[AndrewOld]

An M Scaler can’t undo tape hiss, hysteresis, print through, print back, wow, flutter, inter track bleed, crosstalk, compression or any of the other myriad analogue distortions. With a good digital recording the starting point is way ahead of an old analogue recording. Everything I have listened to through my M Scaler DAVE is massively better than it was through my DAVE. As Ronnie Scott once said, it is a whole new kettle of ball games.

If you think an M Scaler only improves old recordings you are totally, utterly wrong.

It is almost frighteningly good with recent recordings.

 

[Amberlamps]

Can I ask, those with mscaler, what music is the majority of you listening to ?

Is it mostly Classical, or electronics, jazz, rocks, hip hop etc etc.

I’m just trying to guage what mscaler users are listening to.

 

[dawktah2]

...Speaking of recordings anyone with an mScaler try listening to a Chesky binaural recording, that has got to be wiild.

 

[AndrewOld]

Can I ask, those with mscaler, what music is the majority of you listening to ?

Is it mostly Classical, or electronics, jazz, rocks, hip hop etc etc.

I’m just trying to guage what mscaler users are listening to.

Mostly classical, some jazz.

I make most of my judgements on the basis of classical music. I am lucky enough to go to live concerts at least every week; I know what the real thing sounds like and how it makes you feel.

 

[JaZZ]

Staxton...

Of course the DAC (let's say M Scaler + DAVE) can only make so much of a recording, but at least it doesn't make it worse than necessary, unlike conventional DACs – in terms of transient response in the audio band. The latter is the crucial point, so the term «original analogue signal» refers to preserved transients in the audio band. Until the successful launch of Davina and a broad application in recording studios that means it can't be fulfilled literally, since current recording equipment already does some harm to transients during A/D conversion.

Can I ask, those with mscaler, what music is the majority of you listening to?

Classical (mostly contemporary), Jazz (contemporary), Rock, Electronics... almost everything except for mainstream music.

Nowadays I exclusively listen through headphones – to answer Andrew's question.

 

[Amberlamps]

...Speaking of recordings anyone with an mScaler try listening to a Chesky binaural recording, that has got to be wiild.

I have a couple of chesky brothers bin aural albums. Amber Rubarth and Macy Gray Stripped, not sure if the latter is just hi res, or if it’s also binaural, I know Ambers is as I bought both versions of her album.

Both albums are exceptional, and to be honest I think Macy Grays stripped album is remarkably good, even if it isn’t a binaural copy.

I also have some other chesky albums, but those two would be my favourites. Chesky Bro’s are excellent at producing albums that are great for headphone users.

 

[GreenBow]

I cannot tell the difference. I cannot tell a difference either between the Hugo2 being charged or just on battery. Both are really very good. I have not tried the Hugo 2 with the M Scaler as I do not have the adapter. My speaker system is also using an Ultrarendu/LPS 1.2, Bowers and Wilkins 802 Diamonds and a full stack of Parasound JC1 mono blocs. I know that I should take the Qutest and M Scaler and try it in that system but I am just having too much fun.

Oddly me neither. However the Hugo 2 should technically sound better on charger. It apparently runs from the charger in desktop mode, but can draw power from the battery when needed. For demanding current loads; I guess like peaks in music. It's meant to work along the lines of the Hugo / Hugo TT, where the TT has supercaps to provide peak power demands. (Supercaps being better.)

However I guess I need to listen more closely. My comparisons in the past have been about trying to hear if the charger adds RFI/noise/ or basically brightness. I had forgotten that the Hugo 2 can draw battery power for peaks loads. It was a post by Rob W, that reminded me.

 

[AndrewOld]

Ok, another question. How many of you guys just listen, or mostly listen, through headphones?

 

[x RELIC x]

...Speaking of recordings anyone with an mScaler try listening to a Chesky binaural recording, that has got to be wiild.

Melissa Menago is stunning with the DAVE, I can only imagine it with an M scaler attached. The recording was done in a small church, single binaural mic, and a very simple setup. It is raining outside and on lesser systems it's been reported to be noise. Nope, it's rain, clear as a bell. You can also get a sense the space she is in.

This brings me to my next point. A LOT of the quality and depth and has to do with the way the recording was mic'd and mixed. Norah Jones is a joy to listen to and her voice is sweet, but a lot of her albums are close mic'd and re-mixed in the studio and sound very flat to me. If the recording was done to capture resonances in a hall, or subtle ambient cues, then that's what I want to hear... I want to feel like I'm there at a performance and not at a mixing desk. Richard Thompson, Grizzly Man OST, is another example of feeling like I'm there and the realism is out of this world. Of course, not all music can be captured with a simple mic setup, nor does all music lend itself to hearing ambiance and depth, but when it's there it's fantastic (again, I can only imagine what the M scaler does with these types of recordings).

There's also mastering of the final mix. Adele is horribly mastered. Her albums are so dynamically compressed I don't know how people can use her as an audiophile reference. The quality of the mastering and the dynamic compression, or lack of, will have a HUGE influence on how our gear reproduces the music. I wish it were as simple as all music will get the same benefit, but sadly there is no industry standard that is adhered to regarding dynamic compression. There are a lot of moving parts when listening to music that it's never as simple as evaluating one's gear without knowledge of the recording process, or the mastering.

