[elviscaprice]

  A question for Rob (but open to any Hugo owner),
I may be getting myself wrapped around the axle here (i.e overthinking this) but...I've been reading about a player that has been around for some time, but is getting new press since introducing a Mac version, that is Jussi Lasko's HQplayer.  People are raving about it (a plethora of sophisticated filtering options, etc) and most are using it to upsample redbook to DSD or DSD128, some just to theri DACs highest PCM rate.  Whatever.....this post and question is not about HQplayer but about the ideas of upsampling that are now swirling around my large head and tiny brain.
 
So we think about the timing prowess of the Hugo, especially when playing back redbook.  Would the Hugo sound as good with redbook sources if one upsampled that redbook to say DSD or DXD?  I would tend to think "no".  I would tend to think that I want Hugo's FPGA technology to see a 16/44.1k music stream and do its magic to it, a magic that clearly is toned down as one moves up the resolution chart (not to say that Hugo is less musical at 24/96...just that it has less alchemy to do..and that alchemy is really something special with redbook).  ****, I am wondering if hirez would sound better on the Hugo if you first DOWNSAMPLED it.!!!!  Argh.
 
I may try some of these goofy ideas.

Or even a bigger question, maybe not meant for this thread, Is any high resolution music better sounding, being the mastering is the same, than redbook or PCM?  Be it, timing and filtering, if all DAC's handled these files with technology of creating an equivalent playing field for all resolutions, could you really hear a difference with hi resolution over redbook?

 

[R Scott Ireland]

OK, so I am useless at finding things in this forum from even a few days ago (though in my defence this thread does move along!) so I'll dive in and ask a question which I have not been able to find an answer to. Has anyone tried using the Hugo with 600ohm headphones and in particular the DT880 or DT770 Beyerdynamics?

My 600 Ohm DT880's sound wonderful through the Hugo.

 

[kkcc]

Or even a bigger question, maybe not meant for this thread, Is any high resolution music better sounding, being the mastering is the same, than redbook or PCM?  Be it, timing and filtering, if all DAC's handled these files with technology of creating an equivalent playing field for all resolutions, could you really hear a difference with hi resolution over redbook?

I have been having similar thoughts since I experienced Hugo. I had believed (not sure if correctly) that an advantage of higher sampling/bit rates mainly help to minimize timing issues for DAC. If Hugo (other any DAC) can do timing well for 16/44 Redbook, is there material advantage to have "HD"?

 

[SilverEars]

I have been having similar thoughts since I experienced Hugo. I had believed (not sure if correctly) that an advantage of higher sampling/bit rates mainly help to minimize timing issues for DAC. If Hugo (other any DAC) can do timing well for 16/44 Redbook, is there material advantage to have "HD"?

Can you explain this, I don't understand what you mean by this.  How does it minimize timing issues?

 

[Currawong]

  Or even a bigger question, maybe not meant for this thread, Is any high resolution music better sounding, being the mastering is the same, than redbook or PCM?  Be it, timing and filtering, if all DAC's handled these files with technology of creating an equivalent playing field for all resolutions, could you really hear a difference with hi resolution over redbook?

 
This is tricky IMO. My theory at the moment is that some software used to down-sample hi-res PCM to CD quality was not nearly as good as say, iZotope, resulting in less than great CD masters. My second thought is that the idea that above 16-bit is unnecessary is debatable and noise dithering alone may not be as good as having a 20-bit or better file. I'm not sure, given current technology, why 24/48 isn't good enough. I still read about top-end DACs sounding better with 24/192 files or DSD but that leads me to ask why aren't they as capable of sounding as good with lower resolution files. Maybe Rob's approach is a better one? It's entirely conjecture, but the least I can say is that my feeling from listening is that he definitely has gotten something right that we are all so smitten with it.

 

[estreeter]

If the hi-res version is taken from the studio master - great, I'm all for it. If its an upsampled version of the CD, I want no part of it - I cant believe that any of the resellers would be complicit in this sort of nonsense, but I guess the almighty dollar speaks louder than words. Ordered a bunch of CDs yesterday - mainly old Springsteen albums that I know intimately and I want good CD versions before the medium is finally killed off by the download industry. I'm a dinosaur but it still beats owning a truckload of vinyl if and when I have to move  
 
http://www.amazon.com/Darkness-Edge-Town-Bruce-Springsteen/dp/B0000025D0
 
http://www.amazon.com/Born-Run-Bruce-Springsteen/dp/B00000255F/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1403756085&sr=1-1&keywords=born+to+run
 
http://www.amazon.com/River-Bruce-Springsteen/dp/B0000025KI/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1403756115&sr=1-1&keywords=the+river
 
and finally a little melodeath:
 
http://www.amazon.com/Shadows-Dying-Sun-Insomnium/dp/B00IQFBZU0/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1403756152&sr=1-1&keywords=insomnium
 
Standard shipping to Thailand is a bitch, but I look forward to their arrival anyway.

 

[sutjahjo]

I am a compulsive pure audio bluray disc buyer.

While technically logical, I find the high res pure audio bluray audio sounds consistently better than the corresponding CDs. Since a lot of the source materials are old and analogue (hence not high res Master), I do think that there is more care in the mastering of pure audio bluray.

 

[ted_b]

I was not trying to start a hirez war.  I truly believe that some of my vast hirez library is no better than its redbook counterpart, but the majority is better, in some cases by a lot!  And as posted before, some of this quality difference is simply the better kidd glove treatment, whether mastering or otherwise.  My issue was more about the popular act of taking our collections and doing upsampling via software (player, offline, etc) or is the Hugo more comfortable with certain sample rates and therefore thought must be given to maybe even downsample some of our collection to take better advantage of whatever it is that the Hugo seems to do to sources (especially evident is redbook alchemy).  If we take great well-done 24/192 native recordings (Barry Diamnet's Soundkeeper label, for example) and ask Hugo to do its best with it, does that mean keeping it at 24/192 or moving it to some other sample rate where Hugo is "forced" to do even more good things.  (Note: I;m beginning to think I am overthinking this and its best to just give Hugo native everything).

