise is if it doesn’t measure well it isn’t good, then surely it would have been audible as worse than your test dac? I’m not saying the m-scaler sounds good, but if you can’t tell the difference then it doesn’t sound worse. This makes me question the point of measurements if something bad can’t be heard then good measurements can’t be heard. What we do know is that different audio components sound different to each other, so this video has made me think listening to the products is the only way to determine what is good for you.
The impairments are too small to be audible. The combination of DAC+M-scaler still has less noise and distortion than 16-bit audio for example. So I would not expect it to show audible artifacts. The main point is that the device doesn't do anything positive either so least they could to is not harm the performance of the system prior to insertion of it.
Hmmm it might be interesting to see the effects of the DSEE HX function in modern Sony Walkmans. Apparently helps to improve the "lost frequencies" from compressed audio. I'm guessing it does something minor, perhaps doing more if the audio has more lossy compression. And hopefully doing nothing if playing flac files.
There are a number of such algorithms. They tend to have positive effect at first due to extension of lost frequencies but then quickly get annoying to my ear. They are not needed anymore anyway as encoding above 128 kbps, preserve the full range. And that has been the current rate for a long time (e.g. 256 kbps).
Many years ago I did an internship at a pro audio manufacturer. We had semi automated AP testing on the production line for QC and for determining the added-on-test components to be added to the PCB. And this was just for production test. No design issues like this would have made it this far. And we were selling these products for less than this unit! It beggars belief that the vendor thinks the ticket price is justified for this sort of performance.
I remember GoldenSound raving about this thing being one of, if not the greatest thing he's ever listened to, only to now see this... I like to reserve judgement until I've heard things myself, but this just looks so dumb as an audio product, especially for the price. I'm really curious as to what they were listening to when they made such claims about this thing. Maybe they prefer the added harmonics that this introduces to the music, but I don't know. I'm boring and just like to get as clean a signal as I can get with no amount of color added onto my music.
GS and folks like him don't bother to do anything according to audio science. If they did and testing was blind, then they would never spend half our pontificating how this thing sounds better with this and that DAC.
Everyone that claims to hear sound improvements in useless devices always say the "depth" improves. It's ALWAYS soundstage depth that, of course, can't be heard by anyone contesting their claims. Linear power supply, R2R dacs, cables. All give immeasurable "depth" improvements.
@@Jon-nz3dm And don't forget darker darks, and richer highs, and smoother mids, and greener pastures in general...🤣 It's amazing that quite possibly, more ingenuity, manhours and research is put into the verbal descriptive than the actual engineering and design of such products!
The video by Lachlan (passion for sound) and Rob Watts must surely make people think of the validity of the measurements here so far as ignoring any subjective view (for or against) M scaler
That guy sounds just like any Hi-Fi reviewer from the 1990's. It's like the world hasn't moved on. I think a lot of industry and reviewer folks are upset that consumers can now find out that electronic devices do or not not perform as well as the manufacturer states in such elaborate and florid techno-gobbledygook. I fully accept however, that a badly measuring device can sound great to some listeners. The issue for the industry is whether or not they feel consumers should buy a technically poor/deficient device. $400-1400 with a idiosyncratic performance and sound may appeal to some and be a valid product still. But when asking $14000? Maybe not so much.
Never understood why those upscalers are so damn expensive. The difference between CD quality and 24/96 or higher is already so minute. Upscaling CD quality music cannot possibly recreate the bits of a real 24/96 file so the difference is even smaller if existent at all. You basically pay 5 grands for a box that degrades the signal.
@@fraustosound Some work has been done here in very low bit rate audio codecs to extend their frequency range. While they work, they can have very annoying artifacts. Our eyes are much more forgiving than ears in this regard.
Saw Golden Sound* video on this and was mesmerized, I played around with upscaling myself to see if I can hear any difference, this probably explains why. The one device that sounded like one of those magical boxes, that could potentially work "with a million tap filter" ooo. More hogwash. Sad.
Excellent video. Doing EE myself and I saw a review for this equipment and I have to say it was the dumbest thing I've ever seen. The people who are shilling this crap need their internet taken away forever
Thanks. I always research other reviews before completing mine in case I am missing something. The one video that I saw was just amazing. His own measurements showed degradation of signal but yet he goes and invents all kinds of sonic benefits. And even rated them different between this and that DAC.
