Chord M Scaler Opinions

[adamdea]

I can speak for myself only and I find that using HQPlayer improves sound (I've tried software DSP with a handful of DACs, some in NOS mode).
It also improves measured performance.

Isn't the original concept behind HQP more to do with replacing the dac's DS modulator and doing the whole thing in software (up to dsd), and applying a proper filter right the way up to the modulator rate then transmitting dsd 256 or 512 or 1024 to the dac?
I seem to remember that Miska's point was largely that most dacs only use zero order or first order hold filters to go from the upsampled rate (say 384Khz) up to the modulator rate (maybe 11 Mhz or more) and, rather than worrying about the dac's upsampling to 384Khz as such, he was worried about the largely unattenuated images around multiples of 192 Khz which will be left howoever good the firsrt upsampling stage is, .

But I appreciate that HQP will also work more like an mscaler upsampling within multibit pcm and not worrying about the DS stage. Apart from competing with the mscaler this make it useful for dacs which wont take a dsd (256, 512 etc) input.

 

[tuga]

Isn't the original concept behind HQP more to do with replacing the dac's DS modulator and doing the whole thing in software (up to dsd), and applying a proper filter right the way up to the modulator rate then transmitting dsd 256 or 512 or 1024 to the dac?
I seem to remember that Miska's point was largely that most dacs only use zero order or first order hold filters to go from the upsampled rate (say 384Khz) up to the modulator rate (maybe 11 Mhz or more) and, rather than worrying about the dac's upsampling to 384Khz as such, he was worried about the largely unattenuated images around multiples of 192 Khz which will be left howoever good the firsrt upsampling stage is, .

But I appreciate that HQP will also work more like an mscaler upsampling within multibit pcm and not worrying about the DS stage. Apart from competing with the mscaler this make it useful for dacs which wont take a dsd (256, 512 etc) input.

Yes, I use HQP to upconvert Redbook to DSD256 and apply EQ, into a DAC that's set to NOS-mode. Measurements at PCM44.1, PCM705.6 and DSD256 here.

As far as I know HQP can up- or downconvert PCM or DSD into any rate and bit-depth PCM or DSD, and the user can select filter and noise-shaping from a wide selection.

 

[mansr]

Going on to the very interesting Keith Howard article he does point out that the Watt’s WTA (Watts Time Alignment) windowing algorithm is a closely guarded secret.

That's just his made-up name for a linear phase filter. The exact coefficients shouldn't be difficult to tease out of the device. Resampling is a solved problem.

 

[AndrewG]

The question I’m asking is - do people think it is generally a worthwhile thing to do no matter how it is achieved?

YES.

 

[Zombie]

Some say non-oversampling is da sh*t and more musical and real, while others say huge oversampling is da sh*t and more musical and real...confusing.

 

[mansr]

Curious, is there a generally held belief/agreement in both camps that upsampling either via a software implementation or via a dedicated hardware device is worthwhile for digital sources, be that from disk, download or streamed?

Digital interpolation to a high sample rate followed by sigma-delta modulation gives the best DAC performance. That much is settled. For a long time, DAC chips have integrated these functions. The question you're asking is whether doing some or all of this interpolation in a separate device, hardware or software based, offers any benefit. The answer depends on the particular DAC design. It is possible to build a DAC that benefits from external resampling. It is also possible to make one that performs worse at higher rates. It could be argued that a competent DAC shouldn't need external help to perform beyond the limits of human hearing. Indeed, this is often the case. If I were to buy an expensive DAC and discover that it needed extra parts to perform well, I'd send it straight back for a refund.

 

[camverton]

The question I’m asking is - do people think it is generally a worthwhile thing to do no matter how it is achieved?

For me, in my system, with my ears and brain and with the music I mostly listen to - Yes.

My Qutest and TT2 both work well alone, but the m scaler makes a very worthwhile improvement. Nice to have the option to improve on already very competent products. The real question is how far any particular individual needs to go for their own satisfaction.

My opinion is entirely fwiw but at least it is based on listening. Interesting that some of the posters on this thread don’t seem to think that it necessary to actually try the product to test/prove their knowledge.

