[Jawed]

In other words which cable filters out the most RF noise.

In the Blu 2 thread there appears to be a consensus that BNC cables with the best bandwidth (best specs) sound best - which is where the BNC cables that are built for "4K" video, "12G" etc. come in.

As far as I can tell, a cable with the best specs is the cable that resists added common-mode noise (from the environment) and maintains the best eye pattern (signal integrity). It's still an open question for me as to whether a single-conductor 75 ohm cable, on its own, can generate common mode noise within itself.

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.

I like that album, but it's far from what I consider state of the art binaural. And the gain-riding that can be heard is quite distracting. The rain is clearly rain on my IEMs playing directly out of my phone, so the rain really isn't the "exacting test" of hi-fi that many claim. The rain really spoils my enjoyment.

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.

On her album 25 it's only her voice that is compressed. None of the instruments suffer from varying dynamics over time, due to how "busy" the mix gets. Her voice is so "big" that the compression is used to maintain her presence in the mix. I only listened to this album because people have been complaining about the mastering and I think they're exaggerating what's happening.



In this clip, with a single microphone, the dynamic compression is minimal (it's not obvious to me during the performance). You can hear the tonal change in her voice as she sings loudly is just like on the album. The hardness in her voice sounds a lot like dynamic compression. The keyboard is being played through a speaker to her left (and so it's picked up by the mic) but the guitar is plugged in, so may not be purely acoustic (it sounds pretty dry). I can't hear the keyboard, heard through the speaker, changing loudness because they have dynamically compressed the mic in response to her vocal loudness, so that's why I say I can't hear compression during the performance.

I'm not saying there isn't compression on her albums, but it's not the wholesale compression of the entire mix that people complain of (justifiably) on many albums.

Compare ALA.NI's vocal recording here:



it's surprising how hard sounding this old fashioned mic is and it's doing a lot of compression all by itself. It's an effect. Flattering, and definitely not "natural".

 

[audio_1]

What do you want out of your system? A set of good reviews by people you’ve never met? Or great music that blows you away reliably? What a total waste of time waiting for a review, when you could instead arrange a home demonstration and make up your own mind in your own home with your own music in your own system. Why don’t you trust your own ears?

I agree. Since getting the Chord Dave and Blu2, and reading the Head-Fi forum I rarely read or take any notice of reviews any more. The number of bad components that have received good reviews is incredible. You have to listen and make up your own mind. Most reviews are purely subjective opinions. There are so many variables, one really has to hear new components at home in your own system. Many reviewers technically haven't a clue. I have learnt more about hi-fi from Rob Watts posts in the last year than reading magazines for over 35 years.

 

[Triode User]

In the Blu 2 thread there appears to be a consensus that BNC cables with the best bandwidth (best specs) sound best - which is where the BNC cables that are built for "4K" video, "12G" etc. come in.

As far as I can tell, a cable with the best specs is the cable that resists added common-mode noise (from the environment) and maintains the best eye pattern (signal integrity). It's still an open question for me as to whether a single-conductor 75 ohm cable, on its own, can generate common mode noise within itself.

I’m not quite sure where you got that impression of that ‘consensus’ regarding what Blu2 owners regard as best. Having been a Blu2 owner since they came out and also a close watcher of the Blu2 thread I am not at all familiar with that assertion. Also, many people have different definitions of ‘best’. However, as backed up by Rob Watts, in this context best means darkest, with least harshness and with least fatigue. There is no way that ‘best bandwidth’ cables will sound better in this context as they can do nothing to tackle common mode RF noise.

You seem to have missed the point that Blu2 itself is the source of the common mode RF noise, not the environment or the cable itself. No one is suggesting that the cable generates the common mode noise.

What is important is that the Hugo MScaler has inbuilt ferrites and also has rf isolation on the dual bnc outputs and to a great extent it overcomes the issues to do with the Blu2. Indeed for many or even most people that is sufficient. However, as in many things in life, there is always a little bit of fine tuning which can be done by those to whom it is important to have the very best sound. And that is where we can discuss which cables can address any residual RF noise and enhance the sound of the HMS. But you need to understand what the issue is before guessing what might help.