Nice work, Amir! Rob Watts claims to design for extraordinary measurements. But from the head-fi thread, it seems he simulates much in software. Which is not exactly real-word. Also, many audiophiles and audio journalists note subjective benefits of NOS dacs OVER ones with esoteric oversampling using a gazillion taps!
Thanks Amir. I like your review of products which are unlikely to work like magic cables. But at least in theory they could work. But with this thing and your explanation what it tries to do it was obvious by 0:34 that this just can't work. Please don't waste your time on impossible things.
Another Hi-Fi garbage to sell to audiofool. Chord is well known to have snake oil philosophy, the CEO did a video claiming sonic transparency was about -150db to -160db or even higher (wtf... )
I would like to hear this for myself i find chord dacs sound very good compered to the budget china Dacs for example mojo 2 gives a over £1000 dacs a run for there money 💰
Up sampling is something akin to making a four egg omelet with only two eggs? The result may be an tasty, but it is NOT a four egg omelet. Thank you again for your review Amir. I don’t know about you, but I’m exhausted just watching reviews that turn out to be product fails. It seems the audiophile industry is replete with snake oil manufacturers.
Pure brilliance ,the King of clarity has shown us the way, now just couple this box of frogs with an AQ cable and you will have the best random noise generator money can buy!!
"It uses Rob Watts’ (our Digital Design Consultant’s) unique filter technology, the most advanced in the world, to upscale standard 44.1kHz digital audio up to 705.6kHz (16x CD’s 44.1kHz native resolution)" Is this even possible with any device?
@@AudioScienceReview Don't understand how you can upscale it. I mean you can change 128kbs MP3 to 320kbs MP3, but it won't sound any better. Original 16 times higher resolution must sound better than normaI CD, but we are talking about up scaling here so where does the extra bits come from and does it sound any better?
Great video as always....the snakeoil is strong with this one and it's hilarious how the suckers are trying to justify the money they wasted on this. Any chance you can test the questyle cma400i amp/dac?
I have a Questyle 192D Golden DAC...I think Amir should keep his hands off it ;-) I like the sound and I don't want him spoiling it for me by telling me it doesn't sound any good
![[FULL EP.14] เซียนหรั่ง สอน มาร์ชจุ จับปูนา ฮากระจาย | เฮ็ดอย่างเซียนหรั่ง | One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/M8mPjd_T2lo/mqdefault.jpg)
I didn't believe in expensive cables until I tried Monster cable. It was like smoking crack for the first time. And I wasn't the only who noticed the huge improvement. My girlfriend was in the kitchen doing the dishes as she should be and started crying and I said to her "I hope you're not crying because of hormone imbalance because of a pregnancy you have not told me" and she replied " No the music sounds so good". The dog was also waging it's tail more than usual. Even my grandmother got up and started dancing. And she's been dead for 20 years. Highly recommended!
Same thing happened to me. We must be related ot something....
That's why it's called "Monster Cables". You should be happy only your grandmother woke up. I use Monster cables in my gym room and they get my dog to jump on the treadmill. My dog's name is "Cookie Monster" in perfect synergy with the cables.
So... some people aren't going to catch on to this one ;). "My girlfriend was in the kitchen doing the dishes as she should be..." Thanks, blå blä.
People that hear cables should be kept in padded rooms; you never know when the cables will start telling them to do terrible things. They are monsters, after all.
@@antibrevity Anti woke to the bone. I don't understand this insane world any more. Feels like in one decade the world became a looney tune asylum. A man is a man and woman is woman. Period. No pun intended. What's next. Animals are the same as humans. I hate all this pc crap. Everything can be taken out of context. If I say "blacks are funny" it can be spinned to racism. Fortunately I live in a country where this is at least not yet a problem.
Many comments on ASR have the same ignorant and bullying tone. And the next commentator needs give some more bite to the comments. Please, stop! Only displays juvenile.
Sluta, blå bär med dina löjliga liknelser. Din farmor skulle ha gett dig smisk.
Downsampling your bank account
We have to also thank the members that sent in their units for analysis, member keep it going to Amir. A big thanks from me to Amir and you guys out there .
Indeed. This is even more impressive when they are cool with the results and happy to now know what is going on.
@@AudioScienceReview So long as you let them sell the product on before releasing the review ;-)
Think about how bad the hi end market gear is no real test gear just some liars swearing sounds like your in the studio or at the live concert !!! All Lies and 90 percent reviewers and builders can not hear ! 😮😮😂 Facts R facts
Another myth-busting video. Thanks for your service to audiophiles.
