[BunnyNamedCraig]

I would be interested to hear your views regarding how the Clear handles traditional jazz trios and quartets.
I find that the beyer Tesla drivers are good for the bass detail for double bass, and also good for cymbals at the top end - the middle is not bad either.
So how do you find that the Clear compares to Tesla drivers?

I grabbed the Beyer T1v2 that we have here (figured that would be a good comparison to the Clear all the way around) Throw me some tracks that you can think of, I have the time I can throw it down now!

Edit-Im forgetting how much harder the T1 is to drive compared the the Clear! Listening to band The Bad Plus right now and I am on light green with the Clear and about purple with the T1

 

[GreenBow]

With respect to hi-fi magazines, what they write depends a great deal on who is paying for advertising. They are not going to find many faults with equipment from manufacturers who are paying them money, are they?

Yeah but if a Hifi mag writes a load of garbage and you then you buy bad. You don't use the magazine again do you.

 

[GreenBow]

Well, something so difficult to quantify as percentages, taking into consideration subjectivity, even a cursory view looks like this:

DAVE 20 element pulse array > Hugo2 10 element pulse arrray = 50%

DAVE 164,000 taps > Hugo2 49,152 taps = 50%

DAVE high frequency switch PSU > Hugo2 battery = 75%

DAVE galvanic isolation > Hugo2 no galvanic isolation = 90%

Which gives a rough estimation that Hugo2 is 66% DAVE.

That's phenomenal, extraordinary value!

However, if we want to equate these percentages to SQ (which I don't think we can) the remaining 34% in an audiophile world, where percentages can cost hundreds, if not thousands of dollars, the gap between the DAVE and the Hugo2 might as well be the distance between the earth and the sun.

All of this, however, does not take into consideration that Hugo2 has some unique filters that DAVE does not have. On the other hand, the DAVE kicks out more juice and is designed to more easily connect to additional peripherals. There are other factors, but like I said, a very cursory look.

Since when was 164,000 / 49,152 = 50%. .... You need a new calculator. I get 29.98%.

 

[BunnyNamedCraig]

@miketlse listening to "Nemisis" off Dave Holland Quartet I am hear a more 3D sound with the instruments with the Clear. They have more body to them.

Bill Evans Trio- "Peri's scope" The bass sounds like Its actually being strummed and I get better transparency in regards to that with the Clear then the T1. The T1 bass sounds a little bloated and not as tight.

I also get better separation between instruments with Clear.

I want to spend more time with this... These were just things I heard off the bat between the 2 and is no way the end all.. (let alone a different amp/dac) Once again feel free to send me some tracks and i'll listen more. I am curious to see if the T1v2 will do better with poorer recorded music than compared to the Clear. I am currently starving so I am going to leave and get food. Seems like a wings night to me.

-Craig

 

[miketlse]

I grabbed the Beyer T1v2 that we have here (figured that would be a good comparison to the Clear all the way around) Throw me some tracks that you can think of, I have the time I can throw it down now!

Edit-Im forgetting how much harder the T1 is to drive compared the the Clear! Listening to band The Bad Plus right now and I am on light green with the Clear and about purple with the T1

Ok, I will try and provide some tracks tomorrow.

 

[Hooster]

Yeah but if a Hifi mag writes a load of garbage and you then you buy bad. You don't use the magazine again do you.

I am guilty of buying bad magazines all the time. You just have to learn to read between the lines. If you think hifi mags are bad, then avoid car magazines at all costs. They write gushing reviews about car X version A. Then when version B comes out they write another favorable review about that and talk about how much it is improved on version A, which is now considered a total piece of garbage.

 

[GreenBow]

I am guilty of buying bad magazines all the time. You just have to learn to read between the lines. If you think hifi mags are bad, then avoid car magazines at all costs. They write gushing reviews about car X version A. Then when version B comes out they write another favorable review about that and talk about how much it is improved on version A, which is now considered a total piece of garbage.