 

[Antiquarian]

Well I think you are asking some interesting questions that I would also like answered in more detail.
But from my limited experiences with how symphonic music is recorded digitally I can at least try adress one of your questions .
There are normally a lot of mics and a lot of mixing and post-processing involved in most cases.
And in some cases I would say more resolution and increased acoustic information may not always be an advantage.
On the contrary, you will hear even more of the mess they have made of things with all their mics and the artifical balances created at the mixing desk instead of as heard live in the hall.
Basically the only label I know of or at least have personal experience of that often balances on the spot in the hall and not always in post-production is Jared Sacks of Channel Classics.
He has mainly recorded in DSD 64 so far, but is now doing some projects in DSD 256 but not PCM.
One of the things I want to find out in more detail is how much M-scaling might benefit native DSD recordings.
If at all?
So far and under less than ideal conditions the differences at least via headphones between DSD 64 and the rbcd layer via BLU2 were not very obvious and easy to settle for me.
And ironically some of the best DSD from many consumer DACs , I have heard,is possibly the way RW does it in much cheaper DACs ,
HUGO 2 and Qutest and also TT2 which I haven't auditioned yet,than how I remember DSD even via DAVE.
Via Qutest on its own with some of my reference tracks some really low level percussion detail is clearer and more audible than from much more expensive so called native DSD, chip DACs.
But honestly still nowhere near how clean and clear it was live.
With some native DSD chip DACs ppp to pppp stuff tends to get even more lost in noise.
According to Rob the limitation is mainly in the format itself and without any technical expertise I won't argue with that.
But I hope to be able to listen under better conditions than my first trials with M-scaling soon.
Cheers Christer
PS Yes both LSO LIVE and also Mariinsky make less processed recordings than many of the majors do.
Unfortunately LSO makes most of their live takes in a not very good hall. But I have to say they are more honest takes than the "doctored" ones.
Mariinsky Hall is better and they sound very natural in most cases.
Interestingly like Channel Classics which I mentioned earlier, most LSO LIVE and Mariinsky recordings are both from concerts and in DSD.

I have a number of Jared's Channel Classics recordings and they all benefit from the HMS. The DSD64 recordings have a better liveliness, soundstage depth & breadth, far better that I would have thought having read Rob Watts' comments about DSD. The improvement in DSD256 is less pronounced but still there. Hope that helps.

 

[Jgeffen]

Ok, another question. How many of you guys just listen, or mostly listen, through headphones?

Almost never, i strongly prefer to listen to classical and modern music, but not to jazz music, with the exception of Norah Jones.

 

[ZappaMan]

im mostly on headphones, i have a basic set of b&w 602 speakers, i detect a good bit more instrument placement with the mscaler from the speakers then without. my speaker placement is rubbish and i can only really listen to speakers on a saturday for a few hours - maybe.

I have to say, the mscaler magic can be tricky, i know last week i was feeling i couldn't really hear it, today its back again. with my hd800s headphones, i went through different phases, thinking they were great, then i wasn't that bother with them, to finally settled on they're really good, and stopped trying to listen to them if you see what i mean, and just listen to the music ?! I think mscaler can be the same, its awesome at the start, but then maybe as you get used to it, you're not really sure if its still doing what it was doing.

Then if you put the pass through mode on, it still sounds the same! I think once your brain gets used to something extra, it actually sees it, even if its not mscaler, its now you've learned you can hear those extra details. weird. so in a way, for anyone thinking, i must have one, maybe you dont... maybe you'll just get used to it anyway and you wont really notice what its doing.

im thinking a good source could be required to really help give the mscaler what it needs, i'm not sure my optical output is doing it.

 

[ZappaMan]

Can I ask, those with mscaler, what music is the majority of you listening to ?

Is it mostly Classical, or electronics, jazz, rocks, hip hop etc etc.

I’m just trying to guage what mscaler users are listening to.

im just trying to listen to anything in my library, mostly modernish music. but checking out these 50's recordings to see if i can hear something spooky from the older recorded music, but haven't really hit on anything yet. maybe tidal as the source could be a problem in that regard.


thinks that have a bit of oomph in them are good - was listening to queen last week - was unbelievably good. though black sabbath didn't fair as well....

 

[ray-dude]

Can I ask, those with mscaler, what music is the majority of you listening to ?

Is it mostly Classical, or electronics, jazz, rocks, hip hop etc etc.

I’m just trying to guage what mscaler users are listening to.

Here are my demo playlists for BluDAVE. @dawktah2 @x RELIC x you'll see a lot of Chesky awesome on these lists, including some tracks from the otherworldly Menago "Little Crimes" album (and also lots of goodies from MA Recordings, Blue Coast, 2L, Stockfisch, Sound Liaison, etc)

If I were on a desert island with BluDave and could only take 6 CDs to demo why mScaler is awesome to the other poor bastards stuck there with me, these would be them

 

[x RELIC x]

Here are my demo playlists for BluDAVE.

Where?

Thanks for the edit @ray-dude!!