Chord M-Scaler - My response to the ASR measurements
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ค. 2024
- Following the many comments I received about the measurements of the Chord M-Scaler over on Audio Science Review, I decided to do some digging. Here are the results (in a manner of speaking).
You can find the ASR content here:
Video: • Chord M-scaler Audio R...
Written: www.audiosciencereview.com/fo...
My previous interview with Rob Watts is here: • Interview with Rob Wat...
PASSION FOR SOUND RECOMMENDS
Recommended Headphones & Earphones
Headphones: bit.ly/RecHeadphones
IEMs: bit.ly/RecIEMs
Recommended Desktop Gear
DACs: bit.ly/RecDACs
Speaker amps: bit.ly/SpeakAmps
Headphone amps: bit.ly/HPAmps
DAC / HP Amp combos: bit.ly/DACAmp
Recommended Portable Gear
Wireless IEMs: bit.ly/TWSIEMs
Wireless Headphones: bit.ly/WirelessHPs
Dongles: bit.ly/RecDongles
Bluetooth Dongles: bit.ly/BTDongles
Digital Audio Players: bit.ly/DigitalAudioPlayers
Recommended Speakers
Passive Speakers: bit.ly/RecSpeakers
Active Speakers: bit.ly/RecActSpeakers
Other Recommended Products
Cables: bit.ly/RecCables
Other Devices & Accessories: bit.ly/MiscRecommend
Join the Passion for Sound family: / passionforsound
00:00 Introduction
04:06 Jitter measurements
08:05 Why M-Scaler is best with Chord DACs
11:35 Increased noise in 2x & 4x oversampling
16:26 Discussion of inaudible noise levels
24:06 Upsampling showing no improvement in performance
26:42 No measured frequency response change
30:43 How can we measure things at such low thresholds?
33:34 What other measurements should be considered?
39:13 Lessons from designing an ADC
45:45 Why is the M-Scaler designed/sold to work with other gear?
47:27 How to test the M-Scaler for yourself
48:35 Effect of upsampling on the cut-off filters
Like the music in this video? You can get it here: www.epidemicsound.com/referra...
Giveaway terms and conditions: tinyurl.com/GiveTC
SUPPORT THE CHANNEL
Join my Patreon: / passionforsound
One-off donations: paypal.me/lachfen
Buy some merchandise: passion-for-sound.myspreadsho...
Or put one of these links in your bookmarks for all of your future purchases of ANYTHING:
🌏 Linsoul: tinyurl.com/PfSLinsoul
🌏 HiFiGo: bit.ly/3og89Tn
🇺🇸 & 🇨🇦 Apos: tinyurl.com/Apos-P4S
🇺🇸 Amazon: amzn.to/3dtyiWQ
🇨🇦 Amazon: amzn.to/3xUl1Rc
🇦🇺 Amazon: amzn.to/2U7lqOp
🇬🇧 Amazon: amzn.to/3xaUMo
🌏 Drop: massdrop.7eer.net/d07P2
(Affiliate links help to support the channel - thank you!)
Reviews filmed using:
Sony ZV-1: 🇺🇸 amzn.to/32aa7Mw 🇨🇦 amzn.to/3clV4Bk 🇬🇧 amzn.to/3kGcSM4 🇦🇺 amzn.to/3CoXfyD
Sony A7R III: 🇺🇸 amzn.to/3mnR0nS 🇨🇦 amzn.to/2St0uE5 🇬🇧 amzn.to/34YIWlU 🇦🇺 amzn.to/3g1b26q
Sony FE 24mm F/1.4: 🇺🇸 amzn.to/3kuHVIf 🇨🇦 amzn.to/3jcChNd 🇬🇧 amzn.to/3pD2u98 🇦🇺 amzn.to/355SeMQ
Blue Encore 300 mic: 🇺🇸 amzn.to/3oreKae 🇨🇦 amzn.to/3vVJwMj 🇦🇺 amzn.to/3g6NHjy
Scarlett 2i2 Audio Interface: 🇺🇸 amzn.to/36hRFkn 🇨🇦 amzn.to/3dyCtmD 🇬🇧 amzn.to/3zfxvEa 🇦🇺 amzn.to/2RCeMC3
Neewer Bi-color 660 LED lights: 🇺🇸 amzn.to/2E1BNrh 🇨🇦 amzn.to/3xSwpgi 🇬🇧 amzn.to/3csS6Ly 🇦🇺 amzn.to/3g4Id90
#audiophile #audioreview #mscaler - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
I stopped at "I haven't read the article".
No you didn't 😂
Yup. Snake oil salesman caught out with lies and BS. hahaahaaa. Did you know opening your speakers, dipping your loudspeaker wadding into the juices of surströmming then putting back inside your front ported speakers improves bass response, makes treble sweeter?
'I haven't read it.'.... why am I paying attention to you?
Please see the many other comments where I have responded to this (including the pinned comment IIRC)
The guest agreed to an almost hour long interview in response to an ASR measurement report, but didn't provide you the courtesy of reading it ahead of time to see what the complaints were? Something smells poopy in here.
Almost the entire set of measurements had been discussed at length in a Head-Fi thread where he was active so he didn't come in unaware.
@@PassionforSound Thank you, fair enough. Appreciate the correction.
No problems. Thanks for being open to the conversation. 🙂
@@PassionforSound Thanks PFS we need more of this open minded public discourse.
@@PassionforSoundthere is no need to discuss hard data with audiophile idiots. Now it's your job to provide evidence to counter his data.
Good luck with that.
The Emperor's New Clothes - one only has to know how to sell it. For many, the impossibility to prove a negative (something not having an effect after all) seems to be good enough to believe in the salvation.
Now, I would like to see you interview Amir from ASR, then go over Amirs measurement results of the Chord M-Scaler. This would be the unbiased way to get the real facts, and what it means to the customer purchasing the Chord M-Scaler. Amir is very open to reviews of his findings. I am very curious of why Rob Watts from Chord has not done this? Intriguing!
Amir is very open to reviews of his findings? Guess we've read comments entirely different Amir's.
He won’t do it, because the measurements are true. This would definitely make me stay away from Chord products. Changes something that only the human mind can determine.😂
Yep, I attempted to have a conversation over on ASR and it proved mostly fruitless with the one bright spot being a forum member with some very interesting insights and thoughts.
Sadly, Amir chose to ignore my direct questions and focus on trying to discredit my subjective listening experiences and teach me how to do it right.
I can understand the subjective listening thing ! But he should still engage with you.
@@PassionforSound aahhh yep, there's the Amir I've read posts from.
Why’s Ron commenting on a review he states he knows nothing about? This is weird and absurd.
He said he didn't read it, but he knew plenty about it. There had been lengthy discussions about it on Head-Fi by this point so there were no mysteries
Maybe he should have read it because it rips him and his mscaler apart.
Goes on a podcast to discuss ASR's measurements, and doesn't even read the review beforehand. Yeah great idea.
They're scum, utter scam artists. I hope the world they see crumbling around them falls sooner rather than later. WE LOVE THE TRUTH (AKA.... TRANSPARENCY ;P)
If you can hear a difference then therefore there is a difference, this idea that if something measures the same that it sounds the same is ridiculous.
It's very simple, purchase whatever sounds good to YOU.
Spoken like a true gullible fool.
Hi Lachlan, thanks for that and I am very much looking forward to your review of the Dave. Nick.
amp/dac enthusiasts are a special bunch
Hmmm .... so at the beginning, Watts says he HASN'T read the ASR review. Wha .... ??
The whole review has basically been reproduced on Head-Fi so there wasn't really a need for him to read it in its entirety. Also, I asked him to answer some questions that I had, not to read the review.
@@PassionforSound I liked this interview, PFS. So ... maybe you should edit that Rob Watts comment out.
Once uploaded, videos on TH-cam can't be replaced without releasing it as a brand new video. Plus, I believe in not altering someone's words to suit an agenda. If a person can't look past that one statement and focus on the fact that Rob is simply answering my questions, not critiquing the ASR review directly (which I respect him for) then I doubt any changes to the video will get through to them.
@@PassionforSound The review is a miniscule amount of words anyone could easily skim it. Just read the thing. I'm sure he has or at least his lawyers have. I don't buy that this guy isn't aware of every last word Amir wrote. This is going to cost him a lot of money right or wrong. If he is right I hope he has the wherewithal to prove it in court.
