Chords New M -Scaler

[Confused]

It occurs to me that there are some similarities between the M-Scaler and the dCS Vivaldi Upsampler.  The dCS uses dual output, albeit AES/EBU, but can be set to output via single AES/EBU, with lower output rates to suit whatever DAC is used. 

 

In terms of the speculation about using the M-Scaler with non Chord DACs, I have heard the dCS Upsampler with a Devialet D800, running 24/192 PCM and also DSD64.  The results were very impressive, but the cost of the dCS Upsampler is so high that it is almost impossible to justify running in a compromised mode that is required to suit something like a Devialet.  The dCS Upsampler is supposed to be at it's best when converting / upsampling to DSD, so this contrasts to the M-Scaler which I think is basically for PCM.  So comparisons between the two are likely to be very different depending on the DAC used.

 

So over time I guess we will see a few people experiment with the M-Scaler and various different DACs.  The dCS Upsampler is about £16K in the UK (Or £26K with the Vivaldi Master Clock), so in comparison the M-Scaler looks cheap!  (Although still very expensive versus HQPlayer, of course.)  It will be interesting to see if anyone gets good results with the M-Scaler and a non Chord DAC.

[Confused]

17 hours ago, barrows said:

I think it is all important to step back a second, and take a breath...  Ahhhh.

 

Now it seems to me that comparisons between the HMS and, say, perhaps HQP are a bit odd in the first place:

 

Rob Watts is clearly an advocate for PCM, and only begrudgingly added a DSD mode to DAVE (not available on other Chord DACs, which convert DSD to PCM).  He clearly designs his DACs to perform best using his filters/oversampling and with PCM. Those using Chord DACs are finding good synergy with blu and likely will with HMS in the same way.

 

Miska (Jussi) is clearly an advocate for DSD, and designed both HQPlayer and his DSC-1 DAC to get the best out of oversampled DSD.  The DSC-1 DAC approach is now available (or very similar approaches) from various DAC makers, and those using that approach have found superb sound quality using HQP to oversample to DSD 256 or 512, with a DSC-1 style DAC.  Also many chip based DACs with AKM and ESS hardware will likely benefit from high rate DSD input (I personally love dSD 256 into the ESS 9038 here).

 

To me it seems clear that HQPlayer's big strength is in DSD oversampling, especially when combined with a discrete DSD DAC, not to say that it's PCM oversampling approaches are weak.  And expecting the Chord DAC to do really well with DSD, when Rob Watts himself shows little interest in DSD performance seems a bit odd.  The same could be said for expecting HQPlayer style oversampling/filtering to work as well as m scaler with Chord style DACs.

 

So, just perhaps: HQPlayer is "best" for DSD oversampling into a DSD style DAC, and m Scaler is best for oversampling into a Chord DAC.

 

Clearly we have advocates for both approaches, and hey, choices are good.

 

7

I understand what you are saying here and you make some valid points, however, I think there is a slightly different way of looking at the comparisons with HQPlayer.  As an example, there are many HQPlayer users that have DACs that work best with PCM, and they use HQPlayer upsampling PCM with the filters of their choice.  I am one such HQPlayer user.  So it seems to me that for someone with a DAC that just happens to perform well with upsampled PCM, then a comparison between the M-Scaler and HQPlayer would be perfectly valid.  In a similar way, someone who has a DAC that performs best fed upsampled DSD, could compare the performance of HQPlayer with something like the dCS Upsampler.  OK, the dCS tops out at DSD128 and is rather expensive, but it does sounds excellent and could form the basis of a comparison.  With an upsampled PCM loving DAC, you could even try the dCS Upsampler versus the M-Scaler versus HQPlayer.  So I think there are some valid comparisons to be had.  Of course, comparisons of what the M-Scaler can do with a Chord  DAC versus HQPlayer with a DSD512 capable DAC are pretty bogus, so I agree with you there.  I just think that in some situations there may be some very interesting comparisons to be had.  We have heard from some DAVE owners that upsampling PCM via HQPlayer does little for sound quality, OK fair enough.  But what about a DAC that does benefit from HQPlayer PCM upsampling, how would that sound with the M-Scaler?  In fact, it would be interesting if some DACs benefitted from both the M-Scaler and HQPlayer, whereas the DAVE only benefits from the M-Scaler.  It would at least be interesting in terms of establishing the technical reasons why, there might be something to learn here.

 

Personally, I run a Devialet that to me has the best sound quality when fed 24/192.  HQPlayer can support this perfectly, at very low cost, and using the M-Scaler to replicate this would be very expensive and only use a fraction of the M-Scaler's capabilities.  So a non-starter for me it would seem.  That said, I do have a good relationship with a dealer that stacks both Chord and Devialet products, so it might be fun to try it one day, and who knows how that might turn out!  It might be a complete waste of time, but it might just be good, for reasons we have not worked out yet.  It would be easy enough to try, so why not?

[Confused]

17 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Heres a problem: are you asserting the “sound” comes from the software or hardware or both? Think about it. 

 

HQPlayer is not limited to particular hardware. When I first used HQPlayer with my then newly installed NVidia GTX1080 GPU it sounded horrible! Then I moved my DAC to an NAA (over fiberoptic Ethernet) and voila it’s great. That big ugly workstation is spewing all sorts of noise. Not near my audio anymore. That’s just one variable — another is that various HQPlayer modulators & filters work differently with different DACs — has to do with noise shaping and properties of analog low pass filters. How does M-scalar handle DAC other than Chord in this respect?

 

So look at it differently but just because some bloke somewhere got a better sound with x, y or z doesn’t tell us that A is better than x.  

I was not trying to assert anything, quite the opposite, I am completely open-minded about this one and interested in what might work or might not.  I agree that there are many variables in play, so any comparisons will be somewhat problematic, or at least system specific, but they might tell us something.

[Confused]

27 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

I would say both, you cannot disregard either. Listener can have more impact on the D/A side, but I think there are ways to make also not so great recordings sound and feel great.

 

I personally listen for example a lot of prog rock and such spanning from 60's to current day. Some old Pink Floyd stuff (Meddle album being my favorite) is not technically as great as some recent stuff from Steven Wilson, but both can be made sound great and engaging.

 

And actually some of the older RedBook masterings for example of Pink Floyd are better than the recent "remasters" which I think are often worse ones.

 

Do you have any specific tips for making not so great recordings sound and feel great?  This is a genuine question because there seams to be a strange inverse rule with my music collection, the more I like the music, the worse the recording tends to be.  

 

As as for your remaster comment, I was listening to some Led Zeppelin at the weekend and found pretty much the same thing.

[Confused]

13 hours ago, seeteeyou said:

As you have a DAVE, just check the user's manual and you will see its listed output impedance of 0.0055 ohms. Now try and find any other commercially available source with an output impedance that low.

Not quite an equivalent I know, but the latest Devialet Expert Pro range is quoted as having an output impedance of 0.001 ohms.

[Confused]

1 hour ago, peterlim8 said:

Now we are going into which best driving a pair of speakers.

Yes, off topic, I would agree.