[seeteeyou]

.

 

[weisse muller]

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"?

At the time of HD musical development it would not have been practical to market a Dac of Hugo's complexity even as a huge desktop. So Redbook standard recordings could not be made to sound as brilliant as they can now but chords Dac 64 of twenty years ago made a pretty good attempt but of course it was designed by Reg Watts

 

[OK-Guy]

who's Reg ?.... Rob's twin?...

 

[ALRAINBOW]

A question for Onkyo HF user, do you guys turn "upsample" on when using with Hugo? What does it do?

No I do not use the up sample feature. Also when playing dsd the EQ does not work. The EQ only works with PCM .
Al

 

[ALRAINBOW]

Phil shoot me a PM for a custom cable for my samsung note 2 to my Hugo. Otg of course

Al

 

[ALRAINBOW]

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).

Good morning ted B. I have played with this ideal in a few ways. I have up sampled red book both with software and on the fly and with the dac itself. As it does sound better in someways in the end i play things in native format. Your a CPU guy who knows way more than most here , in digital audio it's all math and I feel the less we do more of it the better we are. Even playing our muisc from one CPU to another or different players on the same CPU yield diffent results. I just received my lampi B7 and after not being thrilled with dsd on it i then tried a few CPU,s and my iMac and audivarna was the one that gave me the magic . Food for thought as you are doing testing with the ps audio DS . It sounds to me it's best on two CPU ,s I have. One was a I7 CPU all,out gamer type system all SS drives and PPA PCI X USB card and dc power .the other and better was a iMac with aurdivana
. The improvment was so musc hit was a night and day improvement . The music had a different presentation. One last thought for me if I am critically listening to a new DAC
I play some reference muisc through my msb stack for a reference .this gives me fresh memories of the music . So far the iMac gives me the type of presentation that the msb stack does using the UMT plus as a server . Meaning no CPU is used with the msb stack. Just some ideas to throw out there. I am presently building a caps system and try it next .
Al

 

[ALRAINBOW]

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 !)

That is what dacs like the Hugo gives us an analog sound. The real issue is the software and CPU we use has so many ways to produce sound variations . As such completely changing sound scapes. This is one reason to use a server instead of your CPU at all. I have two of them a krell connect with dac also and the UMT plus . They both give me great sound from any dac.
Al

 

[Sound Eq]

how do u play ape files
 
for flac I use onkyo and ampliflac

 

[ALRAINBOW]

Are you saying onkyo HF does not play ape ?

For me PCM is always. Flac no compression. After that it's dsd .
Al

 

[Sound Eq]

Are you saying onkyo HF does not play ape ?

For me PCM is always. Flac no compression. After that it's dsd .
Al

I add a folder that has ape format music from iTunes to the onyko in iTunes by in the app itself in ipad it does not show at all, while flac does

 

[ALRAINBOW]

There are notes in the onkyo hf itself read the notes.
It should explain what files it can play
Let us know

 

[wisnon]

  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).

Well, the Direct Stream, the other FPGA entrant upsamples all to 30/28mhz (640fs) in DSD-wide, while the Hugo apparently does the same in PCM (2048fs). I would assume that these 2 being programmed by math eggheads would do a wonderkind job of the upsampling algorithm. However, Jussi knows his stuff too and he is using the entire raw computing power of the (potentially) i7 processor to upsample on the fly and his filter designs seem cutting edge too.
 
Seems like a fair fight among the computer egghead engineers and one is free to pick their particular poison. One thing is clear though, people raving about DSD256 and 512, should be very curious about "DSD640" and "DSD2048"-technically PCM here. lol

 

[thebratts]

Just received my Ultrasone Ed 8.
I know that these phones are either hated or loved... 
I've read about how bright they sound out of the box and various other things like muddy etc.
 
With all that in mind i was expecting to be a bit disappointed during my first listen to them fresh out of the box.
However...
I'm positively surprised!
Comparing to my Sony EX1000 i've been using with my Hugo, the bass has more impact, the details ARE there and the highs are not making my ears hurt..
So far really like listening to Muse and similar music, compared to my EX1000 that never was this  fun. 
Perhaps it's the Hugo working it's magics or i had low expectations
 
Anyways, very happy so far, this will be a great portable setup.

 

[ted_b]

  Well, the Direct Stream, the other FPGA entrant upsamples all to 30/28mhz (640fs) in DSD-wide, while the Hugo apparently does the same in PCM (2048fs). I would assume that these 2 being programmed by math eggheads would do a wonderkind job of the upsampling algorithm. However, Jussi knows his stuff too and he is using the entire raw computing power of the (potentially) i7 processor to upsample on the fly and his filter designs seem curring edge too.
 
Seems like a fair fight among the computer egghead engineers and one is free to pick their particular poison. One thing is clear though, people raving about DSD256 and 512, should be very curious about "DSD640" and "DSD2048"-technically PCM here. lol

Yes, Norman...all dacs (except NOS) do lots of things internally, an lately we audiophiles demand to know what that is (in many cases rather than listening to the damn output!).  My misunderstood post was simply this (if I can simplify):  all DACs seem to have a sweetspot from which they begin, all DACs seem to prefer some source sample rate(s) more than others (i.e they seem to improve some sample rates more than others).  This might be due to clocks or other math.  I'm just toying with re-sampling (up or down) to find what the Hugo prefers.  What it then does to it (as with all DACs) is literally beyond me. 
 
BTW, Jussi's software runs on whatever we give it.  To Rob's point, when we ask a player or any other pre-DAC process to manipulate the source file we are giving it over to math and some varied level of noisy processor that may or may not be in concert with the strengths of the downstream DAC (why wash your hair before going to the barber; they're gonna wash it anyway, and now maybe it's too overwashed and dry!    ).  In Hugo's case, I am quite impressed by letting the source file be manipulated by Hugo only.  I'm wondering if that is always the case.

 

[ALRAINBOW]

I asked the same question in a different way
I asked what format should we rip our music to for different dacs
As in what is preferred. The answers I had wre confusing as yours are.
Some wav some flac and so Now your question is even more complex by changing sampling as well.
And as I agree our brains should know I also want to know.
Weather I understand or not. I have become a fan of non standard ready made DAC chip
Like sabre is just not for me.
Al