@@georgestephenopolous5508hahahaha 🤣
Out of the gate Rob states, “So I haven’t officially read the ASR article so I don’t know what he was doing in terms of his measurements.” The typical response to smoke and mirrors.
That's because he's spent thousands in audiophile network switches, fuses and magic pebbles.
Now, it’s like interviewing Volkswagen about their own DieselGate ….. and casting doubts on the EPA actual measurements of the claimed mileage and emissions. Do we see the same similarities here ?
And that singular act of deceit, fraud and conspiring by the Volkswagen Group collapsed the auto market for diesel cars.
Great video, always a pleasure to see Rob Watts speak.
I agree. It's a bit like drinking from a fire hose with some of the technicalities, but always informative!
@@PassionforSound I happen to have read Shannon Sync Function theory and find his work very interesting, therefore, his approach to long interpolation filters to properly approach the decay of Sync Function is fantastic. Many don't agree and won't agree, however, listening to his DACs is a pleasure. I recently bought the M Scaler and absolutely love it with the Qutest.
So glad you're enjoying the M-Scaler and Qutest and that you've taken the time to read up on the theory. It makes a lot of sense once you do the reading and helps to appreciate Rob's approach, doesn't it?
@@PassionforSound It sure does, I also saw that you liked the TT-2 better than the Holo Audio May, which many are hailing as the best thing since sliced bread.
I did prefer the TT2 by a small margin, but mostly due to the value provided by the DAC/HP amp combo it offers. The May is a brilliant DAC for those who already have their amps/preamps sorted. I still slightly prefer the sound from TT2, but it's a very small margin
Why not speak to Asr?
I'm not qualified to debate the ins and outs of it. My aim was to gather more info and then people can make up their own minds
After watching this, my question is, was there anything you disagreed with or did not understand ?
From Rob you mean? I think the only thing I question (and I don't yet know for sure) is if his claims about other DACs (specifically R2R because I know about other delta sigma DACs) are actually not doing as good a job with transients.
I also didn't understand some of the final piece. I can't recall what it was specifically, but said in the video that I kind of let the detail slide because the key piece of information was covered to answer my question and the rest was going to take too long to unpack.
Always a good time trying to keep up with Rob's explanations. Thanks for the content, was highly informative. I like it when the engineers who design the device are brought into the discussion. Emphasis on "discussion". Because that's what it should be.
It's always a bit like drinking from a fire hose of theory, but I love it! Glad you enjoyed the discussion (and I agree about the discussion part)
More like snake oil vendor
Well whatever snake made the Mojo 2 must of been one hell of a breed. 🐍
@@BwanaJesuasifiwe Snake oil? Hmm is that why my 2 channel sounds so good, bring me more expensive snake oil
@@timjp31 yes its all in your head, and you paid money for it. congratulations.
Many Audiophiles obsess over trivia. This is an expensive box that may or may not give subtle results. The truth is that room acoustics and loudspeaker choice have far more effect on audio quality. The very best speaker produces high levels of distortion which masks more subtle differences. Spemd your money on speakers that sound good to you and attend to room acoustics. Just moving your speakers or listening position can give very noticable changes to audio quality.
No doubt there's some truth to that, Geoff. The choice of speakers/headphones and main components are definitely the most important. Once that's all in place though, something like the M-Scaler can provide a nice additional lift to the sound
@@PassionforSound Also for some of us, there is a limit to what can be done with the room. I'm very happy with my speakers, and I have a subtle amount of rear wall absorption and corner bass trapping, within the realms of domestic acceptability. Once you hit that ceiling, the increments need to come from somewhere else. I will admit that the M-Scaler has given me the largest amount of mental gymnastics, as a TT2 owner I'm on the fence about whether I want / need one. I've also considered the Blu Mk2 transport so that I get both the Scaler and a transport in one box.
I don't believe the Blu is capable of anything near what the M-Scaler is doing. If course, if you pair it up with HQPlayer and Roon, that's a different story 🙂
Hi, please can you tell me what headphones and mic you use (assuming they're separate rather than one headset). Thanks.
I'm pretty sure I was using the ModMic Wireless microphone attached to a pair of Ollo S4X headphones. I've reviewed both (separately) here on the channel 🙂
Thank you for reaching out to Rob Watts! Really appreciate the inquisitive approach you took to the questions ASR's measurements brought up.
Glad it was helpful/interesting!
You can't criticize Rob's willingness to put himself out there and answer people's questions.
Answer a known snake oil peddler reviewer questions? That’s hilarious. He should go to ASR and try he’s silver tounge bs on people who really know what’s going on.
@@BwanaJesuasifiwe go over to the Head -Fi forum and post your question there. I have - Rob will answer. How many engineers do you know who are that committed to the audio community? It is sad that shallow people enjoy the thrill of internet drama so much that they feel no shame in anonymously slandering people with baseless insults. So many audiophile forums are just toxic cesspools. I would respectfully request that you don't pollute Lachlan's comment threads unless you have a genuine question or something informative to say. Thank you.
@@joindivision1090 the Irony of it is you care more about the comments than people being swindled by a useless product
@@BwanaJesuasifiwe I don't think you understand the meaning of irony.
@@joindivision1090 and more about grammar than fraud
It's interviews like this that make audio a great hobby.
So glad you enjoyed it!
audio is a great hobby notwithstanding sell-outs like this "interview"
@@joegalaxy9037 agreed, all these subjectivists could easily prove themselves by doing live blind listening tests, but they don't
do level matched blind listening tests. if you can't do that, what's the point of an interview?
@@neogenzim1995 THIS
tnx for video,
plz tell me because i need your experience 🙏🏻
i finally got to 2 choices, Monarch Mk2 & Moondrop variation !! my only concern is about Monarch Mk2 in the part of bass !! is better than variation in part of bass??
do you think Monarch Mk2 is worth paying twice as much??
i will be happy if you have a better recommend!!
seems like variations have the better FR so it should actually perform better as an all around Iem
I haven't tried the Variations so I can't comment (and sorry for my slow reply!) What I would say though is that judging based on frequency response is generally not advisable. There are so many other factors that go into the final sound of an IEM
@@PassionforSound the frequency response is the final sound of an iem that goes into the ear canal
That's true, but based on what shape and length of ear canal? I'll explain this in depth in a video due out next week (I think)
@@PassionforSound Thats why deep insertion is important. If ur not getting a good fit then u can get a different non ideal sound its been proving many times
How could the m-scaler change the transients for the better? The transients are allready in the recording and if the m-scaler retains the fidelity of the source material it shouldnt touch the duration, timing, frequency response or level of the transients.
There's a great post by GoldenOne on the M-Scaler thread on Head-Fi that answers this. It should still be pretty close to the end of the thread
It doesnt change shit
I have the TT2 and M Scaler. 90% of my music is 44/16 flac. Yes they are expensive pieces of kit but all I can say is my listening sessions are pure pleasure. You’re there in the studio with some recordings. It can become almost spiritual at times.
Regardless of measurements and debates like this which are over my head, those chord pieces are worth a couple of good vacations for the pure joy they give.
I completely agree, Keith. So glad you're enjoying them! I think if this were all snake oil as claimed there would be many more unhappy Chord customers screaming about it, but most people have either moved on due to personal preferences, sold and then rebought Chord, or just bought it and never looked back. That's pretty good evidence IMO
@@PassionforSound 100%, I think it was very good of you to have Rob Watts on to put those questions to and the way you did it was great. Not easy to question someone on their life’s work.
I think the Audio Research guy is doing a good job too but it just shows that measurement v listening tension.
This is what online should be about, honest debate. You’re one of the people who promote that and I thank you for what you do.
Thanks Keith. That's certainly my intent. I don't believe in shutting down any open, honest inquiry and conversation, but also believe that we need to highlight potential misinformation when it arises and let those who want to make up their own minds to have more information at hand to do so for themselves.
@@susokraut3169 British audio equipment is quite overpriced
@@susokraut3169 Audiolab is Chinese
Sorry if i comment again but...."i haven't read the article" ?!? 4:48 he is there to dispute those statements and he never even read them?!?
No, he's there to answer my specific questions. I didn't ask him to read and critique the ASR measurements. This isn't a battle, it's a discussion
@@PassionforSound ofc it's a discussion. a discussion based on something he didn't read.
He has not read the ASR article? What is this nonsense?
He had seen and discussed all of the measurements and findings as people posted them on Head-Fi for discussion. He didn't actually need to read the full ASR review and I asked him to answer my questions, not critique the actual review
@@PassionforSound You should have asked him to debunk Amir's measurements. If he agrees with the measurements, then why the hate for Amir?
