[iamoneagain]

Does this mean you guys turn off the tidal MQA unfolding or turn off the MQA Core Decoder option in ROON so that all MQA files just stream as 44.1 direct to MScaler to get the best quality sound?

The ideal would to avoid the MQA version altogether. In roon, you can easily see which is which. If using MQA I’m going to assume it sounds better unfolded before going thru the mscaler.

The reason I dropped Tidal is because some of the newer albums only came in MQA, so couldn’t avoid without switching services. At this point Qobuz’s library has almost caught up to Tidal’s. And there is more albums available in hires than MQA. Also with mscaler you don’t even need to worry about hires since it all sounds great.

 

[GreenBow]

By the way, I am not meaning to aggravate Chord or Head-Fiers, with talk about the iFi Audio Power Station. … I don't even properly understand the nature of the noise with the M-Scaler. Am just passing on something that folk might have found worth looking at.

 

[iamoneagain]

By the way, I am not meaning to aggravate Chord or Head-Fiers, with talk about the iFi Audio Power Station. … I don't even properly understand the nature of the noise with the M-Scaler. Am just passing on something that folk might have found worth looking at.

It’s my understanding the the actual power supply that comes with the mscaler is causing 2.5ghz RFI to pass thru the dac. So any power solution before the power supply won’t help. Fix is needed either by not using that power supply and voiding warranty or between the mscaler and the dac.

 

[kennyb123]

It’s my understanding the the actual power supply that comes with the mscaler is causing 2.5ghz RFI to pass thru the dac. So any power solution before the power supply won’t help. Fix is needed either by not using that power supply and voiding warranty or between the mscaler and the dac.

Rob once said (and I'm paraphrasing) that the reason the FPGA that gets us to a million taps was put into a separate box was because it generates too much RF to be in the same box as the sensitive analog circuits in a DAC. Occam's razor suggests the the simplest answer is often the correct one. I can't speak to the 2.5gHz RF that's being discussed but I have to think that any RF passing in via the M-Scaler's power supply would be dwarfed by what's being generated by that FPGA.

 

[kennyb123]

MQA is going for a minimum phase approach, which is the opposite of the WTA1 filter.

Do we know for a fact that a minimum phase approach wasn't applied to PCM files? Large record companies are very cost conscious and tend not to give a darn about sound quality. I wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt on some of the newer material available in both MQA and high res formats.

And what about the filters used early on in the early days of CDs? Can we be certain that these are better than what's being applied today?

These are just rhetorical questions as I don't plan to obsess over which filter was used. These questions help explain why.

Can you imagine if we knew exactly which filter was used on every recording? Would there be some who avoid any kind of music that applied a particular kind of filter? MQA at least gave us transparency with respect to the filter they used. Imagine that being the norm.

 

[GreenBow]

Rob once said (and I'm paraphrasing) that the reason the FPGA that gets us to a million taps was put into a separate box was because it generates too much RF to be in the same box as the sensitive analog circuits in a DAC. Occam's razor suggests the the simplest answer is often the correct one. I can't speak to the 2.5gHz RF that's being discussed but I have to think that any RF passing in via the M-Scaler's power supply would be dwarfed by what's being generated by that FPGA.

That sounds familiar. (Thank you for posting.)

It's a strange result though, because some folk hear noise and others don't. Some just use quality coaxial cables and that's it. Maybe some people who get noise are dealing with other sources of RFI. I have no idea though.

I also remember Ed Selley (of Chord Electronics) reviewing the TT2, M-Scaler, and Ttoby, in Hifi Choice. (Not saying he is biased.) He said there was little change in the tonal balance when the M-Scaler was added. That's also what some people report.

It seems that everyone who has bought WAVE cables however hears the difference immediately.

I did wonder if the iFI PowerStation cold work for folk using the Opto DX though. As a way of blocking noise which could travel by mains. Using the iFi AC Purifier is mentioned. Although I guess using two PowerStations would be more effective. Then putting DAC on one and M-Scaler on the other.

I wonder also if there could be a benefit heard using a PowerStation, with the WAVE cables. Again separating the M-Scaler and DAC.


In respect to myself, the best thing I could do, is get a home audition of the M-Scaler. Otherwise I would never move in the direction of getting one. Unless there was a one-stop-shop-solution, to eliminate noise. However then again, I have other noise problems. I tend to have so much on my mains where I have my TT2, and would put the M-Scaler. Apparently phone chargers, and PCs are noisy. I have both. I'd be dumping as much noise back in as the PowerStation could remove maybe. (I did buy a PC PSU with excellent noise results, but I think that was just on the DC outputs.)

 

[GreenBow]

Afterthought though. I am happy with TT2 myself and not really thinking about M-Scaler right now.

 

[kennyb123]

It's a strange result though, because some folk hear noise and others don't. Some just use quality coaxial cables and that's it. Maybe some people who get noise are dealing with other sources of RFI. I have no idea though.

The issue has more to do with the word "noise".

