Hugo M Scaler by Chord Electronics - The Official Thread

[musickid]

Rob says stick to 75 AFAIK.

 

[apmusson]

I bought these amphenol rf today from mouser UK at 17 pounds each. Some fellow users on blu2 thread claim it "punches well above its weight" even rivalling the expensive Chord Signature cables. When my mscaler arrives from the infra red "fix" i look forward to trying them out. All i have to do now is save £2200 to trade in my H2 for a TT2 and finish the job hopefully in time for xmas. The cables being relatively thin (see photo) was said not to be an issue.

(095-850-187M100 Amphenol RF) 75ohm 1m. Cable Belden 4855R.

I'll be interested in how they compare with the Chord Supplied BNCs. As more people get m scalers and experiment with different cables we might start to see some favourites emerge.

 

[Triode User]

Just to bring some perspective to the good, better, best comments in the last few posts. More or less any competent 75 ohm cable and connectors is going to be sufficient to accurately transmit the dual signal over the 1m or so between the MScaler and dac. I can see no advantage I getting hung up on which of those cables named in the various posts will be better. They are all fit for purpose and non is better in the context of the MScaler. Indeed it might be argued that the last thing that you want is a low loss RF frequency cable because that will preserve the RF noise. It might even be better to use a lower spec cable which might have more RF impedance. For instance I think I hear a benefit (slightly darker) in using 2m bare cable instead of 1m bare cable. Although that benefit was slight and was outweighed many times over when I put on the ferrites I use.

In all experiments with different cables, remember, as long as it transmits the signals with no clicks or pops it is doing its job.

The thing you are actually evaluating is which cable sounds less harsh, darker, less fatiguing etc. In other words which cable filters out the most RF noise.

Have fun.

 

[Antiquarian]

Just to bring some perspective to the good, better, best commments in the last few posts, more or less any competent 75 ohm cable and connectors is going to be sufficient to accurately transmit the dual signal over the 1m or so between the MScaler and dac. I can see no advantage I getting hung up on which of those named cables will be better. They are all fit for purpose and non is better in the context of the MScaler. Indeed it might be argued that the last thing that you want is a low loss rf frequency cable because that will preserve the RF noise. Maybe better is a lower spec cable which might have sime RF impedance. For instance I think I hear a benefit (slightly darker) in using 2m bare cable instead of 1m bare cable. Although that benefit was slight and was outweighed many times over when I put on the ferrites I use.

In all experiments with different cables, remember, as long as it transmits the signals with no clicks or pops it is doing its job. The thing you are actually evaluating is which cable sounds less harsh, darker, less fatiguing etc. In other words which cable filters out the most RF noise.

Have fun.

Great common sense. Also make sure that your system is not too close to WiFi routers, cordless phones etc. to avoid interference because at GHz frequencies the concepts of "earth" and "screen" are not as they are at audio frequencies.

 

[marcmccalmont]

I can't work out which Belden cable it is that you are using.

I’ll pm you tomorrow

Just to bring some perspective to the good, better, best commments in the last few posts, more or less any competent 75 ohm cable and connectors is going to be sufficient to accurately transmit the dual signal over the 1m or so between the MScaler and dac. I can see no advantage I getting hung up on which of those named cables will be better. They are all fit for purpose and non is better in the context of the MScaler. Indeed it might be argued that the last thing that you want is a low loss rf frequency cable because that will preserve the RF noise. Maybe better is a lower spec cable which might have sime RF impedance. For instance I think I hear a benefit (slightly darker) in using 2m bare cable instead of 1m bare cable. Although that benefit was slight and was outweighed many times over when I put on the ferrites I use.

In all experiments with different cables, remember, as long as it transmits the signals with no clicks or pops it is doing its job. The thing you are actually evaluating is which cable sounds less harsh, darker, less fatiguing etc. In other words which cable filters out the most RF noise.

Have fun.

some manufacturers actually make high loss coax for short runs! I have a Garmin gps antenna in my plane that spec’d out a minimum length coax cable but I mounted the antenna on the dash and used a short high loss cable instead.

 

[Triode User]

Great common sense. Also make sure that your system is not too close to WiFi routers, cordless phones etc. to avoid interference because at GHz frequencies the concepts of "earth" and "screen" are not as they are at audio frequencies.

A good point regarding sources of noise. Also a good point about screens and that is where 75 ohm cable varieties do differ greatly but with the proviso that with the MScaler in general terms one is not looking to keep out stray RF from outside and is instead you are trying to dissipate common mode RF noise that is already in the dual BNC cables.

 

[auricgoldfinger]

It seems to me ridiculous to spend so much money on a pair of BNC cables to make the Chord MS sound good.

It's no different than buying better headphone or speaker cables to improve sound quality. Everyone with a budget has to set priorities and make choices, but there is nothing ridiculous about buying better BNC cables to improve the listening experience.