The issue is the irrelevance of the measurements, Ian, and there's not hate for Amir. I am disappointed that it has produced a set of measurements that don't reflect the actual performance of the device, but he's used then to claim that the device does nothing. It's either an unprofessional or ignorant approach to the interpretation of the measurements.
4:49 I'm sorry but he should at least have read the
ASR article himself before being interviewed about it
Yep, and watch the ASRs video... Really, hard to argue with measurements.
Basically, the entire thread has been captured via comments on the M-Scaler Head-Fi thread so he essentially has read it, just at a different location.
Paul F, if you're saying it's hard to argue with Amir's measurements, you really need to go back and listen to the interview again because the whole discussion was around the fact that those specific measurements are irrelevant for the M-Scaler because he's treated it like a DAC and not understood what the product is actually designed to do.
@@paulf3353 lol
@@paulf3353 he is being interviewed about his product and asked questions relating to measurements.
I love that there is no contradiction or denial of any measurements. He is not arguing about the measurements. He is explaining and discussing his design choices and why it makes things sound better and how the measurements relate to that improvement. It’s brilliant as an engagement.
@@PassionforSound thanks for clarifying
I respect your attempt to get a healthy discussion going on
No, it's not okay if you enjoy it. If someone is selling you magic beans, it's not okay just because you enjoy it. If someone sells you counterfeit painting, it's not okay, just because you like it.
This discussion about the ASR measurements would have been much better had Rob read the ASR report.
How so. What extra information do you think he needed that was not provided to him in my questions and/or via the Head-Fi discussions that were extremely detailed about everything we discussed
You can't be serious? You stated if someone can produce relevant measurements that disprove Robb's claim..... Jesus that's what Amir did!! 😂😂
You need to watch the video properly. Amir ran a series of irrelevant tests designed for DACs. As Rob explained clearly in this discussion, most of what the M-Scaler is doing cannot be measured with an analog instrument like Amir's setup and needs to be measured via calculations in the digital domain.
I think the real question people need to ask is not - can we measure the performance of this device - but, what is the value of placebo? It's the old "Matrix" question from Cypher - if it's all in the head, imagined, but still enjoyable, does knowing the device does nothing lessen that enjoyment? Mind over matter, I guess. There are some who just embrace the placebo and are at peace knowing they hear a difference. There are others who, when the learn the device is doing nothing, suddenly cannot enjoy it anymore.
Great content. Thanks for this!
At 5:03 rob said he did not read the ASR measurement!! What this episode is all about it and investing 15 minutes to skim through the article seems the righ thing to do
Two points to consider here: 1) I asked Rob to answer my questions, not read and critique the ASR review
2) the ASR review has been discussed at length on Head-Fi where Rob is very active. There was no need for him to read it on ASR
How can this be an unbiased interview ?
No-one claimed it was unbiased. I reached out to Rob Watts because I had doubts about the value of Amir's measurements relative to the M-Scaler and the conclusions he was drawing as a result so I asked the designer to discuss my understanding of those measurements and to clarify from his perspective. Nothing different from that was claimed
@@PassionforSound why bother with the interview then ?.
Because the information presented on ASR was incomplete and largely irrelevant to the actual performance of the device. On top of that, ASR followers were flooding every forum and TH-cam channel with negative and often abusive comments so I felt like balancing the equation was needed for people who like to consider all sides before making up their minds
Isn't the least common multiple of 44.1 and 48 kHz 7.056 MHz instead of 104?
Yes it is. Love to hear Rob's answer to this.
Rob explained in the video that he was looking for the multiple closest to a specific frequency (98mHz or something in that realm) IIRC. He definitely explained the specific choice of 104.
@@PassionforSound Unfortunately 104MHz is not a multiple of 44.1kHz and 48kHz. He did also mention 115, 98 and 92, but the only frequency close to those that works is 15 x 7.056 = 105.84MHz. Maybe he meant 106 not 104 but that would be a strange mistake for him.
If 16x oversampling is your goal then 16 x 7.056 = 112.896MHz would make more sense, but then you would have those leading edge problems he talked about.
I can't debate the merits of a particular frequency, but I do think Rob said it wasn't exactly 104, but 104 point something. I just rounded it to 104 for ease in the discussions
Nice Tektronix lab oscilloscope @ Rob Watts. A oldy but a goody!
Easy, blind test with few friends.
I have plans for something like that later in the year...
@@PassionforSound great! Looking forward to it. Thank you!
That would be good, wouldn't hold my breath because it will almost certaintly show that there is no point in 10K £ DACs.
@@BillNepill yeah, I would agree. It's physics and I am an engineer. Still want to see the result if possible. A true engineer doesn't have predefined bias.
@@jianhuang0124 your comment is under-rated. Thank you.
I get the feeling the purely objective-only mob could take four amps which measure at 100w into 8 ohms and same but more into 4 ohms, 2 ohms etc. With distortion/noise similar too.
One would be a tube amp, one class A solid state, a class AB and a class D.
I am sure they could argue they should all sound the same.
Most of us know they certaintly will not!
I agree. Unfortunately, the fact that they've seen the measurements would likely result in them hearing them as sounding all the same too. The consideration/argument of bias seems to only work in one direction...
A tube amp with similar distortion to a class A or D?! Is there such a thing?!
I think the point was more to have multiple different types of amp that all measure decently (i.e. no major design flaws)
@@PassionforSound you could design a perfect wind-up, steel needle gramaphone, but no-one is going to think it's going to sound like a high resolution digital sound file though a state-of-the-art DAC and loudspeakers.
That's true, but I'm unclear of the relevance - sorry
Hi Lachlan, fantastic video, clears up the confusion around why certain measurements were not applicable to the functionality of the device in conjunction with another Chord DAC. I have been a long time user of the M Scaler with the Chord Qutest. I am still not sure if I would see much benefit however moving from the M Scaler >> Wave High Fidelity Storm cables >> Qutest + S Booster LPS to the M Scaler >> Wave High Fidelity Storm cables >> Hugo TT2. Is it going to give me better performance or should you just jump to the Dave instead?
Personally, I'd go to the Dave - it's a great combo. I went from TT2 to the Dave to give some context. TT2 gives a different sound, perhaps largely due to it's output stage, but the TT2 is also less influenced by the power supply due to it's use of supercapacitors, all imho of course.
I'm actually working on a DAVE review right now and when the DAVE first arrived I was trying to figure out how I could afford to buy it. Having completed the review, I'm actually super happy sticking with the TT2, not because it's technically better, but because I enjoy it more. The DAVE IS the technically superior DAC without a doubt, but I can imagine many people preferring the TT2 for its slightly weightier midrange and bass (without it being thick).
As for the TT2 vs the Qutest when both paired with the M-Scaler. I covered this in my review of series covering the Qutest, TT2 and M-Scaler combinations so check that out for the fine details (there's a playlist on my channel called "Chord Endgame" or similar, but the gist of it is that the TT2 is an excellent upgrade from the Qutest as a DAC and happens to have a brilliant amp stage too.
Love Passion for Sound & Love Rob Watt ❤❤❤
Thanks Bard Rich ❤️❤️
I had the Hugo TT2 & M-Scaler and liked it a lot. But in the end I sold both of them after a few weeks for funds to buy other Gear and Headphones. Just too expensive for my wallet at the end of the day for my needs. I recently got the Burson Conductor 3X Gran Tourer All in One and it's a direct competitor with the Hugo TT2 for half the cost. I've learned the hard way that Price does not always translate to best sound. It's all subjective. I prefer the Burson House sound over Chord's
I would argue that above a certain quality&price point the discussion of better than the other is the wrong question.
Instead it's just a matter of taste
Johan, I definitely think there is a point where the gains to be had are minimal and the extra details, etc. aren't always necessary or preferable from an enjoyment perspective. The idea that there's no difference (based on the measurements) doesn't stack up when you actually listen to them, but the idea that it's all subjective preference absolutely does 🙂
I was very interested to hear what Rob was saying about comparing a recording to reality.
I'am always amazed that reviewers often listen to electronic or studio recorded music to review equipment.
With electronic music you have no reference to what it should sound like.
With studio recordings you are just listening to the reality the engineer has created, a lot of sound altering equipment and an artificial environment/soundstage.
To me it's critical to listen to acoustical instruments recorded live and instruments you have heard live and are familiar with.
