[flyte3333]

  700 Hz 4.5 dB is the blue (Max) setting. Green is Chu Moy's 700 Hz 6dB and red is Jan Meier's 650 Hz 9.5 dB (Min). The IIR DSP is done at 705/768 kHz via two dedicated DSP cores.

 
Sweet, people that haven't used cross feed with headphones before are gonna love it built into the Hugo 2.
 
700Hz 4.5dB with my Mojo is nice indeed.

 

[canali]

Sweet, people that haven't used cross feed with headphones before are gonna love it built into the Hugo 2.

700Hz 4.5dB with my Mojo is nice indeed.

Do kindly explain ....Benefits of built in crossfeed? Thanks

 

[flyte3333]

Sweet, people that haven't used cross feed with headphones before are gonna love it built into the Hugo 2.

700Hz 4.5dB with my Mojo is nice indeed.

Do kindly explain ....Benefits of builg in crossfeed? Thanks

http://bs2b.sourceforge.net

Roon and Rob's Hugo 2 use that implementation. It really does make listening to headphones sound more like speakers in terms of depth of sounds as Rob mentioned too.

You can always turn it off if you don't like it of course but I can't go back now.


Sent from my STH100-2 using Tapatalk

 

[Rob Watts]

 

Sweet, people that haven't used cross feed with headphones before are gonna love it built into the Hugo 2.

700Hz 4.5dB with my Mojo is nice indeed.

Do kindly explain ....Benefits of builg in crossfeed? Thanks

The problem with any processing is that you have an output that has a larger bit depth - in the case of Hugo 2 its internal processing is at 48 bits for the cross-feed. This needs to be converted back to 24 bits for the next stage processing; and I can do this very aggressively with maintaining small signal accuracy via noise shaping at 705/768 kHz so that depth perception is not degraded. But doing it via a PC means the OP truncation to 32 or 24 bits is via dither as you are limited to the original SR; and my tests with dither shows that it is not as good in preserving depth as doing it at 768k with noise shaping.
 
We are not talking about vast changes though. But one potential problem is whether the software coder is significantly aware of the essential importance of small signal accuracy. IIR design to ensure absolute small signal accuracy is not trivial. Now I am not saying that EQ apps sound poor; I am just making the point that it is not as easy as it might appear, and there is considerable potential to mess up transparency.
 
Rob

 

[paul2qute]

700 Hz 4.5 dB is the blue (Max) setting. Green is Chu Moy's 700 Hz 6dB and red is Jan Meier's 650 Hz 9.5 dB (Min). The IIR DSP is done at 705/768 kHz via two dedicated DSP cores.

Maybe on the hugo 3 you can have a orange Paul 2 qute 701hz 7 db min

 

[flyte3333]

  The problem with any processing is that you have an output that has a larger bit depth - in the case of Hugo 2 its internal processing is at 48 bits for the cross-feed. This needs to be converted back to 24 bits for the next stage processing; and I can do this very aggressively with maintaining small signal accuracy via noise shaping at 705/768 kHz so that depth perception is not degraded. But doing it via a PC means the OP truncation to 32 or 24 bits is via dither as you are limited to the original SR; and my tests with dither shows that it is not as good in preserving depth as doing it at 768k with noise shaping.
 
We are not talking about vast changes though. But one potential problem is whether the software coder is significantly aware of the essential importance of small signal accuracy. IIR design to ensure absolute small signal accuracy is not trivial. Now I am not saying that EQ apps sound poor; I am just making the point that it is not as easy as it might appear, and there is considerable potential to mess up transparency.
 
Rob

 
Thanks for sharing Rob. With my Mojo I definitely prefer to use it (with my PC software, for obvious reasons).
 
But since it's a built in feature of the Hugo 2 I will definitely leave it to the expertise of the Dac.
 
I had a look at my PC software. DSP is done at 64 bits (obviously a good thing) but indeed it looks like the original sample rate is maintained. I need to ask them if noise shaping is done at higher SR (for cross feed) - for my Mojo.

