Yup. Snake oil salesman caught out with lies and BS. hahaahaaa. Did you know opening your speakers, dipping your loudspeaker wadding into the juices of surströmming then putting back inside your front ported speakers improves bass response, makes treble sweeter?
Rob starts the interview by stating that he didn't read the ASR article? That's all I needed to hear. Why should I bother with another 49 minutes of video for a guy that couldn't take 10 minutes to look at the bench measurements? Seriously, kick rocks. That told me all I needed to know.
Out of the gate Rob states, “So I haven’t officially read the ASR article so I don’t know what he was doing in terms of his measurements.” The typical response to smoke and mirrors.
He said he didn't read it, but he knew plenty about it. There had been lengthy discussions about it on Head-Fi by this point so there were no mysteries
They're scum, utter scam artists. I hope the world they see crumbling around them falls sooner rather than later. WE LOVE THE TRUTH (AKA.... TRANSPARENCY ;P)
Now, I would like to see you interview Amir from ASR, then go over Amirs measurement results of the Chord M-Scaler. This would be the unbiased way to get the real facts, and what it means to the customer purchasing the Chord M-Scaler. Amir is very open to reviews of his findings. I am very curious of why Rob Watts from Chord has not done this? Intriguing!
He won’t do it, because the measurements are true. This would definitely make me stay away from Chord products. Changes something that only the human mind can determine.😂
Yep, I attempted to have a conversation over on ASR and it proved mostly fruitless with the one bright spot being a forum member with some very interesting insights and thoughts. Sadly, Amir chose to ignore my direct questions and focus on trying to discredit my subjective listening experiences and teach me how to do it right.
The guest agreed to an almost hour long interview in response to an ASR measurement report, but didn't provide you the courtesy of reading it ahead of time to see what the complaints were? Something smells poopy in here.
@@PassionforSoundthere is no need to discuss hard data with audiophile idiots. Now it's your job to provide evidence to counter his data. Good luck with that.
The whole review has basically been reproduced on Head-Fi so there wasn't really a need for him to read it in its entirety. Also, I asked him to answer some questions that I had, not to read the review.
Once uploaded, videos on UA-cam can't be replaced without releasing it as a brand new video. Plus, I believe in not altering someone's words to suit an agenda. If a person can't look past that one statement and focus on the fact that Rob is simply answering my questions, not critiquing the ASR review directly (which I respect him for) then I doubt any changes to the video will get through to them.
@@PassionforSound The review is a miniscule amount of words anyone could easily skim it. Just read the thing. I'm sure he has or at least his lawyers have. I don't buy that this guy isn't aware of every last word Amir wrote. This is going to cost him a lot of money right or wrong. If he is right I hope he has the wherewithal to prove it in court.
The Emperor's New Clothes - one only has to know how to sell it. For many, the impossibility to prove a negative (something not having an effect after all) seems to be good enough to believe in the salvation.
Rob Watts reminds me of Nelson Pass, another one of my favourite engineers. While they both understand the theory, and measure copiously, both talk consistently and repeatedly about 'listening tests'. This sort of humility and curiosity, and authenticity to the music is something I respect a lot.
They slowly, slowly deviated the subject and answered what they wanted. Way is the measurements so of the original one? Because the £4000 - £5000 up-simpler has another filter that works best only with 2 DAC's, Hugh TT2 and Dave. Is so simple.... un upscale filter cost around $100 and Chord is selling it for 4 5 grands. Rob Watson is a great engineer but the upscaler is dot exactly what people think of it (the best). The ideea of the vest was born by fake reviews 👏 👍 😀 Measurements shows how purely this device resamples. We can get exactly the same with other devices such as 200 300 DAC used as upscaler. Is really so simple to see but people makes it harder to understand by talking nonsense 😒
@@joegalaxy9037 agreed, all these subjectivists could easily prove themselves by doing live blind listening tests, but they don't do level matched blind listening tests. if you can't do that, what's the point of an interview?
How so. What extra information do you think he needed that was not provided to him in my questions and/or via the Head-Fi discussions that were extremely detailed about everything we discussed
You need to watch the video properly. Amir ran a series of irrelevant tests designed for DACs. As Rob explained clearly in this discussion, most of what the M-Scaler is doing cannot be measured with an analog instrument like Amir's setup and needs to be measured via calculations in the digital domain.
Lachlan I salute you and cannot thank you enough for taking the time and effort to involve yourself in that discussion, and to congratulate you on your approach in tackling the issues with such objectivity, neutrality and diplomacy (especially given some of the polarised and entrenched views some seem to have). Moreover, to get Rob Watts to engage in that discussion was not only the right approach but incredibly informative - even if it made my head hurt a bit at times and required some stopping and rewinding to get bits to sink in. I think Rob Watts handled the questions and topics extremely well, without being in the least bit defensive or harshly critical of the opinions made in the original articles. But most of all, what strikes me, yet again, is (as Rob emphasised many times) the importance of LISTENING in order to inform our assessment and opinions, as well as making measurements - some of us can only do the former. Sadly and for reasons I’ll never understand, some people only ever do the latter, and remain insistent and have entrenched, strong opinions on what numbers and measurements can tell them without ever believing there is anything to be gained by listening. But to take that approach when it comes to audio and audio equipment, when its primary purpose is to be listened to (and give us pleasure) is utter madness. Anyone who understands the basic principles of a true scientific approach (to any subject) must accept that there will always be occasions when we cannot initially understand or explain the basis for observed events - That’s the whole point of theorising and subsequent scientific experimentation, testing and critical peer review as the process by which we eventually arrive at universally accepted scientific ‘laws’ or truths; that is until science develops further and someone may discover it’s slightly or radically different to previously thought! History of science demonstrates this. Thank goodness Rob Watts believes in the importance of listening, and demonstrated how it is an essential part of both his own learning process as well as how products are developed. That enormous intellect of his only gets him so far, as many, many years of experience have shown him that there are some things you cannot measure but we can still hear, and there are also things that we can measure but either don’t make and audible difference, or can’t be heard as such but do affect our perception of sound (particularly depth). Psychoacoustics is a fascinating subject and there’s still a lot about what our brains (and ears) are capable of that we don’t yet fully understand. That’s why everyone needs to keep and open mind (and open ears 😉). Thanks again - brilliant job 👍
I have the TT2 and M Scaler. 90% of my music is 44/16 flac. Yes they are expensive pieces of kit but all I can say is my listening sessions are pure pleasure. You’re there in the studio with some recordings. It can become almost spiritual at times. Regardless of measurements and debates like this which are over my head, those chord pieces are worth a couple of good vacations for the pure joy they give.
I completely agree, Keith. So glad you're enjoying them! I think if this were all snake oil as claimed there would be many more unhappy Chord customers screaming about it, but most people have either moved on due to personal preferences, sold and then rebought Chord, or just bought it and never looked back. That's pretty good evidence IMO
@@PassionforSound 100%, I think it was very good of you to have Rob Watts on to put those questions to and the way you did it was great. Not easy to question someone on their life’s work. I think the Audio Research guy is doing a good job too but it just shows that measurement v listening tension. This is what online should be about, honest debate. You’re one of the people who promote that and I thank you for what you do.
Thanks Keith. That's certainly my intent. I don't believe in shutting down any open, honest inquiry and conversation, but also believe that we need to highlight potential misinformation when it arises and let those who want to make up their own minds to have more information at hand to do so for themselves.
@@PassionforSound I happen to have read Shannon Sync Function theory and find his work very interesting, therefore, his approach to long interpolation filters to properly approach the decay of Sync Function is fantastic. Many don't agree and won't agree, however, listening to his DACs is a pleasure. I recently bought the M Scaler and absolutely love it with the Qutest.
So glad you're enjoying the M-Scaler and Qutest and that you've taken the time to read up on the theory. It makes a lot of sense once you do the reading and helps to appreciate Rob's approach, doesn't it?
@@PassionforSound It sure does, I also saw that you liked the TT-2 better than the Holo Audio May, which many are hailing as the best thing since sliced bread.
I did prefer the TT2 by a small margin, but mostly due to the value provided by the DAC/HP amp combo it offers. The May is a brilliant DAC for those who already have their amps/preamps sorted. I still slightly prefer the sound from TT2, but it's a very small margin
Always a good time trying to keep up with Rob's explanations. Thanks for the content, was highly informative. I like it when the engineers who design the device are brought into the discussion. Emphasis on "discussion". Because that's what it should be.
He had seen and discussed all of the measurements and findings as people posted them on Head-Fi for discussion. He didn't actually need to read the full ASR review and I asked him to answer my questions, not critique the actual review
The issue is the irrelevance of the measurements, Ian, and there's not hate for Amir. I am disappointed that it has produced a set of measurements that don't reflect the actual performance of the device, but he's used then to claim that the device does nothing. It's either an unprofessional or ignorant approach to the interpretation of the measurements.
Now, it’s like interviewing Volkswagen about their own DieselGate ….. and casting doubts on the EPA actual measurements of the claimed mileage and emissions. Do we see the same similarities here ? And that singular act of deceit, fraud and conspiring by the Volkswagen Group collapsed the auto market for diesel cars.
If you can hear a difference then therefore there is a difference, this idea that if something measures the same that it sounds the same is ridiculous. It's very simple, purchase whatever sounds good to YOU.
It would have been useful if the gentleman had looked at the ARS review of his product, and then point by point refute ARS’s findings. The fact that he ignored the review speaks volumes. The claim on the Chord M-Scaler website (03/06/2023) is it “…upscale standard 44.1kHz to digital audio up to 705.6kHz…” is akin to saying you can make a four egg omelet with only two eggs. You can added extra ingredients so that it has the same volume (pun intended), BUT it’s never going to be a four egg omelet. I call snake oil!
You've misunderstood how upsampling is intended to work. It's not creating data that's not there, it's based on the premise of using more advanced algorithms to predict where the intersample data points lie to help more accurately reconstruct the analog waveform. All upsampling/oversampling DACs do this internally. The aim of the M-Scaler is to do it better rather than relying on the DAC.
THIS WAS TOTALLY INSPIRATIONAL AND A VINDICATION OF MY LONG-HELD BELIEF AS A PHYSICIST AND AN AUDIOPHILE. For me this is one of the most significant interviews in my audiophile experience, now 53 years (and counting!) I have long held the belief that measurements are not the whole story and after over 50 years of critical detailed listening have had some experiences that bore this out. One significant event was my purchase of an amplifier to replace my Leak Delta 70. On paper it measured like the textbook on amplifier design and received rave technical reviews. After 3 weeks of listening, i couldn't bear to hear it any more and gave it to a relative. That was the last time i relied on the test results to sell me a component. Another experience is my use of supertweeters to add air and realism despite the fact that my ears should not be able to hear the frequencies they reproduce. But an A/B test is very conclusive in favour of the supertweeters. So bottom line: satisfy the psychoacoustics and the quality of the experience will improve. Enjoyment follows. All the best, Rob in Switzerland
I'm glad you liked the interview, Rob. As you say, the psychoacoustics are so important. The key thing that's often overlooked is that we are still learning about how we perceive sounds (including ultrasonics that we can't consciously hear) so any measurements HAVE to be incomplete until we learn what it is that we should be measuring.
@@PassionforSound i couldn't agree more. This is why I am skeptical of channels/websites that "trash" products based solely on measurements without the extensive listening tests that Rob has performed. What a unique and privileged position he has to be able to conduct such detailed comparisons! Most of us would give our right arm for such a chance! Until it's clear what parameters play which role, it's premature to condemn any product. The empirical fanatics also deny cables have a significant influence. Anecdote: to choose my analog interconnect I auditioned two sets of interconnects for weeks. It quickly became clear that one set was unlistenable for long periods (the musicians played the same melody but not together) and another was extremely musical and can be listened to for hours and hours on end. I chose the more musical of the two. At the end of the day it's about musical enjoyment, not measurements. All the best, Rob in Switzerland PS. In my physics degree we had an acoustics specialisation which I and friends also took. In my year were both Andrew Jones (star loudspeaker designer) and Arthur Khoubessarian ()of Pink Triangle and Funk Firm fame - inspirational turntable designer).
Basically asking the designer of the faulty product his opinion doesn't seem like a good thing. He is part of the company trying to sell you the product. So in no way objective
I think the real question people need to ask is not - can we measure the performance of this device - but, what is the value of placebo? It's the old "Matrix" question from Cypher - if it's all in the head, imagined, but still enjoyable, does knowing the device does nothing lessen that enjoyment? Mind over matter, I guess. There are some who just embrace the placebo and are at peace knowing they hear a difference. There are others who, when the learn the device is doing nothing, suddenly cannot enjoy it anymore.
No, it's not okay if you enjoy it. If someone is selling you magic beans, it's not okay just because you enjoy it. If someone sells you counterfeit painting, it's not okay, just because you like it.
How could the m-scaler change the transients for the better? The transients are allready in the recording and if the m-scaler retains the fidelity of the source material it shouldnt touch the duration, timing, frequency response or level of the transients.
The crux of this is we are finally able to get our hands on sophisticated test equipment that allows us to really see how these expensive devices actually work or don't work. For so long we have had to take the manufacturers word for it. The result? We are now finding a lot of 'legendary' people in the Hi-Fi field are really not that qualified or qualified at all. It's causing a lot of embarrassment for a lot of people that have have reigned unquestioned since the 70's and 80's. Time to clean house and put some of them out to pasture.
That's not at all the case. The reality of it is that some people choose to believe that irrelevant measurements tell the whole story just because they've been measured with an expensive piece of equipment. Part of my reason for reaching out to Rob Watts about this was to understand what the data wasn't telling us and there are huge gaps in the data Amir has provided. If you don't like the M-Scaler or Chord, that's completely fine - it's not a brand or product for everyone, but the claims being made about the M-Scaler at ASR are just incorrect, based on ignorance and an over-reliance on the fact that an APx555 has been used. I could use the best surgeon's tools available, but it doesn't mean you should trust me to conduct a complex operation on someone.
@@PassionforSound Okay so get Rob to test it and show us what it really does then? It's just a piece of electronic kit after all. Not some magical box. Get him to measure it and show how it really works. But I bet you won't.
I won't because I don't feel the need to. I've listened to it for myself and everything Rob has said stacks up when I listen to it. If someone can produce relevant measurements that disprove Rob's claims, that's a whole different story, but knowing that Rob's approach involves BOTH measurements (in the digital and analog domains) as well as listening tests implies that the measurements of his devices will stack up where they matter. As we discussed here, the jitter performance isn't so good from the M-Scaler for a good reason. That's an example of Rob merging real life performance and an understanding of the measurements that matter.