 

[Amber Audio]

For me, in my system, with my ears and brain and with the music I mostly listen to - Yes.

My Qutest and TT2 both work well alone, but the m scaler makes a very worthwhile improvement. Nice to have the option to improve on already very competent products. The real question is how far any particular individual needs to go for their own satisfaction.

My opinion is entirely fwiw but at least it is based on listening. Interesting that some of the posters on this thread don’t seem to think that it necessary to actually try the product to test/prove their knowledge.

It’s the way these threads always end up, at least it’s not been as bad as the mains or usb cable threads can get, so far Personally I buy or borrow, listen and then keep or sell on/return. I can buy stuff now that I used to only read/dream about when younger so I indulge my interest in AV/HiFi as it is something I can still enjoy, due to a few health issues my other hobbies/activities have been knocked on the head or curtailed.

During lockdown despite running an IT company I have had a good deal of free time to play around and have tried a number of DACs/Streamers as well as other bits and pieces. I have the TT2 running on its own currently and will add the Scaler this weekend, run for a while then take it back out, see if I miss it - not a very scientific method but that’s how I finally decide what gear to buy. I am interested in the Tech that’s just part of me and why I’m in IT, but as far as hifi goes it’s a subjective choice based on listening and how it makes me feel.

If I find myself missing something or thinking things sound better now it’s gone, that is how I make my choices, music is a kind of therapy for me and an emotional thing, relaxing at the end of a day to Qobuz or spinning a bunch of LPs over the weekend is how I love to spend my downtime. At work I choose things based on specs like mtbf or speed or heat characteristics, not if I like it as a thing. At home it needs to be aesthetically pleasing as well as sound good to me, I do have a HiFi Shrine that some on here disparage, but it’s my room and my wedge to spend how I like.

ATB

Gus

 

[camverton]

Indeed, it is when you return to the previous setup that it becomes clear whether new equipment was worthwhile.

Since getting the m scaler I have switched in pass through mode a few times. It’s an odd effect in that it isn’t so easy to follow the music, almost as though one is trying to compensate for something that isn’t quite right and is disturbing the flow of the music. In essence a distraction. I think I now understand a reason why people prefer vinyl, although as a classical listener the distractions of vinyl still made digital a godsend. It’s an experience that is very difficult to express meaningfully in words - which will no doubt give the detractors much to sneer and jeer at!

 

[Suffolk Tony]

Indeed, it is when you return to the previous setup that it becomes clear whether new equipment was worthwhile.

Since getting the m scaler I have switched in pass through mode a few times. It’s an odd effect in that it isn’t so easy to follow the music, almost as though one is trying to compensate for something that isn’t quite right and is disturbing the flow of the music. In essence a distraction. I think I now understand a reason why people prefer vinyl, although as a classical listener the distractions of vinyl still made digital a godsend. It’s an experience that is very difficult to express meaningfully in words - which will no doubt give the detractors much to sneer and jeer at!

Yes, after a couple of weeks' intense listening, & having convinced myself the MScaler wasn't making that much difference, I pulled it out of the system...

Maybe time to leave this thread to its own devices now folks.

 

[RoA]

Yes, I use HQP to upconvert Redbook to DSD256 and apply EQ, into a DAC that's set to NOS-mode. Measurements at PCM44.1, PCM705.6 and DSD256 here.

As far as I know HQP can up- or downconvert PCM or DSD into any rate and bit-depth PCM or DSD, and the user can select filter and noise-shaping from a wide selection.

After all this, does any music come out the speakers?

 

[tuga]

After all this, does any music come out the speakers?

No. Only sound.

 

[tuga]

Isn't the original concept behind HQP more to do with replacing the dac's DS modulator and doing the whole thing in software (up to dsd), and applying a proper filter right the way up to the modulator rate then transmitting dsd 256 or 512 or 1024 to the dac?
I seem to remember that Miska's point was largely that most dacs only use zero order or first order hold filters to go from the upsampled rate (say 384Khz) up to the modulator rate (maybe 11 Mhz or more) and, rather than worrying about the dac's upsampling to 384Khz as such, he was worried about the largely unattenuated images around multiples of 192 Khz which will be left howoever good the firsrt upsampling stage is, .