 

[flyte3333]

  The problem with any processing is that you have an output that has a larger bit depth - in the case of Hugo 2 its internal processing is at 48 bits for the cross-feed. This needs to be converted back to 24 bits for the next stage processing; and I can do this very aggressively with maintaining small signal accuracy via noise shaping at 705/768 kHz so that depth perception is not degraded. But doing it via a PC means the OP truncation to 32 or 24 bits is via dither as you are limited to the original SR; and my tests with dither shows that it is not as good in preserving depth as doing it at 768k with noise shaping.
 
We are not talking about vast changes though. But one potential problem is whether the software coder is significantly aware of the essential importance of small signal accuracy. IIR design to ensure absolute small signal accuracy is not trivial. Now I am not saying that EQ apps sound poor; I am just making the point that it is not as easy as it might appear, and there is considerable potential to mess up transparency.
 
Rob

 
Hi Rob, will the Hugo 2 RCA inputs take WBT locking RCA's without issues.
 
WBT OD spec'ed as 13.6mm : http://www.wbtusa.com/pdf/0114cu.pdf
 
What's the max diameter RCA's they can take?
 
Cheers

 

[Christer]

   
Hi Rob, will the Hugo 2 RCA inputs take WBT locking RCA's without issues.
 
WBT OD spec'ed as 13.6mm : http://www.wbtusa.com/pdf/0114cu.pdf
 
What's the max diameter RCA's they can take?
 
Cheers

 Hi Rob,Interesting to read  about the  actual risks of messing things up with too much  DSP.
I have to agree with Beolab's obseravations with his Abyss set regarding crossfeed, both via  my HD800 and HE1000V2.
While I must again state that since adding HE1000V 2 to my HUGO I am more than a little surprised at how much better it sounds via those than my HD800, I still maintain that to my ears and with material where I both know how things sounded in the actual hall live and via headphones and both via direct mic-feed and  raw playback at sessions and final edited masterfiles for releases what I hear via both headphones is closer to both live and raw playback  with crossfeed OFF, than ANY of the three crossfeed settings on my HUGO.
Set to blue I hear less of the ACTUAL hall ambience captured than with crossfeed turned off and all three  settings shifts the image forward while robbing it slightly  of the actual ambience and left and right information. The string sections first and second  violins left and right of the podium  in some cases where the conductor has put them antiphonallly on the stage sound more like one slightly fuzzier unit  pushed forward with crossfeed ,than both heard live and as captured by the mics on my reference albums  and  also  slightly messes with instrumental timbral accuracy too IMHO.
It will be interesting to hear if HUGO 2 can handle such really complex, very delicate information better than HUGO does with crossfeed.
Having said this, I am really enjoying MANY MORE recordings now via my HUGO and HE1000V 2 than before,  while of course still being  quite  curious to hear how much more HUGO 2 will add to my enjoyment than now.
Your post adressing some such questions recently made my mouth  water like a pavlovian dog's.
Cheers Chris

 

[Rob Watts]

I have measured the inset diameter for the RCA phono at 13.0 mm. Given the 13.6 mm diameter is at the larger knurled end, I think the WBT will easily fit. 

 

[Rob Watts]

 

  The problem with any processing is that you have an output that has a larger bit depth - in the case of Hugo 2 its internal processing is at 48 bits for the cross-feed. This needs to be converted back to 24 bits for the next stage processing; and I can do this very aggressively with maintaining small signal accuracy via noise shaping at 705/768 kHz so that depth perception is not degraded. But doing it via a PC means the OP truncation to 32 or 24 bits is via dither as you are limited to the original SR; and my tests with dither shows that it is not as good in preserving depth as doing it at 768k with noise shaping.
 
We are not talking about vast changes though. But one potential problem is whether the software coder is significantly aware of the essential importance of small signal accuracy. IIR design to ensure absolute small signal accuracy is not trivial. Now I am not saying that EQ apps sound poor; I am just making the point that it is not as easy as it might appear, and there is considerable potential to mess up transparency.
 
Rob

 
Thanks for sharing Rob. With my Mojo I definitely prefer to use it (with my PC software, for obvious reasons).
 
But since it's a built in feature of the Hugo 2 I will definitely leave it to the expertise of the Dac.
 
