[ZappaMan]

People have different tastes, I for one love what the M Scaler does in my system, then again I use a Qutest with the M Scaler. The DAVE may not benefit from it as much as the Qutest does. Then again, Golden Sound and others found the DAVE and M Scaler together to be much better than just the DAVE, several reviewers have stated this. Perhaps I'll borrow the DAVE from my dealer and hear myself what the differences are.

I’m also going to do some blind testing with Dave and an assistant.

The target is 8 out of ten times to choose the upscaled version.

 

[GuiltyRocker]

I’m also going to do some blind testing with Dave and an assistant.

The target is 8 out of ten times to choose the upscaled version.

That's cool, let us know how that goes. I saw some studies recently that the brain makes up information when it's close and it has heard before, which may make blind tests difficult. I'll see if I can find the links.

 

[number1sixerfan]

Blind testing, even when properly setup with qualified individuals and ideal methodology, still has significant challenges. However, when set up right, I could understand the argument for it as a data point, in addition to subjective listening and measurements. (still, personally, I couldn't treat it as one)

But as someone that works with scientists every day to run experimentation and UXR studies, I can't take any impressions or analysis from any sort of blind testing done by anyone that doesn't have scientific experimentation and sound engineering expertise seriously. Obviously, can still be fun to do, but just absolutely and totally unreliable imo. You are FAR better off spending extended time evaluating a component over time, with and without it in your chain and loosely controlled A/B'ing. (I also read impressions with short auditions with a grain of salt for similar reliability issues)

Getting back to the actual Mscaler. Imo, you don't need fancy cables to pick up on the differences it makes. I do think the differences are more on the subtle side given the price point. I also understand how people think the differences it makes could make the sound audibly more "digital". Totally get it if it's not worth it for some, or if some don't pick up on the subtle differences, or if some just totally don't prefer it.

 

[thePhones]

I’m somewhat dubious in my belief that a new Choral range Chord Hugo M Scaler will improve the sonic performance of my TT2 DAC when compared to what I have now. But I do wait patiently to hear what those benefits might and could be.

Yeah I think the same way. But after I have thought that for Hugo 1 and Hugo 2 getting much better, adding M Scaler is got massively better... and then TT2 was better again and after that Dave was a lot better I got convinced that Rob knows something I don't

 

[GuiltyRocker]

Blind testing, even when properly setup with qualified individuals and ideal methodology, still has significant challenges. However, when set up right, I could understand the argument for it as a data point, in addition to subjective listening and measurements. (still, personally, I couldn't treat it as one)

But as someone that works with scientists every day to run experimentation and UXR studies, I can't take any impressions or analysis from any sort of blind testing done by anyone that doesn't have scientific experimentation and sound engineering expertise seriously. Obviously, can still be fun to do, but just absolutely and totally unreliable imo. You are FAR better off spending extended time evaluating a component over time, with and without it in your chain and loosely controlled A/B'ing. (I also read impressions with short auditions with a grain of salt for similar reliability issues)

Getting back to the actual Mscaler. Imo, you don't need fancy cables to pick up on the differences it makes. I do think the differences are more on the subtle side given the price point. I also understand how people think the differences it makes could make the sound audibly more "digital". Totally get it if it's not worth it for some, or if some don't pick up on the subtle differences, or if some just totally don't prefer it.

For me the differences are striking and quite the opposite of Digital, the music sounds more analog and much more smoother, without the M Scaler the Qutest sounds harsh in my system, it didn't sound harsh until I got used to the M Scaler. It also increased the size and depth of the sound stage, also on some songs I hear tempo differences where the music flows really nicely, it is hard to describe the effect. The timbre is very realistic with it in place, I can keep going but I know it's MY experience.

 

[Progisus]

To add to the mix. I use mscaler for streaming and PGGB (remastero) for my local files. I am guessing it’s effect may be close to the new choral scaler.

 

[ZappaMan]

To add to the mix. I use mscaler for streaming and PGGB (remastero) for my local files. I am guessing it’s effect may be close to the new choral scaler.

Would you say pggb is a subtle change?