Even better, make high quality recordings of instruments and vocals in the listening room with the microphones at the listening position. Then you have a good reference to how it should sound.
You can then hear and describe the differences the equipment under review makes and how close it is to reality.
I agree, Nick. In an ideal world, having a reference recording would be amazing. I think it's worth remembering that when using live recordings, things like mic placement and mic choice can all also influence the sound so live recordings aren't necessarily better than studio recordings because every recording will be influenced by the setup, but I definitely take your point.
Electronic music can be good for testing things like frequency response and imaging accuracy (how focussed the sound can be, not accuracy of placement) so all styles of music and recording have their uses, but they do need to be understood.
@@PassionforSound I would agree that electronic music can be good for checking things like bass response and dynamics, not sure about imaging accuracy though, as the environment has to be emulated. Although this can, I guess, be computed quite accurately these days.
I just get a bit frustrated with a lot of reviews because I want to know, and it’s often missing, how transparent the equipment is, how close is gets to reproducing the original instruments, vocals and environment.
Keep up the good work and thanks for showing this interview with Rob.
I completely agree about acoustic music being the best for assessing timbre and naturalness. Glad you're enjoying the content!
@@PassionforSound Symphonica by George Michael, orchestra & one of the best British voices ever. I have the Bluray hi-res 2 channel mixes in 24/96 PCM, DTS-HD (lossless) & Dolby TrueHD (lossless)
Thanks for the tip!
Thank you for getting your hands dirty on this!! It's important there is a balanced approach to big, possibly damaging claims. However... the cost to performance ratio remains a question in my mind.
That's always going to be a personal equation and something that I think can only be answered by trying it for yourself. I personally am yet to find a setup that I prefer over the M-Scaler and TT2 so it's definitely good value to me, but we're all different. 🙂
@@PassionforSound thats saying some about the Dave.
The DAVE is brilliant and technically superior, but I find myself preferring the character of the sound from the TT2 with the M-Scaler over the DAVE and M-Scaler. I'll explain more in the DAVE review because it's not a clear better vs worse IMO
The Dave dac is not that impressive, check it out on ASR. Especially for the money !
ah ah ah, "getting your hands dirty" as in "become involved in dishonest or dishonourable activity" is the right way to put it
Great content, thank you.
Glad you liked it! 🙂
@38:07 is it not convenient that some aspects of Rob’s design implementations, that he claims sound better, cannot be measured? If it is more art than science than just say so.
Not really convenient. If it were easy to measure these things we'd have way more cheaper, better sounding DACs. Thankfully we have people out there going beyond the simple measurements to design products that also sound fantastic
If you can hear it, you absolutely can measure it, otherwise you couldn't hear. Moreover, instruments can measure what you can't hear. Calling out art is absurd, art is done with science and tecnique, do not mistake the perception of its beauty with its principles of making...
There are no analog measuring devices that have the sensitivity needed to measure some of what's being done in the digital domain of products like this (e.g. noise shaping)
@@PassionforSound What's being done is using equations, which is math, so absolutely measurable, to concentrate noise, which is meaureable, in frequenzy bands to which hearing, which is measurable, is less sensible. There's no need of noise shaping if you produce an instrument which put all the possible noise directly to a non audible level, and this is absolutely measurable.
The lack of noise is absolutely measurable, but the listening tests conducted during the creation of some of these products showed that mathematically quantifiable changes to the noise floor (via noise shaping) that go beyond measurable limits were still influencing the subjective enjoyment of the device. All of this is also before we discuss the timing accuracy of transients in the musical signal which cannot be measured (AFAIK) with currently available analog tools.
I have no idea what any of this means, nor do I know what an m scaler is. I presume though given I’ve got through life up till now without one I needn’t be too worried if it works or not 🤷🏼♂️
Yep. You should be fine 🙂
If spending that kind of money (for the M-Scaler) I would consider a high end desktop running HQ Player.
By all accounts, HQ Player can get very close to the M-Scaler, but doesn't quite match it (according to an extensive review by Audio Bacon) and also is more fiddly (there are LOTS of settings to consider) and less versatile (it will only work for a computer as your source).
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just that there are pros and cons in both directions (the M-Scaler is really only ideal with Chord DACs and has to be with the DAC whereas HQ Player can be used on your source computer, but can send to Roon endpoints I believe)
@@PassionforSound I think the comment about not quite matching it is very subjective and system dependent. HQ Player has so many setting that picking the right one for your gear and taste is going to be a arduous task for sure. One reviewer that likes the HQ Player more (I think he said that) is Golden Sound. Who, along with you is one I have a lot of trust in. At this level not sure better is term I would use more like preferred.
That's very true about preferences being important and I'm not saying it's better, just that Audio Bacon found M-Scaler to be preferable. I tried HQ Player briefly, but found the range of options and settings onerous to wade through trying to find the right combination. I might need to revisit it sometime...
@@PassionforSound Golden Sound has created a set up file ( I think it is for the Holo Audio May ) that he found works best for the majority of music. Good luck would love to hear your comments. One thing that is important is that your DAC is galvanically isolated, and I found the USB connection was the preferred connection with the Holo Audio May KTE
Thanks for the heads-up. I'll throw HQ Player into my schedule for a revisit (it'll be quite late in the year at this point)
Thanks Lachlan
Why is Chord not reaching out with a plan to speak with Amir. This is strange marketing. Involving a non engineer not even a tech. Your mindset reveals judgments right at the start… “I can’t believe it’s as bad as that…” And Rob hasn’t bothered to read or watch Amir’s work published… sounds like another MOFI Gate situation.
I reached out to Rob. Chord aren't involved at all (Rob works for Chord as a consultant, not an employee). I suspect Chord hasn't reached out to Amir because his measurements of the M-Scaler don't really warrant discussion because they aren't measuring what it does and are just an arbitrary set of measurements that illustrate nothing meaningful about an upsampler.
@@PassionforSound seems like that would be a perfect opportunity for them to set the record straight then...
It would have been useful if the gentleman had looked at the ARS review of his product, and then point by point refute ARS’s findings. The fact that he ignored the review speaks volumes. The claim on the Chord M-Scaler website (03/06/2023) is it “…upscale standard 44.1kHz to digital audio up to 705.6kHz…” is akin to saying you can make a four egg omelet with only two eggs. You can added extra ingredients so that it has the same volume (pun intended), BUT it’s never going to be a four egg omelet. I call snake oil!
You've misunderstood how upsampling is intended to work. It's not creating data that's not there, it's based on the premise of using more advanced algorithms to predict where the intersample data points lie to help more accurately reconstruct the analog waveform. All upsampling/oversampling DACs do this internally. The aim of the M-Scaler is to do it better rather than relying on the DAC.
mscaler is proven junk,simple as@@PassionforSound
13:56 - (and the 15 secs before it, as well) What?? " DC - 20kHz, the noise floor is below 400 dB.
U don't wanna upsample the music in the first place. It's like watching DVDs on a 8k tv.
It doesn't work like that, Andreas. Video isn't a good comparison for audio upsampling.
I’ve not read the ASR review so I don’t know if the RFI issue with the m-scaler was identified; it certainly wasn’t mentioned in the interview with Rob.
To my mind, the RFI introduced through the BNC connections is the biggest problem with the m-scaler technology in its current form. I have a Dave a bought a Blu II, which contained the first incarnation of the technology, though my understanding is that it’s reproduced in all material respects in the stand-alone m-scaler device. There was a significant increase in detail, depth and soundstage, but this was accompanied by a brittle harshness in the mids and highs that rendered timbres in those regions very artificial and wearying: the opposite of what I heard with the Dave alone.
Eventually, on the head-fi thread Rob stated that the noise from the m-scalar processing (over a million taps) passed RFI into the Dave (which is why the two couldn’t be incorporated into a single unit as some requested), but he didn’t think it was significant, and described me as an outlier. His ears are the ultimate arbiter.
He seems to have accepted that this might be a problem however, as the whole business of RFI filters on the BNC cables then started up (it was actually his suggestion), and when he developed the separate m-scaler he introduced RFI filters on the BNC outputs. I also understand he now uses the WAVE cables for BNC at home, with filters along the whole length of the cables. I was reliably informed by the developer of the WAVE cables that the stand-alone m-scale suffered the same RFI issues as when it was in the Blu II. There has even been an BNC to optical to BNC converter developed to overcome these RFI issues, apparently with good results.
