[Whazzzup]

I just google usb b to micro 6 inch, 1 foot whatever size you want. I think I used star tech they are cheap under 5 bucks Can dollars. There were several on line dealers. For more high quality audio quest makes a cinnamon usb to micro.

 

[chart54]

I just google usb b to micro 6 inch, 1 foot whatever size you want. I think I used star tech they are cheap under 5 bucks Can dollars. There were several on line dealers. For more high quality audio quest makes a cinnamon usb to micro.

Audio Quest cable can not fit hugo micro usb port.

 

[Whazzzup]

I just google usb b to micro 6 inch, 1 foot whatever size you want. I think I used star tech they are cheap under 5 bucks Can dollars. There were several on line dealers. For more high quality audio quest makes a cinnamon usb to micro.

Audio Quest cable can not fit hugo micro usb port.

You are corect mine was sold as modified for chord Hugo, not sure if someone over there does not do same.

 

[adammax]

I tried some computer usb. But it can't seems to work. Is their special type of usb?

 

[joeexp]

   
I am a recent Hugo owner and also thought that the supplied USB cables didn't fit at all well - really loose.  I'm sure better cables will fix this though.
 
 
Thanks for the suggestion.  I've sent them a message to see if they know if their cables fit the Hugo.
 
Anyone else have other USB cable recommendations?
 
Rob, do you have any USB cable recommendations that you have used with low RF noise?
 
Thanks.

 
Vertere Acoustics D-Fi V2 USB Cable
Vertere Acoustics D-Fi Double D V2 USB Interconnect Cable
 
Those are very good
http://www.vertereacoustics.com/products/pulse-d-fi
 
 
The problem is that the Hugo, compared to the Hugo TT and the 2Qute DAC, doesn't have the Galvanically isolated Class 2 USB input. So you will get some RF noise regardless what USB cable you are using. Computers are noisy! Jitter isn't the problem with the Hugo.
 
But there are various filtering solutions out there if you are desperate LOL:
http://www.empiricalaudio.com/products/short-block
http://schiit.com/products/wyrd
http://www.ultrafi.biz/untitled.html
http://www.totaldac.com/USB_cable-eng.htm
http://ifi-audio.com/portfolio-view/accessory-ipurifier/
 
 
And there is a Audioquest USB B Female to Micro USB Adapter:

 

[paulchiu]

 

 
Back for a day at home, tested with the Audeze LCD3 with ALO Audio Reference 16 cables.  Since I still have not received my USB micro adaptors, using a cheap optical connector (<$5).
Macbook Pro 15 (optical) to Hugo. RED top circle. Blue-Green-Blue on the internal LED indications.  Green line level is already loud with LCD3.
I am amazed the levels from the Hugo relative to my Cary 300SEI amp, which I have to crank over halfway for the same sound level.
At that Blue cross feed level, the soundstage seems pretty realistic, Adele sounds like she's at Royal Albert Hall.
Very clean, quiet, serious punch I did not expect from this tiny box.  My Cary 300SEI and even 1610 has competition.
 
Now, i eagerly awaits for better connectors to arrive.

 

[514077]

   
Vertere Acoustics D-Fi V2 USB Cable
Vertere Acoustics D-Fi Double D V2 USB Interconnect Cable
 
Those are very good
http://www.vertereacoustics.com/products/pulse-d-fi
 
 
The problem is that the Hugo, compared to the Hugo TT and the 2Qute DAC, doesn't have the Galvanically isolated Class 2 USB input. So you will get some RF noise regardless what USB cable you are using. Computers are noisy! Jitter isn't the problem with the Hugo.
 
But there are various filtering solutions out there if you are desperate LOL:
http://www.empiricalaudio.com/products/short-block
http://schiit.com/products/wyrd
http://www.ultrafi.biz/untitled.html
http://www.totaldac.com/USB_cable-eng.htm
http://ifi-audio.com/portfolio-view/accessory-ipurifier/
 
 
And there is a Audioquest USB B Female to Micro USB Adapter:

I got the moon audio silver dragon from my windows to the Hugo.  I swear it makes a bit of difference to the sound.  And it fits Hugo well.

 

[Bob383rad]

I also have the Moon Silver Dragon. It fits snugly as Drew makes it specifically for Hugo. I enjoy the sound, using the Hugo as a DAC only into an Apex Pinnacle headphone amp.