This
@@z.s.9855 I really don’t think you’ve watched this video have you. Might be a sensible idea before you make yourself look silly by misjudged posting.
In image processing, we typically use Sinc or Lanczos filters, as they produce the best balance of sharpness and low aliasing. Gaussian filters are only used where you don't need high-frequency information, or in some math (unsharp masking for instance) where you are in fact trying to isolate HF components. In signal processing theory, you can get a triangle (aka linear) filter by cascading two impulse response filters (aka 'nearest neighbour' or 'box') and you can get a cubic filter by cascading three impulse responses, and so on. There's always a trade-off with the width of the filter kernel (equivalent to the time-domain in audio), whereby two wide a filter loses you HF information, while two narrow a filter is more sensitive to noise and aliasing.
Simply stating that a gaussian filter is superior to a triangle filter makes no sense, because it depends on the application. If you upscale, you want to use a sharper filter ; if you downscale you want to use a smoother filter ; but it also depends on the total impulse response (aka 'modulation transfer function') of you entire reproduction chain. For instance, contrary to theoretical logic, it was discovered back in the early 90s that when transferring digital images onto film, you had much better results by NOT filtering the output, because both the cathode ray tube's flying spot and the film's MTF would take that responsibility for you. Adding digital filtering would only make your images blurry. In audio, I have never seen any vendor take into consideration the cumulative impulse response of the reproduction chain, as a decision factor. Understandably, if you sell modular components, you need each link in the chain to perform to the best possible spec, but if you do have some control over the whole chain - as is the case with active speakers with digital crossovers - you have the luxury to pick the options that produce the best results in the air before the sound reaches your ears. We live in a ridiculous world today where people spend money on snake oil gear that may measure great (or not), but the effect of which is negated or mitigated by how the reproduction chain is assembled. As much as I love my Topping D90, I would never feed it to a pair of LS-50WII, a Buchardt A500 or a Genelec The Ones. My D90 feeds a fully analogue pair of Genelecs, for this reason.
Amir, I'd be curious if you could eventually - because you own a Klippel system - show the impulse response of the whole system (with different output transducers), as opposed to the individual components. I am certain that much of the BS that some audio engineers hallucinate about, would be totally drowned into the compound impulse.
DSP engineer here. This product is not only a complete waste of money, it's not even doing its job correctly. Everything this product claims to do can be done in software (although it makes literally no audible difference). In fact, software will do it better, because the filter design is clearly wrong (and poorly implemented), as you can see in the reduced stopband attenuation. There's even some visible passband ripple! What a joke.
Folks, this is basic DSP math - building an antialiasing filter is not rocket science, and it is the job of your DAC. If you want to learn how this process really works, I recommend reading the documentation of the free and open source tool called "SoX" - its sample rate converter is exceptionally well-implemented, with correct stopband attenuation, and uncompromised parametric control over phase, filter order, and even filter length - all the way up to 100k coefficients (or "taps").
@@vo4wb lol XD
How did so many reviewers think so highly of this product? All the main TH-cam reviewers rate it so highly. Thanks for the review.
How do you get a loaned $6,000 piece of gear and say anything bad about it on youtube??? That aside, any listening tests should be blind. Otherwise it is trivial to "hear" differences that are not there. With barriers to entry for audio review down to zero, anyone can go and post praise for products. Plurality of such doesn't make them right.
Companies thrive from ignorance on the consumer end, without people like you it'd be out of control, at least we can make fun or people who swear by these "magic" devices since we know its a net loss for fidelity
They have such an advantage over the consumer. Throw out some big technical words and folks believe anything if the person is likable. Or the marketing material is nice. Or some random reviewer who is excited about getting expensive gear praises it.
@@AudioScienceReview Feels like a cargo cult to be honest.
How true! I mean look at electric vehicles being shoved down our throats.
@@command8783 absolutely! Always felt like Chord fanboys especially act like a cult members.
@@command8783 It is like looking at the colour blue, if you look at it twice it turns bluer and looking at it four times maybe it turn to red, who knows.
Amir, I am consistently amazed at how some of these products are marketed to be significant upgrades to one’s music system and then turn out to be high priced electronic nothingness. People tell me all the time how certain components make “significant” or “astounding” differences in their systems but then castigate me for requesting blind testing. But blind testing works. Try blind testing where you feed a 3 db higher volume to one output. Any listener with working ears will get that choice right every time. No listening fatigue or test pressure. It’s just obvious.