Hahaha yeah. Good story.

I was actually going to edit my post and mention 'reading between the lines'.

(What gets to me a bit though, is when they write a product is perfect, like the Hugo 1. Then Hugo 2 comes out, and suddenly Hugo 1 had issues. (Like soft bass, ha.))

 

[bytor33]

Edit-Im forgetting how much harder the T1 is to drive compared the the Clear! Listening to band The Bad Plus right now and I am on light green with the Clear and about purple with the T1

That seems like it would be extremely loud. I rarely get out of red with my Z1R's and most modern music, sometimes into the yellow with DSD and high dynamic range tracks. I wonder if Chord changed the volume stepping with the Hugo 2 like they did with the Mojo?

 

[x RELIC x]

That seems like it would be extremely loud. I rarely get out of red with my Z1R's and most modern music, sometimes into the yellow with DSD and high dynamic range tracks. I wonder if Chord changed the volume stepping with the Hugo 2 like they did with the Mojo?

I agree. With Utopia I’m around upper red or barely Yellow.

What are you talking about Chord changing the volume stepping on Mojo? I don’t recall that.

 

[Hooster]

That seems like it would be extremely loud. I rarely get out of red with my Z1R's and most modern music, sometimes into the yellow with DSD and high dynamic range tracks. I wonder if Chord changed the volume stepping with the Hugo 2 like they did with the Mojo?

It will not sound extremely loud to those who are already deaf due to listening at too high volumes for too long. It is all subjective.

Many headphone amp/combinations easily go loud enough to damage your hearing permanently in just a few minutes. Yes, irreparably for the rest of your life. Use this equipment with extreme caution.

 

[flyte3333]

Hi @Rob Watts

A fun question about the TOSlink input of the Hugo2 and jitter elimination! This might get you excited (or put you to sleep LOL)

Is it working in the same way Ted Smith has explained about the DirectStream DAC?

I'm going to take bits and pieces from the two links below but Ted basically says:

1. He doesn't use the clocking of any of the digital inputs at all. No PLL, FLL, etc
2. There’s a fast internal clock that’s used to sample the inputs. It’s fast enough that no incoming edges are missed.
3. It's just straight wire from the FPGA inputs to the TOSlink receiver
4. Then the FPGA “just stares at the patterns” to find the 0’s and 1’s, decode the samples and stuff them into a buffer.

In summary, the FPGA is ignoring any incoming clocking info and is just staring directly at the TOSlink receiver (straight wire to the TOSlink receiver) and the FPGA finds the bits, decodes the samples and stuffs them into a buffer.

Sources:

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/...rectstream-dac/?do=findComment&comment=300547

and

http://www.psaudio.com/forum/directstream-all-about-it/ds-and-jitter-rejection-with-toslink/#p73742

 

[Rob Watts]

Hi @Rob Watts

A fun question about the TOSlink input of the Hugo2 and jitter elimination! This might get you excited (or put you to sleep LOL)

Is it working in the same way Ted Smith has explained about the DirectStream DAC?

I'm going to take bits and pieces from the two links below but Ted basically says:

1. He doesn't use the clocking of any of the digital inputs at all. No PLL, FLL, etc
2. There’s a fast internal clock that’s used to sample the inputs. It’s fast enough that no incoming edges are missed.
3. It's just straight wire from the FPGA inputs to the TOSlink receiver
4. Then the FPGA “just stares at the patterns” to find the 0’s and 1’s, decode the samples and stuff them into a buffer.

In summary, the FPGA is ignoring any incoming clocking info and is just staring directly at the TOSlink receiver (straight wire to the TOSlink receiver) and the FPGA finds the bits, decodes the samples and stuffs them into a buffer.

