Been reading some posts about m-scalers and wondering how much of a difference this will make to audio for streaming. My Weiss 204 DAC only supports up to 384 kHz sample rate. Would an m-scaler be worth it for my DAC?
Not sure how well it would work with the Weiss. No matter what the reviews say, overall the impact is subtle and only your ears will be able to judge whether the cost is worth it. Iâve a TT2 and, based on reviews, thought it was a slam dunk. Everything was certainly more natural for want of a better word. Was it ÂŁ4k worth of better? For me, absolutely not when balanced against the need for an extra shelf and yet more cabling.
What I donât quite get is that if additional sampling points are added to, say a 96KHz sample rate, to increase it to 384 kHz, do the extra bits translate to a significantly different audio wave going out of the DAC? As you said, I believe it would be subtle since since upsampling doesnât add new information. Although I can see that this would result in smoother transitions and possibly perception of more detail, I doubt the resulting wave pattern would be substantially different. If anyone has a different understanding or experience, please educate me. Iâm relatively new to the hifi world, so still learning a lot.
the Chord Mscaler for me is the best piece of Hi-Fi equipment that I own. The second best is actually the Chord Mojo (1 and 2) because I enjoy them in my car. But that is another subject.
The Mscaler mathematically calculates the missing inter sample missing data and fills up the waveform, to my ears this is very audible and adds a lot of enjoyment to the music (after all this is what this is all about for me).
so yes it does recover more information from the file than is possible with much lesser/simpler/inadequate digital filters and this is audible.
It isnât about adding, but about recovering from the file and then using the massive computing power an Mscaler has to calculate the missing inter-sample data.
From my reading of multiple peopleâs experiences, with Dave, I am under the impression that the benefits of the MScaler are quite varied. Some people have reported it makes a wonderful improvement, others that it made little or no difference and yet others did not like the effect. I rather suspect it depends what is being fed through it, as in what the source device is, and maybe how noisy it is, but it would need quite a study to pull out data to see if there is any clear correlation. Regardless, I feel it is one thing that very definitely has to be auditioned properly to decide, and only bought on a punt if a good enough price secondhand to not lose out if you decide to sell it on.
I can see your point that the resulting wave forms can be smoother because there is more information, BUTâŚmy understanding is an m-scaler does not really ârecoverâ data from the file, it uses interpolation algorithms to add more samples to the digital signal based on the available information so that the resulting audio signal is smoother - closer to the original analog wave form. Is my understanding correct?
I think that is correct, as nothing can be recovered as such where there was nothing sampled, only interpreting from the other data as to what was probably there, or more correctly, what mathematically is the most likely thing that would have been there.
I suggest you look at the stereophile article and also the article on the Chord Website âtapping into better digital audioâ which will explain it much better than I ever can
Thank you!
Lots of complicated theoryâŚâŚyou have to listen and decide. There is a newer version coming called the quad sampler.
We toyed with idea of getting one, but it would really be pointless with our current DAC as weâd only be able to go from 44.1 to 192. Might hear a little difference, we havenât tried (have only heard with Dave).
mScaler probably only makes sense with a DAC, such as Dave, designed to use 768kHz inputs.
I agree with that. My DAC only supports up to 384 kHz. I suspect the improvement would be subtle with this DAC.
Itâs all relative really. Used mScaler maybe ÂŁ2k - might be worth a punt, as relative to other boxes and cables itâs not a ridiculous outlay. Probably easy to sell on too.
Our DAC is limited to 192 on S/PDIF so really makes little sense.
Using a Weiss 204 I personally wouldnât bother with the MScaler. However, it will work but only your ears will determine if its worthwhile. When I owned an MScaler I used this with the Qutest, even with this DAC you can utilise both BNC inputs to maximise 768.
I then moved onto a Dave with the MScaler, personally the Dave works to my lugs better without the HMS.
Dave is formidable on its own. The new Quartet (scaler) in 2025 is a match for the Dave, I will be looking forward to trying this!
I am not familiar with the M-Scaler. So I understand it is upsampling the digital music file. Thatâs what I do in AudirvÄna.
Now I can imagine that these solutions are not the same, not least in quality. Anyone who has experience with both options?
Just being curious, itâs not a feasible option to buy such a device right now.
The upsampling done by the Mscaler is completely different than the one in Audirvana. Your PC/Macbook has around 8 to 16 cores, the Mscaler has 740 DSP cores, The filter uses 528 of them running in parallel.
The PC/MAC is no match for the FPGA in an Mscaler.
Exactly what I wanted to know, thx!
Well using upsampling with my vivaldi upsampler/streamer certainly brings more to the experience.
But upsampling doesnât add any more information or music to the recording as if itâs not there then you canât add it.
But what it does do is give a much larger picture to view the information in.
Itâs like 44.1 is a small screen tv and say 192 is a wide screen tv.
This gives far more space for you to hear the information presented to you, this is obviously then easier to hear and pick out, given the impression of more detail etc.
But really itâs about stretching the music out.
Itâs obviously on my system to hear the inpovement from 44.1 to,say 96. But once you go past 96, it certainly gets much harder to hear differences as they are much smaller.
Also having the music recorded in the higher sample rates helps also.
You can also push things to far, as i sometimes find upsampling to much higher than 96, say to DSD x2 or 384000 can make things too bright and sound worse than just dropping it back down to say 96. This tends to be on much older poor recording from the 80âs.
But i just donât listen to 44.1 anymore and havenât done for yearâs as it sounds quite flat and boring compared to upsampling it higher.
Good question and the answer appears to be that it varies by listener.
Itâs really hard to describe what the M Scaler does in Hifi speak, as itâs nothing like the effect of adding a decent sub-woofer or a better amplifier. The effect is almost subliminal, yet it is profoundly important for those who appreciate it.
We have heard the effect of M Scaler on both the Chord Qutest dac and the Chord DAVE. We donât really like music whenever we have heard it through a bare DAVE. Itâs all very impressive in a Hifi kind of way but we find it a bit relentless, a bit wearing and the listener is encouraged to focus on dissecting elements of the music rather than soaking in and appreciating the whole performance. Pop an M Scaler in and all those concerns vanish with a sense of âooh, that sounds so much more natural and emotionally engaging.â
The difference was such that while we disliked a stand alone DAVE, we elected to buy an M Scaler + DAVE over Naimâs ND555.
YMMV.
I usually do not put much stock in the reviews of Audio science review. But, he was very critical of the M-Scaler, saying it did nothing or worse, degraded the signal.