It has truly become wild west in audio with no rules, no logic, no science, no nothing. Anything goes and folks line up to praise them. Sadly when you ask them to just use their ears for evaluation, they refuse.
@@AudioScienceReview you can't even trust reviewers anymore who peddle this stuff. I only trust a very few. Like, 2. After all these years.
I would think if you were in the market for a $6k sidecar to your DAC then the rest of your system is likely high quality. At that point, a sprinkling of some magic thinking may in fact be the thing you need to push your enjoyment to the next level.
All said, maybe there is a specific situation with dynamic music being played through this system that creates a positive change for the user. But I suspect that few pick it out with blind listening tests. More likely, they pay the money and believe it sounds better, thus it sounds better.
Doesn't that sound better?
@@erics.4113 You statement is a great paradox. If the system is going to be good, wouldn't a premium DAC player have all the options and functionality of this up sampler?
I haven't come across one upsampler that made any difference in audio sonics when mated to a great DAC + HQ player.
Of course there are supposedly perceived subjective "improvements" in an average digital to analog renderr.
But then again what are the odds of someone spending USD 5 K+ on an upsampler has an "average" digital audio renderer? :-)
"high priced electronic nothingness" perfectly put
Peace.
Not just 'noise', also snake oil and placebo effect included too.
I am wandering how resampling makes sound better?
Thank you.
I like that Rob Watts states that if you dont' hear differences you are a sick person. Very polite.
Before listening to a word of this review I was already skeptical of the claims. The bottom line, as you noted in closing, is that you cannot add detail that is not already present in the source material---end of story. "Upsampling" is not going retrieve detail that is not there to begin with.
Better to spend the $6000 on recordings that don't need correcting, I would think.
Thanks for all that you do.
I spend $10/month for 75 million songs on Spotify. $6k gets me all of the music for the rest of my life. Someday it’ll be lossless, not that I’ll be able to hear the difference…
upsampling does have its applications but not in playback as you already correctly argued...
I thought the whole point of upsampler was make ancient DAC designs "suck less".
You can probably get a Trinnov 2-channel processor for the cost of this, I'll wager it would provide a better output/listening experience. ;)
I have a streaming subscription since years and I must say that if the source delivers more resolution the music becomes more deep and emotional. So it is a difference to me between the quality level of „CD“ and „MQA“ and my streamer can decode MQA. Imagine I would save money and cut the quality at the streaming source, would change my subscrition to lower resolution but would buy such a Chord upsampler. It would not help because It is the difference between upsampling and real source resolution. The upsampler cannot tell „additional stories“.
This puts me off buying any product made by Chord. Thanks Amir.
Awesome as always
So it's a snake oil storage box...Thanks Amir for saving me from being ripped off...yet again...and again...
It tells me we are reaching the absolute limits of audible fidelity in electronics, up at the top.
Well said!
When did you get ripped off before? Did you get one of the USB cables that Lachlan recommended?
@@kyron42 A fool and his money are soon parted.... luckily we have Amir to validate audio equipment. 😀
just think a little bit before buying stuff it's not hard to not get scammed by stuff as obvious as this
Thank you for your integrity and expertise
Really great review. Saved me future $$$ Thanks Amir
what are the practical applications of this? for home use or professional use what would be an example of usage?
None. You have to beleive it improves audio or it has no other use.
Well, if you're music sounds too good run it through this to downgrade it.
It's funny how other reviewer who reviewed the mscaler before this are now taking Robs side to save their reputations but not talking about the tests.
Hi sorry if I misunderstood but you said throughout about the noise but towards the end you said by the nature of the device it will always have noise? (I have no horse in this race btw)
It is a fundamental issue in signal processing. To multiply and add audio samples and not overflow, you have to use higher internal precision than input (i.e. > 24 bits). When you are done, you need to convert the samples back to integer samples or your DAC can't play them. This conversion cannot be done by just throwing away the extra accuracy. Doing so causes distortion. To avoid distortion, you add noise. That randomizes the distortion but then raises the noise floor. So the digital processing better have other value to be worth this cost.
Thanks Amir. I hope you will be able grow your channel and test more gear. With less and less places buyers can go to actually hear equipment this is a fantastic resource. Measurements aren’t everything, but they’re a great place to start. (You may actually like the coloration- no shame in that 😂). Keep up the great work. I’ll definitely be sending some funds. Thanks Amir!
Thanks. I am running as fast as I can with testing. It is such a large problem to solve given how much gear out there that has no proper engineering foundation. I hope by the time I am too old to do this, the industry changes for the good.
