[paulchiu]

  Guys, is the Hugo powerful enough to drive most headphones out there like the Audezes, Sennheiser HD6XXs, HD800, and so on?
My friend keeps telling me it's not enough so I should go for something else instead but I've heard plenty of comments on this thread and elsewhere that the Hugo is powerful enough for pretty much anything out there. I'm just confused.

 
It can drive the LCD3, K812 and HD800 at the same time.

 

[Dobrescu George]

I have an interesting question. 
 
Does hugo sound better with normal 44.1/16, or it sounds extremely good with both 44.1/16 and 24/192 files?
 
As i understand the dsp that happens inside it, i was curious if it sounds great with both hd music and redbook music?
 
EDIT: i am asking, because, after loots of reading, i found out that there are lots of reasons to one to use hdtracks and hi-res music in general. If people said that it sounded different, it was not placebo, it was entire true. It is a very long theory, but it totally works.
 
This also makes me curious if we will ever see a new hugo, that will be DSD and hi res capable, or 32bit float point capable?

 

[harmonix]

Guys, is the Hugo powerful enough to drive most headphones out there like the Audezes, Sennheiser HD6XXs, HD800, and so on?
My friend keeps telling me it's not enough so I should go for something else instead but I've heard plenty of comments on this thread and elsewhere that the Hugo is powerful enough for pretty much anything out there. I'm just confused.

Yes it's perfectly fine - just relax and enjoy the music

 

[Jeff Y]

Yes it's perfectly fine - just relax and enjoy the music

I can't yet
I went to a dealer a week ago and they're outa stock for Hugos. Gotta wait till next month thanks for the input anyway

 

[Jeff Y]

   
It can drive the LCD3, K812 and HD800 at the same time.

That says a lot. end of debate.

 

[Rob Watts]

  I have an interesting question. 
 
Does hugo sound better with normal 44.1/16, or it sounds extremely good with both 44.1/16 and 24/192 files?
 
As i understand the dsp that happens inside it, i was curious if it sounds great with both hd music and redbook music?
 
EDIT: i am asking, because, after loots of reading, i found out that there are lots of reasons to one to use hdtracks and hi-res music in general. If people said that it sounded different, it was not placebo, it was entire true. It is a very long theory, but it totally works.
 
This also makes me curious if we will ever see a new hugo, that will be DSD and hi res capable, or 32bit float point capable?

No Hugo does not sound better with normal 44.1/16 against 24/192 - but the difference is very, very much smaller than other DAC's due to the 26,000 tap WTA filter. In short, you can choose a recording for the musical performance not the SQ. I have heard some stunning sounds from good old 44.1/16 - indeed, I am constantly surprised how good compressed AAC can sound on Hugo.
 
Hugo is already very much DSD and hi res capable - its just the gap from 44.1/16 has been effectively closed.
 
Rob 

 

[highfell]

No Hugo does not sound better with normal 44.1/16 against 24/192 - but the difference is very, very much smaller than other DAC's due to the 26,000 tap WTA filter. In short, you can choose a recording for the musical performance not the SQ. I have heard some stunning sounds from good old 44.1/16 - indeed, I am constantly surprised how good compressed AAC can sound on Hugo.

Hugo is already very much DSD and hi res capable - its just the gap from 44.1/16 has been effectively closed.

Rob 

I'll forgive Rob doing a little sales pitch on the Hugo , as he designed it and it is the best audio investment that I have made, and everything that I play through it sounds better than my previous system. Thanks Rob!

I am yet to be convinced by 24/192 vs 44. 1/16,though, I think mastering is far more important. It comes back to my earlier comment in a previous post about thinking and knowing. I have some HDtracks recordings and they sound nice, sometimes I think they sound better - but is that only because I *want* them to because they *should* sound better? Probably.

When I got the Hugo I *knew* it sounded better than my DX90 or Rega DAC. That was straight out of the box no warm up, no " I wasn't sure to begin with but after 100 hours it really began to open up", the difference was immediate - the Hugo just replicates the original sound of the musicians as if they are playing right in front of you, so much better than anything else I have listened to.

Back to 44.16 vs 24/192 - can anyone list two recordings one in 44.16 and another in 24/192 (same mastering) that to their mind shows the difference - that I can buy and listen to.

 

[bmichels]

I'll forgive Rob doing a little sales pitch on the Hugo

, as he designed it and it is the best audio investment that I have made, and everything that I play through it sounds better than my previous system. Thanks Rob!