 

[Amberlamps]

In the Blu 2 thread there appears to be a consensus that BNC cables with the best bandwidth (best specs) sound best - which is where the BNC cables that are built for "4K" video, "12G" etc. come in.

As far as I can tell, a cable with the best specs is the cable that resists added common-mode noise (from the environment) and maintains the best eye pattern (signal integrity). It's still an open question for me as to whether a single-conductor 75 ohm cable, on its own, can generate common mode noise within itself.


I like that album, but it's far from what I consider state of the art binaural. And the gain-riding that can be heard is quite distracting. The rain is clearly rain on my IEMs playing directly out of my phone, so the rain really isn't the "exacting test" of hi-fi that many claim. The rain really spoils my enjoyment.


On her album 25 it's only her voice that is compressed. None of the instruments suffer from varying dynamics over time, due to how "busy" the mix gets. Her voice is so "big" that the compression is used to maintain her presence in the mix. I only listened to this album because people have been complaining about the mastering and I think they're exaggerating what's happening.



In this clip, with a single microphone, the dynamic compression is minimal (it's not obvious to me during the performance). You can hear the tonal change in her voice as she sings loudly is just like on the album. The hardness in her voice sounds a lot like dynamic compression. The keyboard is being played through a speaker to her left (and so it's picked up by the mic) but the guitar is plugged in, so may not be purely acoustic (it sounds pretty dry). I can't hear the keyboard, heard through the speaker, changing loudness because they have dynamically compressed the mic in response to her vocal loudness, so that's why I say I can't hear compression during the performance.

I'm not saying there isn't compression on her albums, but it's not the wholesale compression of the entire mix that people complain of (justifiably) on many albums.

Compare ALA.NI's vocal recording here:



it's surprising how hard sounding this old fashioned mic is and it's doing a lot of compression all by itself. It's an effect. Flattering, and definitely not "natural".

I have that Adele album, the first song Hello, on mojo and Hugo, her voice is screechingly loud and distorted,

Every single time that hello song plays, it always makes me reach for the volume button.

 

[x RELIC x]

I like that album, but it's far from what I consider state of the art binaural. And the gain-riding that can be heard is quite distracting. The rain is clearly rain on my IEMs playing directly out of my phone, so the rain really isn't the "exacting test" of hi-fi that many claim. The rain really spoils my enjoyment.

Agree about the gain-riding, but there have been plenty of people who I’ve read didn’t even know there was rain (in more than one track) and thought it was noise. I agree, for binaural there are better examples for ‘state of the art’ (I never said it was) but they’re just examples I used off the top of my head, not an absolute end-all-be-all reference.

Regarding Adele, I was referring to the majority of her albums where I hear extensive compression and distortion. Having an ‘unplugged’ style example is the outlier with her albums from what I’ve heard. Of course, again, just pulling some examples. Amy Winehouse is another, but of course I’m sure there are examples of her work that aren’t terribly mastered as well.

My whole point was that mixing and mastering will have a huge influence on how good gear can pull away from poor gear.

 

[Jawed]

I’m not quite sure where you got that impression of that ‘consensus’ regarding what Blu2 owners regard as best.

I paid attention

There is no way that ‘best bandwidth’ cables will sound better in this context as they can do nothing to tackle common mode RF noise.

You know this because?...

Also, that's contrary to many opinions from the Blu 2 thread where better specified (better bandwidth) cables were frequently reported to sound darker, etc. There was never unanimity over preference, but that's very hard to find in hi-fi... e.g. there have been lots of people who complained that some cables sounded too dark.

You seem to have missed the point that Blu2 itself is the source of the common mode RF noise, not the environment or the cable itself.

You're putting words in my mouth. The environment and the cable's self-induced common-mode noise (if there is any) may be contributing factors.

No one is suggesting that the cable generates the common mode noise.

I'm asking for evidence one way or the other. Is it a factor? I don't know. I'm not going to make a blanket statement about it.

And that is where we can discuss which cables can address any residual RF noise and enhance the sound of the HMS.

Yes it'll be fairly easy to compare, for those that are interested, a sensibly priced, well-specified cable such as

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B07BZVBZCH/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=A21UFYA1RBCEVP&psc=1

against the cable that is provided with HMS. I plan to do this, unless a better "well specified, easy to buy" cable comes along by the time I get to try HMS. Farnell has this cable which is better specified:

https://uk.farnell.com/amphenol-rf/...x-bnc-plug-bnc-plug-914mm/dp/2766814?st=4794r

but it comes from the US so it's more awkward. ("More stock available week commencing 08/04/19".)