But I appreciate that HQP will also work more like an mscaler upsampling within multibit pcm and not worrying about the DS stage. Apart from competing with the mscaler this make it useful for dacs which wont take a dsd (256, 512 etc) input.

You may have seen these, Archimago has made a couple of entries about HQP:

MEASUREMENTS: A look at the audio "ultra high-end" - ultrasonics!
https://archimago.blogspot.com/2019/03/measurements-look-at-audio-ultra-high.html

MEASUREMENTS: A Look At HQPlayer 3.25; Filtering, Dithering and DSD Conversion.
https://archimago.blogspot.com/2019/02/measurements-look-at-hqplayer-325.html

 

[John Phillips]

No, but then if your dac is properly designed why would it?
There is a certain aesthetic attraction to using an echt sinc filter, but once you have a plausible level of attenuation and passband ripple etc why would lowering it any further make it any better?

Yes for at least my hearing I agree (I don't speak for anyone else). Maybe some people are super-hearers but my tests tell me I'm not one of them. There is definitely a point that is good enough for me and going beyond that has no impact on how I enjoy the music. Understanding where that point is informs me where to draw the line when auditioning and buying kit

I fiddled around using various Sox setting using various dacs and then lost interest.

Exactly the same. Perhaps I am over-curious but the M Scaler claims did intrigue me enough to test them in in some way (including my short audition).

Incidentally, as pointed out above, given a sensible windowing function, why would one need 1m filter taps?

Incidentally have you read Mansr's post here about an uber Matlab filter with only 384 taps.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...i-2-dac-fs-tap-count.22124/page-3#post-734918

I hadn't read that. I read Keith Howard's paper on the M Scaler. I was impressed that he gets to the nub of the issue with his question about the sinc filter "The obvious question is: by how much must it decay for its contribution to inter-sample wave shape to become insignificant?". Insignificant to whose ears, of course. I was less impressed by his answer so I decided to investigate (i) what happens when you have 100, 1000, 10000 ... filter taps; and (ii) what happens when you truncate very precise filter coefficients to specific bit lengths. The results did not accord with what some people were saying. But perhaps others have independently investigated too and come to a different conclusion that works for them.

 

[Heckyman]

I use HQ Player sometimes. I consider it an "icing on the cake" type enhancement. The magnitude of improvement does depend on the DAC, the source material, the listener, the actual filters selected, the hardware running HQ Player etc.

Have not tried an M-Scaler, I would rather put the £3.5K into a better DAC. IMO, M-Scaler makes more sense once you reached Dave level.

 

[tuga]

Don't know if this has been mentioned before, I found it worth listening to (the motion in the video makes me a sick)

 

[darrenyeats]

I use SoX with LMS. I use a 24 bit DAC over Toslink S/PDIF. It all fits. Very worthwhile IMV.

For 32 bit DACs, computer upsampling makes less sense to me if you can't get 32 bit data in. I'd likely leave it to onboard upsampling with a newer DAC.

Can you get 768kHz 32 bit data from your computer into your DAC? If not then M Scaler could have an advantage over a computer source surely.

Interesting comments about HQP upsampling to DSD though.

I only heard the M Scaler demonstrated once with a DAVE and was annoyed to find the sound stage became enveloping. I'm so far not convinced Chord DACs are my cup of tea otherwise; that was anyway the best I've heard from Chord.

 

[simon g]

The combined price of an M Scaler and TT2 is around £7.5k. That is a significant sum. There are very many other excellent DACs available at that price level and far below. For example, I've seen used Bartoks go for less and that's a first class DAC and an excellent streamer.

 

[badger748]

The combined price of an M Scaler and TT2 is around £7.5k. That is a significant sum. There are very many other excellent DACs available at that price level and far below. For example, I've seen used Bartoks go for less and that's a first class DAC and an excellent streamer.

A used Bartok for less than £7.5k ?
Really!

 

[Woodface]

The combined price of an M Scaler and TT2 is around £7.5k. That is a significant sum. There are very many other excellent DACs available at that price level and far below. For example, I've seen used Bartoks go for less and that's a first class DAC and an excellent streamer.

So 2nd hand things go for less money? Who knew?