I am yet to be convinced by 24/192 vs 44. 1/16,though, I think mastering is far more important. It comes back to my earlier comment in a previous post about thinking and knowing. I have some HDtracks recordings and they sound nice, sometimes I think they sound better - but is that only because I *want* them to because they *should* sound better? Probably.

When I got the Hugo I *knew* it sounded better than my DX90 or Rega DAC. That was straight out of the box no warm up, no " I wasn't sure to begin with but after 100 hours it really began to open up", the difference was immediate - the Hugo just replicates the original sound of the musicians as if they are playing right in front of you, so much better than anything else I have listened to.

Back to 44.16 vs 24/192 - can anyone list two recordings one in 44.16 and another in 24/192 (same mastering) that to their mind shows the difference - that I can buy and listen to.

 
well... I am ashame, but I have tu admit that I never have been able (with HUGO) to differentiate 16/44 with higher Res (besides "effet placebo").  But don't say this to HiFi gurus (those who can tell a difference between 2 power cords), they will ban me from Head-fi !
 
highfell, I sent you a PM with link to download several same music files at different sample rate. 

 

[Dobrescu George]

   
well... I am ashame, but I have tu admit that I never have been able (with HUGO) to differentiate 16/44 with higher Res (besides "effet placebo").  But don't say this to HiFi gurus (those who can tell a difference between 2 power cords), they will ban me from Head-fi !
 
highfell, I sent you a PM with link to download several same music files at different sample rate. 

hello!
 
i have not really been able to hear, i do not own yet enough resolving headphones, maybe, or something, but the difference exists, at least in theory.
 
it is not about frequencies, it is about how the data samples are stored like.

I'll forgive Rob doing a little sales pitch on the Hugo

, as he designed it and it is the best audio investment that I have made, and everything that I play through it sounds better than my previous system. Thanks Rob!

I am yet to be convinced by 24/192 vs 44. 1/16,though, I think mastering is far more important. It comes back to my earlier comment in a previous post about thinking and knowing. I have some HDtracks recordings and they sound nice, sometimes I think they sound better - but is that only because I *want* them to because they *should* sound better? Probably.

When I got the Hugo I *knew* it sounded better than my DX90 or Rega DAC. That was straight out of the box no warm up, no " I wasn't sure to begin with but after 100 hours it really began to open up", the difference was immediate - the Hugo just replicates the original sound of the musicians as if they are playing right in front of you, so much better than anything else I have listened to.

Back to 44.16 vs 24/192 - can anyone list two recordings one in 44.16 and another in 24/192 (same mastering) that to their mind shows the difference - that I can buy and listen to.

i cannot give a good example, maybe search for linkin park redbook vs hdtracks or dsd, i do not know, but the difference is there, and hugo is the statement to this.
 
The process that hugo does sounds exactly how hi res audio SHOULD sound like.
 
hugo sounds better with redbook than a bad DAC sounds with hi res.
 
 
 

  No Hugo does not sound better with normal 44.1/16 against 24/192 - but the difference is very, very much smaller than other DAC's due to the 26,000 tap WTA filter. In short, you can choose a recording for the musical performance not the SQ. I have heard some stunning sounds from good old 44.1/16 - indeed, I am constantly surprised how good compressed AAC can sound on Hugo.
 
Hugo is already very much DSD and hi res capable - its just the gap from 44.1/16 has been effectively closed.
 
Rob 

thanks a lot for the input, Rob!
 
i am studying a new interpolation algorythm, for making everything even better, and i want you to know that hugo is the main reason for me doing so.
 
After what i can understand, from what hugo does, it interpolates data samples different, and this resoults in it's unique sound which is heaven like.
 
Now, i am trying to get some money to start working at a new way to interpolate data samples.
 
The basis of ideea comes from the niquist and shannon sampling theory, which states that "it is necessary do have double the highest frequency as a sampling rate, to re-create an analog wave perfectly" but the theorem also states that these are true only in the conditions of a mathematical ideal interpolation algorythm, which should be able to do this.
 
Such algorythm does not exist in reality, and this is where i can take things a step further, i think. 
 
Thanks a lot for opening my eyes to the new way music can sound, and for creating such a innovation!
 
George.

