[Articnoise]

@Articnoise, on this forum I’ve provided several personal testimonials as to how I’ve experienced the sound quality benefits of adding an M Scaler to my system when using it with my TT2 DAC. But with little avail that would be accepted by some folks who either haven’t tried it for themselves, or who could not hear the improvements. Which is okay IMHO.

For me music enjoyment and appreciation has always been a subjective experience. Some folks love good music. Others, not so much.

For what it’s worth, I enjoy listening to Mozart.

I think everyone interested in SQ can hear the difference the M-scaler make. I and all that attended the same demo at least did, and that was in a unfamiliar audio system. I heard a even bigger improvement with a Lan switch from Melco.

 

[bpcans]

@Triode User, when I have the option of picking between a 16/44 recording and one that has been remastered to 24/192, I always pick the one with the higher bit rate. Because I’m streaming using Roon + Tidal and Qobuz I can easily switch between different recordings to see which ones sound better to my ears. Now I’m not saying one is better than the other, but it is nice to have options. On most recordings I don’t think it really makes a lot of difference.

And then there are those rare and beautiful albums when feeding the M Scaler at 192kHz/24bit becomes special, because if you close your eyes, you would swear that you were actually there sitting in the nightclub listening to the Bill Evans Trio.

 

[Rob Watts]

@Rob Watts, Rob would you say the M Scaler works best being fed high res music like 24/192khz, or red book 16/44?

It all depends - you will hear a bigger relative change in going from 16/44, but the 24/192 M scaled will be closer to the original analogue signal entering the ADC - assuming that the 24/192 is the original master recording of course. So in absolute terms the 24/192 M scaled will be better.

My goal is to get 24/48 to sound as good as 24/192. For this to happen, we need subjectively perfect decimation, followed by subjectively perfect reconstruction via a notionally perfect xM scaler.

The decimation is not a problem - I already have near subjectively perfect decimation filters - but that's running it at 768 kHz when you can use noise shaping to maintain in band accuracy - that is going from the filters OP bit depth back down to 24 bits. Doing 24 bit re-quantization at 48kHz completely transparently is a problem waiting to be solved. The other issue is then the reconstruction filters (the scalers and WTA filters in the DAC) - but that's another story for another day.

 

[Reactcore]

You could just google "Nvidia Shield" you know..

Yeayeah youre right ..i was too fast typing

Rising Q. Is.. Would this device extract true stereo tracks from a moviestream (if available) or mix all surround channels itself
Eg. Would i benefit hooking this on my tv..

 

[OneEyedHito]

Yeayeah youre right ..i was too fast typing

Rising Q. Is.. Would this device extract true stereo tracks from a moviestream (if available) or mix all surround channels itself
Eg. Would i benefit hooking this on my tv..

Your source needs to be set to output Stereo format, every TV or source device (Apple TV Box, Chromecast, Cable and satellite boxes, DVD and Bluray players included) I have had in the last dozen plus years had the ability to output audio as 2-channel stereo. The M-Scaler is only being a fed 2-channel stereo audio signal. This was covered above I feel but thought this could help clarify for those still wondering what a source device is in this discussion.

For the above Q - the MScaler doesn't extract anything from the source material, it just processes the files it is being fed. Like our stomachs/intestines! Eat healthy folks! You would have to try it to see if you notice an audible difference, for my money I don't need to upscale the audio with the videos I watch. My theater is all processed through Anthem gear without any upscaling and it is great for me. For my 2-channel listening of just audio (music) I like upscaling at times.

 

[GuiltyRocker]

It all depends - you will hear a bigger relative change in going from 16/44, but the 24/192 M scaled will be closer to the original analogue signal entering the ADC - assuming that the 24/192 is the original master recording of course. So in absolute terms the 24/192 M scaled will be better.

My goal is to get 24/48 to sound as good as 24/192. For this to happen, we need subjectively perfect decimation, followed by subjectively perfect reconstruction via a notionally perfect xM scaler.

The decimation is not a problem - I already have near subjectively perfect decimation filters - but that's running it at 768 kHz when you can use noise shaping to maintain in band accuracy - that is going from the filters OP bit depth back down to 24 bits. Doing 24 bit re-quantization at 48kHz completely transparently is a problem waiting to be solved. The other issue is then the reconstruction filters (the scalers and WTA filters in the DAC) - but that's another story for another day.

Thank you for the answers Rob, i appreciate it.

