[JaZZ]

A big fat YES! You have my blessing.

 

[GreenBow]

I'm not sure if you quite understood where I was coming from. It's hard to disagree with me when I agree with you. I also think the best experience is "reproduced with maximum transparency." I think I said as much: "I'm team transparency." I go for maximum performance in hardware and I also use software, e.g., convolution, EQ, etc. to change sonic characteristics while maintaining that maximum transparency.

My point about soundstage was not that it's "better" with an amp, but that it can be "bigger." I think you do agree with that, right? My Moon Neo 430HAD had a bigger soundstage, again, not necessarily better, but definitely bigger than my Hugo2 alone.

But... I just sold it, because, I'm with you, I prefer H2 alone and to gain soundstage by other means, e.g., convolution and upsampling. And... by adding a Chord DAVE.

Yes try as you may, you're never going to add detail with another amplifier in the chain after the DAC. People say they do, and I never believe it since it's basically impossible.

The possibility for increasing detail is if your headphones say are e.g. very warm, and you HP-amp is very bright. You may level the field and bring out the treble detail that way.

Some users say adding a headphone amp increases heft or impact, stating the Hugo 2 is thin or bight. However again that is not really possible because you can only amplify what you get from the Hugo 2. You can add a warmer amp for more bottom end slam, but then you are skewing the balance. Making it warm and veiling detail.

If the Hugo 2 sound is not as dynamic as e.g. the TT2, then that is how both DACs will sound through an amplifier. I am doing exactly that now. I regularly run my TT2 direct to speakers. However at the moment I have both TT2 and in this case Qutest hooked up to an integrated amplifier. The TT2 sounds more dynamic through the amplifier, exactly as it should. I could use my Hugo 2 for this example, but I don't need to right now as I did that ages ago. The result was the same in Hugo 2 vs TT2 though an amplifier, with the TT2 more detailed and dynamic.

Added to all of this, we need cables to connect our DACs to amplifiers, and cables attenuate detail again. Plus they can alter tonal balance. Better off going for output straight from the very neutral Hugo 2. Then getting headphones that suit your taste, or very neutral ones with as much detail retrieval as possible. Then buy some top quality recording and be prepared to get your head blown off.

I personally find the Hugo 2 signature prefect. It could use an upgraded PSU source, like supercaps for more dynamics maybe, if that's how it works. However how many DACs at this level have that sort of PSU? Take into account that even if they did have excellent PSU, then they are not as revealing as the Hugo 2/Qutest. Meaning their signature will sound thicker by default, due to less detail. It's a bit like why the Hugo 2 is better than the Mojo, because it has at least twice the detail on every sound. Leaving the Mojo sounding maybe thicker. That's why Hugo 2 flattens any other DAC.

 

[edwardsean]

Yes try as you may, you're never going to add detail with another amplifier in the chain after the DAC. People say they do, and I never believe it since it's basically impossible.

The possibility for increasing detail is if your headphones say are e.g. very warm, and you HP-amp is very bright. You may level the field and bring out the treble detail that way.

Some users say adding a headphone amp increases heft or impact, stating the Hugo 2 is thin or bight. However again that is not really possible because you can only amplify what you get from the Hugo 2. You can add a warmer amp for more bottom end slam, but then you are skewing the balance. Making it warm and veiling detail.

If the Hugo 2 sound is not as dynamic as e.g. the TT2, then that is how both DACs will sound through an amplifier. I am doing exactly that now. I regularly run my TT2 direct to speakers. However at the moment I have both TT2 and in this case Qutest hooked up to an integrated amplifier. The TT2 sounds more dynamic through the amplifier, exactly as it should. I could use my Hugo 2 for this example, but I don't need to right now as I did that ages ago. The result was the same in Hugo 2 vs TT2 though an amplifier, with the TT2 more detailed and dynamic.

Added to all of this, we need cables to connect out DACs to amplifiers, and cables attenuate detail again. Plus they can alter tonal balance. Better off going for output straight from the very neutral Hugo 2. Then getting headphones that suit your taste, or very neutral ones with as much detail retrieval as possible. Then buy some top quality recording and be prepared to get your head blown off.

I personally find the Hugo 2 signature prefect. It could use an upgraded PSU source, like supercaps for more dynamics maybe, if that's how it works. However how many DACs at this level have that sort of PSU? Take into account that even if they did have excellent PSU, then they are not as revealing as the Hugo 2/Qutest. Meaning their signature will sound thicker by default, due to less detail. It's a bit like why the Hugo 2 is better than the Mojo, because it has at least twice the detail on every sound. Leaving the Mojo sounding maybe thicker. That's why Hugo 2 flattens any other DAC.

That's interesting. I don't really recall people saying that adding an amp can increase detail. Usually, the claim is about power and dynamics. I'm saying that an amp can increase soundstage size, especially width on a balanced amp.

Detail is usually the commonly accepted loss you trade for one of these other qualities.

 

[rwelles]

For those of us in North America, it looks like the BlueBird has flown away...

 

[Clemmaster]

If the amp has better control over the transducer than Hugo 2 does (not unlikely), then yeah it will show more details.

 

[JaZZ]

If the amp has better control over the transducer than Hugo 2 does (not unlikely), then yeah it will show more details.

How exactly does the amp control the membrane, and where do you get the idea from that it's not unlikely that some or many amps have better control?

 

[Clemmaster]

Do you think your transducer starts moving just from looking at it? The amplifier is what controls the transducer. A different amp with different characteristics will control the transducer differently. Some are better at this than other, in general. Some are better (or only work) for specific loads (e.g. ribbon or electrostatic headphones).

We can go on and argue forever, it seems. You seem set in your ways, thinking that Hugo 2 should NOT be paired with an amp, as it will only degrade the sound. My experience is very different (I used to own H2).

