[Dobrescu George]

@Rob Watts I really admire your work! It is at the state of art point!
 
i really should get one for myself... 

 

[level3]

What sound? None has always been the goal. Hugo has never been tweaked or voiced to sound a certain way. Now, the objective is to make it sound as musical as possible, so that when you listen to music, you become emotionally involved, otherwise why do it? Trouble is, how does one relate that goal into engineering? My view has always been to make the design as transparent as possible, that is for it to add no sound signature at all. Now if one listens to live un-amplified live music, there exists an enormous gulf between the sound of real instruments and high end audio reproduction, and if all the pieces in the chain were perfectly transparent, we would be unable to tell the difference between live and reproduced - and we would get that glorious sound of acoustic instruments all the time.

Rob

 


Would this be along the lines of the concept of The Absolute Sound: “the sound of actual acoustic instruments playing in real space” as championed by the late Harry Pearson?

If so, may I ask your thoughts on this:

If the Hugo is able to present the sound of a live acoustic performance as accurately as possible, does it follow that it should also present the sound of a studio recording as accurately as possible?

Cheers.

 

[FortisFlyer75]

At last we have a answer 2 why the Hugo TT users batteries . Maybe it's not 2 late 2 change the Hugo TT power supply Rob.

That's a bit to late as it would cost to much money and man hours to change the design and manufacturing process. Will have to wait for TT2 for that change in a couple of years time ; )
 
In the mean time I'm going to admire the TT...

 

[Rob Watts]

Yes, the sound of real acoustic instruments playing in real space is the only absolute reference. In my twenties I was a keen reader of TAS, and I was influenced by HP's thinking. I listen to real instruments as often as I can.
 
But, in reality, we use recordings to judge - for which we have no real idea of the real qualities as one was not present at the recording - so this is how the idea of trying to examine how transparent a device is by how variable the sound is. So in short, if a device has greater range of variation, in terms of timbre, space, instrument inner detail, instrument separation, etc., then it is more transparent. In short, the more expressive the music, the better the device.
 
Hugo is gaining acceptance in recording studios because the recording engineer can easily hear each instrument - how its placed in the sound-stage, pitch and timing, timbre qualities etc. Being able to easily hear everything in the mix clearly makes their job easier. So the goal is to be as accurate as possible. The problem with using the term accurate often implies in your face detail, which is not actually accurate. Accurate will mean rich and smooth if that is how the instrument sounds.  
 
Now the ultimate non reference is electronic music, which of course has no absolute reference - but if you use variability as your yard stick, then it is a valid source to evaluate change, and indeed I use electronic music as part of evaluation, its great for assessing timing and rhythms.
 
Rob    

 

[ubs28]

 

  What sound? None has always been the goal. Hugo has never been tweaked or voiced to sound a certain way. Now, the objective is to make it sound as musical as possible, so that when you listen to music, you become emotionally involved, otherwise why do it? Trouble is, how does one relate that goal into engineering? My view has always been to make the design as transparent as possible, that is for it to add no sound signature at all. Now if one listens to live un-amplified live music, there exists an enormous gulf between the sound of real instruments and high end audio reproduction, and if all the pieces in the chain were perfectly transparent, we would be unable to tell the difference between live and reproduced - and we would get that glorious sound of acoustic instruments all the time.
 
Rob

 


Would this be along the lines of the concept of The Absolute Sound: “the sound of actual acoustic instruments playing in real space” as championed by the late Harry Pearson?

If so, may I ask your thoughts on this:

If the Hugo is able to present the sound of a live acoustic performance as accurately as possible, does it follow that it should also present the sound of a studio recording as accurately as possible?

Cheers.

The room changes the sound so I don't think live acoustic performances is the benchmark. The benchmark is an instrument played in a properly treated room in my opinion (which is then also recorded with a very neutral mic and played back on various systems for comparison).

 

[level3]

Yes, the sound of real acoustic instruments playing in real space is the only absolute reference. In my twenties I was a keen reader of TAS, and I was influenced by HP's thinking. I listen to real instruments as often as I can.


But, in reality, we use recordings to judge - for which we have no real idea of the real qualities as one was not present at the recording - so this is how the idea of trying to examine how transparent a device is by how variable the sound is. So in short, if a device has greater range of variation, in terms of timbre, space, instrument inner detail, instrument separation, etc., then it is more transparent. In short, the more expressive the music, the better the device.


Hugo is gaining acceptance in recording studios because the recording engineer can easily hear each instrument - how its placed in the sound-stage, pitch and timing, timbre qualities etc. Being able to easily hear everything in the mix clearly makes their job easier. So the goal is to be as accurate as possible. The problem with using the term accurate often implies in your face detail, which is not actually accurate. Accurate will mean rich and smooth if that is how the instrument sounds.  