 

[joeexp]

I also have the Moon Silver Dragon. It fits snugly as Drew makes it specifically for Hugo. I enjoy the sound, using the Hugo as a DAC only into an Apex Pinnacle headphone amp.

 
Rob mentioned that i.e. an Olimex USB Isolator greatly enhances the sound (less harsh) https://www.olimex.com/Products/USB-Modules/USB-ISO/
(however the Olimex only does 12 Mbps and there are no "high-speed" USB Isolators out yet that do 480Mbps -  )
 
There is the reason that both the Hugo TT and the 2Qute DAC have the Galvanically isolated Class 2 USB input.
 
A cable can only do so much!

 

[Dobrescu George]

I finally understood what taps are. And there are advantages and dis-advantages. This is so good to know. 
 
If anyone is interested, taps are the exact same thing that is happening when you have strong anti aliasing in games.
 
Consider that a sine wave is consisting of little steps. when in a flac 16/41 file, it has a X length of step. when you zoom and apply anti aliasing, the step beomes much smoother, and the data seems much much smooth, and there is no step but a pure sine wave, depending on how much anti aliasing you use. 
 
now, the main questions is if we want to see an anti aliased image, or the original. 
 
It all depends. The anti aliased is made out of data that is Guessed, not the original data, but it resembles the original better. The original is everything that was recorded, but it was not perfectly recorded, due to technology limitations.
 
this also explains why there would ever be an advantage to hdtracks and such. they simply have a strong anti aliasing applied, and if one is to picture a sine in 192/24, it will be smoother.
 
now, coming back to hugo, taps are a unit that measures how much anti aliasing algorythm is applied. simply put, hugo has a very strong anti aliasing algorythm, that produces smoother soundwaves, and exactly how Rob said, it is able to reproduce better start and end of musical note, where in some recordings, this begging and end of a musical note might look like a sqare wave, or a huge step.
 
So, this is the main difference, and the mystery of why hugo sounds different. i am very very sure to use and try to tinker with other devices, to see if i love more hugo or bit perfect reproduction of a DAC. 
In reality i really loved the sound of Hugo, so i am sure to test it against others again before buying, to see what sounds the best to my ears!

 

[joeexp]

A DAC interpolation filter needs an infinite tap length, infinite oversampling FIR filter to perfectly reconstruct the original bandwidth limited signal.
 
A FIR filter is a filter whose impulse response is of finite duration, because it settles to zero in finite time.
The phase response of the FIR filter is a linear (straight-line) function of frequency (excluding phase wraps at +/- 180 degrees). This results in the delay through the filter being the same at all frequencies. Therefore, the filter does not cause "phase distortion" or "delay distortion". The lack of phase/delay distortion can be a critical advantage of FIR filters over IIR and analog filters.
 
The FIR takes in samples and passes those signals along like a shift register. 
 
The newest sample is always coming in one side of the sequence, while the oldest one is going to bit heaven. The number of samples being held, altogether, is refered to as the number of taps or filter length. 
 
There's one value for each "tap" (stored sample). Each time a new sample comes in, the DSP runs through every stored sample, multiplies it with the corresponding value from the table, and adds up the sum of all those multiplications. The total of all that addition is the output of the filter. 
 
The number of taps = number of coefficients = Length of filter in case of Fir filter. The order of the filter is (Length of filter-1).
 
FIR filters have a lot of delay, going through all those taps. They can be updated in real time for noise cancelation and echo reduction. 
Given a FIR filter which has N taps, the delay is: (N - 1) / (2 * Fs), where Fs is the sampling frequency. So, for example, a 21 tap linear-phase FIR filter operating at a 1 kHz rate has delay: (21 - 1) / (2 * 1 kHz)=10 milliseconds.
 
16 bit accuracy would mean a tap length of: 1,048,576 taps (guarantee that the reconstruction in the time domain was 16 bit accurate)
Nobody knows how many taps are needed  - Increase  until no further improvement in SQ….
 
According to Rob, long tap length WTA filters have the following sound quality benefits: 
 
Much better stereo image (as the inter-aural timing delay is used by the brain for location)
Much deeper bass (bass perception depends upon the starting and finishing transients of the bass note)
Instrument separation and focus is much better  (distorted timing damages the brains ability to separate sounds out)
Fast rhythms are easier to perceive; you can hear individual piano keys rather than a jumble of notes 

 

[JaZZ]

I finally understood what taps are. And there are advantages and dis-advantages. This is so good to know. 

