Chords New M -Scaler

[ElviaCaprice]

Proof is in the pudding.  Tested by others and found to make a big difference, number of taps.  So big, that it has been recommended by those using the Blu mscaler and now the Hugo mscaler, to be a far more important SQ upgrade over any server tweaks upstream.    Basically a must for those with the coin and in the Chord system build.  

Anyone else that says otherwise is obviously talking from back seat science and not from actual listening.  Thus disregard them.

[ElviaCaprice]

If one excepts the premise that the upsampling and filtering of the Chord M-Scaler is far superior in SQ to any software approach via server, then I would be interested in why that is and what prevents the software approach via server from duplicating that accomplishment?  

Otherwise it's just technical knowledge upmanship that fails to connect to reality in practice and results.

[ElviaCaprice]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I just contacted the US distributor for a review unit. I'm guessing they won't be available for a while. 

 

 

But you could get the Blu MKII mscaler now.  In fact, it may even be more accessible to get considering it's little brother (minus the transport) at a much reduced cost and minor improvements will be in high demand. 

[ElviaCaprice]

I for one, would rather have a software server solution.   But until someone (Contrary, all comparisons I've seen done have concluded, no contest, M Scaler rules) can show me, from listening, that there is a software solution that can come even close to M Scaler, it's a no go.  Hardware solution wins.

[ElviaCaprice]

This is where I would disagree.  A renderer is less flexible than a single server due to it's confines to lacking a flexible OS.  A well implemented server with clean power and clocking is far more flexible to stream to an M Scaler.  And until a software solution only upon a server is shown to match the performance of a hardware solution such as M Scaler, it will not be the desired approach, let alone the complexity of setting up that software for the common audiophile.    

In turn this is/will bode well for Chord DAC's and future DAC/AMP designs for driving speakers/headphones direct, bypassing any need for separate pre-amp/amp.

[ElviaCaprice]

16 minutes ago, barrows said:

  A full featured server will never achieve the lower noise footprint of a well designed, high end, Renderer.

Debatable at best.  I would say it's already been surpassed, the renderer.  Due to it's reliance on the preceding stream initiation.  It is becoming more and more an unnecessary fixer component that only adds inflexible complexity.

[ElviaCaprice]

5 minutes ago, barrows said:

Just factually wrong, this is not debatable at all.  The noise footprint of a full server is easily measurable to be way larger than that of a well designed Renderer.

What facts?  Show us the listening test results and the comparable measurements.

[ElviaCaprice]

55 minutes ago, ElviaCaprice said:

Debatable at best.  I would say it's already been surpassed, the renderer.  Due to it's reliance on the preceding stream initiation.  It is becoming more and more an unnecessary fixer component that only adds inflexible complexity.

 

9 minutes ago, barrows said:

 

How do you suppose that a full computer using say even a low 60 watts, is going to produce less noise than a Renderer running on 5 watts?

 

[ElviaCaprice]

11 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 I only see the true value of HMS as a companion to the H2, TT2, and DAVE DACs.

 

+ Qutest

[ElviaCaprice]

1 hour ago, mav52 said:

Lets stay on topic.   We are drifting like a bad clock

I wouldn't worry about it.  It's all relevant to subject.  It will be awhile before the Hugo M-Scaler arrives to the wilds.  Until then, better some relevant technical conversation than pure sound speculation.  We could start a m-scaler listening thread at that time.

[ElviaCaprice]

The fact is, Rob Watts recognizes the problems with ADC's and thus his current ongoing development of an ADC.

[ElviaCaprice]

45 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

In practice, you are not going to be able to replace all the ADC's of the world and redo all the past recordings. 

Obviously, but it's a start.

[ElviaCaprice]

The M-Scaler is really built for Chord DAC's already made to take advantage of it's full abilities.  Personally I wouldn't recommend it for any other DAC at this point.  

[ElviaCaprice]

3 minutes ago, BigAlMc said:

 

Thanks Elvia, 

 

Yup - I feared as much. The Chord Dave is probably the only DAC I would consider swapping my Directstream for - if I were ready, which I'm not. 

 

The Directstream with its upsampling to DSD is probably a particularly bad synergy with the M-Scaler. 

 

Still an intriguing but of kit tho. 

 

Cheers, 

Alan

If your going to spend 4k pounds for an m-scaler, then you might as well get a Qutest or Hugo 2 to take full advantage of it.  Otherwise TT2 or DAVE are the other choices.

[ElviaCaprice]

11 minutes ago, ecwl said:

I do think once Hugo M-Scaler comes out, somebody would eventually publish the WTA filter coefficients. We can then see what kind of computational power is required to do these calculations. Rob Watts recently commented that he doesn’t think a generic CPU can do them in real-time but he definitely thinks a CPU+GPU can and he actually suggested that people should just go ahead and do it in the Head-Fi forum. But obviously Rob Watts is not going to publish his WTA filter coefficients. Just like nobody who charges for their software upsampler so far has been willing to open source their code so that we can view them.

 

 

Agree, would be a fun exercise to try.  But I have a hunch that Rob Watts knows something about his design that would make it superior in SQ to any CPU+GPU  design.  Regardless of all the FUD given here, I have yet to hear of a step by step procedure that produces an equivalent SQ result as the BLU MKII or future Hugo M-Scaler.  Which only confirms the findings of Romaz and others that have tried with DAVE using HQP.

 

As much as I would like a software solution, low power, it remains elusive.  So I look forward to the hardware solution of Hugo M-Scaler.

[ElviaCaprice]

5 hours ago, ecwl said:

 I think I’ve reached a point where I no longer feel it is my onus to try to find a software filter that beats M-Scaler. But if a Chord DAC owner can identify a 1fs to 16fs software filter that improves on the Chord DAC’s own WTA filter, I’d be more than happy to give it a listen for myself and to compare that to the M-Scaler in Blu2.

 

I said about the same thing.  There won't be any because there isn't any software solution that works even close to Chord's hardware.  But plenty of FUD.