It is always great to understand the complexities of digital, Rob Watts always fascinates me. Math Issues, compromises and work around decisions which Chord engineers have made in building a product that I enjoy. Though not perfect, it has brought me closer to the real thing. It is not just about measurements but for me the connection with the music.
When are people going to stop confusing the phrases, "high fidelity" and "it makes my ears happy." This machine will, at best, change the sound from the original input and people will pay 5k for it because "audiophile."
This product is designed 100% with the intention to more accurately reproduce the analog waveform as it was originally recorded. People saying otherwise aren't taking the time to understand the intent of the product.
No-one claimed it was unbiased. I reached out to Rob Watts because I had doubts about the value of Amir's measurements relative to the M-Scaler and the conclusions he was drawing as a result so I asked the designer to discuss my understanding of those measurements and to clarify from his perspective. Nothing different from that was claimed
Because the information presented on ASR was incomplete and largely irrelevant to the actual performance of the device. On top of that, ASR followers were flooding every forum and UA-cam channel with negative and often abusive comments so I felt like balancing the equation was needed for people who like to consider all sides before making up their minds
Many Audiophiles obsess over trivia. This is an expensive box that may or may not give subtle results. The truth is that room acoustics and loudspeaker choice have far more effect on audio quality. The very best speaker produces high levels of distortion which masks more subtle differences. Spemd your money on speakers that sound good to you and attend to room acoustics. Just moving your speakers or listening position can give very noticable changes to audio quality.
No doubt there's some truth to that, Geoff. The choice of speakers/headphones and main components are definitely the most important. Once that's all in place though, something like the M-Scaler can provide a nice additional lift to the sound
@@PassionforSound Also for some of us, there is a limit to what can be done with the room. I'm very happy with my speakers, and I have a subtle amount of rear wall absorption and corner bass trapping, within the realms of domestic acceptability. Once you hit that ceiling, the increments need to come from somewhere else. I will admit that the M-Scaler has given me the largest amount of mental gymnastics, as a TT2 owner I'm on the fence about whether I want / need one. I've also considered the Blu Mk2 transport so that I get both the Scaler and a transport in one box.
I don't believe the Blu is capable of anything near what the M-Scaler is doing. If course, if you pair it up with HQPlayer and Roon, that's a different story 🙂
Why is Chord not reaching out with a plan to speak with Amir. This is strange marketing. Involving a non engineer not even a tech. Your mindset reveals judgments right at the start… “I can’t believe it’s as bad as that…” And Rob hasn’t bothered to read or watch Amir’s work published… sounds like another MOFI Gate situation.
I reached out to Rob. Chord aren't involved at all (Rob works for Chord as a consultant, not an employee). I suspect Chord hasn't reached out to Amir because his measurements of the M-Scaler don't really warrant discussion because they aren't measuring what it does and are just an arbitrary set of measurements that illustrate nothing meaningful about an upsampler.
The measurements are something I could do without. However, the enjoyment is not. Measurements have their place but there is a segment of folks out there who make the mistake of living by it. I don’t have any Chord pieces but I’ve spent time with the Hugo, Mojo, and the Dave. The Hugo and Dave were impressive to me. In the larger scheme of things, ASR is a tiny piece of of the audio pie that can be taken or left. That’s the beauty of this hobby as it’s all subjective in the end. I really like that you invited Rob on to discuss the engineering behind it. 👍🏻
If only we could also pay for the products subjectively. It’s all subjective until they start talking about prices than it’s objective down to the last cent, consumers always get the short end of the stick.
At 5:03 rob said he did not read the ASR measurement!! What this episode is all about it and investing 15 minutes to skim through the article seems the righ thing to do
Two points to consider here: 1) I asked Rob to answer my questions, not read and critique the ASR review 2) the ASR review has been discussed at length on Head-Fi where Rob is very active. There was no need for him to read it on ASR
There really isn’t any journalism when it comes to hifi, is there? Rob is basically allowed to say whatever he wants without any challenges. “Hey, I need the noise to make the depth, no choice, don’t measure the noise, it’s no relevant”. What?? No actual responses to some very disturbing facts (that may or may not tell the full story, but are still very much there), and a host that is either unwilling or incapable of challenging the discourse. A shining example of what’s wrong in our hobby.
I'm not qualified to challenge Rob's responses, Alfy, so the best I can do is allow him to comment on the measurements and let others put the pieces together for themselves. That said, I do know that the measurements that started all this were misleading and irrelevant to a product like this and that's what started off this interview to try and share the other side so people could see both sides and make up their own mind.
Right off the top, his claim that he has not read the ASR review lacks credibility. Add to this the fact that the Chord Dave also tested to performance levels below that of a $150 DAC, I start to form a pretty strong opinion. It is time that measurements proving transparency be considered table stakes for all digital and D/A converters, because there is simply no excuse for that not to be true.
This is an insanely long 1-hour video with you and a totally senile Rob Watts clutching at straws to uphold a box costing several thousands €,£ or $ which would be better kept off any rig if fidelity to the source is important.
Love it when a manufacturer who is unsatisfied with the objective reviews of their product respond by saying..."maybe there is a problem with the unit" the only problem is the measurement revealed the facts. There is a problem with the unit
No-one suggested there was an issue with the M-Scaler. Rob confirmed that all of these measurements looked accurate - they're just not relevant to the function of the device
Thank you for getting your hands dirty on this!! It's important there is a balanced approach to big, possibly damaging claims. However... the cost to performance ratio remains a question in my mind.
That's always going to be a personal equation and something that I think can only be answered by trying it for yourself. I personally am yet to find a setup that I prefer over the M-Scaler and TT2 so it's definitely good value to me, but we're all different. 🙂
The DAVE is brilliant and technically superior, but I find myself preferring the character of the sound from the TT2 with the M-Scaler over the DAVE and M-Scaler. I'll explain more in the DAVE review because it's not a clear better vs worse IMO
Why didn't he just go straight to ASR. I have watched the video, but he shows little to nothing ! He has now measured the Dave dac, and it's not that good. Maybe they can get together and do a video ! Probably won't do that, better brush it under the carpet !
Basically, the entire thread has been captured via comments on the M-Scaler Head-Fi thread so he essentially has read it, just at a different location. Paul F, if you're saying it's hard to argue with Amir's measurements, you really need to go back and listen to the interview again because the whole discussion was around the fact that those specific measurements are irrelevant for the M-Scaler because he's treated it like a DAC and not understood what the product is actually designed to do.
@@paulf3353 he is being interviewed about his product and asked questions relating to measurements. I love that there is no contradiction or denial of any measurements. He is not arguing about the measurements. He is explaining and discussing his design choices and why it makes things sound better and how the measurements relate to that improvement. It’s brilliant as an engagement.
I was very interested to hear what Rob was saying about comparing a recording to reality. I'am always amazed that reviewers often listen to electronic or studio recorded music to review equipment. With electronic music you have no reference to what it should sound like. With studio recordings you are just listening to the reality the engineer has created, a lot of sound altering equipment and an artificial environment/soundstage. To me it's critical to listen to acoustical instruments recorded live and instruments you have heard live and are familiar with. Even better, make high quality recordings of instruments and vocals in the listening room with the microphones at the listening position. Then you have a good reference to how it should sound. You can then hear and describe the differences the equipment under review makes and how close it is to reality.
I agree, Nick. In an ideal world, having a reference recording would be amazing. I think it's worth remembering that when using live recordings, things like mic placement and mic choice can all also influence the sound so live recordings aren't necessarily better than studio recordings because every recording will be influenced by the setup, but I definitely take your point. Electronic music can be good for testing things like frequency response and imaging accuracy (how focussed the sound can be, not accuracy of placement) so all styles of music and recording have their uses, but they do need to be understood.
@@PassionforSound I would agree that electronic music can be good for checking things like bass response and dynamics, not sure about imaging accuracy though, as the environment has to be emulated. Although this can, I guess, be computed quite accurately these days. I just get a bit frustrated with a lot of reviews because I want to know, and it’s often missing, how transparent the equipment is, how close is gets to reproducing the original instruments, vocals and environment. Keep up the good work and thanks for showing this interview with Rob.
@@PassionforSound Symphonica by George Michael, orchestra & one of the best British voices ever. I have the Bluray hi-res 2 channel mixes in 24/96 PCM, DTS-HD (lossless) & Dolby TrueHD (lossless)
Nonsense, you praised the mscaler prior but now the truth comes out and shows your opinion was a placebo and biased towards chord as many of us thought. Now your trying to save your reputation. Something that is supposed to upgrade the sound quality factually degrades the sound signal. I've got some mud in my garden that does the same thing, can you review that too. How can we take what you say seriously after this?
@@PassionforSound not really. In all your comparison videos you always finish by favouring the chord product. Either you are biased or your not very good at reviewing audio equipment.
Or perhaps I'm yet to find a better sounding product? As I said in the May review, I really wanted it to be better, but I liked the TT2 more. Interestingly enough, I also make money from affiliates with other brands but none whatsoever from Chord. The motivation kind of goes against your theory as I'd be far better shilling for Topping and SMSL (who's products I often praise), but instead my two favourite DACs are from Chord and Schiit, neither of which make me a cent to recommend.
I don't know why some people seem out to get Rob Watts, he dose his own thing, and is one of the few who does, he gives much of his time, shares alot of his information in a calm and sincere way. I happened to buy a Tube Technology DAC64 and Transport back about 20 years ago. It sounded differentiate from anything else I had heard, and I fell in love with what it did in my system. I wanted to know why, it brought me to hearing about Rob as it was his design. I like his stuff, I don't like something I don't buy it, simple.
@@PassionforSoundNo, but they can be tricked into buying things by people who purport to be reviewers but are actually shills or clowns. Giving people facts about products enables them to make better choices. If something is badly designed, performs poorly or is faulty then people should be informed.
The trouble with Amir is that he seems resistant to acknowledging when he misses something in his tests or uses poor testing methods. For example, in his JC2 preamp review, he criticized its performance but failed to realize that he had used the trims in a way which shunted input voltage to ground. I politely explained his mistake and got not response in the thread.
I don't think this would add anything useful to the debate. I'm not a shill for chord products, but I will believe the designer Rob watts any day of the week.
@38:07 is it not convenient that some aspects of Rob’s design implementations, that he claims sound better, cannot be measured? If it is more art than science than just say so.
Not really convenient. If it were easy to measure these things we'd have way more cheaper, better sounding DACs. Thankfully we have people out there going beyond the simple measurements to design products that also sound fantastic
If you can hear it, you absolutely can measure it, otherwise you couldn't hear. Moreover, instruments can measure what you can't hear. Calling out art is absurd, art is done with science and tecnique, do not mistake the perception of its beauty with its principles of making...
There are no analog measuring devices that have the sensitivity needed to measure some of what's being done in the digital domain of products like this (e.g. noise shaping)
@@PassionforSound What's being done is using equations, which is math, so absolutely measurable, to concentrate noise, which is meaureable, in frequenzy bands to which hearing, which is measurable, is less sensible. There's no need of noise shaping if you produce an instrument which put all the possible noise directly to a non audible level, and this is absolutely measurable.
The lack of noise is absolutely measurable, but the listening tests conducted during the creation of some of these products showed that mathematically quantifiable changes to the noise floor (via noise shaping) that go beyond measurable limits were still influencing the subjective enjoyment of the device. All of this is also before we discuss the timing accuracy of transients in the musical signal which cannot be measured (AFAIK) with currently available analog tools.
My first experience with upsampling came from using an RPi 3+ and an Allo DigiOne (whole kit under $200.00). My source was an ODroid HC2 ($50.00 + SSD). DAC/etc was a NAD T758 AVR ($1500.00ish). Aside from the AVR, all very cheap gear. I tried the DigiOne because the only way to get music from my server to my AVR was through blusound - which really sucked to use. You would not ask about blind tests if you had something like this. I tried the upsampling one day while listening with my son, I had no expectations at all. Ya, night and day, black and white, left or right.
I get the feeling the purely objective-only mob could take four amps which measure at 100w into 8 ohms and same but more into 4 ohms, 2 ohms etc. With distortion/noise similar too. One would be a tube amp, one class A solid state, a class AB and a class D. I am sure they could argue they should all sound the same. Most of us know they certaintly will not!
I agree. Unfortunately, the fact that they've seen the measurements would likely result in them hearing them as sounding all the same too. The consideration/argument of bias seems to only work in one direction...
@@PassionforSound you could design a perfect wind-up, steel needle gramaphone, but no-one is going to think it's going to sound like a high resolution digital sound file though a state-of-the-art DAC and loudspeakers.
“The next measurement I questioned was… “ both of you laugh again. Very unbiased for sure. Not. You’re interviewing without your notes and Rob is trying to answer without reading the post/ watch the video. This is a messy discussion on both sides.
Rob Watts mentions several times about listening tests. How are these preformed? Who does them? If it’s Rob, is he shaping the filter with his middle aged ears with inevitable frequency compromised? These things would have been good to know.
I think we spoke about that in my original interview with Rob if you want to check that out. I don't think his ears are an issue though because tonally the products are great (and the WTA filters were designed quite some time ago now). Also much of the testing is being done to identify the depth of the soundstage and that won't be as influenced by age related hearing losses as something like frequency response tuning.
The facts that Rob has done real listening tests live mic feed to digital output and is honest about the results says a lot how many designers have done that ?Digital is not simple and there is still along way to go to make "perfect"
I can never get get over the strong levels of feeling (almost hate sometimes) over a product that nobody is forcing anyone to purchase. If I could afford such a luxury item I would want to handle it to get a feel for its quality and LISTEN to it. If I liked what I was hearing I wouldn't care what forums said or what the endlessly measuring fanatics said, I would buy it and enjoy it.
I won't say that I fully understood your conversation with Rob Watts - both of you are a universe away from my understanding of Audio Engineering. All I can say is that I have the TT2 and MScaler and just as I can marvel at the miracle of television, telephone and electricity without understanding how they work, I can also marvel at the improved sound that the MScaler has provided to my system-without understanding how it works.
@@BillNepill yeah, I would agree. It's physics and I am an engineer. Still want to see the result if possible. A true engineer doesn't have predefined bias.
Regarding subjective evidence... Is there hard proof that you love your mother? Or that she loves you? No. Only you and she know and experience that reality, so it can't be measured and proven, yet you wouldn't argue that it's not real because of that.