Sources:

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/...rectstream-dac/?do=findComment&comment=300547

and

http://www.psaudio.com/forum/directstream-all-about-it/ds-and-jitter-rejection-with-toslink/#p73742

Hmm - to say there is no PLL or FLL is not being accurate, as the OP of the buffer's clock (when you are reading the data in the local master clock domain) is frequency and/or phase locked to the input clock. Otherwise your buffer would get full or empty. The key is how this frequency or phase control is actually done; this is where the SQ differences occurs. What he is describing is actually identical to my DPLL; but the tricky stuff is not what he describes but how you actually implement the OP clock for the buffer. I should add that I don't think Ted is being disingenuous about this - he is too decent and straightforward to do that - but overall the system is frequency locked (FLL) - and it may use phase locking too in order to acquire lock.

 

[flyte3333]

I should add that I don't think Ted is being disingenuous about this - he is too decent and straightforward to do that

Agreed Rob! He always has nice things to say about you and Chord too. Just in case anyone else reading this thinks I brought up Ted's name looking a pissing contest - absolutely not. I have and enjoy both a DirectStream and a Hugo2.

I just love reading and learning about the high tech stuff I own.

Maybe I will seek clarification from him about his method.

At least for your Hugo2, can you explain (at a high level, if possible) how jitter is eliminated from the TOSLink input?

Cheers!

 

[Rob Watts]

Agreed Rob! He always has nice things to say about you and Chord too. Just in case anyone else reading this thinks I brought up Ted's name looking a pissing contest - absolutely not. I have and enjoy both a DirectStream and a Hugo2.

I just love reading and learning about the high tech stuff I own.

Maybe I will seek clarification from him about his method.

At least for your Hugo2, can you explain (at a high level, if possible) how jitter is eliminated from the TOSLink input?

Cheers!

It's exactly as Ted describes - but I call it a DPLL (digital phase lock loop). The phase part only comes into step when it's out of lock, when in lock it's only the very long term frequency over many seconds that has an influence to the newly created word clock. That's why the source jitter has no bearing on the DAC performance, as the phase of the input has no influence on the data that is re-clocked - only the long term (over several seconds) frequency has an adjustment. The tricky part is how this new jitter free word clock is actually created - how you get frequency locking allowing long term adjustments without creating and sound quality issues at all - and it took me 6 years to get that perfect. In my case I was comparing the SQ from no DPLL with the source having the same clock as the DAC, to a DPLL where the source had its own clock - and I kept going until I could hear no difference - and it was surprising how very subtle changes in performance was very audible.

 

[flyte3333]

It's exactly as Ted describes - but I call it a DPLL (digital phase lock loop). The phase part only comes into step when it's out of lock, when in lock it's only the very long term frequency over many seconds that has an influence to the newly created word clock. That's why the source jitter has no bearing on the DAC performance, as the phase of the input has no influence on the data that is re-clocked - only the long term (over several seconds) frequency has an adjustment. The tricky part is how this new jitter free word clock is actually created - how you get frequency locking allowing long term adjustments without creating and sound quality issues at all - and it took me 6 years to get that perfect. In my case I was comparing the SQ from no DPLL with the source having the same clock as the DAC, to a DPLL where the source had its own clock - and I kept going until I could hear no difference - and it was surprising how very subtle changes in performance was very audible.

Got it. Brilliant stuff Rob.

It's easy to get so caught up in USB, I sometimes forget how good the simple TOSlink input with the Hugo2 is sounds (the same for my DirectStream too).

After using an Uptone ISO REGEN for a couple months feeding my Hugo2, I just switched back to TOSLink, just to see if I really wanted to switch back to USB immediately... not the case at all.

Of course if you listen to >192kHz music then you're somewhat limited with TOSlink but I'm lucky that I don't have anything >192kHz.

I've only played with >192kHz (up-sampled music) when I first got Hugo2 to make sure my unit could handle all the rates that it says on the box (which it did of course, up to 768kHz).

Anyway it looks (and sounds) like that 6 years of blood, sweat and tears paid off big time !