 

[Leporello]

Blind testing, even when properly setup with qualified individuals and ideal methodology, still has significant challenges. However, when set up right, I could understand the argument for it as a data point, in addition to subjective listening and measurements. (still, personally, I couldn't treat it as one)

But as someone that works with scientists every day to run experimentation and UXR studies, I can't take any impressions or analysis from any sort of blind testing done by anyone that doesn't have scientific experimentation and sound engineering expertise seriously. Obviously, can still be fun to do, but just absolutely and totally unreliable imo. You are FAR better off spending extended time evaluating a component over time, with and without it in your chain and loosely controlled A/B'ing. (I also read impressions with short auditions with a grain of salt for similar reliability issues)

Getting back to the actual Mscaler. Imo, you don't need fancy cables to pick up on the differences it makes. I do think the differences are more on the subtle side given the price point. I also understand how people think the differences it makes could make the sound audibly more "digital". Totally get it if it's not worth it for some, or if some don't pick up on the subtle differences, or if some just totally don't prefer it.

It is easy to point out the problems in amateurish blind tests.

However, it is not a zero sum game: whatever problems blind tests may have, they will not make sighted tests any more reliable. Sighted tests are inherently faulty and basically without value from the get-go. Granted, they may give the impression that the listener has found out something important. Just do not pretend that these feelings are evidence of anything.

 

[number1sixerfan]

For me the differences are striking and quite the opposite of Digital, the music sounds more analog and much more smoother, without the M Scaler the Qutest sounds harsh in my system, it didn't sound harsh until I got used to the M Scaler. It also increased the size and depth of the sound stage, also on some songs I hear tempo differences where the music flows really nicely, it is hard to describe the effect. The timbre is very realistic with it in place, I can keep going but I know it's MY experience.

Totally get it, especially coming from the Hugo 2. To my ears, the main differences with the Mscaler w/the Dave are 1) increased spaciousness, 2) better separation and imaging, and 3) blacker background. I've seen some say that to their ears it makes things sound a bit more digital, which I could get as maybe the increased sense of spatial information and realism is attributed to that. Personally, I love those specific boosts in those areas and is why it's a component I have no intention of selling.

I'm just saying I'm totally open to other perspectives, especially given the cost and ultimately differences in listening preferences.

It is easy to point out the problems in amateurish blind tests.

However, it is not a zero sum game: whatever problems blind tests may have, they will not make sighted tests any more reliable. Sighted tests are inherently faulty and basically without value from the get-go. Granted, they may give the impression that the listener has found out something important. Just do not pretend that these feelings are evidence of anything.

I would say both amateurish and professional, there's challenges either way. But I agree with what you're saying here. I was referring to blind tests in the sense that they're held on this site at times as a more improved scientific and reliable method over casual, loose A/B'ing and listening. To clarify, neither in my opinion, can be cited as some objective, extremely reliable source of truth.

----------------

Broadly speaking, believing in some sort of ultimate source of truth is the fallacy within all of this entire conversation. There isn't a such thing that exists. All one can do is paint a full picture for themselves through measurements or other formal "scientific" data analysis, their own subjective listening (no matter how unreliable from a scientific standpoint), and the consideration of impressions and advice of others if they so choose.

 

[GuiltyRocker]

Totally get it, especially coming from the Hugo 2. To my ears, the main differences with the Mscaler w/the Dave are 1) increased spaciousness, 2) better separation and imaging, and 3) blacker background. I've seen some say that to their ears it makes things sound a bit more digital, which I could get as maybe the increased sense of spatial information and realism is attributed to that. Personally, I love those specific boots in those areas and is why it's a component I have no intention of selling.

I'm just saying I'm totally open to other perspectives, especially given the cost and ultimately differences in listening preferences.



I would say both amateurish and professional, there's challenges either way. But I agree with what you're saying here. I was referring to blind tests in the sense that they're held on this site at times as a more improved scientific and reliable method over casual, loose A/B'ing and listening. To clarify, neither in my opinion, can be cited as some objective, extremely reliable source of truth.

----------------

Broadly speaking, believing in some sort of ultimate source of truth is the fallacy within all of this entire conversation. There isn't a such thing that exists. All one can do is paint a full picture for themselves through measurements or other formal "scientific" data analysis, their own subjective listening (no matter how unreliable from a scientific standpoint), and the consideration of impressions and advice of others if they so choose.

