Agreed, one can hear a difference nearly based on preconditioning. That doesn’t mean that all differences not shown with some objective data point is due to this.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
CHORD M-Scaler Review (Upsampler)
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
I don't know what you mean by that ?
Trying to parse the negatives here
When all the differences disappear once you remove bias, what is left to explain those differences?
Negative. I don’t own one and have never heard one. I don’t even plan on getting one.@Jmart do you own this upscaler? What tracks do you think you hear differences with? Maybe it is just as simple as this device handling intersample overs which you can identify scientifically.
Intersample Overs in CD Recordings
Intersample Overs are a Common Occurrence in CD Recordings We have frequently used Steely Dan's Gaslighting Abbie from Two Against Nature in our listening tests. This is a spectacular CD recording with lots of dynamics and a low noise floor. Nevertheless, in a little over 5 minutes, this track...benchmarkmedia.com
Have you tried Sony DSEE (free via Music Center PC app) or PGGB-Foobar? For all the love there is for tweaks, there are some great free ones that can beat expensive gear.
But I was interested in the reviews and have read and seen several of them. They are rather consistent except this one on this forum. Doesn’t make sense to me why except that said measurements ‘say’ there shouldn’t be one. So said listener is biased to that conclusion.
Is there a reason why anyone is spending time dealing with a rather dim troll?
Stop feeding it.
Stop feeding it.
Geert
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2020
- Messages
- 1,973
- Likes
- 3,644
And the people reading all the subjective reviews, the marketing material and spending a small fortune on the device are less biased?
"I only saw 400 immunization experts saying the vaccine is safe, but there are thousands of people on Facebook saying it isn't. So those immunization experts must be biased. Clearly they are wrong."
The idea that if you precondition a response you’re more likely to perceive it.I don't know what you mean by that ?
Trying to parse the negatives here
When all the differences disappear once you remove bias, what is left to explain those differences?
Say, if I’m listening closely to the highs, I will notice them more, therefore they are more prominent.
If there is no bias then you have more accurate data. We don’t really have subjectively unbiased or confounded data. Hence why I’m accumulating non-objective (and yes relatively weaker) data to form a larger perspective. Think of it as a meta analysis of sorts.
Veri
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2018
- Messages
- 9,603
- Likes
- 12,047
Oh? Please elaborate a bit more on that, then. I'm very curious.
You know what, never mind. I doubt you've "designed" many experiments. At least not scientifically.
The 400 immunization experts have large, controlled, double blinded, and RCTs to support their claims. There is nothing subjective about this. And if there is it’s far less relevant than determining if an audio product improves my sound.
I am an audiophile. There is subjectivity to music….. two completely different topics….
Then you have your answer that harmonizes the YouTubers and Amir’s measurements. The feature responsible for audible differences is correction of intersample overs which is content dependent and can be audible according to even companies like Benchmark.
End debate.
Interesting, where can I learn more about this?
And where can I read what benchmark has said about it?
Appreciate the references!
Oh, now we reached a state of cognitive dissonance. This is hilarious.
Geert
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2020
- Messages
- 1,973
- Likes
- 3,644
The only way for that to happen is if the listening test is done in a way that removes it.
When that happens, the perceived differences disappear. Can you explain that by any other mechanism than the removal of bias ?
Just my 2 pence.
The mscaler is designed on a concept and a belief, that its elaborate interpolated upscaling using a million taps, increases perceived clarity, depth of image and so on.
I do not want to go into whether it is a valid concept or belief, suffice that it was designed with that in mind. Some call it magic, some call it voodoo, I call it barely detectable, but it doesn't matter.
The point is that in a lab, doing an objective test and measurement, it beggars belief that it could beat a straight wire! It is a DSP circuit, and no circuit is lossless, noiseless etc.
So I never expected fantastic lab results in the first place.
Amir is very correct about perception vs hearing. I say that mscaler works on the basis of perception, and that has got a lot of unscientific corners to it.
I accept the measurement results, indeed they are better than I had expected.
But I spent an hour with mscaler/Dave, playing my own material into my own headphones (things I was familiar with), and although at times I perceived a change in sound quality, though very minor, I am sure in a blind test I couldn't say which was which.
The mscaler is designed on a concept and a belief, that its elaborate interpolated upscaling using a million taps, increases perceived clarity, depth of image and so on.
I do not want to go into whether it is a valid concept or belief, suffice that it was designed with that in mind. Some call it magic, some call it voodoo, I call it barely detectable, but it doesn't matter.
The point is that in a lab, doing an objective test and measurement, it beggars belief that it could beat a straight wire! It is a DSP circuit, and no circuit is lossless, noiseless etc.
So I never expected fantastic lab results in the first place.
Amir is very correct about perception vs hearing. I say that mscaler works on the basis of perception, and that has got a lot of unscientific corners to it.
I accept the measurement results, indeed they are better than I had expected.
But I spent an hour with mscaler/Dave, playing my own material into my own headphones (things I was familiar with), and although at times I perceived a change in sound quality, though very minor, I am sure in a blind test I couldn't say which was which.
The actual error here is assuming what their job is. Reviewers are there to sell consumers interest to companies, not to give you an honest opinion.
So, your contributions to this thread are at an end. I don't see any effort at good faith communication, and this is just mediocre trolling.
Is there anything worse than mediocre trolling!
Keith
Keith
Similar threads