 

[plinth]

I installed my M Scaler yesterday into my main headphone system consisting of

Sonore Ultra Rendu powered by Uptone LPS 1.2 power supply into M Scaler, into Qutest into Mjöinir Audio KGSSHV Carbon into Stax SR007 Mk2 electrostats.

I had never heard the Blu2 nor the HMS so I was really buying blind but I was fairly certain that if I could not discern a meaningful improvement then I would chalk another win upto audio hype and start seeing other DACs.

I plugged my Blue Jean Cable BNCs into the HMS, chose USB input, set the green filter on the Qutest and selected a random track on Roon and stabbed the input selector on the Qutest as it was not clear how to select the double data rate inputs. The random artist was Mary Chapin Carpenter and as soon as I heard her vice I went cold as I felt I was intruding on something intensely personal, such was the sense of intimacy added by the HMS. After thirty years of car sized upgrades it felt like I had been listening to bands from outside the club door and suddenly the door has opened and I have been thrust onto the stage.

The HMS seems to be playing music as opposed to playing hifi sound. The relationship is like that between cheese and onions and cheese and onion crisps; both are easily recognisable but manifestly not the same thing. I did try and use pass through mode but quickly went back onto full upscaling and decided not to try that again.

The convincing sense of timing makes music so much more interesting and engaging and it sounds delightful no matter how far behind of in front of the beat the artists are playing it is just more coherent and accessible.

This device is an astonishing upgrade and I have never made an upgrade that has had such an uplift in enjoyment.

The only problem is that I have a duplicate headphone system using my Hugo 2 but otherwise the same but now I have no interest in it. How long should one wait before going to Rob and say "Please, Sir, can I have some more?"

 

[TeediuS]

The only problem is that I have a duplicate headphone system using my Hugo 2 but otherwise the same but now I have no interest in it. How long should one wait before going to Rob and say "Please, Sir, can I have some more?"

After moving my combo to the media room, I said to my wife that my main problem is I'm going to need to buy another combo for my desk.....and so now I'm also looking for a house to move all my stuff in to

 

[Jgeffen]

I installed my M Scaler yesterday into my main headphone system consisting of

Sonore Ultra Rendu powered by Uptone LPS 1.2 power supply into M Scaler, into Qutest into Mjöinir Audio KGSSHV Carbon into Stax SR007 Mk2 electrostats.

I had never heard the Blu2 nor the HMS so I was really buying blind but I was fairly certain that if I could not discern a meaningful improvement then I would chalk another win upto audio hype and start seeing other DACs.

I plugged my Blue Jean Cable BNCs into the HMS, chose USB input, set the green filter on the Qutest and selected a random track on Roon and stabbed the input selector on the Qutest as it was not clear how to select the double data rate inputs. The random artist was Mary Chapin Carpenter and as soon as I heard her vice I went cold as I felt I was intruding on something intensely personal, such was the sense of intimacy added by the HMS. After thirty years of car sized upgrades it felt like I had been listening to bands from outside the club door and suddenly the door has opened and I have been thrust onto the stage.

The HMS seems to be playing music as opposed to playing hifi sound. The relationship is like that between cheese and onions and cheese and onion crisps; both are easily recognisable but manifestly not the same thing. I did try and use pass through mode but quickly went back onto full upscaling and decided not to try that again.

The convincing sense of timing makes music so much more interesting and engaging and it sounds delightful no matter how far behind of in front of the beat the artists are playing it is just more coherent and accessible.

This device is an astonishing upgrade and I have never made an upgrade that has had such an uplift in enjoyment.

The only problem is that I have a duplicate headphone system using my Hugo 2 but otherwise the same but now I have no interest in it. How long should one wait before going to Rob and say "Please, Sir, can I have some more?"

Thanks for this review and quite interesting too, especially for me, because I have the Qutest and ultraRendu too. Do you always use the green filter on the Qutest? It’s perhaps of your speakers. I always use the first (white) one. But my amp and speakers are different (Yamaha A-S2100, Revel F208).

 

[plinth]

Actually I have always used my Qutest and Hugo2 with no (white) filters but I saw Rob Watts recommending the green to remove the ultrasonic elements above 20 KHz in hi res recordings and just leave it on so that is what I did. I have to be honest I could not spot a huge difference between white and green.

 

[Jgeffen]

Agree completely. And I can’t see where the £495 comes from. These 0.75m cables cost £40 a pair, they use Canare BNC connectors fitted using Canares own precision tooling to Belden 1694a cable - just about as good as it gets.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Digital-...anare-true-75ohm-BNC-High-specs-/350260545568

Ferrites cost a few quid for 10.

So, £95 a pair tops. But £495 for a 60cm pair? No way. £895 for a 1m pair? Ridiculous. And no suggestion from Rob that ferrited cables offer anything to the M Scaler. Save your money. Put it towards a better DAC.

