[OK-Guy]

Without batteries or other replaceable parts, a complete failure of unit would be the issue?

rest assured, even after a rumble with a tank Chord products are not prone to failure.

 

[auricgoldfinger]

Anyone familiar with the device below? What does it do and what does it cost??

REF 10 master clock? Some say it improves on the M-scaler with DAVE but if it just eliminates jitter and if the M-scaler/DAVE combo is immune to jitter then how could the REF 10 add further to the SQ??

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/31857-mutec-ref-10-masterclock/

 

[Rob Watts]

[QUOTE="You can think of an M scaler as something that converts all your music to 705.6 kHz recordings; and the real question would be if you had 705.6 kHz native recordings, would all DACs sound the same? And of course you would answer no, as the DAC conversion, and the analogue is very different.

Hi Rob.

On this point, as you know there are many good recording engineers/labels who record only in DSD.
What happens when the M-scaler converts DSD to PCM 705.6/768kHz?
Are the timing errors transposed and therefore smearing of leading edges of notes etc. persist even after M-scaler?
Do you therefore hear a softening of the sound and reduced depth?
If the master is in DSD, is there any way to know if an equivalent PCM file would sound better if recorded in PCM format in the first place?[/QUOTE]

The M scaler uses the new DSD filter that first appeared in Hugo 2. This actually sounds better than the DSD+ filter in Dave.

Yes the amplitude related timing errors that occurs with DSD can't be corrected - nor can signals below the resolution limit of the DSD noise shaper can be recovered - this is lost information.

And so a DSD modulator does indeed soften transients (due to the amplitude related timing errors) and reduce sound-stage depth (due to the poor small signal non-linearity). And there is nothing we can do to fix this. Lost or distorted signals are not recoverable.

Of course, PCM isn't perfect, so a bad PCM would likely to be not be as good as a perfect DSD (recorded straight to DSD, no PCM, no editing). But I am convinced that the Davina project will give a huge leap in performance that conventional PCM or the best DSD won't come anywhere near close to.

 

[auricgoldfinger]

The M scaler uses the new DSD filter that first appeared in Hugo 2. This actually sounds better than the DSD+ filter in Dave.

Hi Rob,

If the DSD filter is active in the M scaler, what setting should be used in the DAVE, given that the PCM+ is the preferred way of playing DSD files on a standalone DAVE?

Thanks.
Brian

 

[Rob Watts]

I keep it in PCM+ mode with an M scaler attached.

 

[simorag]

The M scaler uses the new DSD filter that first appeared in Hugo 2. This actually sounds better than the DSD+ filter in Dave.

Could we say this is another differentiator of the Hugo M Scaler with respect to Blu Mk II?

 

[Rob Watts]

Could we say this is another differentiator of the Hugo M Scaler with respect to Blu Mk II?

No because the Blu MK2 has exactly the same DSD filter... Actually the Hugo M scaler project started as a copied project from the blu 2. It was only control code that was changed, the core audio signal processing is identical.

 

[AndrewOld]

On this point, as you know there are many good recording engineers/labels who record only in DSD.

Can you name five good recording engineers who record only in DSD? Three?

 

[HeeBroG]

Can you name five good recording engineers who record only in DSD? Three?

There is actually a whole host of labels on nativeDSD such as Fonè/SDM&LiveRec but also the independent label BlueCoast Records with the talented Cookie Marenco at the helm.
As RW stated, there is more to a good recording than the format used.
What is interesting is that some of these companies go to extraordinary lengths to achieve a live sound without remixing.
I just asked the question as sadly they have chosen to record direct to DSD so we miss out on how good it could have been.
Nevertheless, some of the recordings are excellent and the music eclectic.

 

[tunes]

You need to send the M scaler bit perfect data. This is because conventional up-samplers - of whatever type - do not do an accurate enough job of interpolation - for two reasons - limited processing power, and not using the WTA algorithm. You simply can't replace 528 dsp cores with a PC. Also, if you did have 528 dsp cores, and used a regular conventional algorithm then the extra tap length would be of little benefit - you need an algorithm, like the WTA, that is close to a sinc function in order to accurately recover the original analogue signal, and conventional algorithms are very different to the ideal sinc function.



No benefit - except perhaps the galvanic isolation.



It's identical to regular SPDIF, so it's asynchronous from the DAC POV. This doesn't matter, as the DPLL is as transparent as DAC controlling the data source.