Thank you for another excellent video Amir. Just one question - you talk at some length around 19 mins mark about the higher noise floor after the sharp filter - but isn't al of this well outside the audible range? kind regards
It is except that the M-scalar is doing that in the audible band as well. It is adding too much noise in its dither.
Maybe adding another fancy led will fix the issues ?
After level-matching I couldn't hear a difference in the two samples provided.
Thank you. I almost bought one. So glad I saved my money.
I use Jriver on my PC to upsample 44.1 FLACs to 352.8 and apply a slow filter on my DacMagic 200M. I really enjoy the results and the sound of my music while still having enough money for a hip replacement surgery should I ever need one.
I appreciate that but if you can, a) make sure the levels are the same. Upsampling frequently changes level. And b) do a blind test 10 times and see if 8 out of 10 times you can identify upsampling. If you do, report back on exact setup and music selection and I will attempt to replicate.
In my very humble opinion, upsampling a digital value does not make it different at all. You may be able to apply a brick wall filter with sharper slope to the signal, but what is the advantage? It is like watching standard over the air TV signal on your 4K High resolution TV, nothing changes, it remains a standard signal, it does not become high resolution..... Shit in remains shit out, there is no magic.
@@AudioScienceReview my experience is totally subjective and I might not be able to tell the difference on a blind test, however, I love to tinker with my stuff and really enjoy the sound coming out of the speakers. On the other hand, sometimes I listen to the same files on a usb drive in my Bluray player on the same dac and no upsampling and they sound great too.
Heck, the best source I have is my Marantz CD6006 cd player, it sounds better than flacs upsampled or not.
So, in my opinion upsampling is a fun gimmick to play with if you have it but don't go spending money on exoteric gear with lofty promises.
Besides it's usefulness, this has to be the sharpest filter I've ever seen.
It does have that although you can get it with one of their newer DACs without this box.
Now I understand why so many DAVEs and Mscalers have been on "sale", for years, many years before you published your measurements
Great review and thanks for being on the side of good audio engineering. There is too much snake oil around and those selling it will never get on your side, but so be it.
Very good amplifier. Noise and jitter amplifier, that is.. The audiophile-grade thick aluminium piece should sell it well!
Motu 8d is 600 eur and will do sample rate conversion to 192k via aes or spdif over coax (could use a nasty adapter box to input optical). I'd be interested if you ever review it or even just one of those 10 dollar coax to optical boxes, that would be super interesting
you should do a segment on reclockers, I was thinking of about buying the wyred for sound remedy, jitter reclocker with femto crystal 400$.
have you got an opinion on reclockers? this one's got optical input.
USB input runs asynchronously so you really should use that. If you want to use S/PDIF, I have tested the Remedy and results are not good: www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-of-wyrd4sound-remedy-reclocker.4036/
So I would not waste money on them.
@@AudioScienceReview I vaguely recall an ASR Review on a fax by topping or smsl that internally reclocks if necessary…but I could be entirely wrong.
The reason it costs $6000 is that if it only cost $600 everyone would think it sucks. They sell more units at six grand than they would sell if it was less expensive. This is really true.
100%
There is definite truth in that. Also, you can't get any dealers to sign up selling something difficult like this for a few dollars in margin.
Moe nails it again.
N’uk, n’uk n’uk! Woow, woow, woow, woow…
Sometimes I catch myself wondering how much energy alone we waste with audiofoolery stuff.
I sit there thinking about all these unnecessarily inefficient tubes, class-a amplifiers, power regenerators, ultra-high resolution DACs that no-one can hear a bloody difference anyways, all there sitting on a shelf somewhere, powered on 24/7.
I have a question if i take a 1000$ dac and measure it and it measures as a 10000$ dac are they then equal no difference in sound???? Some say more 3d sound and some say its only infront of you and so on.
No. I have measured $14,000 DACs that do very poorly. Ditto for multi-thousand dollar DACs that not only measure pooly, but sound poorly as well. So price is not a factor. If however, comprehensive DAC measurement at $99 show similar results to a $10,000 one, you can absolutely count on them sounding the same. I am happy to pay $1,000 if you can find such and in proper blind tests can tell them apart.
Thanks for doing what you're doing, and for keeping your professionalism when challenged. Numbers don't lie. People do.
Correction scientifically reviewed and validated numbers dont lie!
Ears don’t lie and Amir doesn’t use his.