I fairness, I should say that many have used the m-scaler without noticing any such issues, and it might be limited to the Dave, the highest resolving Chord DAC, and only Chord DAC currently available developed before the m-scaler technology (perhaps RFI is addressed better in later models). Also, many Dave owners have not had a problem. To my ears however, and that of some others, the RFI induced noise is a serious setback. The Dave sans m-scaler might not be as detailed, but for me it’s more tonally accurate and listenable.
I’ll be interested to hear your views when you review the Dave.
Rob Watts mentions several times about listening tests. How are these preformed? Who does them? If it’s Rob, is he shaping the filter with his middle aged ears with inevitable frequency compromised?
These things would have been good to know.
I think we spoke about that in my original interview with Rob if you want to check that out. I don't think his ears are an issue though because tonally the products are great (and the WTA filters were designed quite some time ago now). Also much of the testing is being done to identify the depth of the soundstage and that won't be as influenced by age related hearing losses as something like frequency response tuning.
There really isn’t any journalism when it comes to hifi, is there? Rob is basically allowed to say whatever he wants without any challenges. “Hey, I need the noise to make the depth, no choice, don’t measure the noise, it’s no relevant”. What??
No actual responses to some very disturbing facts (that may or may not tell the full story, but are still very much there), and a host that is either unwilling or incapable of challenging the discourse. A shining example of what’s wrong in our hobby.
I'm not qualified to challenge Rob's responses, Alfy, so the best I can do is allow him to comment on the measurements and let others put the pieces together for themselves.
That said, I do know that the measurements that started all this were misleading and irrelevant to a product like this and that's what started off this interview to try and share the other side so people could see both sides and make up their own mind.
I can never get get over the strong levels of feeling (almost hate sometimes) over a product that nobody is forcing anyone to purchase. If I could afford such a luxury item I would want to handle it to get a feel for its quality and LISTEN to it. If I liked what I was hearing I wouldn't care what forums said or what the endlessly measuring fanatics said, I would buy it and enjoy it.
Exactly! Well said. 🙂
The Emperor has no clothes, so he went to the Emperor to confirm his outfit. Ok, I feel better.
Let's face it; these high end audio guys who expect us to be fooled by high prices are mostly con men.
Great interview, I'm very happy with the Mojo 2, it has a bigger sound then my Oppo Sonica and it allows me to use power hungry headphones away from home. Although I dont have Mscaler money, I will probably sell both and get a Hugo 3 if and when it comes out.
Sounds like we have similar ears. I don't even consider other company's DACs anymore.
Glad you liked the interview and your Mojo 2, ZB.
I'm with you, Luke, (mostly) - Chord and Schiit are my two clear preferences for DACs so far. I keep searching for something even better than the Chord approach, but I'm yet to find it.
Mojo 2 was tested to be fairly good. That doesn't mean the mscaler is.
@@MW-ii5nb "Good"? Maybe you mean "worth the money".
When you get to products this costly, that will always be highly subjective. And I'm not convinced we all have the same wiring between our ears.
@@lwwells I mean from a performance perspective in comparison to other dacs in the same category. Worth is dependent to the individual.
You can do everything this scaler can do for free on Linux with MPD and the SOX resampler.
Except it's not using the same algorithms and may not be producing the exact same results. I'm not saying the M-Scaler is the best or only option, just pointing out that the M-Scaler, HQ Player and SOX are not identical so each will likely have it's pros and cons
@@PassionforSound Without comparing the code there's no way to be 100% sure that each is using different code. If this wasn't a niche part of a niche hobby, I'm sure a lawsuit would have settled this issue by now, lol.
Yes pc is the way to audio treatment we neeed
I love my mojo and have no idea what the M-scaler is for, its clearly not for normal people at its price.
Agreed, I can't understand why these people get all butt hurt about this issue, they are basically, acting like 'White Knights' for people with too much money available to them.
I mean, if you've got 14 grand to drop on a hi fi device that, allegedly, improves your $13000 dac, you don't really have that many issues, and you really don't need people telling you to buy a $500 dac, because, "it's just as good".
You're right. It for people who believe in unicorns and Santa
I have the Mojo, the Mojo 2 and the Qutest. They all do the same thing but to different degrees. They all pack an FPGA chip and upsample performing so many taps. None of them radically transform the sound, though the Mojo 2 has an EQ I absolutely love. You can't create higher resolution. You can, however, improve the transients.
The best I can compare this to is the black levels on a flatscreen. The darker the blacks, the more colors pop and the more textured and dimensional the image appears. Better black levels won't give you higher resolution but it will enhance how the picture is displayed.
I noticed this on the Mojo, more so on the Mojo 2, and definitely on the Qutest. I didn't hear more bass or an obvious amount of detail in the highs, but I'd hear these little nuances in the music, which would show up when I least expected. We talk about speed and attack. When it's sharper and better delineated, you notice things that were there all along but they stand out better.
Some examples. I've had tracks I've heard for years, always thinking a certain note was continuous, unaware that it was actually segmented. I've had moments when it occurred to me, for the first time on a song I thought I knew, that the texture of a note or instrument was more complex than I'd thought. I'd hear pick work or a flash of reverb that I'd never given any thought about. About a second into Led Zeppelin's "Going to California," someone inhales off-mic. I don't know why I didn't hear it before. There's a moment, on Billy's "Still Rock and Roll to Me," when the effect of some filter on the vocals called attention to itself in ways I'd previously missed. They're just little things, sculpted out of the mix and heard differently - in my case, on headphones.
Great explanation! Thanks for sharing
As a Six Sigma blackbelt I recognize the benefits of data and measurements but also aware of the challenges of using data to make assessments.
Measurements don't lie though....people do. I wonder if Chord has contacted Amir from ASR.....very doubtful.
Yes, and people can lie using measurements (and ignorance)
@@PassionforSound accusing people without evidence, without evidence is all you are about
I didn't accuse anyone of anything. My point was simply that data can be misrepresented and that ignorance can add to the chances of this happening.
I better be careful then, kerpow!
The facts that Rob has done real listening tests live mic feed to digital output and is honest about the results says a lot how many designers have done that ?Digital is not simple and there is still along way to go to make "perfect"
Well said. Sadly, some just want to read a graph (even if it's irrelevant data) and make conclusions from that.
@@PassionforSound they are free to read the graphs. I prefer to listen to music.
18:15 is the key to everything.
Those who look at measurements will dismiss that as “inaudible”. Go figure
@@DaveJ6515 yet those graphs mean that what you are hearing is junk hence you choose to live a fantasy .
When are people going to stop confusing the phrases, "high fidelity" and "it makes my ears happy." This machine will, at best, change the sound from the original input and people will pay 5k for it because "audiophile."
This product is designed 100% with the intention to more accurately reproduce the analog waveform as it was originally recorded. People saying otherwise aren't taking the time to understand the intent of the product.
Subjectivity, sure. We are terribly poor at being objective where even all of our senses are Not that accurate and definitely make us believe ourselves more than the world at our feet. Take the verb to be, for example. Most instances of how we use it are at least questionable. Anyway, we make machines to measure, see, hear, gauge etc, beyond our own subjectivity and biases, but it does take a long time for us to recognise what else we can't sense, and create better and more adequate machines to venture into the hitherto unknown.
Of course, if everything were so subjectively impalpable, there would be no conversation to be had.
As others have said, measurements are only part of the story. Always listen.
th-cam.com/video/BYTlN6wjcvQ/w-d-xo.html
It would have to make a "night and day" differnce for me to spend 4k. Also why never any blind tests on kit like this?
My first experience with upsampling came from using an RPi 3+ and an Allo DigiOne (whole kit under $200.00). My source was an ODroid HC2 ($50.00 + SSD). DAC/etc was a NAD T758 AVR ($1500.00ish). Aside from the AVR, all very cheap gear. I tried the DigiOne because the only way to get music from my server to my AVR was through blusound - which really sucked to use.
You would not ask about blind tests if you had something like this. I tried the upsampling one day while listening with my son, I had no expectations at all.
Ya, night and day, black and white, left or right.
I don't know why some people seem out to get Rob Watts, he dose his own thing, and is one of the few who does, he gives much of his time, shares alot of his information in a calm and sincere way. I happened to buy a Tube Technology DAC64 and Transport back about 20 years ago. It sounded differentiate from anything else I had heard, and I fell in love with what it did in my system. I wanted to know why, it brought me to hearing about Rob as it was his design.
I like his stuff, I don't like something I don't buy it, simple.