Actually I have always used my Qutest and Hugo2 with no (white) filters but I saw Rob Watts recommending the green to remove the ultrasonic elements above 20 KHz in hi res recordings and just leave it on so that is what I did. I have to be honest I could not spot a huge difference between white and green.

Thanks, there are indeed no big differences between the 4 filters, and especially not between white and green.

 

[Jgeffen]

It's no different than buying better headphone or speaker cables to improve sound quality. Everyone with a budget has to set priorities and make choices, but there is nothing ridiculous about buying better BNC cables to improve the listening experience.

I totally agree with AndrewOld, see above...

 

[Staxton]

The initial impressions of the MScaler seem to be split between those who hear a major improvement in overall sound quality, and those who hear more subtle improvements. This got me to thinking about what might be the cause of this, and further about how the MScaler handles two fundamentally different types of recordings.

Could it be that the MScaler works best with recordings that were completely analogue from performance through editing, production, and finally, fixing in the final medium for listening -- vinyl lp or tape -- and then later converted to digital for CD?

Rob has said that the purpose of the MScaler is to "reproduce the original bandwidth limited analogue signal perfectly without any changes". It seems to me that, for purely analogue recordings, the MScaler should make a great deal of difference because in those recordings there is an original analogue signal (the original analogue final master) that we as listeners want the MScaler to reproduce. Then that as-close-to-analogue digital information is passed by the MScaler to a Chord DAC for re-conversion to analogue. Rob's equipment thus gives us the best chance to hear those purely analogue recordings as they were meant to be heard by the performers and producers when they released them to the public--it's like listening to the master tape, as some here have said.

But what about recordings that are essentially digital from birth, that is, from the time the music was captured by microphone and converted to digital by an ADC?

Admittedly, I have no experience in how music is recorded and produced from performance to final product in the digital age, but what I presume happens (and I'm referring primarily to recordings of symphony orchestras or large jazz ensembles, both of which play complex music by numerous instruments at the same time) is that a number of microphones receive from their particular perspectives the analogue signals of the instruments, voices, etc. that make up the performance, and transfer them to an ADC(s), which converts them to a digital representation(s) of the performance. From that point on, all of the processing, producing, editing, etc. that goes into making the final product, i.e., the digital master recording from which the CD, Blu-Ray or downloadable Studio Master is made--is done entirely in the digital realm.

For these purely digital recordings, then, it seems to me that the only "original analogue wave forms" that have been captured are the raw, unedited, unprocessed sounds made when the musicians played or sang the musical notes. If this is accurate, then what I was wondering is what is the effect of the MScaler on these recordings? For example, if there is a digital release of a symphony mastered at 24-96, does the MScaler's up sampling improve that recording as significantly as it improves purely analogue originals, separate and apart from what the DAC does? In other words, what does "recovering the original analogue wave form" mean in this context?

I know Rob has been working on the Davina project, which I think is ultimately designed to capture an analogue performance as closely as is possible using digital means. Does this mean that any significant improvements that can be made in the music chain of production in the digital age must be done as close to the actual analogue performance as possible?

I apologize for attempting to discuss these issue from a very non-technical perspective, but it's the best I can do given my limited skillset.

 

[Jgeffen]

I installed my M Scaler yesterday into my main headphone system consisting of

Sonore Ultra Rendu powered by Uptone LPS 1.2 power supply into M Scaler, into Qutest into Mjöinir Audio KGSSHV Carbon into Stax SR007 Mk2 electrostats.

I had never heard the Blu2 nor the HMS so I was really buying blind but I was fairly certain that if I could not discern a meaningful improvement then I would chalk another win upto audio hype and start seeing other DACs.

I plugged my Blue Jean Cable BNCs into the HMS, chose USB input, set the green filter on the Qutest and selected a random track on Roon and stabbed the input selector on the Qutest as it was not clear how to select the double data rate inputs. The random artist was Mary Chapin Carpenter and as soon as I heard her vice I went cold as I felt I was intruding on something intensely personal, such was the sense of intimacy added by the HMS. After thirty years of car sized upgrades it felt like I had been listening to bands from outside the club door and suddenly the door has opened and I have been thrust onto the stage.

The HMS seems to be playing music as opposed to playing hifi sound. The relationship is like that between cheese and onions and cheese and onion crisps; both are easily recognisable but manifestly not the same thing. I did try and use pass through mode but quickly went back onto full upscaling and decided not to try that again.

The convincing sense of timing makes music so much more interesting and engaging and it sounds delightful no matter how far behind of in front of the beat the artists are playing it is just more coherent and accessible.

This device is an astonishing upgrade and I have never made an upgrade that has had such an uplift in enjoyment.

The only problem is that I have a duplicate headphone system using my Hugo 2 but otherwise the same but now I have no interest in it. How long should one wait before going to Rob and say "Please, Sir, can I have some more?"

One other question: did you compare the Qutest with the Hugo 2 trough your speakers, and witch do you prefer?