Do you recommend any of the Chord DACs? What is the best DAC $2000 and below?
I have recommended the Hugo 2. It is very expensive though for what it does.
I really appreciate this test. It puts the subjective reviews out there in perspective.
anytime you hear a subjective review, ask them to do a level matched blind listening test
The Dunning Kruger energy at headfi over this review is strong !
You said the harmonic was around 1.6 can you find it precisely to the decimal place? I’m thinking maybe it was multiples of Phi (1.618…)
I did last night and it was a very odd fraction.
@@AudioScienceReview Cool thanks for following up :)
Is that holographic jitter?
You should trademark that before I steal that line and run with it! :)
@@AudioScienceReview keep it.
Also for consideration:
"Increased euphonic noise floor"
In light of dimensioning returns and poor hearing capabilities, I typically don't spend over about $500 on any single audio device. Due to the hearing issues, I did indulge in a SVS Ultra center channel about 6 months ago but, even now, question whether it was worth the expense or not. However, got my eye on a new Yamaha Aventage avr, maybe later ...
I sold some of my wife's purses and shoes to help pay for my Holo Spring 3 KTE. She's planning on divorcing me anyways because she says I listen to music more than I listen to her.
btw just curious how much of a downgrade the dca aeon 2 /noire are compared to the dca stealth
I haven't tested that. Will see if I can get a sample to evaluate.
@@AudioScienceReview epic
Can you please test HQplayer.
I have been meaning to do that for a few years. So yes, will put on todo list.
@@AudioScienceReview Audirvana Studio would be great to test as well with its upsampling and Kernel Streaming Mode please? : )
@@AudioScienceReviewplease test HQplayer. Everyone is obsessed with it now.
I wonder if Chord did something that increased the auditable performance at the expense of causing a reduction in inaudible performance.
Nope. If he had, he would show us a controlled listening test demonstrating that.
Do all DACs that measure the same per your tests sound the same?
The only DACs that measure "the same" are the state of the art ones. Those absolutely sound the same. When you go the other extreme and there is noise and distortion, these never match each other so audibility will be different.
sample 2 sounds more transparency, it could be the 2X upsampling right??
Will respond in a few more days so that I don't bias others. Thanks for trying.
@@AudioScienceReview what platform can i see the result?
Don't mind me, I'm just here to get a chuckle at people defending a box that downsamples their bank account. 🙄 Keep up the great work, Amir!
So can I skip the MScaler to mate with the TT2?
I wonder if the owner will continue to use it or list it on the market place.
The owner doesn't want to use it anymore. But also feels bad about selling it.
Should be called M-Downgrader. Thanks Amir for saving my hard earned money. Wondering how the other reviewers of this device are feeling now after reading this.
Will you review Hugo 2 too?
I reviewed it a long time ago but yes, I plan to do an updated review of it.
I can even understand if some one spend a lot on cables even it's dumb, but it's that simple as a fact that no way you can generate more/better sound from the source.
I do wonder why it is so expensive to recreate the analogue (vinyl like) sound when it is so cheap and easy to produce with a record player.
@@billedifier8584 You don't own a Linn Sondek then do you. LOL
Thank you again for your great work and the easy to understand presentation.
I'm so glad I'm not on this little mouse-wheel anymore! The amount of cash I've wasted on gear like this over the years upsets me.
It was ASR that opened my eyes a couple years back.
Now I have a minidsp SHD with a pair of Genelec 8341 active speakers with built in DSP. Can't go wrong. 👌
Do you love the sound?
I have tried great meausering amplifiers. Good meauserments don't always equal great sound.
Well done Amir, another great video/test added to the collection.
But what about the sonic differences ?
Boy... you just killed it! You are an inspiration Amir! I just love the way you debunk miths 🙌
Thank you Amir. I've been considering the M Scaler for a while...you just saved me around $5k!
Thanks, Amir... I hope that you've started a trend that will help the industry.
BTW, how about a similar review on this Upsampling Processor: AURALiC Sirius G2.1
Thanks. I am happy to test others if I can get my hands on one.
Can you hear the difference because of the jitter? Are you measuring relevant factors that make a difference. You said no. Then you said it can make an impact. Which is it?
Fascinating test including subjective samples.
Thanks Amir…
Could you maybe record, then cut out the 1 second delay between lower and higher, and play back at whatever level should reveal anything?
The measurements show that there will be no difference. So yes, I could do it but it is work that I could put toward testing another box.