I agree and don't understand either. No one is forced to buy or keep anything they don't like. 🤷
@@PassionforSoundNo, but they can be tricked into buying things by people who purport to be reviewers but are actually shills or clowns. Giving people facts about products enables them to make better choices. If something is badly designed, performs poorly or is faulty then people should be informed.
Need that Qutest 2 to drop. Lets go!
Thanks for great work!! Really appreciate your work and approach to things!
My pleasure. Glad it was helpful
You should thank ASR for all the work they did proving it doesn't do anything.
@@r423sdex oh, yes, if they could indeed prove that it wouldn’t do anything I’d be willing to thank them - if and only if I really was about to blindly purchase an M-Scaler without any listening at all (to couple it with a budget topping dac 🤦🏻♂️). Since I am not doing any of that, I’ll merely thank them for doing some measurements, and for showing the results, but I’d more than hesitate drawing any conclusion from what they show, and so I fail to blindly accept their rather speculative conclusions. Musical perception of what is reproduced by a DAC isn’t comprehensively quantified by a Sinad test at 1kHz. Many DACs have similar results there and yet sound very different. How’s that?
The crux of this is we are finally able to get our hands on sophisticated test equipment that allows us to really see how these expensive devices actually work or don't work. For so long we have had to take the manufacturers word for it. The result? We are now finding a lot of 'legendary' people in the Hi-Fi field are really not that qualified or qualified at all. It's causing a lot of embarrassment for a lot of people that have have reigned unquestioned since the 70's and 80's. Time to clean house and put some of them out to pasture.
That's not at all the case. The reality of it is that some people choose to believe that irrelevant measurements tell the whole story just because they've been measured with an expensive piece of equipment. Part of my reason for reaching out to Rob Watts about this was to understand what the data wasn't telling us and there are huge gaps in the data Amir has provided. If you don't like the M-Scaler or Chord, that's completely fine - it's not a brand or product for everyone, but the claims being made about the M-Scaler at ASR are just incorrect, based on ignorance and an over-reliance on the fact that an APx555 has been used. I could use the best surgeon's tools available, but it doesn't mean you should trust me to conduct a complex operation on someone.
@@PassionforSound Okay so get Rob to test it and show us what it really does then? It's just a piece of electronic kit after all. Not some magical box. Get him to measure it and show how it really works. But I bet you won't.
I won't because I don't feel the need to. I've listened to it for myself and everything Rob has said stacks up when I listen to it. If someone can produce relevant measurements that disprove Rob's claims, that's a whole different story, but knowing that Rob's approach involves BOTH measurements (in the digital and analog domains) as well as listening tests implies that the measurements of his devices will stack up where they matter. As we discussed here, the jitter performance isn't so good from the M-Scaler for a good reason. That's an example of Rob merging real life performance and an understanding of the measurements that matter.
@@PassionforSound Yeah...expected that.
THIS
It is always great to understand the complexities of digital, Rob Watts always fascinates me. Math Issues, compromises and work around decisions which Chord engineers have made in building a product that I enjoy. Though not perfect, it has brought me closer to the real thing. It is not just about measurements but for me the connection with the music.
Very well said, Dennis. That's pretty much my experience too
It would be good to get Amir, Rob & yourself on a Zoom roundtable...
That would be interesting, but I've already lost too much time to this and my curiosity has been sated
Great stuff - thanks for putting in the leg work.
Around the 30min mark there seems to be a confusion between tonality and timbre (and a little later, transients). When asked about tonality and frequency response, Rob comments on timbre, not tonality. The resulting discussion suggests the original reviewer is simply ignorant, but actually the discussion is off course and both Rob and the reviewer are correct.
My pleasure! I think timbre and tonality are largely interchangeable, Steve. It's all about the sound being natural and true-to-life in the end
@@PassionforSound yeah. They get used interchangeably all the time - as in, ‘that guitar has a great tone’. But there really is a definition of tonality that is related directly to frequency response. Not trying to nit-pic and I love that you discourage black and white opinions here. But I think the discussion got caught on semantics.
Rob starts the interview by stating that he didn't read the ASR article?
That's all I needed to hear. Why should I bother with another 49 minutes of video for a guy that couldn't take 10 minutes to look at the bench measurements?
Seriously, kick rocks. That told me all I needed to know.
Thanks for this,full respect to you Sir.
Thanks Edward. Hope it was helpful
It's good to hear about live sound listening. But, anything that comes through a PA system, although live is only as accurate as the equipment and pointless to say it's live sound. So the only way you can test properly is any un miked sound. Orchestra, jazz and brass band.. now I have heard many a live jazz band, and by Christ when those symbols or sax hit the high notes it can make you flinch, depending how close you are..
so long story short, I'm glad it's toned down when recorded, live music in the most part sounds bad.
Yes, definitely recordings of acoustic, non-amplified/reinforced audio is the only true measure of how a recording translates to a live performance. I need to go and try some more live music to test this out for myself again.
I am not smart enough to grasp this, well at least my knowledge is insufficient. Additionally, my hearing is compromised. I am also very unlikely to have the surplus funds to be tasked with this dilemma. Good luck with this, people, I am interested to follow the debate... you would have to wonder why. I can't help with that. :)
Now, I think it'd be nice and fair to have an interview with ASR to respond to Rob's comments on his product in this interview.
The trouble with Amir is that he seems resistant to acknowledging when he misses something in his tests or uses poor testing methods. For example, in his JC2 preamp review, he criticized its performance but failed to realize that he had used the trims in a way which shunted input voltage to ground. I politely explained his mistake and got not response in the thread.
Amir runs a forum and YT channel. He's got plenty of platform to respond if he chooses to do so.
I don't think this would add anything useful to the debate. I'm not a shill for chord products, but I will believe the designer Rob watts any day of the week.
What did he measure wrong ?
Measurements dont lie
I've worked in a field where this sort of measurement debate arises often. And I think it's a good thing overall; because we need to think critically about measurements. But that also means not taking for granted that measurements often only make sense within a particular context-they don't necessarily tell you everything you need to know all at once. When it comes to the design of audio products, I assume that product designers/engineers are sufficiently competent that they will attend to the relevant interpretive considerations when they conduct measurements. I don't assume they will measure mindlessly. Unfortunately, I do think some reviewers measure in this mindless fashion, and so they produce results that prima facie look bad, but they can't necessarily give anything more than a prima facie-superficial-comment. The value of such commentary is then inflated by the assumption that the measurement itself tells the full story; that no other interpretive considerations bring to bear. I think we need to adopt a more deflationary attitude to measurements-unless we're sufficiently competent to interpret them and understand their real-world implications. I know I definitely am not, at least in this area. But I'm also not sure that those enthusiastically reporting measurements are any better-equipped in this regard simply because they happen to possess measuring equipment. To put it bluntly, numbers are objective, yes; but understanding what the numbers *mean* may require a bit more than knowing the number itself, and if we want to get into *that discussion*, then I think we had better be prepared to learn a bit more. I appreciate Rob's effort here, but I think some are just going to lose sight of that.
I should've added: It's good that Rob mentions psychoacoustics because, well, that matters. If you are designing an audio product for human beings (i.e., one that needs to meet the listening needs of actual human subjects and not some idealised "listener" that doesn't actually exist) then taking into account how humans *actually hear what they hear* is hugely important.
Well said, and it applies in so many areas outside of audio too 👏
Very well said. 👍
The problem is the measurements don’t go far enough to convince the suckers of snake oil products, we need a measurement instrument to measure placebo, fraud and ignorance
Dear Felix, most probably you don’t know or care about the credentials of AMIR from ASR because you are insinuating the credibility of him not knowing about audio science.
You may not understand objective measurements but don’t assume others too are ignorant or in the dark like you.
everything is correct. external clock via long wiring is inputing significant jitter. human ear understands that as "musical" or 3D sound... clock must me maximum 2 cm from processor, not 30+ cm
This is not the clock for the DAC
He lost me at "I didn't really read ASR review...." Seriously?
Rob Watts reminds me of Nelson Pass, another one of my favourite engineers. While they both understand the theory, and measure copiously, both talk consistently and repeatedly about 'listening tests'. This sort of humility and curiosity, and authenticity to the music is something I respect a lot.
If he was serious he should talk about CONTROLLED listening tests.
I completely agree, jelt! There's a lot to be said for years and years of combining measurements AND listening tests.
They slowly, slowly deviated the subject and answered what they wanted.
Way is the measurements so of the original one? Because the £4000 - £5000 up-simpler has another filter that works best only with 2 DAC's, Hugh TT2 and Dave. Is so simple.... un upscale filter cost around $100 and Chord is selling it for 4 5 grands.