It's going to be months before I get HMS at home to try...

 

[ZappaMan]

this is a nice laid back jazz song - sounds nice on mscaler - plenty of air if u know what i mean.

 

[Rob Watts]

I agree that the final, ultimate sound we hear is analogue, no matter what the source. But that final sound is ultimately produced by the DAC. The MScaler, to my understanding, however acts before the conversion back to analogue--in other words it works on a digital stream of the recording.



Yes, that is also quite true, but regardless of whether the recording started as a "live" performance, i.e., a regular concert with a live audience, or from studio sessions, the final product distributed by LSO Live is a digital file resulting from the mixing of what started as analogue signals from 2 or more microphones, converted to digital, and then patched or tweaked to a greater or lesser extent by producers using digital means. It is that digital file that is then sent to the MScaler.

And the question I have is how does the MScaler improve a Studio Master PCM Recording of a symphony orchestra produced and released in 2018 using the latest digital equipment, as compared to a digital file of an analogue recording made before there was any digital music production.

To be clear, I am not asserting that vintage analogue recordings are better or worse than modern recordings--my question goes only to how, if at all, the MScaler improves recordings whose life in the analogue realm is much shorter than it was in the pre-digital age.

Let's take a step backwards and look at what the M scaler attempts to do.

Digital samples in time (sampling) and amplitude (quantization) and the quantization part is another subject for discussion. But the sampling in time is the most audibly damaging, and is the aspect that the M scaler is fixing. Take a digital recording, and play it back through a conventional interpolation filter. The filter's job is to convert it back from a sampled time into continuous time signal - recover the missing waveform from one sample to the next. The problem with conventional filters is that they are not very good at recovering transients; and a transient will either be a little early, or a little late, and this uncertainty depends upon the program material - so the actual music effectively randomly modulates the timing of the transients, and this timing uncertainty the ear/brain is extremely sensitive too.

But we know from sampling theory that if we use a sinc function we will perfectly reconstruct the original waveform, and there will be no modulation of the timing of transients at all. What the M scaler does is to have a WTA filter with sufficient tap length so that it is identical to the ideal sinc function to 16.7 bits; this means that the reconstruction of a bandwidth limited signal will be perfect to at least a 16.7 bit accuracy.

So all recordings will benefit by the M scaler, as all recordings will show less uncertainty in the reconstruction of transients; and this is exactly what I hear, even for wholly digital recordings that use digital instruments (electronica), because we are fixing a fundamental problem of sampling - in short we are making it as if it had never been sampled at all.

But there is a caveat to all this; it requires that the signal be bandwidth limited before sampling. Early digital recorders were rather good at this, as they used analogue anti-aliasing filters, which offered good attenuation at FS/2 (22.05kHz for a native 44.1k recording). But modern ADC's are poor, using half band decimation filters (only-6dB at FS/2), and so the signal will have timing issues that the M scaler can't fix - once aliasing happens it is permanently damaged. I suspect that the reason 1960's recordings often sound amazing on the M scaler is down to the proper anti aliasing that was incorporated when the recording was eventually digitised. Don't get me wrong on this - I generally prefer modern quality recordings - but I can hear speed and timbre variation issues that you don't get on older recordings - but you do get improved soundstage, instrument separation and focus on modern recordings.

Is the speed and timbre variations on older recordings down to simpler and more transparent recording gear or down to aliasing issues? I suspect it may be bit of both, as re-mastered using modern ADC's on older recordings sound much worse than earlier versions. Of course, the Davina project will fix this issue completely (and doing the decimation properly has been a major thorn in my side recently - I have to re-design the filter from scratch as it failed on testing).

Rob

 

[plinth]

I really cannot make a definitive statement about what sounds are most improved. There is nothing that I have found that I prefer without the M Scaler. I have a bunch of Chesky recordings but most of those are high res files. It does raise an interesting question though, assuming that the mastering is the same is there any point in buying hi res versions any more. Certainly if they have upsampled the source then the answer is no. I am listening to Marcus Miller, The Ozell Tapes and I just cannot turn it off. It is like discovering the album for the first time. It has such drive, power and the lightest delicacy. It is what Naim users call Timing Width Atmospherics Tonality (T.W.A.T).