Per Webster's, noise can be defined as "any sound that is undesired" or "an unwanted signal or a disturbance in an electronic device". Reducing RF traveling down the BNC cable is aimed more at addressing the latter. The goal is to remove "unwanted signals or disturbances" that the HMS passes to our DAC that can degrade audio performance. We tend not to know how much harm is being done by this kind of noise until something comes along that attenuates or eliminates the "unwanted signal or disturbance".

Many are perplexed by these discussions because they are expecting to hear noise as "a sound that's undesired". That's not the kind of noise that solutions like the OPTO or use of ferrite clamps or even a power conditioner will address. When unwanted RF disturbances are removed, music takes on a much more natural and less mechanical form. It's something the ear tends to be able to detect only after it's had a chance to hear what music sounds like once that that disturbance has been stripped away.

Noise in the analog world tended to be more obvious as it could clearly be heard as something undesirable. But in digital, the noise that's doing harm generally impedes the ability of a component to faithfully reproduce music.

 

[HumanMedia]

Can you imagine if we knew exactly which filter was used on every recording? Would there be some who avoid any kind of music that applied a particular kind of filter? MQA at least gave us transparency with respect to the filter they used. Imagine that being the norm.

Note that MQA are not digitising new mixed down masters from analog tapes, nor are they accessing pre-mastered digital files, they are given the same PCM files that one would buy or listen to streaming. Then they do their own lossy compression on those files. Who cares about what filter is used to reconstruct with when MQA loses samples and bits of dynamic range which are used to indicate the lost samples with a 1 tap upscale of the lossy data? Chances are their choice of minimum phase is because they only have the first sample to deal with as the next sample is lost, no other reason. It’s just a lossy format whose sole reason is smaller file sizes. Just use the unfcked-with original PCM files and you already have what MQA is trying to approximate and the whole monstrosity goes away. It is the antithesis of the approach of the MScaler.

 

[JaZZ]

Rob once said (and I'm paraphrasing) that the reason the FPGA that gets us to a million taps was put into a separate box was because it generates too much RF to be in the same box as the sensitive analog circuits in a DAC. Occam's razor suggests the the simplest answer is often the correct one. I can't speak to the 2.5gHz RF that's being discussed but I have to think that any RF passing in via the M-Scaler's power supply would be dwarfed by what's being generated by that FPGA.

It's not quite obvious, and I never would have known about it if Rob hadn't mentioned it: The RFI produced by the M Scaler does its bad work only if it finds a loop to the DAC via earth on the power-supply side. If the latter is blocked by a battery, it won't be an issue. That's the state of play – if you're willing to believe Rob. I haven't tested it myself (use the Wave Storm cables anyway), as I don't have a battery for the M Scaler at my disposal, but am still interested in a solution that breaks the loop in the form of ferrite cores on the mains cable.

Rob's post.

 

[iamoneagain]

Do we know for a fact that a minimum phase approach wasn't applied to PCM files? Large record companies are very cost conscious and tend not to give a darn about sound quality. I wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt on some of the newer material available in both MQA and high res formats.

And what about the filters used early on in the early days of CDs? Can we be certain that these are better than what's being applied today?

These are just rhetorical questions as I don't plan to obsess over which filter was used. These questions help explain why.

Can you imagine if we knew exactly which filter was used on every recording? Would there be some who avoid any kind of music that applied a particular kind of filter? MQA at least gave us transparency with respect to the filter they used. Imagine that being the norm.

I’m not expert but my understanding is it’s all been linear filters as the standard. And if you look up MQA and Rob Watt’s you can find out his opinion on the matter. To me it’s very important since his whole philosophy about filtering is what the mscaler is all about and MQA is almost exact opposite.

So if you buy into Rob’s approach, seems like you’d want to avoid MQA as well. But in the end, do what sounds best to you. I’ve done my own testing in the past and found hires noticeably better when doing critical listening.

 

[Kirklandia]

That sounds familiar. (Thank you for posting.)

It's a strange result though, because some folk hear noise and others don't. Some just use quality coaxial cables and that's it. Maybe some people who get noise are dealing with other sources of RFI. I have no idea though.

I also remember Ed Selley (of Chord Electronics) reviewing the TT2, M-Scaler, and Ttoby, in Hifi Choice. (Not saying he is biased.) He said there was little change in the tonal balance when the M-Scaler was added. That's also what some people report.

It seems that everyone who has bought WAVE cables however hears the difference immediately.

I did wonder if the iFI PowerStation cold work for folk using the Opto DX though. As a way of blocking noise which could travel by mains. Using the iFi AC Purifier is mentioned. Although I guess using two PowerStations would be more effective. Then putting DAC on one and M-Scaler on the other.

I wonder also if there could be a benefit heard using a PowerStation, with the WAVE cables. Again separating the M-Scaler and DAC.