If anyone is interested, taps are the exact same thing that is happening when you have strong anti aliasing in games.

Consider that a sine wave is consisting of little steps. when in a flac 16/41 file, it has a X length of step. when you zoom and apply anti aliasing, the step beomes much smoother, and the data seems much much smooth, and there is no step but a pure sine wave, depending on how much anti aliasing you use. 

now, the main questions is if we want to see an anti aliased image, or the original. 

It all depends. The anti aliased is made out of data that is Guessed, not the original data, but it resembles the original better. The original is everything that was recorded, but it was not perfectly recorded, due to technology limitations.

this also explains why there would ever be an advantage to hdtracks and such. they simply have a strong anti aliasing applied, and if one is to picture a sine in 192/24, it will be smoother.

now, coming back to hugo, taps are a unit that measures how much anti aliasing algorythm is applied. simply put, hugo has a very strong anti aliasing algorythm, that produces smoother soundwaves, and exactly how Rob said, it is able to reproduce better start and end of musical note, where in some recordings, this begging and end of a musical note might look like a sqare wave, or a huge step.

So, this is the main difference, and the mystery of why hugo sounds different. i am very very sure to use and try to tinker with other devices, to see if i love more hugo or bit perfect reproduction of a DAC. 

In reality i really loved the sound of Hugo, so i am sure to test it against others again before buying, to see what sounds the best to my ears!

 

Not quite. Taps aren't the anti-aliasing filter, but the filter consists of taps. Like I tried to display in a previous post, they roughly correspond to C and L (capacitance and inductance) in a speaker's crossover network. The more taps the anti-aliasing filter comprises, the sharper and steeper it is (and I stick to this interpretation till someone corrects me).

HD recordings don't have a «strong anti-aliasing applied», they actually don't need it, at least not so imperatively as recordings with 44.1 kHz, since there's barely any sound waves left above say 44 kHz which could interfere with the sampling frequency. As far as 44.1 kHz is concerned, there's no «either» and «or» in terms of anti-aliasing filters: save for some rare exotics, all DACs and CDPs use them. You can consider it a tool for artificial reconstructions of the original waveform, but you can just as well simply see it as a filter to prevent aliasing, since a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz can't reproduce frequencies above 22 kHz anyway. In any event it has nothing to do with (giving up) bit accuracy – we're talking of the analogue signal here. And you certainly woudn't want the noise, the (aliasing) interferences and the FR drop-off from a filterless DAC, which possibly would affect your listening pleasure.

As joeexp has pointed out – like myself in the above mentioned post – the ideal anti-aliasing filter would consist of an infinite number of taps (= infinite sharpness and steepness of the low-pass filter). And that's where the Hugo shines: It's 26,368 taps are more than most (all?) other available DACs have implemented. It means that it gets closer to the theoretical ideal, which obviously pays off in a unique sound quality.

 

[Whazzzup]

Well then folks, im closer to getting it than ever. Skerry,Joe,and Jazz thanks for that breakdown. Initially I was thinking it was more like the pencil tap of that previous poster. Ps im now back to blue filters on my 846 through the hugo. Love the th900 through the hugo though.

 

[JaZZ]

It's fascinating to look at an infinite tap length. An infinite number of taps (= an infinitely sharp and steep low-pass filter) means that (let's say) a 22 kHz tone still has zero drop-off compared to a 20, 10 or 1 kHz tone. Whereas a tone of 22.0000001 kHz is muted by 144 dB (at a bit depth of 24 dB), thus completely eliminated. Such a sharp filter also has an extremely strong resonance, technically speaking it has a Q factor of ∞. So as soon as any tone is running through it, it will ring infinitely. In exchange the whole audio range below is free of timing errors (= transient corruption). So you could say the infinite transient corruption of the filter attracts all transient corruption at lower frequencies which a filter with lower Q factor would entail.

 

[JaZZ]

After reading joeexp's post more carefully, I'm realizing that «taps» aren't really the equivalent of passive filter components in the speaker world. In fact they represents the number of samples used for creating the filtered signal.

Nevertheless, I suppose the tap length is indeed used to create a sharper and steeper filter in the Hugo.