[Scrum92]

Re-reading some of the posts here, I realise that Rob himself uses a cheaper cable due to Hugo 2's jitter immunity.

May cancel that order and go with the KabelDirekt he recommends. Amazon have them readily available!

 

[dmance]

Re-reading some of the posts here, I realise that Rob himself uses a cheaper cable due to Hugo 2's jitter immunity.

May cancel that order and go with the KabelDirekt he recommends. Amazon have them readily available!

Get the longest cable they have. With the optical connection, moving your digital stack away from Hugo2 will greatly help sound. So don't go optical and then put your source right beside. Instead place Hugo2 close to you (headphones), move your source waaay across the room, use only a proximate phone app for control. Don't have any other electronics or switching power supplies close to Hugo2 - run it off batteries for critical listening.

 

[Scrum92]

Get the longest cable they have. With the optical connection, moving your digital stack away from Hugo2 will greatly help sound. So don't go optical and then put your source right beside. Instead place Hugo2 close to you (headphones), move your source waaay across the room, use only a proximate phone app for control. Don't have any other electronics or switching power supplies close to Hugo2 - run it off batteries for critical listening.

It always runs off of batteries, even in desktop mode.

Why would a farther distance between source and Hugo 2 make a difference?

 

[wilsonlaidlaw]

Optical should in theory be worse than Coax, as the signal is being converted another twice: First PCM to optical and second optical to PCM. At each stage there is the possibility of transcription errors, noise, jitter and wow, unless both stages are rigidly clocked and super-quiet. USB I am never terribly sure about either, as I know some additional processing goes on and again, USB is notorious for jitter. I know DAC's like my two Benchmark Media DAC's a 2L and a 3L claim to reclock and lock, which removes all jitter but it is surely preferable not to have it there in the first place.

Wilson

 

[dmance]

@wilsonlaidlaw
please don't insert FUD where there is none. The HTML constructing this post you are reading probably goes through dozens of switches, storage stages, transmission modes, etc. 're-clocking' in the parlance of a digital transmission is just clocked buffer copies from source to destination. All works each time, every time.
Optical or coax or ethernet or USB all move the bits from source to your DAC perfectly (no pops, dropouts). When you hear the subtle differences (timber, staging, clarity) its due to RF noise from the source impinging on your DAC and disturbing the small signal D/A. RF noise Conducted (via metal in the signal or power connection) or Radiated (due to the proximity of your source electronics to your DAC) is what you want to avoid.

As I will reply to @Scrum92 , a powered Hugo2 acts like an antenna. Devices in your upstream digital chain that emit RF (everything) are picked up by Hugo2 and show up at its outputs. Toslink max length is about 25' - so its always wise to get as long a cable as possible and still support 24/192k. Distance is your friend. Everybody wants their components nicely stacked on a shelf next to their DAC. Nobody wants to believe this is the worst setup for best sound - but it's true.

 

[Scrum92]

Thanks @dmance - appreciate the response. As it goes, I have no other components to stack with so it makes no difference to me.

It turns out that the 2m optical cable I already have is a KabelDirekt one and it reliably sends 24/192 - least from my 20 minutes or so of listening with no issues. I don't need a 2m cable, a 1.5m would do so I may (for the sake of £7 and some cable tidiness) order another.

Leaning towards cancelling my £90 cable order...

 

[wilsonlaidlaw]

So if the cables can pick up RF noise, surely optical to PCM and PCM to optical converters are even more likely to pick up RF noise than a straight cable, which is in effect corrupting the signal and is therefore best avoided. Comparing text to complex pulse code modulated audio signals is like as an extreme example, comparing morse code to voice transmissions, where the level of noise that can be present and still allow a morse code to be intelligible, would render an voice signal as garbage.

 

[Scrum92]

So if the cables can pick up RF noise, surely optical to PCM and PCM to optical converters are even more likely to pick up RF noise than a straight cable, which is in effect corrupting the signal and is therefore best avoided. Comparing text to complex pulse code modulated audio signals is like as an extreme example, comparing morse code to voice transmissions, where the level of noise that can be present and still allow a morse code to be intelligible, would render an voice signal as garbage.

Optical is immune from RF and EMI

 

[Triode User]

@wilsonlaidlaw
please don't insert FUD where there is none

Optical is immune from RF and EMI

One cannot ignore the example that Innuos decided not to use optical connections at all with their top of the range servers because they measured the combined effect of conversion to optical, optical transmission (agreed RF immune for that stage) and then conversion back from optical to an electrical based signal all compared to a well implemented USB solution and the USB had lower overall noise. So it is not necessarily a case of just saying ‘optical is immune from RF’. There might be other factors to consider.