Rob Watson is a great engineer but the upscaler is dot exactly what people think of it (the best). The ideea of the vest was born by fake reviews 👏 👍 😀
Measurements shows how purely this device resamples. We can get exactly the same with other devices such as 200 300 DAC used as upscaler.
Is really so simple to see but people makes it harder to understand by talking nonsense 😒
ASR drives crazy 🤣
Amir listened to the m scaler and the Dave dac. With some of the best headphones you can get ! Rob uses the same one's
That was an excellent interview Lachlan, and goes to show the vastly different levels of knowledge of a consumer like most of your viewers, a prosumer like ASR and a professional like Mr Watts. That digital "softens" music was certainly an interesting take away.
I found the live recording experiences fascinating too! Glad you enjoyed it!
How was this excellent? First thing Rob says I don't want to talk about the tests. And hasn't even read the ASR review yet. Then they go on to talking about why Rob designed the mscaler the way he did and sidestepping the facts.
@@MW-ii5nb Rob does not have a reporting line to ASR and is therefore not obliged to respond to their every question. In addition it seems to me Lachlan raised the key critiques of ASR and Rob answered all of them - quite extensively in fact.
@@connorduke4619 OK... then why do an interview about the ASR review when you didn't even read the ARS review. Seems like a great way not to talk about the facts, and rub some snake oil on the watchers.
@@MW-ii5nb The facts were addressed. Whether or not you consider the replies to be snake oil is up to you. But for me the facts were all factually addressed.
THIS WAS TOTALLY INSPIRATIONAL AND A VINDICATION OF MY LONG-HELD BELIEF AS A PHYSICIST AND AN AUDIOPHILE.
For me this is one of the most significant interviews in my audiophile experience, now 53 years (and counting!)
I have long held the belief that measurements are not the whole story and after over 50 years of critical detailed listening have had some experiences that bore this out.
One significant event was my purchase of an amplifier to replace my Leak Delta 70. On paper it measured like the textbook on amplifier design and received rave technical reviews. After 3 weeks of listening, i couldn't bear to hear it any more and gave it to a relative. That was the last time i relied on the test results to sell me a component.
Another experience is my use of supertweeters to add air and realism despite the fact that my ears should not be able to hear the frequencies they reproduce. But an A/B test is very conclusive in favour of the supertweeters. So bottom line: satisfy the psychoacoustics and the quality of the experience will improve. Enjoyment follows.
All the best, Rob in Switzerland
I'm glad you liked the interview, Rob. As you say, the psychoacoustics are so important. The key thing that's often overlooked is that we are still learning about how we perceive sounds (including ultrasonics that we can't consciously hear) so any measurements HAVE to be incomplete until we learn what it is that we should be measuring.
@@PassionforSound i couldn't agree more. This is why I am skeptical of channels/websites that "trash" products based solely on measurements without the extensive listening tests that Rob has performed. What a unique and privileged position he has to be able to conduct such detailed comparisons! Most of us would give our right arm for such a chance! Until it's clear what parameters play which role, it's premature to condemn any product. The empirical fanatics also deny cables have a significant influence. Anecdote: to choose my analog interconnect I auditioned two sets of interconnects for weeks. It quickly became clear that one set was unlistenable for long periods (the musicians played the same melody but not together) and another was extremely musical and can be listened to for hours and hours on end. I chose the more musical of the two. At the end of the day it's about musical enjoyment, not measurements. All the best, Rob in Switzerland
PS. In my physics degree we had an acoustics specialisation which I and friends also took. In my year were both Andrew Jones (star loudspeaker designer) and Arthur Khoubessarian ()of Pink Triangle and Funk Firm fame - inspirational turntable designer).
Oh wow. What a cool opportunity!
Great discussion. Top blokes both of you.
Very interesting interview - thank you for doing it!
I think that measurements without connection to listening, means that those measurements have a very limited value. And it is all too easy to think that somehow by measuring something - that it is somehow "accurate" - is the issue. A measurement without any context is not helpful, and in fact can hinder things.
Thank God in the end it’s facts that matter and not your opinion or mine or Rob wallet’s
Well said, Neil. I'm glad you enjoyed the interview. There are way too many variables in audio to boil it down to just 3 or 4 measurements that get used for every type of audio device. And even with more measurements available, some things are difficult to correlate from the objective numbers to the subjective listening experiences as Rob discussed when he talked about the very fine adjustments required to properly tune the filters.
@@PassionforSound is that another of your opinion or you are now an electrical science expert with replicable facts?
@@PassionforSound Something that I learned about higher resolution digital recordings and acoustics, as it relates to transients - is that any sound that has an "instant" attack - is essentially the sum of many orders of harmonics. So the erroneous idea that we only need to capture the frequencies for which we can hear the *pitch* of i.e. up to 20kHz or so is simply wrong.
The theory goes that since we use high frequencies for hearing the direction of the source of the sound - the breaking of the proverbial twig is why we have this ability. We can sense the higher harmonics as part of the transient waveform, even though we don't hear their pitch when they are on their own, as it were.
Very quick transients are approaching square waves, and that means they have many orders of harmonic overtones. We either need good dithering, or higher sampling rates than 44.1kHz - or both - in order to hear the best, more accurate transients.
Harris, its my understanding from having researched and explored as much information as I can. Science is as much about asking questions and critical inquiry as it is about taking the same set of measurements on every device regardless of its function.
Great video thanks Lachlan! Always good to get a long chat about an engineers response to a lot of the discourse we see on TH-cam. We don't get that often enough, especially in the audiophile space. I totally agree with Rob that our perceptive systems are much more complex than we initially thought. Try telling someone 15 years ago that a human being can tell the difference between a 240hz and a 360hz display and they would laugh at you
Exactly! Great example with the displays.
Actually most people can't tell above 240hz. Especially that basically no game actually reaches 360hz.
@@humanbass were not talking about most people here though. Just like with audio, those who consume high refresh rate content are of course much more likely to see a difference in those higher rates. The point I'm making is that the difference IS noticeable by the human eye, which challenges several pre-conceived scientific notions of how our brains work.
Just like how the miniscule time domain errors discussed in the video are noticeable by the human ear, despite years of research saying otherwise.
Where can I find the test results and white papers on displays. To prove that's the case.
@@humanbass That's because most people aren't trained to play at 360hz. I thought the same before I upgraded to 360hz. After few months with a 360hz panel, I can say the visual fidelity clearly does make a difference in competitive play.
This is one of those videos where I wish one could 'double' or 'triple' like a video. Kudos to you, Lachlan.
Thank you, Roop! I'm glad you liked it 🙂
I don't think anyone disagrees that measurements are useful. But do we know ALL the measurements necessary to make a great DAC? There is strong empirical evidence that the answer is no, which I think is kinda the crux of this video.
Well said, jelt!
Science advances by presenting evidence that can be proven and repeated. That's it that's all. If you disagree with the the fact that we can compare the performance of DACs in regards of human hearing with measurements, then come up with your own blind tests done in a controlled environment and present your results. This is how science works.
Measurements give an idea but passing 1khz signal and checking the outcome is not an indication of good performance.
Well I'm no expert, so...
pass the popcorn
I'm with you on that one. Well done for not feeling the need to pretend you're an expert as many others seem to. 🍿
And a lot cheaper
I would still love to see the transients measurements Rob is talking about. You can't argue against real measurements with imaginary ones. He already said that the numbers are not impressive (they don't need to be), so why still holding onto those graphs? Let's see them!
If you’re genuinely curious, I’d encourage you to watch the talk he gave to RMAF several years ago. It can be found on TH-cam. He goes into far greater detail.
ASR fan spotted :D
@@ChrisMag100 I've watched it.
@@andru2625 nici aici nu scap de tine? 😂
And if it’s a race of who has better transient response a cheap wireless internet router would run circles around this 6000 dollar m-scaler
I am still keeping an open minded approach on this, however I would like to say in my experience listening to chord dacs and ones running the M-scaler, I honestly feel that the dac solo sounds better. Especially with the dave. The only thing I cannot say is what people were running or if anything else is possibly hurting the performance from shining to its fullest capability whether it is the amp or the speakers since this is all experienced at an audio show.
