[HiFiHawaii808]

He is certainly an impatient guy, which irritated some of you, but I don't think he is a troll.
I also believe that all of you who were stating that everything on Spotify or Youtube is not worth considering by a true audiophile, need to go and look in the mirror.
Whether or not you think the questions are useful, I think the findings are useful for any newbies considering buying a Hugo 2.

I don't think Spotify or YouTube are crap. In fact, I subscribe to both in addition to Tidal. My point is that what you want to create is a balanced system where all components of your music are pulling its weight in the solution. If you are using Spotify and HD650 headphones, a balanced system would include a Bottlehead Crack with speedball which you can purchase for $750 or less and it will sound a lot better than if you pair it with a $2500 Hugo 2. None of these products are crap, but pairing an expensive product that sounds worse than a cheaper product is a crap decision.

 

[Currawong]

This isn't correct.

TOSlink is limited to DoP64 (uses datastream of PCM176.4kHz).

For it to work with DSD128, TOSlink would need to support PCM352.8kHz... which it doesn't.

Am I one level of scale off? I thought that DSD64, since it usually converts to 88.2 PCM, and DSD128 to 176.2 PCM means that it would work. I guess I need to double-check this.

That is general, dont think you have tested them. With the HD6XX am unable to tell the difference between Hugo2 and cheaper O2 Odac through Youtube and Spotify. Will test on higher quality recording with Tidal soon. Which in my opinion with my long term future hypothesis predicting that probably they will sound the same performance wise. Could be the HD6XX is not scalable enough or am using stock cable not using optical or coaxial. Am using micro usb to type A.

I reckon the HD6XX would be your limitation for sure. It would also depend on the kind of music you're listening to. A lot of music I just listen to in the car and don't worry about it being the stock stereo. I save the better music for home listening with the Hugo 2 and much better headphones.

From a private conversation I had it seems like he doesn't even own the Hugo 2, in any case, this discussion sounds a lot like trolling from his side, not really adding much useful information to the thread.

He said he did in a previous post. If he doesn't own it, was he borrowing it?

 

[flyte3333]

Am I one level of scale off? I thought that DSD64, since it usually converts to 88.2 PCM, and DSD128 to 176.2 PCM means that it would work. I guess I need to double-check this.

Still not correct As I wrote "DoP64 uses datastream of PCM176.4kHz"

 

[118900]

From a private conversation I had it seems like he doesn't even own the Hugo 2, in any case, this discussion sounds a lot like trolling from his side, not really adding much useful information to the thread.

Got the same feeling from reading his conversations with others on here and when he interceded in one of mine I just put him in ignore. It’s like he’s just trying to provoke rather than exchange rational points of view.

I may be wrong but the only time I have seen so many people riled up and even arguing amongst themselves for no good reason is when a tr0ll is deliberately causing it. Look at all the posts on here triggered by him (this one included).

 

[Hooster]

Can we please stay on topic here?

 

[Richardhoos]

I’m looking to get a portable streamer to use with my Hugo2 rather than my iPhone. I’ve been through way too many of these apple camera adapter cables.

Curious if anyone has any recommendations for a portable streamer—A&K, Hiby, and ones from Fiio seem to be the most popular.

I would obviously just be using it for streaming purposes, with Qobuz.

Thanks for your help!
Rich

 

[Edric Li]

I find the Hugo 2 does an exceptional job revealing the flaws in MP3/AAC/Youtube and poorly recorded music, and I don't really mean it as a complement. Contrary to Rob's philosophy, that a good DAC should be a revealing/honest DAC, I simply want to enjoy good sounding music. Objectively there are a lot of poorly recorded/engineered music out there, e.g. indie music, and I really don't mind my gear make them sound better than they are.

My WM1Z, for example, does a way better job at reproducing MP3/AAC/Youtube music. It has a set of digital filters that effectively reduces "digital glare" and other bad traits of MP3, though those digital filters drain battery fast. I enjoy my MP3 collection more with WM1Z than with Hugo 2.

 

[Rob Watts]

Hi @Rob Watts

For Hugo2, can you share a wide band 0 - 22.05 kHz sweep, from 44.1/32 source file, at 5 MHz bandwidth.

Something like this:

The AP can't go to 5MHz, using my normal 0dBFS white noise filter test:

No out of band filter images are detectable. The digital filtering on Hugo 2 extends up to 104MHz, so you will be left with random uncorrelated noise only.

Noise shown up to 250kHz is from the AP ADC not Hugo 2.

 

[flyte3333]

No out of band filter images are detectable. The digital filtering on Hugo 2 extends up to 104MHz, so you will be left with random uncorrelated noise only.

Noise shown up to 250kHz is from the AP ADC not Hugo 2.

Thanks Rob! Looks great!

What is the hump from 250kHz to just over 1 MHz.

It is random uncorrelated noise obviously (as you said) so absolutely not a concern at all, but what is the cause of the hump itself, only out of interest?

 

[Rob Watts]

It's random noise from the 10e noise shaper - and it's not signal dependent, which would be a problem! I have spent a lot of time ensuring noise shaper noise is signal uncorrelated, but at the same time having maximum resolution. So it takes a while to design the correct coefficients. Fortunately, I have designed many noise shapers now, so it does not take many weeks to get the optimum performance for a new noise shaper design.

 

[flyte3333]

The digital filtering on Hugo 2 extends up to 104MHz

Out of interest, since Mojo digital filtering extends up to 104 MHz also (from memory?) does the same measurement look just like what you just showed for Hugo2?

I imagine the same uncorrelated noise but higher overall levels of noise? But still harmless

 

[Rob Watts]

Correct - the 4e pulse array on Mojo is noisier than Hugo 2s 10e.

 

[flyte3333]

Correct - the 4e pulse array on Mojo is noisier than Hugo 2s 10e.

Cheers for answering these questions Rob ! And sharing the measurement

 

[118900]

I find the Hugo 2 does an exceptional job revealing the flaws in MP3/AAC/Youtube and poorly recorded music, and I don't really mean it as a complement. Contrary to Rob's philosophy, that a good DAC should be a revealing/honest DAC, I simply want to enjoy good sounding music. Objectively there are a lot of poorly recorded/engineered music out there, e.g. indie music, and I really don't mind my gear make them sound better than they are.

My WM1Z, for example, does a way better job at reproducing MP3/AAC/Youtube music. It has a set of digital filters that effectively reduces "digital glare" and other bad traits of MP3, though those digital filters drain battery fast. I enjoy my MP3 collection more with WM1Z than with Hugo 2.

Just my 2 cents worth so to speak but if a source file is low definition and/or poor quality and a DAC is masking this it is effectively colouring the sound and therefore not doing its job?

I would assume that what you mean is that you prefer the way other DACs “colour” the sound to your liking, but that isn’t really what a good DAC, Hugo2 included, should do, surely?

Maybe I’m wrong but when I read reviews of high end equipment (for what they are worth) I often see the best rated equipment being described as ruthless with poor sources.

 

[dontfeedphils]

Just my 2 cents worth so to speak but if a source file is low definition and/or poor quality and a DAC is masking this it is effectively colouring the sound and therefore not doing its job?

I would assume that what you mean is that you prefer the way other DACs “colour” the sound to your liking, but that isn’t really what a good DAC, Hugo2 included, should do, surely?

Maybe I’m wrong but when I read reviews of high end equipment (for what they are worth) I often see the best rated equipment being described as ruthless with poor sources.

The way I view it is relative, as in a "good" DAC/amp does to the sound exactly what you're looking for. "Good" being relative to the goal you're trying to accomplish.