@@AudioScienceReview I gotcha. You made your point. Very insightful, thank you!
Thanks, had been wondering about this upsampling device, saved me a lot of wondering what if....?
I sense the storm coming from Chord fanboys will be epic !
They already started yesterday when the text review was out!
I have a question, you have shown that the analogue output isn’t as good using the m-scaler as it is with your standalone dac. If the premise is if it doesn’t measure well it isn’t good, then surely it would have been audible as worse than your test dac? I’m not saying the m-scaler sounds good, but if you can’t tell the difference then it doesn’t sound worse. This makes me question the point of measurements if something bad can’t be heard then good measurements can’t be heard. What we do know is that different audio components sound different to each other, so this video has made me think listening to the products is the only way to determine what is good for you.
The impairments are too small to be audible. The combination of DAC+M-scaler still has less noise and distortion than 16-bit audio for example. So I would not expect it to show audible artifacts. The main point is that the device doesn't do anything positive either so least they could to is not harm the performance of the system prior to insertion of it.
Hmmm it might be interesting to see the effects of the DSEE HX function in modern Sony Walkmans. Apparently helps to improve the "lost frequencies" from compressed audio. I'm guessing it does something minor, perhaps doing more if the audio has more lossy compression. And hopefully doing nothing if playing flac files.
There are a number of such algorithms. They tend to have positive effect at first due to extension of lost frequencies but then quickly get annoying to my ear. They are not needed anymore anyway as encoding above 128 kbps, preserve the full range. And that has been the current rate for a long time (e.g. 256 kbps).
🆙〽️ all the things!!! 🤘🎸
Many years ago I did an internship at a pro audio manufacturer. We had semi automated AP testing on the production line for QC and for determining the added-on-test components to be added to the PCB. And this was just for production test. No design issues like this would have made it this far. And we were selling these products for less than this unit! It beggars belief that the vendor thinks the ticket price is justified for this sort of performance.
Thanks
Can you not just get the better filter behavior by having your music player program upsample?
Sure. I know my Roon player has this for example.
I have listened to your soundsamples and to me the 2nd sample sounds better, so my gues is that it is the m Scaler. I am hoping for a response...
I remember GoldenSound raving about this thing being one of, if not the greatest thing he's ever listened to, only to now see this...
I like to reserve judgement until I've heard things myself, but this just looks so dumb as an audio product, especially for the price. I'm really curious as to what they were listening to when they made such claims about this thing. Maybe they prefer the added harmonics that this introduces to the music, but I don't know. I'm boring and just like to get as clean a signal as I can get with no amount of color added onto my music.
GS and folks like him don't bother to do anything according to audio science. If they did and testing was blind, then they would never spend half our pontificating how this thing sounds better with this and that DAC.
Everyone that claims to hear sound improvements in useless devices always say the "depth" improves. It's ALWAYS soundstage depth that, of course, can't be heard by anyone contesting their claims. Linear power supply, R2R dacs, cables. All give immeasurable "depth" improvements.
They heard a difference because chord payed them to hear it
@@Jon-nz3dm And don't forget darker darks, and
richer highs, and smoother mids, and greener pastures in general...🤣 It's amazing that quite possibly, more ingenuity, manhours and research is put into the verbal descriptive than the actual engineering and design of such products!
I don't remember him raving about this! In Fact he said that HQPlayer was MUCH better and was only $250.
The video by Lachlan (passion for sound) and Rob Watts must surely make people think of the validity of the measurements here so far as ignoring any subjective view (for or against) M scaler
That guy sounds just like any Hi-Fi reviewer from the 1990's. It's like the world hasn't moved on. I think a lot of industry and reviewer folks are upset that consumers can now find out that electronic devices do or not not perform as well as the manufacturer states in such elaborate and florid techno-gobbledygook. I fully accept however, that a badly measuring device can sound great to some listeners. The issue for the industry is whether or not they feel consumers should buy a technically poor/deficient device. $400-1400 with a idiosyncratic performance and sound may appeal to some and be a valid product still. But when asking $14000? Maybe not so much.
@@jabezhane totally nonsensical imo
@@jabezhane ps I didn’t like the m scaler
As always, Amir, like the new sheriff in town sheds light on the dark matter of audio industry
Never understood why those upscalers are so damn expensive. The difference between CD quality and 24/96 or higher is already so minute.
Upscaling CD quality music cannot possibly recreate the bits of a real 24/96 file so the difference is even smaller if existent at all.