I have often wondered what element causes the hair on the back of our neck to stand up when you hear live music but not on a recording. M Scaler gives you those missing elements and I am sure that Rob's obsession with timing and tonality shift is being heard.

I am listening to all genres from Bob Dylan, Van Morrison, Opera, Choral and Jazz. It is slow progress as I get stuck on albums and have to listen to the end.

 

[TeediuS]

for me, mainly listen to modern recordings, edm, brit rock etc, but a bit varied, back to beatles, pink floyd etc, female singers (sarah blasko, laura marling, lykke li, lana del rey) and similarly, getting lost in an album through to the end. last night it was tash sultana, and the separation is outstanding, crystal clear, and can focus on any sound regardless of how much is going on at the one time.

as for headphones vs speakers, for me, it's about 80% on headphones, mainly through the week nights, and then the chance to wellie it through the speakers at the weekend.

 

[JaZZ]

...I have to re-design the filter from scratch as it failed on testing

Sorry to read that!

 

[Triode User]

There is no way that ‘best bandwidth’ cables will sound better in this context as they can do nothing to tackle common mode RF noise.

You know this because?...
Also, that's contrary to many opinions from the Blu 2 thread where better specified (better bandwidth) cables were frequently reported to sound darker, etc. There was never unanimity over preference, but that's very hard to find in hi-fi... e.g. there have been lots of people who complained that some cables sounded too dark.

Well, there are certain things which can filter common mode noise and a better bandwidth cable is not one of these things. Opinions are one thing but scientific fact is something different. But then you know about this anyway from your own posts.

These ferrites cut out high frequency noise that travels through all the conductors in the cable and ideally wouldn't be there in the first place. This high frequency noise (it's at frequencies much higher than audio) affects the performance of DAVE, sadly. You don't hear this noise directly, instead it affects the way DAVE works. By using lots of these ferrite cores you can fade out the noise. The more of these ferrites you use, the less noise.

When assessing digital cables there is no such thing as 'too dark' because extra darkness merely signifies a reduced RF noise level and is closer to the original signal.

If people prefer a slight extra top end shimmer or brightness then that is fine and I understand that but equally they must understand that what they are hearing is an RF artifact and is not part of the original music. What I have found is that if one perseveres with the darker sounding digital cable then the ear will adjust and will probably start to hear extra detail which was previously masked by the RF noise false detail.

Jay at Audio Bacon recently did a big review of dual BNC cables for use with the Blu2 and he did comment in the review that he preferred some of the top end shimmer of some of the cables compared to the darkest sounding cables. After the review Jay emailed me to say that he had asked someone who knows about these things and they had told him that the darkest sounding cables were the ones giving the true picture and any of the other brighter sounding cables were just letting through more RF noise. Jay then bought a set of the darkest sounding cables out of all those in his review for his own use.

I am only pursuing this discussion because I think it is important for people to understand how to compare the sound of digital cables and to know which is nearer to the original digital file even if they decide that for themselves they prefer the brighter sound. However, if they do prefer a brighter sound I think they would be better off using tone controls or something else rather than brighter sounding digital cables because the brighter sound of RF noise is ultimately harsh and fatiguing.

I hope this helps.

 

[GreenLeo]

I have decided to save up to buy the HMS.

Anybody knows if the optical input to the HMS is of worst, equal or better SQ when compared to the USB input to the HMS?

Also, if using optical as input to the HMS, any recommendation on the server that feeds the HMS?

Thanks.

 

[yellowblue]

For those who are intrested about the new Blaxius^2 BNC cable. First impressions here

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/...eriences/?page=15&tab=comments#comment-889349

 

[apmusson]

I have decided to save up to buy the HMS.

Anybody knows if the optical input to the HMS is of worst, equal or better SQ when compared to the USB input to the HMS?

Also, if using optical as input to the HMS, any recommendation on the server that feeds the HMS?

Thanks.

I prefer the optical input to m scaler over USB. Optical is warmer with more depth than USB (even ultrarendu / lps1.2) in my experience but is more limited in the formats supported than with USB.