I had a look at my PC software. DSP is done at 64 bits (obviously a good thing) but indeed it looks like the original sample rate is maintained. I need to ask them if noise shaping is done at higher SR (for cross feed) - for my Mojo.

For sure you can use noise shaping at 44.1 kHz - but it only starts to become really effective at a tenth of the sample rate - so above 4 kHz there is not enough noise shaping to be effective. That's the beauty of 705/768 kHz - you can get 64 bit 20 kHz bandwidth resolution but only at 24 bit output. If you were to do this with 44.1 then it would be too noisy, and above 4 kHz would have poor resolution.
 
This issue of how best to truncate for 44.1 - and at the same time to preserve as much as possible depth - is a serious issue I have to address with the Davina project. So far its looking like Gaussian dither is the best sounding option. 
 
Rob

 

[dnnaudio]

Not so easy to answer - Hugo 2 is certainly more incisive than Hugo 1, with a lot more transparency; but it is also fundamentally more refined and smoother too - how these two differing qualities come out will depend upon your music - on some tracks you will notice it sounding much more refined and warm; on other tracks you will hear better speed, more power and impact - that initial crack as a stick hits a wood block is much easier to perceive for example.

Technically, the reasons for the improved warmth is down to lower noise floor modulation and overall lower distortion; the improvement in transparency, notably depth and detail resolution is down to the better noise shaping and internal truncation; and the ability to perceive sharp transients (crack as stick hits wood block) is down to improvements on the WTA, notably running at 256 FS. So in this case the timing uncertainty due to sampling has been reduced, and this allows one to perceive rapidly changing sounds.

Rob 

Thanks Rob, reason I asked is I currently use a Sony Z1R HP w/c is on the warm side but w/ Hugo is just right and does not come across overly dark. I guess I have to wait how it will match w/ Hugo II and looking forward to it. Regards.

 

[flyte3333]

  I have measured the inset diameter for the RCA phono at 13.0 mm. Given the 13.6 mm diameter is at the larger knurled end, I think the WBT will easily fit. 

 
Awesome.

 

[flyte3333]

  For sure you can use noise shaping at 44.1 kHz - but it only starts to become really effective at a tenth of the sample rate - so above 4 kHz there is not enough noise shaping to be effective. That's the beauty of 705/768 kHz - you can get 64 bit 20 kHz bandwidth resolution but only at 24 bit output. If you were to do this with 44.1 then it would be too noisy, and above 4 kHz would have poor resolution.
 
This issue of how best to truncate for 44.1 - and at the same time to preserve as much as possible depth - is a serious issue I have to address with the Davina project. So far its looking like Gaussian dither is the best sounding option. 
 
Rob

 
Nice. Does this mean that for the Mojo, if I want to use crossfeed done by the PC software, then is up-sampling to the Dac's max sample rate (factor of 2) a good idea?
 
Is this the only case (crossfeed) where you may recommend up-sampling upstream of the Mojo?

 

[Rob Watts]

 

  For sure you can use noise shaping at 44.1 kHz - but it only starts to become really effective at a tenth of the sample rate - so above 4 kHz there is not enough noise shaping to be effective. That's the beauty of 705/768 kHz - you can get 64 bit 20 kHz bandwidth resolution but only at 24 bit output. If you were to do this with 44.1 then it would be too noisy, and above 4 kHz would have poor resolution.
 
This issue of how best to truncate for 44.1 - and at the same time to preserve as much as possible depth - is a serious issue I have to address with the Davina project. So far its looking like Gaussian dither is the best sounding option. 
 
Rob

 
Nice. Does this mean that for the Mojo, if I want to use crossfeed done by the PC software, then is up-sampling to the Dac's max sample rate (factor of 2) a good idea?
 
Is this the only case (crossfeed) where you may recommend up-sampling upstream of the Mojo?

 
No - you will be comparing a potentially small difference in loss of depth against a guaranteed massive degradation in all areas!

 

[flyte3333]

   
No - you will be comparing a potentially small difference in loss of depth against a guaranteed massive degradation in all areas!

 
Eep ! I guess it's true, there's no such thing as a free lunch!
 
Thanks Rob, I'll go back to bit perfect on the Mojo.