 

[InstantSilence]

Is there any app that does equalizer on upnp for 2go?

 

[JaZZ]

Do you think your transducer starts moving just from looking at it? The amplifier is what controls the transducer. A different amp with different characteristics will control the transducer differently. Some are better at this than other, in general. Some are better (or only work) for specific loads (e.g. ribbon or electrostatic headphones).

We can go on and argue forever, it seems. You seem set in your ways, thinking that Hugo 2 should NOT be paired with an amp, as it will only degrade the sound. My experience is very different (I used to own H2).

So apparently you can't answer my question, instead choose to be sarcastic.

For controlling membrane movement you have to use motional feedback (à la Philips MFB or Backes & Müller's implementation). An amp alone can't control the movement of the membrane, it can only move it. The only sort of control is at the fundamental resonant frequency, via damping factor. And there the decisive criterion is a low output impedance. Name a few headphone amps – they will all have a higher output impedance than Chord's DAC/amp combos, which show exemplarily low figures that are hard to beat.

And then you seem to think a second, useless amplifaction stage can add detail and kind of improve the original signal... all derived from a personal sonic preference that must be in line with a postulated technical advantage. Rob's speech: «Some people like harmonic distortion.» Some food for thought here.

 

[edwardsean]

So apparently you can't answer my question, instead choose to be sarcastic.

For controlling membrane movement you have to use motional feedback (à la Philips MFB or Backes & Müller's implementation). An amp alone can't control the movement of the membrane, it can only move it. The only sort of control is at the fundamental resonant frequency, via damping factor. And there the decisive criterion is a low output impedance. Name a few headphone amps – they will all have a higher output impedance than Chord's DAC/amp combos, which show exemplarily low figures that are hard to beat.

And then you seem to think a second, useless amplifaction stage can add detail and kind of improve the original signal... all derived from a personal sonic preference that must be in line with a postulated technical advantage. Rob's speech: «Some people like harmonic distortion.» Some food for thought here.

"à la Philips MFB or Backes & Müller's implementation"? (Deep breath) Thém's fìghting wörds.

(Just to clarify, I'm not being contemptuous, just playing. I mean no offense to JaZZ or Clem. I have my side, but I respect both your positions. I've just been stuck indoors too long, and a little bored.)

 

[JaZZ]

"à la Philips MFB or Backes & Müller's implementation"? (Deep breath) Thém's fìghting wörds.

(Just to clarify, I'm not being contemptuous, just playing. I mean no offense to JaZZ or Clem. I have my side, but I respect both your positions. I've just been stuck indoors too long, and a little bored.)

Nevertheless, that was an unnecessary side blow. Usually I don't try to impress with words and names, just want to state my findings and facts to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the two terms...

Philips MFB . . . . . . B & M

...may sound exotic to most, but from what I know these were the only attempts of active impulse control with loudspeakers or sound transducers generally. So I apologize for my long-term occupation with speaker technology which has resulted in an extensive hobbyist speaker-buiding activity – from which I have gathered some hobbyist insights. BTW, Philips never was into the high-end segment, although the MFB bass sounded nice, and I was never a fan of the B & M sound. This despite their promising motional-feedback implementation, now replaced by their Firtech system, a forward digital impulse correction similar to the Sonoma system.

 

[edwardsean]

Nevertheless, that was an unnecessary side blow. Usually I don't try to impress with words and names, just want to state my findings and facts to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the two terms...

Philips MFB . . . . . . B & M

...may sound exotic to most, but from what I know these were the only attempts of active impulse control with loudspeakers or sound transducers generally. So I apologize for my long-term occupation with speaker technology which has resulted in an extensive hobbyist speaker-buiding activity – from which I have gathered some hobbyist insights. BTW, Philips never was into the high-end segment, although the MFB bass sounded nice, and I was never a fan of the B & M sound. This despite their promising motional-feedback implementation, now replaced by their Firtech system, a forward digital impulse correction similar to the Sonoma system.

JaZZ, this is my fault. I'm fully aware of how the nuances of intention get garbled in posts, even when clarified. If we knew each other at all, if we were face to face, you would know there was no sting in my words, not even one glancing from the side.

I didn't think you were trying to impress–at all. I thought you were sharing technical aspects of audio, which is our common passion. If you can't get into "exotic" acoustic theory here, where can you? I never tire of sharing and learning on headfi, it is endless, and part and parcel of the greater joy of experiencing music.

I wasn't making fun of you for your knowledge–not even a little. I was hoping to have fun–with you–in the knowledge that we all talk like this. And, I was striving for that fun, because things were getting just a little tense between you and Clem and I thought I'd play the clown to diffuse it.

JaZZ, I didn't mean for my joking to be at your expense, but at my own. I take no pleasure in having offended you, even by accident, and do sincerely apologize.

I have to ask though, were you not even a little tickled that I added the accenting in my reply, including the umlaut? I needed a laugh and I promise you the one I was laughing at was myself.

 

[JaZZ]

Yes – and I thought my Umlauts were particularly impressive/exotic. Now that's what I got!

 

[InstantSilence]

Well I guess because of the headache, mid/upper bass hit is too much for me.
I guess I'll move to the tt2!
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/hugo-2-with-hugo-2go.934111/

 

[Kevxl]

Well I guess because of the headache, mid/upper bass hit is too much for me.
I guess I'll move to the tt2!
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/hugo-2-with-hugo-2go.934111/

Do you mind give couple of examples? Like which song give you the most pronounced mid/upper bass hit that’s so fatiguing?

I have the same Hugo2+LCD 4z combo for a little more than 2 months. I would like to see if I feel that hit as well.