From 28.00 after mentioning psycho acoustics, you mention the brain having a level of accuracy that can perceive data higher than the sampling frequency. Can you elaborate what frequencies?
We were talking about the "sampling frequency" of the brain. I.e. it's timing accuracy. This is the whole issue with the ASR take on the M-Scaler - it was 100% focussed on frequency and jitter when the M-Scaler is entirely focussed on improving the timing accuracy of the signal.
I'm sorry, but when someone "raccomends" a piece of equipment that costs 5 grands he cannot hide behind " if you don't enjoy it, it's totally fine ". Also talking about subjectivity it's completely unaccettable. The objective results say that this product has a negative impact on sound. What proof do we have that, objectively, it also adds something positive? None, only poorly conducted listening tests. If Chord wants to sell me something it has to prove it's good. Evidently its customers don't care about this and are willing to spends thousands of dollars. i am not.
Strong words. How do you determine what type of music you listen to? Do you do that objectively or subjectively? Do objective measurements tell you what type of music you should like? What happens when you change out a piece of your chain based on objective measurements? When it changes the flow of your system do you chalk that up to objectivity? Every piece of gear has its own sound. Even the ones that are supposed wires with gain and are meant to impart no flavor. What do you do when an item that has lower distortion numbers or SINAD numbers still sounds good to you? Or do you steer clear because the measurements say it won’t sound good? How about when those measurements are past the point of human hearing capabilities? Will you say that those measurements lead to intangibles that you can feel but can’t hear? Isn’t that a subjective listening experience? Just curious how you can say that subjectivity is completely unacceptable in a world where nothing is at it seems. Do you only see black and white? I can understand you not wanting to spend $5k for a piece of equipment, but if that designer can’t hide behind “if you don’t enjoy it, it’s totally fine”, why can someone who makes a piece of gear that is $300 say the same thing? Someone’s $300 could be the same as someone else’s $5k. Is it a matter of railing on equipment that is expensive and the people who can afford it?
Are you listening to music or measurements? What's the objectively best recording out there? Objectively best brand of violin? Which violin strings are objectively the best? Is there an objectively best concert hall that all music should be recorded in? I guess you see my point. Nothing in the audio chain from the musician to the instrument to the venue to the playback chain can be defined 100% objectively so subjectivity is absolutely the final arbiter whether we like it or not.
@@PassionforSound first, most contributions from this device end up in the inaudible spectrum, so it's not subjective. second, there's added distortion, noise and jitter in the inaudible AND audible specturm, all objective alterations that are universally considered bad, even on your channel. third, all frequency response curves, pass-thru - 2x - 4x- 16x, still land on top of each other. so objectively nothing changed. period, no need to get philosophical.
Once again, you have shown courage to discuss issues that seem arouse hostility in some viewers. I appreciate how you emphasize "It's your experience, It's my experience" and is subjective. You also express the difficulties of black and white thinking to a discussion. I as well appreciate Rob's willingness to appear to discuss the measurements of the M scaler. I think manufacturers like Chord must be ready for this kind of scrutiny and have such measurements and descriptions available before the scrutiny. The flip side is that some of the audiophile sites seem to prefer "GotchYa" tactics and "snake oil". It is much better to be open to both opinions and explore for oneself what one thinks and hears. Thank you for making that more possible.
From Rob you mean? I think the only thing I question (and I don't yet know for sure) is if his claims about other DACs (specifically R2R because I know about other delta sigma DACs) are actually not doing as good a job with transients. I also didn't understand some of the final piece. I can't recall what it was specifically, but said in the video that I kind of let the detail slide because the key piece of information was covered to answer my question and the rest was going to take too long to unpack.
What I would like to see is the conversation between Amir from ASR, and Rob Watts from Chord..... I would be more interested in seeing Rob Watts response on Amirs finding on ASR web site. This would be the conversation worth seeing. Would Rob Watts dare to take on Amirs results on ASR website by going over detail by detail on Amirs findings? I doubt it! If he could explain the results, why not Rob Watts explain them to the Amir from ASR, then show the results from the interview between Amir, and Rob Watts, and then see how the Chord M-Scaler could be improved on. Anything less than that is just trying to justify the Chord M-Scaler with a lot of useless one sided gibberish. I trust Amirs unbiased findings over Rob Watts biased gibberish. Is the Chord M-Scaler over priced at US $2,950.....most definitely.
I had the Hugo TT2 & M-Scaler and liked it a lot. But in the end I sold both of them after a few weeks for funds to buy other Gear and Headphones. Just too expensive for my wallet at the end of the day for my needs. I recently got the Burson Conductor 3X Gran Tourer All in One and it's a direct competitor with the Hugo TT2 for half the cost. I've learned the hard way that Price does not always translate to best sound. It's all subjective. I prefer the Burson House sound over Chord's
I would argue that above a certain quality&price point the discussion of better than the other is the wrong question. Instead it's just a matter of taste
Johan, I definitely think there is a point where the gains to be had are minimal and the extra details, etc. aren't always necessary or preferable from an enjoyment perspective. The idea that there's no difference (based on the measurements) doesn't stack up when you actually listen to them, but the idea that it's all subjective preference absolutely does 🙂
Bud, do yourself a favor - all gear is based on science and therefore measurements. You cannot design and produce gear by being subjective. Understand that.
Perhaps the favour to be done should be in raising your awareness of the aspects of sound that we still don't understand and therefore can't measure. For example, we don't yet understand what measurements define soundstage size and imaging, how the brain separates the complex waveform into individual sounds (and therefore what we would even need to measure) or how sensitive we actually are to a measurement like jitter. There's also emerging scientific, peer reviewed studies now showing that the inaudible high frequency content of music somehow influences our perception of that music even though we can't consciously perceive the sound. So if you think that everything can be designed with science and measurements, you're operating with misinformation.
1:15 surely the salesman of the product would have the most conflict of interest for providing unbiased opinions regarding the crticisms of his product, no? This was supposed to be about anaylisng audio measurements (if I understood the preface of this video properly, from the intro), not the m-scaler in particular. Should've got an expert not from Chord, to talk about audio measuring and what was missing/red herrings from Amir's test procedure and how it relates to the m-scaler, as opposed to 'an opportunity for Chord to defend their product' which this video turned out to be. I'm disappointed with the direction of this 'discussion'. Could've been a good one, an oppotunity to look at common practices within this industry but this video turned out to be just another youtuber trying to stir another beefy pot. I love how Rob just pops out of nowhere to discuss the m-scaler for an hour on youtube as soon as the ASR video is released, but he hasn't seen it. Lol Why is the interviewer asking the manufacturer how to best test their own product? Seems backwards in so many ways. Nobody asks nvidia how to test their GPUs if it scores poorly in a benchmark. Why is it happening here? P.s. Wouldn't it be funny if Amir was secretly a Topping empoyee.
Rob Watts isn't a sales person for Chord. He's an external contractor employed by Chord to design their DACs. Also, this was entirely focussed on discussing the measurements of the M-Scaler. Sorry if that was unclear from the intro. Finally, there's some great content from Golden Sound on his own UA-cam channel (@goldensound) and also on a recent episode of the Darko Audio Podcast that's more generally discussing the pros and cons of measurements on all types of devices. I'd recommend all of that content for a more thorough and balanced explanation.
Sorry, I missed one other thing in your comment. Amir is not a Topping employee to my knowledge, but I've seen it said that his forum/website is supported by someone from Topping/SMSL as a financial contributor. (I haven't verified this personally so please check this before running with it)
Agreed, I can't understand why these people get all butt hurt about this issue, they are basically, acting like 'White Knights' for people with too much money available to them. I mean, if you've got 14 grand to drop on a hi fi device that, allegedly, improves your $13000 dac, you don't really have that many issues, and you really don't need people telling you to buy a $500 dac, because, "it's just as good".
I have the Mojo, the Mojo 2 and the Qutest. They all do the same thing but to different degrees. They all pack an FPGA chip and upsample performing so many taps. None of them radically transform the sound, though the Mojo 2 has an EQ I absolutely love. You can't create higher resolution. You can, however, improve the transients. The best I can compare this to is the black levels on a flatscreen. The darker the blacks, the more colors pop and the more textured and dimensional the image appears. Better black levels won't give you higher resolution but it will enhance how the picture is displayed. I noticed this on the Mojo, more so on the Mojo 2, and definitely on the Qutest. I didn't hear more bass or an obvious amount of detail in the highs, but I'd hear these little nuances in the music, which would show up when I least expected. We talk about speed and attack. When it's sharper and better delineated, you notice things that were there all along but they stand out better. Some examples. I've had tracks I've heard for years, always thinking a certain note was continuous, unaware that it was actually segmented. I've had moments when it occurred to me, for the first time on a song I thought I knew, that the texture of a note or instrument was more complex than I'd thought. I'd hear pick work or a flash of reverb that I'd never given any thought about. About a second into Led Zeppelin's "Going to California," someone inhales off-mic. I don't know why I didn't hear it before. There's a moment, on Billy's "Still Rock and Roll to Me," when the effect of some filter on the vocals called attention to itself in ways I'd previously missed. They're just little things, sculpted out of the mix and heard differently - in my case, on headphones.
30 odd years ago you could con most people into buying overpriced hifi, but the game has been up for some time. Rob Watts/Chord had over a year before this interview to read Amirs review & its hard to believe that he hadn't. furthermore Amir at Audio Science Review openly challenged Chord to respond to his findings & so far nothing to this date - 6th April 2023.
That was an excellent interview Lachlan, and goes to show the vastly different levels of knowledge of a consumer like most of your viewers, a prosumer like ASR and a professional like Mr Watts. That digital "softens" music was certainly an interesting take away.
How was this excellent? First thing Rob says I don't want to talk about the tests. And hasn't even read the ASR review yet. Then they go on to talking about why Rob designed the mscaler the way he did and sidestepping the facts.
@@MW-ii5nb Rob does not have a reporting line to ASR and is therefore not obliged to respond to their every question. In addition it seems to me Lachlan raised the key critiques of ASR and Rob answered all of them - quite extensively in fact.
@@connorduke4619 OK... then why do an interview about the ASR review when you didn't even read the ARS review. Seems like a great way not to talk about the facts, and rub some snake oil on the watchers.
@@MW-ii5nb The facts were addressed. Whether or not you consider the replies to be snake oil is up to you. But for me the facts were all factually addressed.
I've worked in a field where this sort of measurement debate arises often. And I think it's a good thing overall; because we need to think critically about measurements. But that also means not taking for granted that measurements often only make sense within a particular context-they don't necessarily tell you everything you need to know all at once. When it comes to the design of audio products, I assume that product designers/engineers are sufficiently competent that they will attend to the relevant interpretive considerations when they conduct measurements. I don't assume they will measure mindlessly. Unfortunately, I do think some reviewers measure in this mindless fashion, and so they produce results that prima facie look bad, but they can't necessarily give anything more than a prima facie-superficial-comment. The value of such commentary is then inflated by the assumption that the measurement itself tells the full story; that no other interpretive considerations bring to bear. I think we need to adopt a more deflationary attitude to measurements-unless we're sufficiently competent to interpret them and understand their real-world implications. I know I definitely am not, at least in this area. But I'm also not sure that those enthusiastically reporting measurements are any better-equipped in this regard simply because they happen to possess measuring equipment. To put it bluntly, numbers are objective, yes; but understanding what the numbers *mean* may require a bit more than knowing the number itself, and if we want to get into *that discussion*, then I think we had better be prepared to learn a bit more. I appreciate Rob's effort here, but I think some are just going to lose sight of that.
I should've added: It's good that Rob mentions psychoacoustics because, well, that matters. If you are designing an audio product for human beings (i.e., one that needs to meet the listening needs of actual human subjects and not some idealised "listener" that doesn't actually exist) then taking into account how humans *actually hear what they hear* is hugely important.
The problem is the measurements don’t go far enough to convince the suckers of snake oil products, we need a measurement instrument to measure placebo, fraud and ignorance
Dear Felix, most probably you don’t know or care about the credentials of AMIR from ASR because you are insinuating the credibility of him not knowing about audio science. You may not understand objective measurements but don’t assume others too are ignorant or in the dark like you.
Thank you for the opportunity to hear Rob’s comments about the digital/analogue world and how neuroscience plays such an important part in what we perceive. Towards the end of the interview Rob discusses recording live in a church using pro-audio gear and comparing the live vs recorded playback. Rob says the differences (depth and transient attack) he attributes to the ADC filtering. Surely then, all DACs will fail to properly reproduce an accurate facsimile of the original sound? I think Rob is saying that the Chord M-Scaler + DACs are better than the competition but all are flawed. Rob said he is working on an ADC , it would be very interesting to hear a review of a live recording using a leading pro-Audio ADC and one of Robs ADC designs and then played back through Chord products.
Glad you liked the video. Yes, you're absolutely right that all digital recordings are reducing the maximum sense of depth according to Rob. He is working on an ADC and I'm personally excited to hear something recorded using it because his approach to combining digital audio science and psychoacoustics knowledge seem to produce consistently great results IMO
The Amir guy didn’t even measure what the Mscaler improves, namely transients. This is the same thing that Hi-Res files improve upon, and Amir doesn’t like high res either because he doesn’t know how and/or can’t measure it.
It’s very easy to measure audio transients, anyone with even a cheap oscilloscope can do it. I think you are just mad you got banned from ASR, plus you radiate your lack of technical knowledge for even saying the Amir doesn’t know and /or can’t measure it. It’s so ignorant you will only understand how ignorant that statement is once you’re educated in the matter
@@BwanaJesuasifiwe And yet he didn’t measure them. One will not be able to tell what MScaler does or doesn’t do with a just a 1 khz test tone through it as he did therefore his test is completely whack.
@@phototristan Why should he chase after a measurement which is pointless to measure, every DAC on the market can produce beyond the highest audible frequency wave transiently perfect, 20, 40, 200KHz etc is child’s play, if you compare it to the frequencies even your wireless router at home have to keep up with. A cheap internet router has better transients than a chord M-scaler if that’s something you care about. But it’s not needed in audio application to produce GHz frequencies. And it’s even more pointless to care about it after the initial recording. Audiofoolery! And I know you are not a technician but just think of it logically for a minute, the best speaker you can find in the world is part of the chain, and it has miserable transient response than even a working 5 dollar DAC will have. So why care about it anyway when it will be bottlenecked? There is so much to this absurdity it’s like absurdity on top of absurdity on top of absurdity ever so deeper you think about it. And we haven’t even reached the miserable transient response of a human eardrum which is also part of the chain.