Now the ultimate non reference is electronic music, which of course has no absolute reference - but if you use variability as your yard stick, then it is a valid source to evaluate change, and indeed I use electronic music as part of evaluation, its great for assessing timing and rhythms.


Rob    

 

I was wondering about this because there is a need for a "sound reference" when auditioning potential equipment upgrades. And, if I am not mistaken, you have confirmed that a well-recorded orchestral performance may well be the best available reference.

As you say, when it comes to studio recordings, one has no real reference, let alone any sense of accuracy, unless one is fortunate enough to be in attendance. As for electronica, some input is likely to be unheard together with all other tracks until the mixing process.

Thankfully, we still have the concept of The Absolute Sound to fall back on, instead of purely subjective preferences. It is good to know that you too treasure this concept as a reference, and use it in your work for the benefit of 21st Century audiophiles, many of whom may not be aware of its significance in the 1970s.

I understand what you mean by accuracy and transparency which essentially expresses the (original) meaning of high-fidelity. It is a quality that makes the Hugo stand out. On first hearing it “play” music last year, I was amazed at how far DAC technology had progressed, and how much a little DAC can add to one’s enjoyment of music from a computer source.

Since it does not seem to impose any character, Hugo serves me as a reliable reference to identify weaknesses in my head-fi and hi-fi systems, as well as to assess the quality of recordings - CD rips, high-resolution material and even lossy files. And, as such, one can understand why it is gaining some acceptance in the music recording circles as well.

So, thanks for sharing your thoughts and reasoning (re: proximity to TAS would translate into benefits in PRAT, note attack-decay, separation, tonality, timbre and sound-staging in studio recordings) in reply to my question. And, of course, thank you for the Hugo.

Cheers.

 

[level3]

The room changes the sound so I don't think live acoustic performances is the benchmark. The benchmark is an instrument played in a properly treated room in my opinion.

 

By “the sound of actual acoustic instruments playing in real space”, we were referring to the live sound of orchestral instruments being played in a concert hall.

The late Harry Pearson proposed and championed this concept and summed it up as "The Absolute Sound" because he felt it was(is) the ultimate reference for high-fidelity.

This recent re-posted tongue-in-cheek article explains: http://www.stereophile.com/content/its-real-thing

Cheers.

 

[castin]

hmm, should i sell my hugo and get a TT instead... is there really a big different?

 

[Whazzzup]

hmm, should i sell my hugo and get a TT instead... is there really a big different?

The price, size, it won't fit in your coat pocket.

 

[6RS]

   
Now the ultimate non reference is electronic music, which of course has no absolute reference - but if you use variability as your yard stick, then it is a valid source to evaluate change, and indeed I use electronic music as part of evaluation, its great for assessing timing and rhythms.
 
Rob    

Rob, I think there exists an analogy in optics. To judge accurate focusing of an objective in photography or microscopy, the distance yielding an image with the most information or maximal contrast is correct.

 

[joeexp]

  LoL.... I have learnt from headfi that all DAPs sound the same, and certain American company DAC is a giant killer before it is even released. The comment is everywhere on the internet, everytime there is an announcement of a new DAC and there is a follow-up comment saying that this to-be-released DAC will appear and wipe all other DACs out of existence.

This is the Shiit Mafia - I had an encounter with them as well. It's made in the U.S.A. - well - it must be good then!

 

[estreeter]

 
This is the Shiit Mafia - I had an encounter with them as well. It's made in the U.S.A. - well - it must be good then!

 
Lets give Schiit the benefit of the doubt until a few more people have actually heard Mike's latest creation. I've put purrin's initial comments re the Hugo behind me - everyone is entitled to their own opinion - I'd suggest that we move on. Hopefully a few more people will know how well the reality matches the hype by the end of April. 

 

[seeteeyou]

From China+Korea With Love
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 
Potential surgery required to fit the recessed micro USB jack?
 
http://www.highendcity.com/usb-adapter-b-f-to-micro-b-m
http://www.wiredream.co.kr/shop/item.php?it_id=1386853507
 

 

 

 

 

[estreeter]

Good stuff - I still want to see the industry settle on USB-B inputs for DACS : IMO its the most robust of all the connectors and the easiest to find aftermarket cables for. 

 

[castin]

  Good stuff - I still want to see the industry settle on USB-B inputs for DACS : IMO its the most robust of all the connectors and the easiest to find aftermarket cables for. 

+1 but love to see usb 3.0 too