bikutoru
100+ Head-Fier
You can try to have it on the ASR site itself and see how it goes..Well..we can have a normal discussion over the measurements from Amir, can't we?
You can try to have it on the ASR site itself and see how it goes..Well..we can have a normal discussion over the measurements from Amir, can't we?
I believe Stereophile got quite different measurements and it was done quite some time ago?If the MScaler had better measurements, he would have reported them, while likely coming to the same conclusion (that he hears no difference). At the very least, he has produced data about the MScaler that never existed before. .
Are you really surprised?I'm a member on this forum. Little surprised with the comments...but it is what it is.
OK, I wasn't aware of those...interesting.I believe Stereophile got quite different measurements and it was done quite some time ago?
The Hugo M scaler does not have technical issues that IMO need fixing. The added quantisation noise is there simply because with 2x and 4x upsampling I use Gaussian dither set to a high level - and this is done simply because it sounds much better, closer to the noise shaped outputs at 16x. Of course using it in the intended mode, 16x, the noise and distortion level is identical to the input noise due to the aggressive noise shaping. So noise is higher, but so what? You still won't hear it, but you will hear the benefits of Gaussian against the usual triangular dither. That is, you will hear better depth and detail resolution, unless you are deaf, or not blessed with good hearing, or not interested in the SQ and musical performance, in which case why on earth would you be interested in an expensive up-sampler?While I have no doubt Amir takes pleasure in revealing bad measuring gear that is expensive, I highly doubt he purposefully produces bad results. If the MScaler had better measurements, he would have reported them, while likely coming to the same conclusion (that he hears no difference). At the very least, he has produced data about the MScaler that never existed before. Owners and fans may not like what the results were, but let's face it, they showed that the MScaler has some issues. Rob Watts has already stated he's working on the next version of the product, so I hope that addresses some of the issues we now know exist with the current product.
I don't like posting there because everyone thinks they have a doctorate in audio science and almost none of them have any actual experience with the products they criticize. They worship objective measurements there, we value subjective and real experience here.
I’m not deaf. I don’t know what ‘good’ hearing is, but I hear adequately and appreciate live performances. I am very interested in SQ. I owned the DAVE and M-Scaler, but now receive the same musical pleasure that you do from recorded music, with my Topping DAC. Am I wrong in thinking that the Topping DAC is the equal of the Chord combo?That is, you will hear better depth and detail resolution, unless you are deaf, or not blessed with good hearing, or not interested in the SQ and musical performance
I am delighted that you have found something that musically works for you, and that you have saved some cash too.I’m not deaf. I don’t know what ‘good’ hearing is, but I hear adequately and appreciate live performances. I am very interested in SQ. I owned the DAVE and M-Scaler, but now receive the same musical pleasure that you do from recorded music, with my Topping DAC. Am I wrong in thinking that the Topping DAC is the equal of the Chord combo?
Are you saying that the DAVE and M-Scaler are to only be appreciated by those with hearing ability equal to yours?I am delighted that you have found something that musically works for you, and that you have saved some cash too.
But that absolutely would not be the case for me.
I think he is saying his preference is for something other than the Topping. Is that controversial?Are you saying that the DAVE and M-Scaler are to only be appreciated by those with hearing ability equal to yours?
It’s controversial when Mr. Watts states that one has to be deaf, blessed with inadequate hearing, or not interested in SQ if one cannot “hear better depth and detail resolution.” I don’t hear any less depth or detail resolution with the Topping DAC I now use.I think he is saying his preference is for something other than the Topping. Is that controversial?
Thats slightly out of context, he is refering to his design choices (qv Gausian v triangular dither) of his upscaler. Not as a comparison to other DACs. If you enjoy the Topping, good for you, you have saved a lot of money. No one is critising you for your choice. Why take offense if others choose differently?It’s controversial when Mr. Watts states that one has to be deaf, blessed with inadequate hearing, or not interested in SQ if one cannot “hear better depth and detail resolution.” I don’t hear any less depth or detail resolution with the Topping DAC I now use.