 

[Currawong]

Many of the benefits of high-res re-masters as I understand it is when the original CD-quality version was down-sampled from the master using early, less-than-stellar quality digital equipment. In those cases, the 24/192 re-master from the original (sometimes a tape) is far better. The other case I've found to have not to do with the file, but the DAC itself. Sabre DACs I've used that just used the stock ES9018 filters tended to sound better either with a high-res master or high-quality iZotope up-sampling.  That is why, assuming the same master, all versions I have of various albums sound the same with the Hugo as I understand things, because everything gets what amounts to 2048x up-sampling.

 

[mysony1]

HUGO is great but compare with a proper headphones amp is not really achieve the sound quality should actually get with the same pair of headphones.

That's the only negative point.

 

[Dobrescu George]

  Many of the benefits of high-res re-masters as I understand it is when the original CD-quality version was down-sampled from the master using early, less-than-stellar quality digital equipment. In those cases, the 24/192 re-master from the original (sometimes a tape) is far better. The other case I've found to have not to do with the file, but the DAC itself. Sabre DACs I've used that just used the stock ES9018 filters tended to sound better either with a high-res master or high-quality iZotope up-sampling.  That is why, assuming the same master, all versions I have of various albums sound the same with the Hugo as I understand things, because everything gets what amounts to 2048x up-sampling.

As i am working at my project i can only say this.
 
The difference between hi res and redbook CD lies in how many samples are in each file.
In redbook, there are exactly 44.100 samples in every second. 
In hi res, if it is done corectly, there are exactly 4 times more, so 176400 is the best rate for a hi res file. 
Every DAC needs to use an interpolation algorithm to create a normal wave from distinct points, so different DACs emply different interpolation methods, algoritms, ans do on. Hugo has one of the best [the best i know of] implementation of this thing, and of upsampling the redbook, if understood corectly.
If a DAC has a zero order hold interpolation, the sound will not be as great as one that uses a sinc or poly sinc interpolation algorithm. 
 
Tap length is how clear the interpolation itself is, a quality quantificator of the interpolation process. It is a way to measure how clean and clear a thing can sound, or more, how precise will the new wave be compared to the original wave, before recording. 
 
An infinite TAP filter would mean perfect reproduction, in theory, but it cannot be implemented as no technology can implement such a feature, but, it would be possible to just add TAPs to a filter, until the differences are not audible anymore, this could be expected when the length reaches orders of 10^6.
 
BTW, the WTA filter, is an interpolation filter created by @Rob Watts , which is amazing. As long as i know it sounds better than classic sinc and poli-sinc filters.

 

[JaZZ]

HUGO is great but compare with a proper headphones amp is not really achieve the sound quality should actually get with the same pair of headphones.

That's the only negative point.

 
I beg to differ. The signal from the Hugo's headphone out is the unaltered signal from its DAC. It has a linear frequency response and enough power to drive most headphones effortlessly. Adding another amp means coloring the signal in the first place. However, this may correspond to someone's sonic preference or possibly create a better synergy with the headphone used. My own experience is that every additional amplification (not just in the case of the Hugo) makes the sound bigger, rounder, at the expense of accuracy and subtleties.
 
Hence, the headphone amp in the Hugo – the legendary wire with gain – is the best amp you can get, provided you like the Hugo's DAC. If you need some modification of sonic balance, an additional amp would be a rather absurd solution; better use a (software!) equalizer with fine steps.

 

[JaZZ]

I am yet to be convinced by 24/192 vs 44.1/16, though, I think mastering is far more important. It comes back to my earlier comment in a previous post about thinking and knowing. I have some HDtracks recordings and they sound nice, sometimes I think they sound better - but is that only because I *want* them to because they *should* sound better? Probably.

When I got the Hugo I *knew* it sounded better than my DX90 or Rega DAC. That was straight out of the box no warm up, no " I wasn't sure to begin with but after 100 hours it really began to open up", the difference was immediate - the Hugo just replicates the original sound of the musicians as if they are playing right in front of you, so much better than anything else I have listened to.

Back to 44.16 vs 24/192 - can anyone list two recordings one in 44.16 and another in 24/192 (same mastering) that to their mind shows the difference - that I can buy and listen to.

 
Here's some free tracks, most of them excellent recordings, with different sampling rates.
 
I downsampled two of them from 192 to 96, 88, 48 and 44.1 kHz (using Wavelab). The original 192 kHz variant sounds best to my ears, 44.1 kHz worst. The difference is not huge, the less so with the Hugo, but it's there, and the 192 kHz variant provides the highest listening pleasure.

 

[jwbrent]

  ... indeed, I am constantly surprised how good compressed AAC can sound on Hugo.
 

 
Couldn't agree more with this comment.