In respect to myself, the best thing I could do, is get a home audition of the M-Scaler. Otherwise I would never move in the direction of getting one. Unless there was a one-stop-shop-solution, to eliminate noise. However then again, I have other noise problems. I tend to have so much on my mains where I have my TT2, and would put the M-Scaler. Apparently phone chargers, and PCs are noisy. I have both. I'd be dumping as much noise back in as the PowerStation could remove maybe. (I did buy a PC PSU with excellent noise results, but I think that was just on the DC outputs.)

I replaced one set of pricey BNC cables with WAVE Stream BNC cables a couple weeks ago. There was an improvement I would vaguely sum up as sounding "more analog," though it was less than I expected after all I had read. I have the M Scaler and Dave about 2' apart. A couple months ago, I also added a AudioQuest Niagara 1200 and there was also an immediate and marked improvement in sound quality. I do not believe I will make any other changes with these two additions.

 

[kennyb123]

I saw the follow image posted on Facebook a few weeks ago and saved it because I thought it illustrated well the predominant ways that different people search for the truth.

This goes back to what I posted the other day:

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

A person saying that something is true doesn’t make it true. If they are an authority on a subject then it’s more likely that the claim is true but it’s not an absolute guarantee of it being true. The scientific method exists to help us get to the truth. Each of us has the ability to “test with an experiment” and yet so many just want to “trust the expert”. I blame tribalism as some have a much greater need to feel like they are part of a tribe and that makes them inclined to disregard data that might make them no longer a fit. To those who are like me who don’t post here often, it’s kinda creepy in a Stepford Wives” kind of way to see so many mentions of “because Rob says” .

No audio content here obviously. This is offered in hopes of encouraging folks do more of their own experimenting. “Trust but verify” isn’t a bad way to go.

 

[edwardsean]

From my signature line you can see that I have gone out of my way to get the best from my Chord investment. On a scale from 1-10, with 10 being the highest, here’s how I’d rate the importance to getting the best out of these products:

1. Purpose-built server: 6-9
2. USB cable: 5-9
3: OPTO: 9
4. Power supplies: 6-9
5. PCM over MQA: 0-2
6. Optimized network: 5-8

Roy, is there a reason why power cables aren't on this list? I get that Mscaler can run on a power supply, but as you know, I'm wondering about the Dave. You told me that you hadn't really tested upgraded power cables on the Dave. Could you share a bit of your thinking on why not?

I get that there are many highly experienced people who simply don't believe they have any appreciable affect, including Rob Watts. I also understand that so much is dependent on your system and the wildly varying nature power grids. Yet, there are–many–highly experienced people who believe that power cords are the most important cable in your system, and that the power cable to your DAC/source is the most important among power cables.

Given this is there are a reason why you've bypassed, at least, experimenting with power cables for the DAVE? It makes sense to me that you're attacking other areas as priority, but I'm wondering why power cable for DAC was not among your priorities.

At it is I have power cables now inbound because I just can't seem to avoid addressing it, so I'll finally be able to settle this question for myself and my system.

 

[iamoneagain]

I replaced one set of pricey BNC cables with WAVE Stream BNC cables a couple weeks ago. There was an improvement I would vaguely sum up as sounding "more analog," though it was less than I expected after all I had read. I have the M Scaler and Dave about 2' apart. A couple months ago, I also added a AudioQuest Niagara 1200 and there was also an immediate and marked improvement in sound quality. I do

I saw the follow image posted on Facebook a few weeks ago and saved it because I thought it illustrated well the predominant ways that different people search for the truth.

This goes back to what I posted the other day:

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

A person saying that something is true doesn’t make it true. If they are an authority on a subject then it’s more likely that the claim is true but it’s not an absolute guarantee of it being true. The scientific method exists to help us get to the truth. Each of us has the ability to “test with an experiment” and yet so many just want to “trust the expert”. I blame tribalism as some have a much greater need to feel like they are part of a tribe and that makes them inclined to disregard data that might make them no longer a fit. To those who are like me who don’t post here often, it’s kinda creepy in a Stepford Wives” kind of way to see so many mentions of “because Rob says” .

No audio content here obviously. This is offered in hopes of encouraging folks do more of their own experimenting. “Trust but verify” isn’t a bad way to go.

I don’t know if this is in response to me saying check what Rob says on the MQA but I would say he’s an authority on this matter. Everything about the mscaler is over 30 years of research and it’s this technical philosophy that drives his audio improvements. So I don’t take his negative comments about MQA as just something to dismiss. But I suppose if think of his products as just another high end dac and don’t care about his approach to achieving the sound quality, then his comments would have less meaning.

But I don’t blindly trust everything I hear. I’ve heard him discuss why mscaler is better than HQPlayer but heard the opposite from it’s designer. So I did quick test and determined with my own ears I preferred the mscaler. And in the heat of all the MQA discussion, I also did several tests and preferred cd and hires to MQA. So at least on these 2 points I agree with Rob even though I don’t understand all the sciences behind it. But I have heard him say usb and optical should sound the same on the Dave and mscaler but I can hear a clear improvement with optical. So I’m sure all these other tweaks users are doing have merit.