You basically pay 5 grands for a box that degrades the signal.
AI upscalers can do some impressive things with low resolution images. I wonder if machine learning could be applied in an upscaler for sound.
@@fraustosound Some work has been done here in very low bit rate audio codecs to extend their frequency range. While they work, they can have very annoying artifacts. Our eyes are much more forgiving than ears in this regard.
Saw Golden Sound* video on this and was mesmerized, I played around with upscaling myself to see if I can hear any difference, this probably explains why. The one device that sounded like one of those magical boxes, that could potentially work "with a million tap filter" ooo. More hogwash. Sad.
Yeh, his video was so egregious. He has an analyzer but uses it for window dressing instead of trusting what it says.
HERE WE GOOOOOOOO......
Excellent video. Doing EE myself and I saw a review for this equipment and I have to say it was the dumbest thing I've ever seen. The people who are shilling this crap need their internet taken away forever
Thanks. I always research other reviews before completing mine in case I am missing something. The one video that I saw was just amazing. His own measurements showed degradation of signal but yet he goes and invents all kinds of sonic benefits. And even rated them different between this and that DAC.
Brilliant!
Where ?
Nice work, Amir!
Rob Watts claims to design for extraordinary measurements. But from the head-fi thread, it seems he simulates much in software. Which is not exactly real-word.
Also, many audiophiles and audio journalists note subjective benefits of NOS dacs OVER ones with esoteric oversampling using a gazillion taps!
Thanks Amir. I like your review of products which are unlikely to work like magic cables. But at least in theory they could work. But with this thing and your explanation what it tries to do it was obvious by 0:34 that this just can't work. Please don't waste your time on impossible things.
In Romania the price is 5500 Euro which is crazy.
Another Hi-Fi garbage to sell to audiofool.
Chord is well known to have snake oil philosophy, the CEO did a video claiming sonic transparency was about -150db to -160db or even higher (wtf... )
He has upped that claim to -300 dB now!
Well, people do love the “distortion” of tube audio. Maybe it’s *good* distortion!
Sign me up!
/s
:)
I can’t afford the hardware so I’ll go with the plug-in emulation….thanks
Ok I've been fascinated by this thing for years and as I run out of things to upgrade, things like this come on the menu. Hit play.
it;s how much? :}:}
thx
You are doing God's work!
I would like to hear this for myself i find chord dacs sound very good compered to the budget china Dacs for example mojo 2 gives a over £1000 dacs a run for there money 💰
Unlike these companies, I wish Amir a long healthy prosperous life XD
Up sampling is something akin to making a four egg omelet with only two eggs? The result may be an tasty, but it is NOT a four egg omelet.
Thank you again for your review Amir. I don’t know about you, but I’m exhausted just watching reviews that turn out to be product fails. It seems the audiophile industry is replete with snake oil manufacturers.
Pure brilliance ,the King of clarity has shown us the way, now just couple this box of frogs with an AQ cable and you will have the best random noise generator money can buy!!
Very interesting and helpful review. Congratulations Audio Science Review!
"It uses Rob Watts’ (our Digital Design Consultant’s) unique filter technology, the most advanced in the world, to upscale standard 44.1kHz digital audio up to 705.6kHz (16x CD’s 44.1kHz native resolution)"
Is this even possible with any device?
You mean just upping the sample rate? Yes. It is textbook stuff.
@@AudioScienceReview Don't understand how you can upscale it. I mean you can change 128kbs MP3 to 320kbs MP3, but it won't sound any better. Original 16 times higher resolution must sound better than normaI CD, but we are talking about up scaling here so where does the extra bits come from and does it sound any better?
@@jasonkillsformomy No, it won't sound any better.
Great video as always....the snakeoil is strong with this one and it's hilarious how the suckers are trying to justify the money they wasted on this. Any chance you can test the questyle cma400i amp/dac?
Thanks and sure, I will be on look out for one.
I have a Questyle 192D Golden DAC...I think Amir should keep his hands off it ;-) I like the sound and I don't want him spoiling it for me by telling me it doesn't sound any good
@@tfj100 haha i feel the same way about my cma400i but i am also curious since i do like it but there are no measurements available
Have you actually heard the M-Scaler?
Finally a review that dares to be honest.
Amir, the spikes that you are seeing are a result of improper use of linear deconvolution in the presence of a Dirac impulse. Amateur hour.
6k door stopper
My guess is that Chord already won over all the “adherents” it could. What’s left except to milk the old ones?