I have heard the Innuos Statement server connected to Dave via USB compared to other servers in their range connected to Dave at their show demonstrations and the advantage of the Statement sound quality was very compelling with all the normal and accepted qualities of low RF.

 

[Scrum92]

One cannot ignore the example that Innuos decided not to use optical connections at all from their top of the range servers because they measured the combined effect of conversion to optical, optical transmission (agreed RF immune for that stage) and then conversion back from optical to an electrical based signal all compared to a well implemented USB solution and the USB had lower overall noise. So it is not necessarily a case of just saying ‘optical is immune from RF’. There might be other factors to consider.

I have heard the Innuos Statement server connected to Dave via USB compared to other servers in their range connected to Dave at their show demonstrations and the advantage of the Statement sound quality was very compelling with all the normal and accepted qualities of low RF.

What sort of other noise might you hear with optical?

 

[Triode User]

What sort of other noise might you hear with optical?

I am just reporting what Innuos say and why they favour USB over optical and your question is best directed at them.

However their lower range servers have optical as well as USB and it is their pursuit of the lowest noise that has directed them in the USB only direction for their best servers

It is possible (I am guessing here) that the conversion process to convert back from optical can generate noise. As I said before though, they were not guessing because they measured the overall noise based on the two options.

ps, One point is that if Innuos design and make a server with no or very low RF noise then the need for an optical RF break is reduced or possibly not needed and I can fully see that there might come a point where the optical conversion process merely adds more noise to the already low noise of the Innuos server.

 

[jarnopp]

One cannot ignore the example that Innuos decided not to use optical connections at all with their top of the range servers because they measured the combined effect of conversion to optical, optical transmission (agreed RF immune for that stage) and then conversion back from optical to an electrical based signal all compared to a well implemented USB solution and the USB had lower overall noise. So it is not necessarily a case of just saying ‘optical is immune from RF’. There might be other factors to consider.

I have heard the Innuos Statement server connected to Dave via USB compared to other servers in their range connected to Dave at their show demonstrations and the advantage of the Statement sound quality was very compelling with all the normal and accepted qualities of low RF.

Also, Poly for the Mojo uses the USB connection and the device sounds fantastic, really the best i’ve heard Mojo sound. So, 2Go will likely be similar, and you get the benefit of higher resolutions.

 

[Scrum92]

I am just reporting what Innuos say and why they favour USB over optical and your question is best directed at them.

However their lower range servers have optical as well as USB and it is their pursuit of the lowest noise that has directed them in the USB only direction for their best servers

It is possible (I am guessing here) that the conversion process to convert back from optical can generate noise. As I said before though, they were not guessing because they measured the overall noise based on the two options.

ps, One point is that if Innuos design and make a server with no or very low RF noise then the need for an optical RF break is reduced or possibly not needed and I can fully see that there might come a point where the optical conversion process merely adds more noise to the already low noise of the Innuos server.

I'm not disputing that they say that, but can you link me to where that's said? I'm intrigued to understand it or at least try to!

I'd also like to understand what form of noise could be added?

Rob Watts, in this thread, says optical should be the reference for Hugo 2 so with its measured jitter immunity I'm going to stick with my cheaper cable and see how I get on.

With that said, I am very interested to hear why a better optical cable could make a difference. I like buying nice things after all!

 

[Triode User]

I'm not disputing that they say that, but can you link me to where that's said? I'm intrigued to understand it or at least try to!

I'd also like to understand what form of noise could be added?

Rob Watts, in this thread, says optical should be the reference for Hugo 2 so with its measured jitter immunity I'm going to stick with my cheaper cable and see how I get on. I am very interested to see why a better optical cable could make a difference. I like buying nice things after all!

Nuno Vitorino at Innuos told me himself when we were talking but I think there have been YouTube videos of interviews.

But you see my point, if the server is already ultra low noise then why put in the extra complication of the conversion to optical and then back again if it only adds noise to the server output.

 

[Scrum92]

Nuno Vitorino at Innuos told me himself when we were talking but I think there have been YouTube videos of interviews.

But you see my point, if the server is already ultra low noise then why put in the extra complication of the conversion to optical and then back again if it only adds noise to the server output.

Ah, fair enough.

I'm not sure I do see the point. I don't understand what sort of noise we're talking about. When we talk about noise with regards to USB I've always understood we are talking about RFI and EMI and we know that optical is immune from those things. What other forms of noise could be introduced?