Excellent answer. I totally understand others may have a different experience, all systems are different and the rooms as well.

 

[Progisus]

Would you say pggb is a subtle change?

I would say imho it is not a subtle change. On my setup it opens the soundstage and the air around instruments which allows more micro details to be revealed. The transients seem a bit better than mscaler as well. It does require a lot of time and ram to do the conversion and is offline only (unless using windows and foobar which I have not tested). I use hqplayer as well but now only as a playback engine in roon with no upscaling. I don’t think the mscaler when paired with a TT2 and upgraded bnc cables can be beat for real time upscaling.

 

[GuiltyRocker]

@Rob Watts Rob is the M Scaler limited to 16 bit performance? I am seeing some people commenting that feeding it 24 bit music leads to 16 bit performance, when you have a moment can you comment on this? Thanks.

 

[rkt31]

@Rob Watts Rob is the M Scaler limited to 16 bit performance? I am seeing some people commenting that feeding it 24 bit music leads to 16 bit performance, when you have a moment can you comment on this? Thanks.

This is about the accuracy of transients not the actual resolution. Actual resolution out of m scaler is 32bit

ASR thread about m scaler is very misleading because (1) it showed 80db filter attenuation at 2x in topping dac (2) amir did reluctantly post much later on filter attenuation graph with hugo 2 and at 16x which showed 110db attenuation but he initially did not do it deliberately as his intentions of pointing to "only 80db attenuation" in original review were not good. (3) he gave pretty lame excuses of not doing listening tests at 16x. M scaler is an upsampler with "very steep filter" and it does what it should do. In fact no other hardware upsampler comes close to it as far as filter quality is concerned. Some software solutions claim to provided better attenuation but as rob already said they might not follow the coefficients as per sinc function because of that they can have more coefficients with less processing but actual results may not be better than m scaler. But amir has deliberately hid these facts so that a wrong message is sent to audiophiles. I would say golden sound review is much better and more detailed.

 

[AxelCloris]

As a thread dedicated to discussing personal audio gear, let's please keep posts in this thread focused on the Hugo M Scaler, pairings, and the music we enjoy with it. The Members' Lounge is a great place to discuss other, non-M Scaler related topics. Thanks all.

 

[Rob Watts]

Why are you all getting so upset when amirm says that the M Scaler, at best, might be a waste of time and money?

The highly regarded @Triode User himself says that, as sold, the M Scaler makes the DAVE sound worse:



@Rob Watts has not disagreed with this.

Just because I don't post about comments that to me are completely wrong, does not imply any form of agreement. I take the view that people have different opinions when regarding sound quality or musicality, and I am sure that people often disagree with my posts. If I were to post every time I fundamentally disagree with a post, I would be here wasting my time all day and not doing important design work. Life is too short, and I have a lot to do.

So, and I have said this many times - to me the M scaler is absolutely essential for good sound quality and for musicality. To say a Dave with an M scaler using stock cables and simply plugging it into the mains sounds worse compared to a sole Dave to me is a completely crazy suggestion. So please stop trying to imply the opposite.

To add to the mix. I use mscaler for streaming and PGGB (remastero) for my local files. I am guessing it’s effect may be close to the new choral scaler.

It is absolutely nothing like the PGGB files I heard early on. IMHO PGGB is very much the wrong approach, and when I heard the test files I said they sound like apodizing filters, which seriously damage transient time reconstruction. Problem is some like the soft bloated bass from apodizing, as they prefer the timing problems. And when the website went live they claimed it was an apodizing filter. It doesn't matter if it's 10 taps or 10 billion taps - apodizing is the wrong approach.

@Rob Watts Rob is the M Scaler limited to 16 bit performance? I am seeing some people commenting that feeding it 24 bit music leads to 16 bit performance, when you have a moment can you comment on this? Thanks.

No absolutely not. It reconstructs the timing of transients to better than 16 bits, as the coefficients drift from sinc below 16 bit values. Indeed, using a 6kHz -301dB signal through the filter structure gives perfect rendition of -301 dB using the dual BNC outputs. So a 24 bit signal will maintain it's SNR perfectly when you use the dual BNC outputs. The single BNC does add some noise, as I use the better sounding Gaussian dither which is a little higher than the usual dither, but this will be inaudible.