By all accounts, HQ Player can get very close to the M-Scaler, but doesn't quite match it (according to an extensive review by Audio Bacon) and also is more fiddly (there are LOTS of settings to consider) and less versatile (it will only work for a computer as your source). I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just that there are pros and cons in both directions (the M-Scaler is really only ideal with Chord DACs and has to be with the DAC whereas HQ Player can be used on your source computer, but can send to Roon endpoints I believe)
@@PassionforSound I think the comment about not quite matching it is very subjective and system dependent. HQ Player has so many setting that picking the right one for your gear and taste is going to be a arduous task for sure. One reviewer that likes the HQ Player more (I think he said that) is Golden Sound. Who, along with you is one I have a lot of trust in. At this level not sure better is term I would use more like preferred.
That's very true about preferences being important and I'm not saying it's better, just that Audio Bacon found M-Scaler to be preferable. I tried HQ Player briefly, but found the range of options and settings onerous to wade through trying to find the right combination. I might need to revisit it sometime...
@@PassionforSound Golden Sound has created a set up file ( I think it is for the Holo Audio May ) that he found works best for the majority of music. Good luck would love to hear your comments. One thing that is important is that your DAC is galvanically isolated, and I found the USB connection was the preferred connection with the Holo Audio May KTE
I’ve not read the ASR review so I don’t know if the RFI issue with the m-scaler was identified; it certainly wasn’t mentioned in the interview with Rob. To my mind, the RFI introduced through the BNC connections is the biggest problem with the m-scaler technology in its current form. I have a Dave a bought a Blu II, which contained the first incarnation of the technology, though my understanding is that it’s reproduced in all material respects in the stand-alone m-scaler device. There was a significant increase in detail, depth and soundstage, but this was accompanied by a brittle harshness in the mids and highs that rendered timbres in those regions very artificial and wearying: the opposite of what I heard with the Dave alone. Eventually, on the head-fi thread Rob stated that the noise from the m-scalar processing (over a million taps) passed RFI into the Dave (which is why the two couldn’t be incorporated into a single unit as some requested), but he didn’t think it was significant, and described me as an outlier. His ears are the ultimate arbiter. He seems to have accepted that this might be a problem however, as the whole business of RFI filters on the BNC cables then started up (it was actually his suggestion), and when he developed the separate m-scaler he introduced RFI filters on the BNC outputs. I also understand he now uses the WAVE cables for BNC at home, with filters along the whole length of the cables. I was reliably informed by the developer of the WAVE cables that the stand-alone m-scale suffered the same RFI issues as when it was in the Blu II. There has even been an BNC to optical to BNC converter developed to overcome these RFI issues, apparently with good results. I fairness, I should say that many have used the m-scaler without noticing any such issues, and it might be limited to the Dave, the highest resolving Chord DAC, and only Chord DAC currently available developed before the m-scaler technology (perhaps RFI is addressed better in later models). Also, many Dave owners have not had a problem. To my ears however, and that of some others, the RFI induced noise is a serious setback. The Dave sans m-scaler might not be as detailed, but for me it’s more tonally accurate and listenable. I’ll be interested to hear your views when you review the Dave.
Great video thanks Lachlan! Always good to get a long chat about an engineers response to a lot of the discourse we see on UA-cam. We don't get that often enough, especially in the audiophile space. I totally agree with Rob that our perceptive systems are much more complex than we initially thought. Try telling someone 15 years ago that a human being can tell the difference between a 240hz and a 360hz display and they would laugh at you
@@humanbass were not talking about most people here though. Just like with audio, those who consume high refresh rate content are of course much more likely to see a difference in those higher rates. The point I'm making is that the difference IS noticeable by the human eye, which challenges several pre-conceived scientific notions of how our brains work. Just like how the miniscule time domain errors discussed in the video are noticeable by the human ear, despite years of research saying otherwise.
@@humanbass That's because most people aren't trained to play at 360hz. I thought the same before I upgraded to 360hz. After few months with a 360hz panel, I can say the visual fidelity clearly does make a difference in competitive play.
I have no idea what any of this means, nor do I know what an m scaler is. I presume though given I’ve got through life up till now without one I needn’t be too worried if it works or not 🤷🏼♂️
Rob could easily fool a layperson such as yourself and the vast majority of your audience. If he truly wished to challenge the findings he'd go directly to the source and place a point by point rebuttal on ASR's actual review. Nothing is stopping him from doing so, and with the traffic that site gets he'd have a huge platform dwarfing that of even Stereophile. By the way, Rob claims to be able to hear artifacts as low as -300 dB. Unless he has the hearing of a bat, that uses echolocation to navigate its surroundings, he's either lying or deluding himself.
Only liars, the incompetent or criminal shrink away from challenging their opposition when it comes to science and engineering. Lazy people who can't be bothered don't make for good scientists and engineers
That's laughable, Bill. Rob has designed, from the ground up, some of the best DACs on the planet both objectively and subjectively. Questioning his credentials as an engineer or scientist just shows that you haven't considered this properly or done any research into his work.
everything is correct. external clock via long wiring is inputing significant jitter. human ear understands that as "musical" or 3D sound... clock must me maximum 2 cm from processor, not 30+ cm
There is simple end to all this. MAKE a video and do REAL AB test on M-scaler with unbiased testers. Like a local university etc. End of story and you have real DATA about is it doing anything at all. But you know why no one can do it? Chord is not willing to loan the DAC/M-scaler to anyone who wants to so it. Why aren't chord doing it? Cos they know no one can do it.
I don't think anyone disagrees that measurements are useful. But do we know ALL the measurements necessary to make a great DAC? There is strong empirical evidence that the answer is no, which I think is kinda the crux of this video.
Science advances by presenting evidence that can be proven and repeated. That's it that's all. If you disagree with the the fact that we can compare the performance of DACs in regards of human hearing with measurements, then come up with your own blind tests done in a controlled environment and present your results. This is how science works.
The Term, Out of Your Depth springs to mind. Rob dodges so many questions, much like your responses on ASR. Your lack of knowledge was soon exposed. Youve done nothing but agree with any of the unproven claims Rob has made. It doesnt do what it claims and its provable.
Rob explained in the video that he was looking for the multiple closest to a specific frequency (98mHz or something in that realm) IIRC. He definitely explained the specific choice of 104.
@@PassionforSound Unfortunately 104MHz is not a multiple of 44.1kHz and 48kHz. He did also mention 115, 98 and 92, but the only frequency close to those that works is 15 x 7.056 = 105.84MHz. Maybe he meant 106 not 104 but that would be a strange mistake for him. If 16x oversampling is your goal then 16 x 7.056 = 112.896MHz would make more sense, but then you would have those leading edge problems he talked about.
I can't debate the merits of a particular frequency, but I do think Rob said it wasn't exactly 104, but 104 point something. I just rounded it to 104 for ease in the discussions
This is a horrible retort. All you did was get Robb Watts online to fluff up his products even more. He even said "I didn't read the ASR review" like he was high and mighty and too good to actually read the review. How does a person respond to a review without reading the review? That was literally Robb's words, him saying he didn't actually read the ASR review.
I asked Rob to come on and respond to the questions I had about the information presented on ASR. I didn't ask him to read and critique the review and he'd seen most of the measurements as they'd been copied and pasted into the M-Scaler discussion thread on Head-Fi. I think many of the people taking issue with the statement about Rob not reading the ASR review are actually just diverting from the real issue here which is that most of Amir's measurements of the M-Scaler are irrelevant to its operation and purpose.
It seems that many people who read ASR reviews want to believe the measurements and not the sound. Clinging to the reports justifies their put down’s of equipment that many people have bought and rate, only to be told by ASR and its followers that the equipment is rubbish. Thank you for a great interview with someone who speaks absolute sense and who’s equipment I buy and will buy again.
The problem with these is they try to address tiny nit picks but never address "does spending $5k make my music better" and the answer always seems to be "no". "My $5k gear doesn't make your music worse" isn't an interesting question to answer. Instead you end up with these puff pieces that let one side say all the same stuff they've always said but make it look legit.
Having listened to this, and listened to Amirs, it's clear Amir was correct and this channel is dithering. I loved Chords early amps, liked the 1st digital products, but its simply becoming high margins and proffit on loosely engineered equipment not meeting the bar quite often in audio. There is no use in this, until Robb Watts actually watches the ASR video and comments directly or discusses this with Amir we have flapping bingo wings and hot sauce.
Great interview, I'm very happy with the Mojo 2, it has a bigger sound then my Oppo Sonica and it allows me to use power hungry headphones away from home. Although I dont have Mscaler money, I will probably sell both and get a Hugo 3 if and when it comes out.
Glad you liked the interview and your Mojo 2, ZB. I'm with you, Luke, (mostly) - Chord and Schiit are my two clear preferences for DACs so far. I keep searching for something even better than the Chord approach, but I'm yet to find it.
@@MW-ii5nb "Good"? Maybe you mean "worth the money". When you get to products this costly, that will always be highly subjective. And I'm not convinced we all have the same wiring between our ears.
I stopped at "I haven't read the article".
No you didn't 😂
Yup. Snake oil salesman caught out with lies and BS. hahaahaaa. Did you know opening your speakers, dipping your loudspeaker wadding into the juices of surströmming then putting back inside your front ported speakers improves bass response, makes treble sweeter?
Rob starts the interview by stating that he didn't read the ASR article?
That's all I needed to hear. Why should I bother with another 49 minutes of video for a guy that couldn't take 10 minutes to look at the bench measurements?
Seriously, kick rocks. That told me all I needed to know.
Out of the gate Rob states, “So I haven’t officially read the ASR article so I don’t know what he was doing in terms of his measurements.” The typical response to smoke and mirrors.
That's because he's spent thousands in audiophile network switches, fuses and magic pebbles.
'I haven't read it.'.... why am I paying attention to you?
Please see the many other comments where I have responded to this (including the pinned comment IIRC)
Why’s Ron commenting on a review he states he knows nothing about? This is weird and absurd.
He said he didn't read it, but he knew plenty about it. There had been lengthy discussions about it on Head-Fi by this point so there were no mysteries
Maybe he should have read it because it rips him and his mscaler apart.
Goes on a podcast to discuss ASR's measurements, and doesn't even read the review beforehand. Yeah great idea.
They're scum, utter scam artists. I hope the world they see crumbling around them falls sooner rather than later. WE LOVE THE TRUTH (AKA.... TRANSPARENCY ;P)
Now, I would like to see you interview Amir from ASR, then go over Amirs measurement results of the Chord M-Scaler. This would be the unbiased way to get the real facts, and what it means to the customer purchasing the Chord M-Scaler. Amir is very open to reviews of his findings. I am very curious of why Rob Watts from Chord has not done this? Intriguing!
Amir is very open to reviews of his findings? Guess we've read comments entirely different Amir's.
He won’t do it, because the measurements are true. This would definitely make me stay away from Chord products. Changes something that only the human mind can determine.😂
Yep, I attempted to have a conversation over on ASR and it proved mostly fruitless with the one bright spot being a forum member with some very interesting insights and thoughts.
Sadly, Amir chose to ignore my direct questions and focus on trying to discredit my subjective listening experiences and teach me how to do it right.
I can understand the subjective listening thing ! But he should still engage with you.
@@PassionforSound aahhh yep, there's the Amir I've read posts from.
The guest agreed to an almost hour long interview in response to an ASR measurement report, but didn't provide you the courtesy of reading it ahead of time to see what the complaints were? Something smells poopy in here.
Almost the entire set of measurements had been discussed at length in a Head-Fi thread where he was active so he didn't come in unaware.
@@PassionforSound Thank you, fair enough. Appreciate the correction.
No problems. Thanks for being open to the conversation. 🙂
@@PassionforSound Thanks PFS we need more of this open minded public discourse.
@@PassionforSoundthere is no need to discuss hard data with audiophile idiots. Now it's your job to provide evidence to counter his data.
Good luck with that.
Thank you for reaching out to Rob Watts! Really appreciate the inquisitive approach you took to the questions ASR's measurements brought up.
Glad it was helpful/interesting!
Hmmm .... so at the beginning, Watts says he HASN'T read the ASR review. Wha .... ??
The whole review has basically been reproduced on Head-Fi so there wasn't really a need for him to read it in its entirety. Also, I asked him to answer some questions that I had, not to read the review.
@@PassionforSound I liked this interview, PFS. So ... maybe you should edit that Rob Watts comment out.
Once uploaded, videos on UA-cam can't be replaced without releasing it as a brand new video. Plus, I believe in not altering someone's words to suit an agenda. If a person can't look past that one statement and focus on the fact that Rob is simply answering my questions, not critiquing the ASR review directly (which I respect him for) then I doubt any changes to the video will get through to them.
@@PassionforSound The review is a miniscule amount of words anyone could easily skim it. Just read the thing. I'm sure he has or at least his lawyers have. I don't buy that this guy isn't aware of every last word Amir wrote. This is going to cost him a lot of money right or wrong. If he is right I hope he has the wherewithal to prove it in court.
@@georgestephenopolous5508hahahaha 🤣
The Emperor's New Clothes - one only has to know how to sell it. For many, the impossibility to prove a negative (something not having an effect after all) seems to be good enough to believe in the salvation.
Rob Watts reminds me of Nelson Pass, another one of my favourite engineers. While they both understand the theory, and measure copiously, both talk consistently and repeatedly about 'listening tests'. This sort of humility and curiosity, and authenticity to the music is something I respect a lot.
If he was serious he should talk about CONTROLLED listening tests.
I completely agree, jelt! There's a lot to be said for years and years of combining measurements AND listening tests.
They slowly, slowly deviated the subject and answered what they wanted.
Way is the measurements so of the original one? Because the £4000 - £5000 up-simpler has another filter that works best only with 2 DAC's, Hugh TT2 and Dave. Is so simple.... un upscale filter cost around $100 and Chord is selling it for 4 5 grands.
Rob Watson is a great engineer but the upscaler is dot exactly what people think of it (the best). The ideea of the vest was born by fake reviews 👏 👍 😀
Measurements shows how purely this device resamples. We can get exactly the same with other devices such as 200 300 DAC used as upscaler.
Is really so simple to see but people makes it harder to understand by talking nonsense 😒
ASR drives crazy 🤣
Amir listened to the m scaler and the Dave dac. With some of the best headphones you can get ! Rob uses the same one's
It's interviews like this that make audio a great hobby.
