[dontfeedphils]

A very positive first review, almost makes me want to buy one. I will wait for more reviews first though. If there are no connection issues and drop outs reported then who knows I may buy one.

I really can't see how one Hugo2 source sounds better than another though, if it does doesn't that point to an issue with Hugo 2's inputs rather than the source.

IME, digital source matters with any DAC.

 

[AndrewOld]

A very positive first review, almost makes me want to buy one. I will wait for more reviews first though. If there are no connection issues and drop outs reported then who knows I may buy one.

I really can't see how one Hugo2 source sounds better than another though, if it does doesn't that point to an issue with Hugo 2's inputs rather than the source.

Interested to learn that the Hugo2 on its own “ruined the rest of the songs”.

 

[435279]

Interested to learn that the Hugo2 on its own “ruined the rest of the songs”.

The reviewer was perhaps using a source that was re-sampling the music, this can make things sound nasty. One bit perfect source will sound identical to another notwithstanding noise introduced from the source. RF noise in the case of a phone for example as we all know can affect the Hugo2 and Mojo.

 

[AndrewOld]

The reviewer was perhaps using a source that was re-sampling the music, this can make things sound nasty. One bit perfect source will sound identical to another notwithstanding noise introduced from the source. RF noise in the case of a phone for example as we all know can affect the Hugo2 and Mojo.

So he was incompetent? Or deliberately rigged the comparison? Any decent, fair, competent reviewer should have taken care to ensure that the sources were identical in terms of bit depth and sampling frequency.

 

[guerph]

Interested to learn that the Hugo2 on its own “ruined the rest of the songs”.

Calling this a review is misleading at best. I saw that statement and stopped reading. Drivel.

 

[435279]

Calling this a review is misleading at best. I saw that statement and stopped reading. Drivel.

One problem is that reviews that present at either end of the very good or very bad spectrum will cause the reader to doubt the review, "It can't be that good/bad". Middle of the road reviews will be uninspiring. I certainly wouldn't be a reviewer.

 

[ZappaMan]

I think bit perfect does not equal music is reproduced the same. Latency and other factors take place.

 

[jarnopp]

IME, digital source matters with any DAC.

I believe sources matter in the context of the whole system - I.e., how everything is connected and the “hygiene” you have with regard to electrical noise. My premise is that if you could be assured no electrical noise, for example a streamer and a dac each operating off a battery and separated by 30 feet and connected by optical, I would not expect any difference among sources. All the connections, cable and electrical, matter.

 

[ZappaMan]

I believe sources matter in the context of the whole system - I.e., how everything is connected and the “hygiene” you have with regard to electrical noise. My premise is that if you could be assured no electrical noise, for example a streamer and a dac each operating off a battery and separated by 30 feet and connected by optical, I would not expect any difference among sources. All the connections, cable and electrical, matter.

But the source must be controlled by software, that executed on operating systems, that operate on boards, that are executing assembly language on CPU’s.
The more you look, the more moving parts there are within the source.

 

[PhilW]

So he was incompetent? Or deliberately rigged the comparison? Any decent, fair, competent reviewer should have taken care to ensure that the sources were identical in terms of bit depth and sampling frequency.

Maybe I should have been much more specific in terms of the setup so as to save any ambiguity. I used two usual methods that people would use to connect to the Hugo. At both times using the same song with same bit depth and sample rate stored locally on my phone. First I used bubble upnp connected directly to Poly using wifi. The second time I used the exact same song from my local phone storage using UAPP and a cable.

I should also add that it ruined the song "comparatively" speaking after listening to it using wifi and BubbleuPnP

 

[AndrewOld]

Maybe I should have been much more specific in terms of the setup so as to save any ambiguity. I used two usual methods that people would use to connect to the Hugo. At both times using the same song with same bit depth and sample rate stored locally on my phone. First I used bubble upnp connected directly to Poly using wifi. The second time I used the exact same song from my local phone storage using UAPP and a cable.

I should also add that it ruined the song "comparatively" speaking after listening to it using wifi and BubbleuPnP

it is @SteveOliver you should address this to, for it was he that suggested you weren’t comparing files with the same sample rate.

You said in your review that playing from your phone, the Hugo2 “ruined the rest of the songs”. That was already “comparatively” speaking surely?

 

[musickid]

hugo 2 is finished it's ruined forever......goto bed.

 

[Doody]

It's February 29th in the UK. No obvious new news about availability. No new or updated software on the Android app store.

Have a nice day!

Doody

 

[PANURUS]

deleted

 

[jarnopp]

But the source must be controlled by software, that executed on operating systems, that operate on boards, that are executing assembly language on CPU’s.
The more you look, the more moving parts there are within the source.

Exactly, but at the end of the day, it is outputting a digital signal. So if it cannot transmit electrical noise, and is not doing any sample processing (no upsampling, no crossfeed, volume - I.e., bit perfect) what Is the dac getting that is different from one source to another?