I plan on using a simple QUESTYLE DAP as my digital source to feed the M-Scaler via optical. How do I know if the FLAC files are not bit perfect as RW states?

 

[Whitigir]

There is actually a whole host of labels on nativeDSD such as Fonè/SDM&LiveRec but also the independent label BlueCoast Records with the talented Cookie Marenco at the helm.
As RW stated, there is more to a good recording than the format used.
What is interesting is that some of these companies go to extraordinary lengths to achieve a live sound without remixing.
I just asked the question as sadly they have chosen to record direct to DSD so we miss out on how good it could have been.
Nevertheless, some of the recordings are excellent and the music eclectic.

I am surprised that they used Native DSD recording. Because DSD can’t be edited unless converted back to PCM. But it wouldn’t matter, because MScaler will convert DSD into pcm anyways

 

[tunes]

I plan on using a simple QUESTYLE DAP as my digital source to feed the M-Scaler via optical. How do I know if the FLAC files are not bit perfect as RW states?

If you are going to buy a RF cable, make sure it is indeed 75 ohms, as this is the OP impedance of the M scaler. That said, it works perfectly well without 75 ohms, but I don't recommend not using 75 ohms, as there is a risk it will sound worse.

Hugo M scaler will come with 1m 75 ohm BNC/BNC.



You can think of an M scaler as something that converts all your music to 705.6 kHz recordings; and the real question would be if you had 705.6 kHz native recordings, would all DACs sound the same? And of course you would answer no, as the DAC conversion, and the analogue is very different.

Changing from a Qutest to a Dave is immediately apparent whilst using an M scaler, and I am afraid it is not a small difference. The analogue on Dave is very much more advanced, with very much more expensive components, plus it has a 20 element pulse array and better passive components. When you plug a Dave in you are rewarded with a step up in transparency, depth and detail resolution. You can see it too on the measurements, with 30 times lower distortion.

Does the length of the BNC-BNC cable have any effect on SQ? Seems that if the M-Scaler and DAVE are side by side, a 1 or 2 foot run is enough. Was thinking of getting two 2 foot cables. See photo. Not sure if I need the protection plan though. LOL

 

[rayl]

I am surprised that they used Native DSD recording. Because DSD can’t be edited unless converted back to PCM. But it wouldn’t matter, because MScaler will convert DSD into pcm anyways

There are 2 systems that record and do everything in DSD.... Sonoma and Pyramix.

The last time I saw Sonoma maybe 3 yrs ago, it still ran on XP.... Gus Skinas uses Sonoma.

I believe DSD wide (8 bit) is now avail for DSD mastering and mixing to address some of the artifact build ups and subsequent loss of transients.... pcm fans call it pcm narrow.

 

[AndrewOld]

There is actually a whole host of labels on nativeDSD such as Fonè/SDM&LiveRec but also the independent label BlueCoast Records with the talented Cookie Marenco at the helm.
As RW stated, there is more to a good recording than the format used.
What is interesting is that some of these companies go to extraordinary lengths to achieve a live sound without remixing.
I just asked the question as sadly they have chosen to record direct to DSD so we miss out on how good it could have been.
Nevertheless, some of the recordings are excellent and the music eclectic.

Blue Coast records often record to analogue tape, and even when they record to DSD convert to analogue to mix then back to DSD. So, there is no way you can count them as recording “only in DSD”.

Here is Blue Coast Records description of their recording process.
http://bluecoastrecords.com/about/about-ese-extended-sound-environment

Here is an interview with Cookie Marenco where she states that her recording process is usually direct to 2” analogue tape which she prefers for the sound.
https://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-cookie-marenco-blue-coast-records

The conversion to DSD is later in the process.

It is very difficult to record and mix in DSD, which is why so few people do. It has been more used as an archival medium for old analogue tape.

 

[Whitigir]

There are 2 systems that record and do everything in DSD.... Sonoma and Pyramix.

The last time I saw Sonoma maybe 3 yrs ago, it still ran on XP.... Gus Skinas uses Sonoma.

I believe DSD wide (8 bit) is now avail for DSD mastering and mixing to address some of the artifact build ups and subsequent loss of transients.... pcm fans call it pcm narrow.

The only problem with DSD Native recording is “editing”. This is the reason why many records are in high quality PCM instead. This was what RW meant to reconstruct and retrieve the perfect information at the recording event At the ADC stages.