So glad you enjoyed it!
audio is a great hobby notwithstanding sell-outs like this "interview"
@@joegalaxy9037 agreed, all these subjectivists could easily prove themselves by doing live blind listening tests, but they don't
do level matched blind listening tests. if you can't do that, what's the point of an interview?
@@neogenzim1995 THIS
Why not speak to Asr?
I'm not qualified to debate the ins and outs of it. My aim was to gather more info and then people can make up their own minds
This discussion about the ASR measurements would have been much better had Rob read the ASR report.
How so. What extra information do you think he needed that was not provided to him in my questions and/or via the Head-Fi discussions that were extremely detailed about everything we discussed
You can't be serious? You stated if someone can produce relevant measurements that disprove Robb's claim..... Jesus that's what Amir did!! 😂😂
You need to watch the video properly. Amir ran a series of irrelevant tests designed for DACs. As Rob explained clearly in this discussion, most of what the M-Scaler is doing cannot be measured with an analog instrument like Amir's setup and needs to be measured via calculations in the digital domain.
Lachlan I salute you and cannot thank you enough for taking the time and effort to involve yourself in that discussion, and to congratulate you on your approach in tackling the issues with such objectivity, neutrality and diplomacy (especially given some of the polarised and entrenched views some seem to have). Moreover, to get Rob Watts to engage in that discussion was not only the right approach but incredibly informative - even if it made my head hurt a bit at times and required some stopping and rewinding to get bits to sink in.
I think Rob Watts handled the questions and topics extremely well, without being in the least bit defensive or harshly critical of the opinions made in the original articles. But most of all, what strikes me, yet again, is (as Rob emphasised many times) the importance of LISTENING in order to inform our assessment and opinions, as well as making measurements - some of us can only do the former. Sadly and for reasons I’ll never understand, some people only ever do the latter, and remain insistent and have entrenched, strong opinions on what numbers and measurements can tell them without ever believing there is anything to be gained by listening. But to take that approach when it comes to audio and audio equipment, when its primary purpose is to be listened to (and give us pleasure) is utter madness.
Anyone who understands the basic principles of a true scientific approach (to any subject) must accept that there will always be occasions when we cannot initially understand or explain the basis for observed events - That’s the whole point of theorising and subsequent scientific experimentation, testing and critical peer review as the process by which we eventually arrive at universally accepted scientific ‘laws’ or truths; that is until science develops further and someone may discover it’s slightly or radically different to previously thought! History of science demonstrates this.
Thank goodness Rob Watts believes in the importance of listening, and demonstrated how it is an essential part of both his own learning process as well as how products are developed. That enormous intellect of his only gets him so far, as many, many years of experience have shown him that there are some things you cannot measure but we can still hear, and there are also things that we can measure but either don’t make and audible difference, or can’t be heard as such but do affect our perception of sound (particularly depth). Psychoacoustics is a fascinating subject and there’s still a lot about what our brains (and ears) are capable of that we don’t yet fully understand. That’s why everyone needs to keep and open mind (and open ears 😉). Thanks again - brilliant job 👍
🙏♥️
I have the TT2 and M Scaler. 90% of my music is 44/16 flac. Yes they are expensive pieces of kit but all I can say is my listening sessions are pure pleasure. You’re there in the studio with some recordings. It can become almost spiritual at times.
Regardless of measurements and debates like this which are over my head, those chord pieces are worth a couple of good vacations for the pure joy they give.
I completely agree, Keith. So glad you're enjoying them! I think if this were all snake oil as claimed there would be many more unhappy Chord customers screaming about it, but most people have either moved on due to personal preferences, sold and then rebought Chord, or just bought it and never looked back. That's pretty good evidence IMO
@@PassionforSound 100%, I think it was very good of you to have Rob Watts on to put those questions to and the way you did it was great. Not easy to question someone on their life’s work.
I think the Audio Research guy is doing a good job too but it just shows that measurement v listening tension.
This is what online should be about, honest debate. You’re one of the people who promote that and I thank you for what you do.
Thanks Keith. That's certainly my intent. I don't believe in shutting down any open, honest inquiry and conversation, but also believe that we need to highlight potential misinformation when it arises and let those who want to make up their own minds to have more information at hand to do so for themselves.
@@susokraut3169 British audio equipment is quite overpriced
@@susokraut3169 Audiolab is Chinese
Great video, always a pleasure to see Rob Watts speak.
I agree. It's a bit like drinking from a fire hose with some of the technicalities, but always informative!
@@PassionforSound I happen to have read Shannon Sync Function theory and find his work very interesting, therefore, his approach to long interpolation filters to properly approach the decay of Sync Function is fantastic. Many don't agree and won't agree, however, listening to his DACs is a pleasure. I recently bought the M Scaler and absolutely love it with the Qutest.
So glad you're enjoying the M-Scaler and Qutest and that you've taken the time to read up on the theory. It makes a lot of sense once you do the reading and helps to appreciate Rob's approach, doesn't it?
@@PassionforSound It sure does, I also saw that you liked the TT-2 better than the Holo Audio May, which many are hailing as the best thing since sliced bread.
I did prefer the TT2 by a small margin, but mostly due to the value provided by the DAC/HP amp combo it offers. The May is a brilliant DAC for those who already have their amps/preamps sorted. I still slightly prefer the sound from TT2, but it's a very small margin
Always a good time trying to keep up with Rob's explanations. Thanks for the content, was highly informative. I like it when the engineers who design the device are brought into the discussion. Emphasis on "discussion". Because that's what it should be.
It's always a bit like drinking from a fire hose of theory, but I love it! Glad you enjoyed the discussion (and I agree about the discussion part)
More like snake oil vendor
Well whatever snake made the Mojo 2 must of been one hell of a breed. 🐍
@@BwanaJesuasifiwe Snake oil? Hmm is that why my 2 channel sounds so good, bring me more expensive snake oil
@@timjp31 yes its all in your head, and you paid money for it. congratulations.
He has not read the ASR article? What is this nonsense?
He had seen and discussed all of the measurements and findings as people posted them on Head-Fi for discussion. He didn't actually need to read the full ASR review and I asked him to answer my questions, not critique the actual review
@@PassionforSound You should have asked him to debunk Amir's measurements. If he agrees with the measurements, then why the hate for Amir?
The issue is the irrelevance of the measurements, Ian, and there's not hate for Amir. I am disappointed that it has produced a set of measurements that don't reflect the actual performance of the device, but he's used then to claim that the device does nothing. It's either an unprofessional or ignorant approach to the interpretation of the measurements.
Now, it’s like interviewing Volkswagen about their own DieselGate ….. and casting doubts on the EPA actual measurements of the claimed mileage and emissions. Do we see the same similarities here ?
And that singular act of deceit, fraud and conspiring by the Volkswagen Group collapsed the auto market for diesel cars.
If you can hear a difference then therefore there is a difference, this idea that if something measures the same that it sounds the same is ridiculous.
It's very simple, purchase whatever sounds good to YOU.
Spoken like a true gullible fool.
amp/dac enthusiasts are a special bunch
Sorry if i comment again but...."i haven't read the article" ?!? 4:48 he is there to dispute those statements and he never even read them?!?
No, he's there to answer my specific questions. I didn't ask him to read and critique the ASR measurements. This isn't a battle, it's a discussion
@@PassionforSound ofc it's a discussion. a discussion based on something he didn't read.
He lost me at "I didn't really read ASR review...." Seriously?
It would have been useful if the gentleman had looked at the ARS review of his product, and then point by point refute ARS’s findings. The fact that he ignored the review speaks volumes. The claim on the Chord M-Scaler website (03/06/2023) is it “…upscale standard 44.1kHz to digital audio up to 705.6kHz…” is akin to saying you can make a four egg omelet with only two eggs. You can added extra ingredients so that it has the same volume (pun intended), BUT it’s never going to be a four egg omelet. I call snake oil!
You've misunderstood how upsampling is intended to work. It's not creating data that's not there, it's based on the premise of using more advanced algorithms to predict where the intersample data points lie to help more accurately reconstruct the analog waveform. All upsampling/oversampling DACs do this internally. The aim of the M-Scaler is to do it better rather than relying on the DAC.
Hi Lachlan, thanks for that and I am very much looking forward to your review of the Dave. Nick.
THIS WAS TOTALLY INSPIRATIONAL AND A VINDICATION OF MY LONG-HELD BELIEF AS A PHYSICIST AND AN AUDIOPHILE.
For me this is one of the most significant interviews in my audiophile experience, now 53 years (and counting!)
I have long held the belief that measurements are not the whole story and after over 50 years of critical detailed listening have had some experiences that bore this out.
One significant event was my purchase of an amplifier to replace my Leak Delta 70. On paper it measured like the textbook on amplifier design and received rave technical reviews. After 3 weeks of listening, i couldn't bear to hear it any more and gave it to a relative. That was the last time i relied on the test results to sell me a component.
Another experience is my use of supertweeters to add air and realism despite the fact that my ears should not be able to hear the frequencies they reproduce. But an A/B test is very conclusive in favour of the supertweeters. So bottom line: satisfy the psychoacoustics and the quality of the experience will improve. Enjoyment follows.
All the best, Rob in Switzerland
I'm glad you liked the interview, Rob. As you say, the psychoacoustics are so important. The key thing that's often overlooked is that we are still learning about how we perceive sounds (including ultrasonics that we can't consciously hear) so any measurements HAVE to be incomplete until we learn what it is that we should be measuring.
@@PassionforSound i couldn't agree more. This is why I am skeptical of channels/websites that "trash" products based solely on measurements without the extensive listening tests that Rob has performed. What a unique and privileged position he has to be able to conduct such detailed comparisons! Most of us would give our right arm for such a chance! Until it's clear what parameters play which role, it's premature to condemn any product. The empirical fanatics also deny cables have a significant influence. Anecdote: to choose my analog interconnect I auditioned two sets of interconnects for weeks. It quickly became clear that one set was unlistenable for long periods (the musicians played the same melody but not together) and another was extremely musical and can be listened to for hours and hours on end. I chose the more musical of the two. At the end of the day it's about musical enjoyment, not measurements. All the best, Rob in Switzerland
PS. In my physics degree we had an acoustics specialisation which I and friends also took. In my year were both Andrew Jones (star loudspeaker designer) and Arthur Khoubessarian ()of Pink Triangle and Funk Firm fame - inspirational turntable designer).
Oh wow. What a cool opportunity!
Basically asking the designer of the faulty product his opinion doesn't seem like a good thing. He is part of the company trying to sell you the product. So in no way objective
I think the real question people need to ask is not - can we measure the performance of this device - but, what is the value of placebo? It's the old "Matrix" question from Cypher - if it's all in the head, imagined, but still enjoyable, does knowing the device does nothing lessen that enjoyment? Mind over matter, I guess. There are some who just embrace the placebo and are at peace knowing they hear a difference. There are others who, when the learn the device is doing nothing, suddenly cannot enjoy it anymore.
No, it's not okay if you enjoy it. If someone is selling you magic beans, it's not okay just because you enjoy it. If someone sells you counterfeit painting, it's not okay, just because you like it.
The Emperor has no clothes, so he went to the Emperor to confirm his outfit. Ok, I feel better.
Let's face it; these high end audio guys who expect us to be fooled by high prices are mostly con men.
How could the m-scaler change the transients for the better? The transients are allready in the recording and if the m-scaler retains the fidelity of the source material it shouldnt touch the duration, timing, frequency response or level of the transients.
There's a great post by GoldenOne on the M-Scaler thread on Head-Fi that answers this. It should still be pretty close to the end of the thread
It doesnt change shit
The crux of this is we are finally able to get our hands on sophisticated test equipment that allows us to really see how these expensive devices actually work or don't work. For so long we have had to take the manufacturers word for it. The result? We are now finding a lot of 'legendary' people in the Hi-Fi field are really not that qualified or qualified at all. It's causing a lot of embarrassment for a lot of people that have have reigned unquestioned since the 70's and 80's. Time to clean house and put some of them out to pasture.
That's not at all the case. The reality of it is that some people choose to believe that irrelevant measurements tell the whole story just because they've been measured with an expensive piece of equipment. Part of my reason for reaching out to Rob Watts about this was to understand what the data wasn't telling us and there are huge gaps in the data Amir has provided. If you don't like the M-Scaler or Chord, that's completely fine - it's not a brand or product for everyone, but the claims being made about the M-Scaler at ASR are just incorrect, based on ignorance and an over-reliance on the fact that an APx555 has been used. I could use the best surgeon's tools available, but it doesn't mean you should trust me to conduct a complex operation on someone.
@@PassionforSound Okay so get Rob to test it and show us what it really does then? It's just a piece of electronic kit after all. Not some magical box. Get him to measure it and show how it really works. But I bet you won't.
I won't because I don't feel the need to. I've listened to it for myself and everything Rob has said stacks up when I listen to it. If someone can produce relevant measurements that disprove Rob's claims, that's a whole different story, but knowing that Rob's approach involves BOTH measurements (in the digital and analog domains) as well as listening tests implies that the measurements of his devices will stack up where they matter. As we discussed here, the jitter performance isn't so good from the M-Scaler for a good reason. That's an example of Rob merging real life performance and an understanding of the measurements that matter.
@@PassionforSound Yeah...expected that.
THIS
It is always great to understand the complexities of digital, Rob Watts always fascinates me. Math Issues, compromises and work around decisions which Chord engineers have made in building a product that I enjoy. Though not perfect, it has brought me closer to the real thing. It is not just about measurements but for me the connection with the music.
Very well said, Dennis. That's pretty much my experience too
When are people going to stop confusing the phrases, "high fidelity" and "it makes my ears happy." This machine will, at best, change the sound from the original input and people will pay 5k for it because "audiophile."
This product is designed 100% with the intention to more accurately reproduce the analog waveform as it was originally recorded. People saying otherwise aren't taking the time to understand the intent of the product.
How can this be an unbiased interview ?
No-one claimed it was unbiased. I reached out to Rob Watts because I had doubts about the value of Amir's measurements relative to the M-Scaler and the conclusions he was drawing as a result so I asked the designer to discuss my understanding of those measurements and to clarify from his perspective. Nothing different from that was claimed
@@PassionforSound why bother with the interview then ?.