 

[kkcc]

Can you explain this, I don't understand what you mean by this.  How does it minimize timing issues?

I'm sure there are others who are more qualified to explain. How I understand it is that with ADC we take an analogue continuous waveform and take discrete snapshots of said waveform. With the DAC process various algorithms are employed to try to reconstruct these discrete snapshots back to as close to the original waveform as possible. These algorithm would interpolate the missing part in between these snapshots. The more snapshots we take over the same time (higher sampling rate) during the ADC, the less interpolation is required during the DAC and we should in theory get closer to the original waveform.

Again this is my very primitive and laymen understanding of benefit in recording, and subsequently playing back at the same higher rate. What I am trying to understand is that with DAC (like Hugo) improving and do this interpolation or restoration of timing better, is it now comparatively less important than with older DAC to have high sampling rate recordings. Or in other words, from a Hugo perspective, could the gain we have with say 24/96 music over same recording downsampled to 16/44 be smaller than that for another DAC that doesn't do as good a job in restoring the timing as Hugo.

When all else being equal, in an absolute sense, I do believe higher sampling rates will give us a waveform closer to the original analogue signal than lower sampling rate. Having said that, how much difference is audible, or what sound better, is as always subjective and varies for each of us.

 

[Rob Watts]

  I was not trying to start a hirez war.  I truly believe that some of my vast hirez library is no better than its redbook counterpart, but the majority is better, in some cases by a lot!  And as posted before, some of this quality difference is simply the better kidd glove treatment, whether mastering or otherwise.  My issue was more about the popular act of taking our collections and doing upsampling via software (player, offline, etc) or is the Hugo more comfortable with certain sample rates and therefore thought must be given to maybe even downsample some of our collection to take better advantage of whatever it is that the Hugo seems to do to sources (especially evident is redbook alchemy).  If we take great well-done 24/192 native recordings (Barry Diamnet's Soundkeeper label, for example) and ask Hugo to do its best with it, does that mean keeping it at 24/192 or moving it to some other sample rate where Hugo is "forced" to do even more good things.  (Note: I;m beginning to think I am overthinking this and its best to just give Hugo native everything).

Give Hugo access to native, you can't go wrong. But as I am writing this I am thinking ahhh but...
 
24/192 is processed with the same multiply accumulates as 24/48, within Hugo, but with better innate timing as the source has less timing uncertainty. But the downside is that 24/192 has a lot of ADC noise shaper noise, which will make it brighter and less smooth - experience tells me this - I am actually about to listen to a filter that will remove this problem. If you were to take the 24/192 and sample rate convert it in the PC, you don't know how well they do that - if it is done perfectly, you will remove the ADC out of band noise, but degrade timing. I once heard a track using Hugo, it sounded awful, all the Hugo magic had gone - it turned out that the PC was converting everything to 48 kHz. The sample rate conversion was awful. In my experience PC software often uses the "good enough" principle, which means if you use simple measurements it's OK, (and ignore the measurements that tell you otherwise), and "good enough" IMHO is garbage for actual listening.
 
So on balance probably best to stick with native, don't let the PC mess it up. But I would be intrigued if somebody actuially tried it (stick to decimation that is binary division i.e. 192 kHz to 48 kHz)
 
Rob

 

[CosmicHolyGhost]

 In my experience PC software often uses the "good enough" principle, which means if you use simple measurements it's OK, (and ignore the measurements that tell you otherwise), and "good enough" IMHO is garbage for actual listening.  

oh god.............i used dbPoweramp to convert bunch of flac highres to apple format so to use with 8player on ipod touch.....................

 

[Rob Watts]

If the software is simply re-packaging or bit perfect compression, that is not actually changing the data, you will be fine. Do a listening test to make sure.
 
Rob

 

[elviscaprice]

Okay, I just tested Michael Jacksons "Thriller" release 176.4kHz 24bit (considered a clear remaster worthy of HiRez) in JRiver.  Leaving the bit depth the same at 24 bit, therefore no concerns with dithering, I adjusted JRiver to resample the MJ tracks to 44.1kHz.  My setup flow is PC (JRiver) -> Hugo HD USB -> Audeze LCD-X. 
 
I found the full resolution to be a bigger staged sound but with a cost to focus of the musical components, like an unheard noisy background, whereas when I had JRiver decimate on the fly to 44.1kHz the stage compressed but with a dark background and I found I could concentrate better on the individual musical components such as vocals.
Conclusion, I think I like the decimated sound better at 44.1kHz with the dark back ground and less space.
 
I'll have to try further tests with my M2tech Joplin ADC and Izotope in RX3 to play with word length and resolution to see how the Hugo responds.
 
EDIT:  Maybe not, It's hard to pick, just a slight difference in sound background and stage presence.

 

[estreeter]

I'm beginning to see why some people stick with vinyl - the only 'timing' they have to worry about is whether the platter is 45, 33 or 78RPM  
 
(ok - there are other issues with turntables, but they dont have a choice of bit depth and sample rate !)

 

[Sound Eq]

i am connecting my ipad mini to the chord isn't there a lightning to micro usb cable we can use instead of having to use the cck and then a usb to micro usb cable
 
I am still trying to figure what's the best esthetic way to connect my hugo to an iphone or an ipad with the least amount of cables
 
please if you know how or have ideas for esthetic way to do that share photos or links