 

[thePhones]

It all depends - you will hear a bigger relative change in going from 16/44, but the 24/192 M scaled will be closer to the original analogue signal entering the ADC - assuming that the 24/192 is the original master recording of course. So in absolute terms the 24/192 M scaled will be better.

My goal is to get 24/48 to sound as good as 24/192. For this to happen, we need subjectively perfect decimation, followed by subjectively perfect reconstruction via a notionally perfect xM scaler.

The decimation is not a problem - I already have near subjectively perfect decimation filters - but that's running it at 768 kHz when you can use noise shaping to maintain in band accuracy - that is going from the filters OP bit depth back down to 24 bits. Doing 24 bit re-quantization at 48kHz completely transparently is a problem waiting to be solved. The other issue is then the reconstruction filters (the scalers and WTA filters in the DAC) - but that's another story for another day.

This sounds like we still have to wait a bit for the new M scaler…. But awesome insights. Thanks

 

[bpcans]

This sounds like we still have to wait a bit for the new M scaler…. But awesome insights. Thanks

I’m somewhat dubious in my belief that a new Choral range Chord M Scaler will improve the sonic performance of my TT2 DAC when compared to what I have now. But I do wait patiently to hear what those benefits might and could be.

 

[GuiltyRocker]

I’m somewhat dubious in my belief that a new Choral range Chord Hugo M Scaler will improve the sonic performance of my TT2 DAC when compared to what I have now. But I do wait patiently to hear what those benefits might and could be.

That's what I thought too, until I brought it home for a demo. The dealer allowed me to keep it for a little over a month as I have bought many things in his store. I wanted to make sure it wasn't a placebo effect, without the M Scaler now i hear harshness and much less depth, width and the timbre is nowhere near as realistic. I have gone back and forth over and over and can't do without it now. That's MY experience.

 

[andrewd01]

I am sure the Choral M scaler will be a big step up from the Hugo M scaler. I guess it will have a more sophisticated power supply and at least a billion taps. Price will probably be £8k / $9k

 

[GuiltyRocker]

I am sure the Choral M scaler will be a big step up from the Hugo M scaler. I guess it will have a more sophisticated power supply and at least a billion taps. Price will probably be £8k / $9k

Hahahahahahaha

 

[Reactcore]

Im wondering if it will (or can) also get Rob's new EQ function thats in Mojo2.. not that i miss it though.

Optical dual data out would be nice too but it must come with a optical-DBNC converter for the DAC side then.

 

[AndrewOld]

And yet despite that he presented going from bypass to 2x and then cycling through to bypass, which includes any delay between 16x and bypass, as perfectly acceptable. He can't have his cake and eat it, although it seems that he can...

It seems like it was a listening test designed to prove his belief. He had the Hugo 2 but decided not to use the M-Scaler as it was intended to be used and when it measured worse when connected to the Topping he blamed the M-Scaler.

Weird.

Why are you all getting so upset when amirm says that the M Scaler, at best, might be a waste of time and money?

The highly regarded @Triode User himself says that, as sold, the M Scaler makes the DAVE sound worse:

Well OK then, yes I do prefer solo Dave compared to the Mscaler with its supplied cables. But really they are only intended to be a get you going set of cables and are not envisaged to be a permanent fixture.

@Rob Watts has not disagreed with this.

 

[ZappaMan]

I watched his YouTube video and what I got out of it was…

As a device it adds more noise to the signal that’s sent in, even though that noise is not audible. But that any upscaler needs to add noise by definition.

Then he said, 2x upscaling wasn’t doing much for him, which many people on here have said too.

i think it comes down to mscaler impact can be either - none - depending on the recording - or subtle - or for some people - amazing, maybe because it is a subtle change….

I’m more then happy to accept any faults lie with the listener rather than the device, I just think it’s interesting example of audiophile goings on.

 

[GuiltyRocker]

Why are you all getting so upset when amirm says that the M Scaler, at best, might be a waste of time and money?

The highly regarded @Triode User himself says that, as sold, the M Scaler makes the DAVE sound worse:



@Rob Watts has not disagreed with this.

People have different tastes, I for one love what the M Scaler does in my system, then again I use a Qutest with the M Scaler. The DAVE may not benefit from it as much as the Qutest does. Then again, Golden Sound and others found the DAVE and M Scaler together to be much better than just the DAVE, several reviewers have stated this. Perhaps I'll borrow the DAVE from my dealer and hear myself what the differences are.