Because the information presented on ASR was incomplete and largely irrelevant to the actual performance of the device. On top of that, ASR followers were flooding every forum and UA-cam channel with negative and often abusive comments so I felt like balancing the equation was needed for people who like to consider all sides before making up their minds
Many Audiophiles obsess over trivia. This is an expensive box that may or may not give subtle results. The truth is that room acoustics and loudspeaker choice have far more effect on audio quality. The very best speaker produces high levels of distortion which masks more subtle differences. Spemd your money on speakers that sound good to you and attend to room acoustics. Just moving your speakers or listening position can give very noticable changes to audio quality.
No doubt there's some truth to that, Geoff. The choice of speakers/headphones and main components are definitely the most important. Once that's all in place though, something like the M-Scaler can provide a nice additional lift to the sound
@@PassionforSound Also for some of us, there is a limit to what can be done with the room. I'm very happy with my speakers, and I have a subtle amount of rear wall absorption and corner bass trapping, within the realms of domestic acceptability. Once you hit that ceiling, the increments need to come from somewhere else. I will admit that the M-Scaler has given me the largest amount of mental gymnastics, as a TT2 owner I'm on the fence about whether I want / need one. I've also considered the Blu Mk2 transport so that I get both the Scaler and a transport in one box.
I don't believe the Blu is capable of anything near what the M-Scaler is doing. If course, if you pair it up with HQPlayer and Roon, that's a different story 🙂
Why is Chord not reaching out with a plan to speak with Amir. This is strange marketing. Involving a non engineer not even a tech. Your mindset reveals judgments right at the start… “I can’t believe it’s as bad as that…” And Rob hasn’t bothered to read or watch Amir’s work published… sounds like another MOFI Gate situation.
I reached out to Rob. Chord aren't involved at all (Rob works for Chord as a consultant, not an employee). I suspect Chord hasn't reached out to Amir because his measurements of the M-Scaler don't really warrant discussion because they aren't measuring what it does and are just an arbitrary set of measurements that illustrate nothing meaningful about an upsampler.
@@PassionforSound seems like that would be a perfect opportunity for them to set the record straight then...
The measurements are something I could do without. However, the enjoyment is not. Measurements have their place but there is a segment of folks out there who make the mistake of living by it.
I don’t have any Chord pieces but I’ve spent time with the Hugo, Mojo, and the Dave.
The Hugo and Dave were impressive to me.
In the larger scheme of things, ASR is a tiny piece of of the audio pie that can be taken or left.
That’s the beauty of this hobby as it’s all subjective in the end.
I really like that you invited Rob on to discuss the engineering behind it. 👍🏻
If only we could also pay for the products subjectively. It’s all subjective until they start talking about prices than it’s objective down to the last cent, consumers always get the short end of the stick.
Glad you liked the video, DDW!
Rob watts seems to live by them...
At 5:03 rob said he did not read the ASR measurement!! What this episode is all about it and investing 15 minutes to skim through the article seems the righ thing to do
Two points to consider here: 1) I asked Rob to answer my questions, not read and critique the ASR review
2) the ASR review has been discussed at length on Head-Fi where Rob is very active. There was no need for him to read it on ASR
There really isn’t any journalism when it comes to hifi, is there? Rob is basically allowed to say whatever he wants without any challenges. “Hey, I need the noise to make the depth, no choice, don’t measure the noise, it’s no relevant”. What??
No actual responses to some very disturbing facts (that may or may not tell the full story, but are still very much there), and a host that is either unwilling or incapable of challenging the discourse. A shining example of what’s wrong in our hobby.
I'm not qualified to challenge Rob's responses, Alfy, so the best I can do is allow him to comment on the measurements and let others put the pieces together for themselves.
That said, I do know that the measurements that started all this were misleading and irrelevant to a product like this and that's what started off this interview to try and share the other side so people could see both sides and make up their own mind.
Right off the top, his claim that he has not read the ASR review lacks credibility. Add to this the fact that the Chord Dave also tested to performance levels below that of a $150 DAC, I start to form a pretty strong opinion.
It is time that measurements proving transparency be considered table stakes for all digital and D/A converters, because there is simply no excuse for that not to be true.
Are you stupid? No cheap DAC measures the same as a DAVE. Literally look at Stereophile’s measurements you absolute peasant.
This is an insanely long 1-hour video with you and a totally senile Rob Watts clutching at straws to uphold a box costing several thousands €,£ or $ which would be better kept off any rig if fidelity to the source is important.
These guys are a freaking joke
Why my comment is getting all the bad replies and yours not !?!? 🤣
@@luca12957 Ciao Luca. Chord supporters are unpredictable and don't behave according to logic 😜😎👍
Love it when a manufacturer who is unsatisfied with the objective reviews of their product respond by saying..."maybe there is a problem with the unit" the only problem is the measurement revealed the facts. There is a problem with the unit
No-one suggested there was an issue with the M-Scaler. Rob confirmed that all of these measurements looked accurate - they're just not relevant to the function of the device
Thank you for getting your hands dirty on this!! It's important there is a balanced approach to big, possibly damaging claims. However... the cost to performance ratio remains a question in my mind.
That's always going to be a personal equation and something that I think can only be answered by trying it for yourself. I personally am yet to find a setup that I prefer over the M-Scaler and TT2 so it's definitely good value to me, but we're all different. 🙂
@@PassionforSound thats saying some about the Dave.
The DAVE is brilliant and technically superior, but I find myself preferring the character of the sound from the TT2 with the M-Scaler over the DAVE and M-Scaler. I'll explain more in the DAVE review because it's not a clear better vs worse IMO
The Dave dac is not that impressive, check it out on ASR. Especially for the money !
ah ah ah, "getting your hands dirty" as in "become involved in dishonest or dishonourable activity" is the right way to put it
Why did Rob watts come to you ? ASR is unbiased. He should go directly to ASR. The chord Dave sac also was poor. It's actually shocking for the money.
He didn't and you clearly haven't watched the video or you'd know that
Why didn't he just go straight to ASR. I have watched the video, but he shows little to nothing ! He has now measured the Dave dac, and it's not that good. Maybe they can get together and do a video ! Probably won't do that, better brush it under the carpet !
4:49 I'm sorry but he should at least have read the
ASR article himself before being interviewed about it
Yep, and watch the ASRs video... Really, hard to argue with measurements.
Basically, the entire thread has been captured via comments on the M-Scaler Head-Fi thread so he essentially has read it, just at a different location.
Paul F, if you're saying it's hard to argue with Amir's measurements, you really need to go back and listen to the interview again because the whole discussion was around the fact that those specific measurements are irrelevant for the M-Scaler because he's treated it like a DAC and not understood what the product is actually designed to do.
@@paulf3353 lol
@@paulf3353 he is being interviewed about his product and asked questions relating to measurements.
I love that there is no contradiction or denial of any measurements. He is not arguing about the measurements. He is explaining and discussing his design choices and why it makes things sound better and how the measurements relate to that improvement. It’s brilliant as an engagement.
@@PassionforSound thanks for clarifying
I respect your attempt to get a healthy discussion going on
I was very interested to hear what Rob was saying about comparing a recording to reality.
I'am always amazed that reviewers often listen to electronic or studio recorded music to review equipment.
With electronic music you have no reference to what it should sound like.
With studio recordings you are just listening to the reality the engineer has created, a lot of sound altering equipment and an artificial environment/soundstage.
To me it's critical to listen to acoustical instruments recorded live and instruments you have heard live and are familiar with.
Even better, make high quality recordings of instruments and vocals in the listening room with the microphones at the listening position. Then you have a good reference to how it should sound.
You can then hear and describe the differences the equipment under review makes and how close it is to reality.
I agree, Nick. In an ideal world, having a reference recording would be amazing. I think it's worth remembering that when using live recordings, things like mic placement and mic choice can all also influence the sound so live recordings aren't necessarily better than studio recordings because every recording will be influenced by the setup, but I definitely take your point.
Electronic music can be good for testing things like frequency response and imaging accuracy (how focussed the sound can be, not accuracy of placement) so all styles of music and recording have their uses, but they do need to be understood.
@@PassionforSound I would agree that electronic music can be good for checking things like bass response and dynamics, not sure about imaging accuracy though, as the environment has to be emulated. Although this can, I guess, be computed quite accurately these days.
I just get a bit frustrated with a lot of reviews because I want to know, and it’s often missing, how transparent the equipment is, how close is gets to reproducing the original instruments, vocals and environment.
Keep up the good work and thanks for showing this interview with Rob.
I completely agree about acoustic music being the best for assessing timbre and naturalness. Glad you're enjoying the content!
@@PassionforSound Symphonica by George Michael, orchestra & one of the best British voices ever. I have the Bluray hi-res 2 channel mixes in 24/96 PCM, DTS-HD (lossless) & Dolby TrueHD (lossless)
Thanks for the tip!
Nonsense, you praised the mscaler prior but now the truth comes out and shows your opinion was a placebo and biased towards chord as many of us thought. Now your trying to save your reputation.
Something that is supposed to upgrade the sound quality factually degrades the sound signal. I've got some mud in my garden that does the same thing, can you review that too.
How can we take what you say seriously after this?
If you're not going to watch the interview and understand then there's not much point discussing it
@@PassionforSound people want unbiased reviews.
And if you watch some of my reviews you'll see that I give praise where due (e.g. Topping DX5) and criticism where due (e.g. Topping EX5)
@@PassionforSound not really. In all your comparison videos you always finish by favouring the chord product. Either you are biased or your not very good at reviewing audio equipment.
Or perhaps I'm yet to find a better sounding product? As I said in the May review, I really wanted it to be better, but I liked the TT2 more. Interestingly enough, I also make money from affiliates with other brands but none whatsoever from Chord. The motivation kind of goes against your theory as I'd be far better shilling for Topping and SMSL (who's products I often praise), but instead my two favourite DACs are from Chord and Schiit, neither of which make me a cent to recommend.
I don't know why some people seem out to get Rob Watts, he dose his own thing, and is one of the few who does, he gives much of his time, shares alot of his information in a calm and sincere way. I happened to buy a Tube Technology DAC64 and Transport back about 20 years ago. It sounded differentiate from anything else I had heard, and I fell in love with what it did in my system. I wanted to know why, it brought me to hearing about Rob as it was his design.
I like his stuff, I don't like something I don't buy it, simple.
I agree and don't understand either. No one is forced to buy or keep anything they don't like. 🤷
@@PassionforSoundNo, but they can be tricked into buying things by people who purport to be reviewers but are actually shills or clowns. Giving people facts about products enables them to make better choices. If something is badly designed, performs poorly or is faulty then people should be informed.
Now, I think it'd be nice and fair to have an interview with ASR to respond to Rob's comments on his product in this interview.
The trouble with Amir is that he seems resistant to acknowledging when he misses something in his tests or uses poor testing methods. For example, in his JC2 preamp review, he criticized its performance but failed to realize that he had used the trims in a way which shunted input voltage to ground. I politely explained his mistake and got not response in the thread.
Amir runs a forum and YT channel. He's got plenty of platform to respond if he chooses to do so.
I don't think this would add anything useful to the debate. I'm not a shill for chord products, but I will believe the designer Rob watts any day of the week.
What did he measure wrong ?
Measurements dont lie
@38:07 is it not convenient that some aspects of Rob’s design implementations, that he claims sound better, cannot be measured? If it is more art than science than just say so.
Not really convenient. If it were easy to measure these things we'd have way more cheaper, better sounding DACs. Thankfully we have people out there going beyond the simple measurements to design products that also sound fantastic
If you can hear it, you absolutely can measure it, otherwise you couldn't hear. Moreover, instruments can measure what you can't hear. Calling out art is absurd, art is done with science and tecnique, do not mistake the perception of its beauty with its principles of making...
There are no analog measuring devices that have the sensitivity needed to measure some of what's being done in the digital domain of products like this (e.g. noise shaping)
@@PassionforSound What's being done is using equations, which is math, so absolutely measurable, to concentrate noise, which is meaureable, in frequenzy bands to which hearing, which is measurable, is less sensible. There's no need of noise shaping if you produce an instrument which put all the possible noise directly to a non audible level, and this is absolutely measurable.
The lack of noise is absolutely measurable, but the listening tests conducted during the creation of some of these products showed that mathematically quantifiable changes to the noise floor (via noise shaping) that go beyond measurable limits were still influencing the subjective enjoyment of the device. All of this is also before we discuss the timing accuracy of transients in the musical signal which cannot be measured (AFAIK) with currently available analog tools.
It would have to make a "night and day" differnce for me to spend 4k. Also why never any blind tests on kit like this?
My first experience with upsampling came from using an RPi 3+ and an Allo DigiOne (whole kit under $200.00). My source was an ODroid HC2 ($50.00 + SSD). DAC/etc was a NAD T758 AVR ($1500.00ish). Aside from the AVR, all very cheap gear. I tried the DigiOne because the only way to get music from my server to my AVR was through blusound - which really sucked to use.
You would not ask about blind tests if you had something like this. I tried the upsampling one day while listening with my son, I had no expectations at all.
Ya, night and day, black and white, left or right.
I get the feeling the purely objective-only mob could take four amps which measure at 100w into 8 ohms and same but more into 4 ohms, 2 ohms etc. With distortion/noise similar too.
One would be a tube amp, one class A solid state, a class AB and a class D.
I am sure they could argue they should all sound the same.
Most of us know they certaintly will not!
I agree. Unfortunately, the fact that they've seen the measurements would likely result in them hearing them as sounding all the same too. The consideration/argument of bias seems to only work in one direction...
A tube amp with similar distortion to a class A or D?! Is there such a thing?!
I think the point was more to have multiple different types of amp that all measure decently (i.e. no major design flaws)
@@PassionforSound you could design a perfect wind-up, steel needle gramaphone, but no-one is going to think it's going to sound like a high resolution digital sound file though a state-of-the-art DAC and loudspeakers.
That's true, but I'm unclear of the relevance - sorry
Nice Tektronix lab oscilloscope @ Rob Watts. A oldy but a goody!
“The next measurement I questioned was… “ both of you laugh again. Very unbiased for sure. Not. You’re interviewing without your notes and Rob is trying to answer without reading the post/ watch the video. This is a messy discussion on both sides.
Rob Watts mentions several times about listening tests. How are these preformed? Who does them? If it’s Rob, is he shaping the filter with his middle aged ears with inevitable frequency compromised?
These things would have been good to know.
I think we spoke about that in my original interview with Rob if you want to check that out. I don't think his ears are an issue though because tonally the products are great (and the WTA filters were designed quite some time ago now). Also much of the testing is being done to identify the depth of the soundstage and that won't be as influenced by age related hearing losses as something like frequency response tuning.