I think a better question for me to understand is at what point do the taps really mean even less difference to the mind. A 12,000 dollar dac should be able to provide a sufficient performance and especially when that price is out of reach for so many I feel like having an additional 6000 to get the utmost best performance with not true measurable improvement, for instance 20% better, makes it completely worthless and just a mental boost or perception that things sound better. Unfortunately, there's no way to ever get a measurement like that
Also with someone like myself who is younger and probably does have a good portion of the bandwidth why am I disliking the m-scaler on the chord products. Clearly with the dave it is using the dual BNC and giving its absolute best performance, but I have heard it with the Qutest and felt the same. Also if I recall correctly, I did have a chance to listen to the M scaler with headphones as well and had equal results[dave].
It's not that I did not like it, it's that I just did not prefer it. So when coming upon these measurements I felt as though they were legitimate and need far more understanding to see otherwise. But even then I will not jump to conclusions until all variables are the same and it's a blind test with equal responses throughout which unfortunately will never occur.
I further understand things he has pointed out, the thing which makes me wonder is how a 200 dollar pi hat is able to produce -142db jitter but this 6000 ddc was not and it was done on purpose for sound. Yet I find no flaws in the hat and has provided the best audible improvement to my "budget" system
I must add that Amir is a very fair person and will report what he gets, also would not doubt if he made a mistake he would point it out when realized. He hasn't trashed multiple chord products to show this is some sort of picking game. I feel he will have a rebuttal to Robs responses and this should be interesting to see what he sees eye to eye with and what may prove to be not very precise.
Don’t waste your money on M-Scaler it is a wild card snake oil product in between other great chord products. ASR caught it.
@@BwanaJesuasifiwe I think the main issue here is that Rob has to cover his ass, I hope we can all come to terms on that. So he is going to have to refute the measurements because that would put his company in jeopardy. Really hope that Amir comes out with a point to point response to what rob had to say, not to create a fight but to see if what he did say is valid. Amir would clearly agree or disagree and provide valid reasons to back his points. I know Rob did this as well but the factor is again we dont know if what he is saying is accurate or not, it may as well be true.
@@BwanaJesuasifiwe except amir just measured the dave and it's no better than a 200 dollar dac. It's still measurably transparent but why would I ever waste my money on such a thing when I can get something for 500 with even better state of the art measurements and more features and much better display? Chord is shaping up to be a very crappy company.
Bottom line just get the Qutest and be happy! They sound the same right up to the Dave!🙂
If only that were true...
Basically asking the designer of the faulty product his opinion doesn't seem like a good thing. He is part of the company trying to sell you the product. So in no way objective
Thank you for the opportunity to hear Rob’s comments about the digital/analogue world and how neuroscience plays such an important part in what we perceive. Towards the end of the interview Rob discusses recording live in a church using pro-audio gear and comparing the live vs recorded playback. Rob says the differences (depth and transient attack) he attributes to the ADC filtering.
Surely then, all DACs will fail to properly reproduce an accurate facsimile of the original sound?
I think Rob is saying that the Chord M-Scaler + DACs are better than the competition but all are flawed.
Rob said he is working on an ADC , it would be very interesting to hear a review of a live recording using a leading pro-Audio ADC and one of Robs ADC designs and then played back through Chord products.
Glad you liked the video. Yes, you're absolutely right that all digital recordings are reducing the maximum sense of depth according to Rob. He is working on an ADC and I'm personally excited to hear something recorded using it because his approach to combining digital audio science and psychoacoustics knowledge seem to produce consistently great results IMO
Yes You Did👍😉👏👏👏👏
Great interview in trying to clarify stuff with the actual designer. I know some already made their minds regardless of explanations but also I am sure a lot of people really find this video useful and very informative.
Robs Explanations without proof Vs ASR explanations with proof
Glad you enjoyed it, MAELOB. No doubt some want to stick to preset biases and hold onto the irrelevant measurements as proof, but my aim was to share this with those happy to explore and better understand. I'm glad you found this interesting.
@@PassionforSound you will say anything to cover up for snake oil
@@BwanaJesuasifiwe Perhaps its time to put the mouse down, maybe go outside, get a bit of sunlight, perhaps get a life, that type of thing.
@@garethsnaim8174 I just watched this video, and I still see no proof the product actually improves what comes out of my speakers.
Ok, here is my take on it. There are two domains, yes. One is frequency domain and the other is time domain. So let's assume you are right and frequency domain plays no role here. What about time domain measurements? Where are the diagrams and setup for the measurement? There certainly were experimenters who devised time domain measurements in the past, most notable Duncan comes to mind, 15 or 20yrs ago. His schematics are still available and Stereophile republished some in their August 2020 issue. Hic Rhodos, hic salta. The claims must be substantiated.
I have no problems with people asking for data and evidence of the time domain side of the M-Scaler' performance. That's completely fair and reasonable, but by that exact same logic, Amir needed to test those aspects of the M-Scaler before claiming it does nothing.
@@PassionforSound Time domain measurements may have some meaning on cables, such as speaker cables, where storage of energy can occur depending on the length. But here, we have none of that. We have Audio Precision measurements of practically all frequencies at the output terminals of the DAC and these are compared side by side. The neuron firing/impulse rate on the auditory nerve depends on both the sound intensity and the frequency of the sound - this is a psycho-acoustic fact - e.g. neurons do not fire on every oscillation cycle of frequency f for very faint sounds (but tend to fire on the peaks of/in phase with a cycle). And the Just Noticeable Difference (JND, in dB) in human hearing is ~ 0.5 dB - yet another psycho-acoustic fact. Also, the context of listening impacts the sound perception and we have no control over contexts (which themselves are multi-dimensional). Hence, any tweaks such as 0.001dB etc are futile and misleading. No causation, just (misinterpreted though real in placebo sense) correlation in the context of that particular day the designer was about to submit his design (or reviewer testing). Different brain areas (prefrontal, frontal, temporal lobe, striatal, hippocampal, left and right, and so on) process the same sound sequence all at the same time i.e. in parallel and each of these areas is affected by both narrow and broader contexts of the particular listening session. Now, one can imagine how promulgated he is going to be to discover all sorts of "nuances" if he just plunged $14000 on some 0.001dB level tweaked device and all of his brain areas titillating on this investment.
@@Burevestnik9M730 but one measurement says one thing technically as to what it *should* sound like. Then multiply that by hundreds of similar variables unique to a product. It’s a nonsense to debate subjective sound quality by technical measurement as much as chemical constituent quality in food to work out if it tastes good. It technically alienates new people becoming audiophiles too.
Great points, 13th!
@@PassionforSound Here it is, see for yourself:
courses dot physics dot illinois dot edu/phys406/sp2017/Lecture_Notes/P406POM_Lecture_Notes/P406POM_Lect5.pdf
Right off the top, his claim that he has not read the ASR review lacks credibility. Add to this the fact that the Chord Dave also tested to performance levels below that of a $150 DAC, I start to form a pretty strong opinion.
It is time that measurements proving transparency be considered table stakes for all digital and D/A converters, because there is simply no excuse for that not to be true.
Are you stupid? No cheap DAC measures the same as a DAVE. Literally look at Stereophile’s measurements you absolute peasant.
he could choose to output MSQ, to avoid having to go back to 24 bits ( i guess he uses floating point, or 64 bit ints), but this problem also shows that this is just the wrong architecture, the oversampling should be done IN the DAC, and the DAC should use floating point instead of ints. oh and, IF you really want to oversample outside the DAC, just do it on a computer offline !, COST ? NOTHING !, i'm a programmer, i know what my next project is. another flaw seems to be that the original samples are lost, BUT the output frequency is a multiple of the original, that just doesn't make sense, it would be better to keep all original samples, and calculate 1,2,3 or 4 new 24 bit samples to insert between them, the only thing the mscaler is really doing is generating a more accurate curve from existing data, that isn't even an audio thing, the same is done in graphics, antialiasing, increasing image resolution, or even statistics, the idea is that you generate a function that conforms to the data. actually changing the original data seems like a bad idea, unless you want to compensate for flaws in the DAC, ok, getting to the end of the interview, and i hear talk about Fast Fourier transformations, those are not needed at all for oversampling, only for filtering, altering the original signal. and they will always add noise to the signal.
The m scaler suggests to me that Chord DACs were not perfected.
No, there's a lot more to it than that. There is a limit to the processing power that can be built into the DACs and they're already way more powerful than most other DACs on the market. The M-Scaler is kind of like having a dedicated video card in a computer where the onboard graphics might be good, but only a dedicated device is capable of the extreme processing required for truly top-end graphics. Hopefully that makes sense.