The facts that Rob has done real listening tests live mic feed to digital output and is honest about the results says a lot how many designers have done that ?Digital is not simple and there is still along way to go to make "perfect"
Well said. Sadly, some just want to read a graph (even if it's irrelevant data) and make conclusions from that.
@@PassionforSound they are free to read the graphs. I prefer to listen to music.
18:15 is the key to everything.
Those who look at measurements will dismiss that as “inaudible”. Go figure
@@DaveJ6515 yet those graphs mean that what you are hearing is junk hence you choose to live a fantasy .
I can never get get over the strong levels of feeling (almost hate sometimes) over a product that nobody is forcing anyone to purchase. If I could afford such a luxury item I would want to handle it to get a feel for its quality and LISTEN to it. If I liked what I was hearing I wouldn't care what forums said or what the endlessly measuring fanatics said, I would buy it and enjoy it.
Exactly! Well said. 🙂
I won't say that I fully understood your conversation with Rob Watts - both of you are a universe away from my understanding of Audio Engineering. All I can say is that I have the TT2 and MScaler and just as I can marvel at the miracle of television, telephone and electricity without understanding how they work, I can also marvel at the improved sound that the MScaler has provided to my system-without understanding how it works.
That's what matters in the end, Sam - that you're enjoying your music with the gear you have. The rest is kind of irrelevant 🙂
Transient is very important to timbre recognition. Timbre perception is still not well understood, btw.
Easy, blind test with few friends.
I have plans for something like that later in the year...
@@PassionforSound great! Looking forward to it. Thank you!
That would be good, wouldn't hold my breath because it will almost certaintly show that there is no point in 10K £ DACs.
@@BillNepill yeah, I would agree. It's physics and I am an engineer. Still want to see the result if possible. A true engineer doesn't have predefined bias.
@@jianhuang0124 your comment is under-rated. Thank you.
U don't wanna upsample the music in the first place. It's like watching DVDs on a 8k tv.
It doesn't work like that, Andreas. Video isn't a good comparison for audio upsampling.
Lol, the guy literally uses term 'subjective evidence '. Tells me all I need to know.
Regarding subjective evidence... Is there hard proof that you love your mother? Or that she loves you? No.
Only you and she know and experience that reality, so it can't be measured and proven, yet you wouldn't argue that it's not real because of that.
From 28.00 after mentioning psycho acoustics, you mention the brain having a level of accuracy that can perceive data higher than the sampling frequency. Can you elaborate what frequencies?
We were talking about the "sampling frequency" of the brain. I.e. it's timing accuracy. This is the whole issue with the ASR take on the M-Scaler - it was 100% focussed on frequency and jitter when the M-Scaler is entirely focussed on improving the timing accuracy of the signal.
I'm sorry, but when someone "raccomends" a piece of equipment that costs 5 grands he cannot hide behind " if you don't enjoy it, it's totally fine ".
Also talking about subjectivity it's completely unaccettable. The objective results say that this product has a negative impact on sound.
What proof do we have that, objectively, it also adds something positive? None, only poorly conducted listening tests.
If Chord wants to sell me something it has to prove it's good. Evidently its customers don't care about this and are willing to spends thousands of dollars. i am not.
Strong words. How do you determine what type of music you listen to? Do you do that objectively or subjectively? Do objective measurements tell you what type of music you should like? What happens when you change out a piece of your chain based on objective measurements? When it changes the flow of your system do you chalk that up to objectivity? Every piece of gear has its own sound. Even the ones that are supposed wires with gain and are meant to impart no flavor. What do you do when an item that has lower distortion numbers or SINAD numbers still sounds good to you? Or do you steer clear because the measurements say it won’t sound good? How about when those measurements are past the point of human hearing capabilities? Will you say that those measurements lead to intangibles that you can feel but can’t hear? Isn’t that a subjective listening experience? Just curious how you can say that subjectivity is completely unacceptable in a world where nothing is at it seems. Do you only see black and white? I can understand you not wanting to spend $5k for a piece of equipment, but if that designer can’t hide behind “if you don’t enjoy it, it’s totally fine”, why can someone who makes a piece of gear that is $300 say the same thing? Someone’s $300 could be the same as someone else’s $5k. Is it a matter of railing on equipment that is expensive and the people who can afford it?
Are you listening to music or measurements? What's the objectively best recording out there? Objectively best brand of violin? Which violin strings are objectively the best? Is there an objectively best concert hall that all music should be recorded in?
I guess you see my point. Nothing in the audio chain from the musician to the instrument to the venue to the playback chain can be defined 100% objectively so subjectivity is absolutely the final arbiter whether we like it or not.
@@PassionforSound exactly
@@geoffreyalter5016 if someone recommends an object, she/he must provide the data that prove its quality. I don't have to do anything.
@@PassionforSound first, most contributions from this device end up in the inaudible spectrum, so it's not subjective.
second, there's added distortion, noise and jitter in the inaudible AND audible specturm, all objective alterations that are universally considered bad, even on your channel.
third, all frequency response curves, pass-thru - 2x - 4x- 16x, still land on top of each other. so objectively nothing changed. period, no need to get philosophical.
Once again, you have shown courage to discuss issues that seem arouse hostility in some viewers. I appreciate how you emphasize "It's your experience, It's my experience" and is subjective. You also express the difficulties of black and white thinking to a discussion. I as well appreciate Rob's willingness to appear to discuss the measurements of the M scaler. I think manufacturers like Chord must be ready for this kind of scrutiny and have such measurements and descriptions available before the scrutiny. The flip side is that some of the audiophile sites seem to prefer "GotchYa" tactics and "snake oil". It is much better to be open to both opinions and explore for oneself what one thinks and hears. Thank you for making that more possible.
I've been told by people I trust that this guy has designed some excellent gear in years gone, but there is so much wrong with this interview.
After watching this, my question is, was there anything you disagreed with or did not understand ?
From Rob you mean? I think the only thing I question (and I don't yet know for sure) is if his claims about other DACs (specifically R2R because I know about other delta sigma DACs) are actually not doing as good a job with transients.
I also didn't understand some of the final piece. I can't recall what it was specifically, but said in the video that I kind of let the detail slide because the key piece of information was covered to answer my question and the rest was going to take too long to unpack.
What I would like to see is the conversation between Amir from ASR, and Rob Watts from Chord..... I would be more interested in seeing Rob Watts response on Amirs finding on ASR web site. This would be the conversation worth seeing. Would Rob Watts dare to take on Amirs results on ASR website by going over detail by detail on Amirs findings? I doubt it! If he could explain the results, why not Rob Watts explain them to the Amir from ASR, then show the results from the interview between Amir, and Rob Watts, and then see how the Chord M-Scaler could be improved on. Anything less than that is just trying to justify the Chord M-Scaler with a lot of useless one sided gibberish. I trust Amirs unbiased findings over Rob Watts biased gibberish. Is the Chord M-Scaler over priced at US $2,950.....most definitely.
13:56 - (and the 15 secs before it, as well) What?? " DC - 20kHz, the noise floor is below 400 dB.
I had the Hugo TT2 & M-Scaler and liked it a lot. But in the end I sold both of them after a few weeks for funds to buy other Gear and Headphones. Just too expensive for my wallet at the end of the day for my needs. I recently got the Burson Conductor 3X Gran Tourer All in One and it's a direct competitor with the Hugo TT2 for half the cost. I've learned the hard way that Price does not always translate to best sound. It's all subjective. I prefer the Burson House sound over Chord's
I would argue that above a certain quality&price point the discussion of better than the other is the wrong question.
Instead it's just a matter of taste
Johan, I definitely think there is a point where the gains to be had are minimal and the extra details, etc. aren't always necessary or preferable from an enjoyment perspective. The idea that there's no difference (based on the measurements) doesn't stack up when you actually listen to them, but the idea that it's all subjective preference absolutely does 🙂
Bud, do yourself a favor - all gear is based on science and therefore measurements. You cannot design and produce gear by being subjective.
Understand that.
Perhaps the favour to be done should be in raising your awareness of the aspects of sound that we still don't understand and therefore can't measure. For example, we don't yet understand what measurements define soundstage size and imaging, how the brain separates the complex waveform into individual sounds (and therefore what we would even need to measure) or how sensitive we actually are to a measurement like jitter. There's also emerging scientific, peer reviewed studies now showing that the inaudible high frequency content of music somehow influences our perception of that music even though we can't consciously perceive the sound. So if you think that everything can be designed with science and measurements, you're operating with misinformation.
1:15 surely the salesman of the product would have the most conflict of interest for providing unbiased opinions regarding the crticisms of his product, no?
This was supposed to be about anaylisng audio measurements (if I understood the preface of this video properly, from the intro), not the m-scaler in particular. Should've got an expert not from Chord, to talk about audio measuring and what was missing/red herrings from Amir's test procedure and how it relates to the m-scaler, as opposed to 'an opportunity for Chord to defend their product' which this video turned out to be. I'm disappointed with the direction of this 'discussion'. Could've been a good one, an oppotunity to look at common practices within this industry but this video turned out to be just another youtuber trying to stir another beefy pot. I love how Rob just pops out of nowhere to discuss the m-scaler for an hour on youtube as soon as the ASR video is released, but he hasn't seen it. Lol
Why is the interviewer asking the manufacturer how to best test their own product? Seems backwards in so many ways. Nobody asks nvidia how to test their GPUs if it scores poorly in a benchmark. Why is it happening here?
P.s. Wouldn't it be funny if Amir was secretly a Topping empoyee.
Rob Watts isn't a sales person for Chord. He's an external contractor employed by Chord to design their DACs.
Also, this was entirely focussed on discussing the measurements of the M-Scaler. Sorry if that was unclear from the intro.
Finally, there's some great content from Golden Sound on his own UA-cam channel (@goldensound) and also on a recent episode of the Darko Audio Podcast that's more generally discussing the pros and cons of measurements on all types of devices. I'd recommend all of that content for a more thorough and balanced explanation.
Sorry, I missed one other thing in your comment. Amir is not a Topping employee to my knowledge, but I've seen it said that his forum/website is supported by someone from Topping/SMSL as a financial contributor. (I haven't verified this personally so please check this before running with it)
Love Passion for Sound & Love Rob Watt ❤❤❤
Thanks Bard Rich ❤️❤️
Customers who bought this crap should massively ask for a refund.
I love my mojo and have no idea what the M-scaler is for, its clearly not for normal people at its price.
Agreed, I can't understand why these people get all butt hurt about this issue, they are basically, acting like 'White Knights' for people with too much money available to them.
I mean, if you've got 14 grand to drop on a hi fi device that, allegedly, improves your $13000 dac, you don't really have that many issues, and you really don't need people telling you to buy a $500 dac, because, "it's just as good".
You're right. It for people who believe in unicorns and Santa
I have the Mojo, the Mojo 2 and the Qutest. They all do the same thing but to different degrees. They all pack an FPGA chip and upsample performing so many taps. None of them radically transform the sound, though the Mojo 2 has an EQ I absolutely love. You can't create higher resolution. You can, however, improve the transients.
The best I can compare this to is the black levels on a flatscreen. The darker the blacks, the more colors pop and the more textured and dimensional the image appears. Better black levels won't give you higher resolution but it will enhance how the picture is displayed.
I noticed this on the Mojo, more so on the Mojo 2, and definitely on the Qutest. I didn't hear more bass or an obvious amount of detail in the highs, but I'd hear these little nuances in the music, which would show up when I least expected. We talk about speed and attack. When it's sharper and better delineated, you notice things that were there all along but they stand out better.
Some examples. I've had tracks I've heard for years, always thinking a certain note was continuous, unaware that it was actually segmented. I've had moments when it occurred to me, for the first time on a song I thought I knew, that the texture of a note or instrument was more complex than I'd thought. I'd hear pick work or a flash of reverb that I'd never given any thought about. About a second into Led Zeppelin's "Going to California," someone inhales off-mic. I don't know why I didn't hear it before. There's a moment, on Billy's "Still Rock and Roll to Me," when the effect of some filter on the vocals called attention to itself in ways I'd previously missed. They're just little things, sculpted out of the mix and heard differently - in my case, on headphones.
Great explanation! Thanks for sharing
30 odd years ago you could con most people into buying overpriced hifi, but the game has been up for some time. Rob Watts/Chord had over a year before this interview to read Amirs review & its hard to believe that he hadn't. furthermore Amir at Audio Science Review openly challenged Chord to respond to his findings & so far nothing to this date - 6th April 2023.
That was an excellent interview Lachlan, and goes to show the vastly different levels of knowledge of a consumer like most of your viewers, a prosumer like ASR and a professional like Mr Watts. That digital "softens" music was certainly an interesting take away.
I found the live recording experiences fascinating too! Glad you enjoyed it!
How was this excellent? First thing Rob says I don't want to talk about the tests. And hasn't even read the ASR review yet. Then they go on to talking about why Rob designed the mscaler the way he did and sidestepping the facts.
@@MW-ii5nb Rob does not have a reporting line to ASR and is therefore not obliged to respond to their every question. In addition it seems to me Lachlan raised the key critiques of ASR and Rob answered all of them - quite extensively in fact.
@@connorduke4619 OK... then why do an interview about the ASR review when you didn't even read the ARS review. Seems like a great way not to talk about the facts, and rub some snake oil on the watchers.
@@MW-ii5nb The facts were addressed. Whether or not you consider the replies to be snake oil is up to you. But for me the facts were all factually addressed.
I've worked in a field where this sort of measurement debate arises often. And I think it's a good thing overall; because we need to think critically about measurements. But that also means not taking for granted that measurements often only make sense within a particular context-they don't necessarily tell you everything you need to know all at once. When it comes to the design of audio products, I assume that product designers/engineers are sufficiently competent that they will attend to the relevant interpretive considerations when they conduct measurements. I don't assume they will measure mindlessly. Unfortunately, I do think some reviewers measure in this mindless fashion, and so they produce results that prima facie look bad, but they can't necessarily give anything more than a prima facie-superficial-comment. The value of such commentary is then inflated by the assumption that the measurement itself tells the full story; that no other interpretive considerations bring to bear. I think we need to adopt a more deflationary attitude to measurements-unless we're sufficiently competent to interpret them and understand their real-world implications. I know I definitely am not, at least in this area. But I'm also not sure that those enthusiastically reporting measurements are any better-equipped in this regard simply because they happen to possess measuring equipment. To put it bluntly, numbers are objective, yes; but understanding what the numbers *mean* may require a bit more than knowing the number itself, and if we want to get into *that discussion*, then I think we had better be prepared to learn a bit more. I appreciate Rob's effort here, but I think some are just going to lose sight of that.
I should've added: It's good that Rob mentions psychoacoustics because, well, that matters. If you are designing an audio product for human beings (i.e., one that needs to meet the listening needs of actual human subjects and not some idealised "listener" that doesn't actually exist) then taking into account how humans *actually hear what they hear* is hugely important.
Well said, and it applies in so many areas outside of audio too 👏
Very well said. 👍
The problem is the measurements don’t go far enough to convince the suckers of snake oil products, we need a measurement instrument to measure placebo, fraud and ignorance
Dear Felix, most probably you don’t know or care about the credentials of AMIR from ASR because you are insinuating the credibility of him not knowing about audio science.
You may not understand objective measurements but don’t assume others too are ignorant or in the dark like you.
Thank you for the opportunity to hear Rob’s comments about the digital/analogue world and how neuroscience plays such an important part in what we perceive. Towards the end of the interview Rob discusses recording live in a church using pro-audio gear and comparing the live vs recorded playback. Rob says the differences (depth and transient attack) he attributes to the ADC filtering.
Surely then, all DACs will fail to properly reproduce an accurate facsimile of the original sound?
I think Rob is saying that the Chord M-Scaler + DACs are better than the competition but all are flawed.
Rob said he is working on an ADC , it would be very interesting to hear a review of a live recording using a leading pro-Audio ADC and one of Robs ADC designs and then played back through Chord products.
Glad you liked the video. Yes, you're absolutely right that all digital recordings are reducing the maximum sense of depth according to Rob. He is working on an ADC and I'm personally excited to hear something recorded using it because his approach to combining digital audio science and psychoacoustics knowledge seem to produce consistently great results IMO
The Amir guy didn’t even measure what the Mscaler improves, namely transients. This is the same thing that Hi-Res files improve upon, and Amir doesn’t like high res either because he doesn’t know how and/or can’t measure it.
It’s very easy to measure audio transients, anyone with even a cheap oscilloscope can do it. I think you are just mad you got banned from ASR, plus you radiate your lack of technical knowledge for even saying the Amir doesn’t know and /or can’t measure it. It’s so ignorant you will only understand how ignorant that statement is once you’re educated in the matter
@@BwanaJesuasifiwe And yet he didn’t measure them. One will not be able to tell what MScaler does or doesn’t do with a just a 1 khz test tone through it as he did therefore his test is completely whack.
I'am sure Newton was criticised , so you are not unique!
@@phototristan Why should he chase after a measurement which is pointless to measure, every DAC on the market can produce beyond the highest audible frequency wave transiently perfect, 20, 40, 200KHz etc is child’s play, if you compare it to the frequencies even your wireless router at home have to keep up with. A cheap internet router has better transients than a chord M-scaler if that’s something you care about. But it’s not needed in audio application to produce GHz frequencies. And it’s even more pointless to care about it after the initial recording. Audiofoolery!
And I know you are not a technician but just think of it logically for a minute, the best speaker you can find in the world is part of the chain, and it has miserable transient response than even a working 5 dollar DAC will have. So why care about it anyway when it will be bottlenecked? There is so much to this absurdity it’s like absurdity on top of absurdity on top of absurdity ever so deeper you think about it. And we haven’t even reached the miserable transient response of a human eardrum which is also part of the chain.
@@BwanaJesuasifiwe you know what transients are? What it has to do with GHz??? I'm pretty sure you have very little idea what you are talking about.
If spending that kind of money (for the M-Scaler) I would consider a high end desktop running HQ Player.
By all accounts, HQ Player can get very close to the M-Scaler, but doesn't quite match it (according to an extensive review by Audio Bacon) and also is more fiddly (there are LOTS of settings to consider) and less versatile (it will only work for a computer as your source).
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just that there are pros and cons in both directions (the M-Scaler is really only ideal with Chord DACs and has to be with the DAC whereas HQ Player can be used on your source computer, but can send to Roon endpoints I believe)
@@PassionforSound I think the comment about not quite matching it is very subjective and system dependent. HQ Player has so many setting that picking the right one for your gear and taste is going to be a arduous task for sure. One reviewer that likes the HQ Player more (I think he said that) is Golden Sound. Who, along with you is one I have a lot of trust in. At this level not sure better is term I would use more like preferred.
That's very true about preferences being important and I'm not saying it's better, just that Audio Bacon found M-Scaler to be preferable. I tried HQ Player briefly, but found the range of options and settings onerous to wade through trying to find the right combination. I might need to revisit it sometime...
@@PassionforSound Golden Sound has created a set up file ( I think it is for the Holo Audio May ) that he found works best for the majority of music. Good luck would love to hear your comments. One thing that is important is that your DAC is galvanically isolated, and I found the USB connection was the preferred connection with the Holo Audio May KTE
Thanks for the heads-up. I'll throw HQ Player into my schedule for a revisit (it'll be quite late in the year at this point)
I’ve not read the ASR review so I don’t know if the RFI issue with the m-scaler was identified; it certainly wasn’t mentioned in the interview with Rob.
To my mind, the RFI introduced through the BNC connections is the biggest problem with the m-scaler technology in its current form. I have a Dave a bought a Blu II, which contained the first incarnation of the technology, though my understanding is that it’s reproduced in all material respects in the stand-alone m-scaler device. There was a significant increase in detail, depth and soundstage, but this was accompanied by a brittle harshness in the mids and highs that rendered timbres in those regions very artificial and wearying: the opposite of what I heard with the Dave alone.
Eventually, on the head-fi thread Rob stated that the noise from the m-scalar processing (over a million taps) passed RFI into the Dave (which is why the two couldn’t be incorporated into a single unit as some requested), but he didn’t think it was significant, and described me as an outlier. His ears are the ultimate arbiter.
He seems to have accepted that this might be a problem however, as the whole business of RFI filters on the BNC cables then started up (it was actually his suggestion), and when he developed the separate m-scaler he introduced RFI filters on the BNC outputs. I also understand he now uses the WAVE cables for BNC at home, with filters along the whole length of the cables. I was reliably informed by the developer of the WAVE cables that the stand-alone m-scale suffered the same RFI issues as when it was in the Blu II. There has even been an BNC to optical to BNC converter developed to overcome these RFI issues, apparently with good results.
I fairness, I should say that many have used the m-scaler without noticing any such issues, and it might be limited to the Dave, the highest resolving Chord DAC, and only Chord DAC currently available developed before the m-scaler technology (perhaps RFI is addressed better in later models). Also, many Dave owners have not had a problem. To my ears however, and that of some others, the RFI induced noise is a serious setback. The Dave sans m-scaler might not be as detailed, but for me it’s more tonally accurate and listenable.
I’ll be interested to hear your views when you review the Dave.
Great video thanks Lachlan! Always good to get a long chat about an engineers response to a lot of the discourse we see on UA-cam. We don't get that often enough, especially in the audiophile space. I totally agree with Rob that our perceptive systems are much more complex than we initially thought. Try telling someone 15 years ago that a human being can tell the difference between a 240hz and a 360hz display and they would laugh at you
Exactly! Great example with the displays.
Actually most people can't tell above 240hz. Especially that basically no game actually reaches 360hz.
@@humanbass were not talking about most people here though. Just like with audio, those who consume high refresh rate content are of course much more likely to see a difference in those higher rates. The point I'm making is that the difference IS noticeable by the human eye, which challenges several pre-conceived scientific notions of how our brains work.
Just like how the miniscule time domain errors discussed in the video are noticeable by the human ear, despite years of research saying otherwise.
Where can I find the test results and white papers on displays. To prove that's the case.
@@humanbass That's because most people aren't trained to play at 360hz. I thought the same before I upgraded to 360hz. After few months with a 360hz panel, I can say the visual fidelity clearly does make a difference in competitive play.
As a Six Sigma blackbelt I recognize the benefits of data and measurements but also aware of the challenges of using data to make assessments.
Measurements don't lie though....people do. I wonder if Chord has contacted Amir from ASR.....very doubtful.
Yes, and people can lie using measurements (and ignorance)
@@PassionforSound accusing people without evidence, without evidence is all you are about
I didn't accuse anyone of anything. My point was simply that data can be misrepresented and that ignorance can add to the chances of this happening.
I better be careful then, kerpow!
I have no idea what any of this means, nor do I know what an m scaler is. I presume though given I’ve got through life up till now without one I needn’t be too worried if it works or not 🤷🏼♂️
Yep. You should be fine 🙂
Rob could easily fool a layperson such as yourself and the vast majority of your audience. If he truly wished to challenge the findings he'd go directly to the source and place a point by point rebuttal on ASR's actual review. Nothing is stopping him from doing so, and with the traffic that site gets he'd have a huge platform dwarfing that of even Stereophile.
By the way, Rob claims to be able to hear artifacts as low as -300 dB. Unless he has the hearing of a bat, that uses echolocation to navigate its surroundings, he's either lying or deluding himself.
Why would he bother , ASR fans are only going to buy the next Topping that measures well and sounds average
Only liars, the incompetent or criminal shrink away from challenging their opposition when it comes to science and engineering.
Lazy people who can't be bothered don't make for good scientists and engineers
@@B2video can you say something even more ignorant?
That's laughable, Bill. Rob has designed, from the ground up, some of the best DACs on the planet both objectively and subjectively. Questioning his credentials as an engineer or scientist just shows that you haven't considered this properly or done any research into his work.
@@PassionforSound look at the facts first don’t look at reputation or you will be fooled
everything is correct. external clock via long wiring is inputing significant jitter. human ear understands that as "musical" or 3D sound... clock must me maximum 2 cm from processor, not 30+ cm
This is not the clock for the DAC
There is simple end to all this. MAKE a video and do REAL AB test on M-scaler with unbiased testers. Like a local university etc. End of story and you have real DATA about is it doing anything at all. But you know why no one can do it? Chord is not willing to loan the DAC/M-scaler to anyone who wants to so it. Why aren't chord doing it? Cos they know no one can do it.
I don't think anyone disagrees that measurements are useful. But do we know ALL the measurements necessary to make a great DAC? There is strong empirical evidence that the answer is no, which I think is kinda the crux of this video.
Well said, jelt!
Science advances by presenting evidence that can be proven and repeated. That's it that's all. If you disagree with the the fact that we can compare the performance of DACs in regards of human hearing with measurements, then come up with your own blind tests done in a controlled environment and present your results. This is how science works.
Measurements give an idea but passing 1khz signal and checking the outcome is not an indication of good performance.
The Term, Out of Your Depth springs to mind. Rob dodges so many questions, much like your responses on ASR. Your lack of knowledge was soon exposed. Youve done nothing but agree with any of the unproven claims Rob has made. It doesnt do what it claims and its provable.
Isn't the least common multiple of 44.1 and 48 kHz 7.056 MHz instead of 104?
Yes it is. Love to hear Rob's answer to this.
Rob explained in the video that he was looking for the multiple closest to a specific frequency (98mHz or something in that realm) IIRC. He definitely explained the specific choice of 104.
@@PassionforSound Unfortunately 104MHz is not a multiple of 44.1kHz and 48kHz. He did also mention 115, 98 and 92, but the only frequency close to those that works is 15 x 7.056 = 105.84MHz. Maybe he meant 106 not 104 but that would be a strange mistake for him.
If 16x oversampling is your goal then 16 x 7.056 = 112.896MHz would make more sense, but then you would have those leading edge problems he talked about.
I can't debate the merits of a particular frequency, but I do think Rob said it wasn't exactly 104, but 104 point something. I just rounded it to 104 for ease in the discussions
This is a horrible retort. All you did was get Robb Watts online to fluff up his products even more. He even said "I didn't read the ASR review" like he was high and mighty and too good to actually read the review. How does a person respond to a review without reading the review? That was literally Robb's words, him saying he didn't actually read the ASR review.
I asked Rob to come on and respond to the questions I had about the information presented on ASR. I didn't ask him to read and critique the review and he'd seen most of the measurements as they'd been copied and pasted into the M-Scaler discussion thread on Head-Fi. I think many of the people taking issue with the statement about Rob not reading the ASR review are actually just diverting from the real issue here which is that most of Amir's measurements of the M-Scaler are irrelevant to its operation and purpose.
It seems that many people who read ASR reviews want to believe the measurements and not the sound. Clinging to the reports justifies their put down’s of equipment that many people have bought and rate, only to be told by ASR and its followers that the equipment is rubbish. Thank you for a great interview with someone who speaks absolute sense and who’s equipment I buy and will buy again.
My pleasure. Unfortunately, I think you've summarised the situation pretty perfectly. 🙂
The problem with these is they try to address tiny nit picks but never address "does spending $5k make my music better" and the answer always seems to be "no". "My $5k gear doesn't make your music worse" isn't an interesting question to answer. Instead you end up with these puff pieces that let one side say all the same stuff they've always said but make it look legit.
Having listened to this, and listened to Amirs, it's clear Amir was correct and this channel is dithering.
I loved Chords early amps, liked the 1st digital products, but its simply becoming high margins and proffit on loosely engineered equipment not meeting the bar quite often in audio.
There is no use in this, until Robb Watts actually watches the ASR video and comments directly or discusses this with Amir we have flapping bingo wings and hot sauce.
Great interview, I'm very happy with the Mojo 2, it has a bigger sound then my Oppo Sonica and it allows me to use power hungry headphones away from home. Although I dont have Mscaler money, I will probably sell both and get a Hugo 3 if and when it comes out.
Sounds like we have similar ears. I don't even consider other company's DACs anymore.
Glad you liked the interview and your Mojo 2, ZB.
I'm with you, Luke, (mostly) - Chord and Schiit are my two clear preferences for DACs so far. I keep searching for something even better than the Chord approach, but I'm yet to find it.
Mojo 2 was tested to be fairly good. That doesn't mean the mscaler is.
@@MW-ii5nb "Good"? Maybe you mean "worth the money".
When you get to products this costly, that will always be highly subjective. And I'm not convinced we all have the same wiring between our ears.
@@lwwells I mean from a performance perspective in comparison to other dacs in the same category. Worth is dependent to the individual.
It would be good to get Amir, Rob & yourself on a Zoom roundtable...
That would be interesting, but I've already lost too much time to this and my curiosity has been sated