[dac64]

So, if I’m running iTunes streaming on my PC with Apple Lossless or AAC at 192 KHz and 24 bits and then my PC is passing it to my Hugo 2 (or M Scaler and then Hugo 2), I likely won’t get audible benefits versus streaming redbook 44.1 KHz and 16 bit?

Or what about Tidal lossless, any benefit to be had with the algorithm if you’re streaming very high lossless KHz and bit rate? I’m guessing not because you’re already reconstructing the original ADC perfectly with lossless?

If the original format is redbook 44.1 KHz and 16 bit, don't convert it to 192 KHz and 24 bits using iTunes, just feed the raw data directly to HMS, and let HMS do the job.

If the original format is truly 192 KHz and 24 bits, it does benefit from the HMS, and less beneficial to 44.1 KHz and 16 bit??? have to do a side-by-side comparison, or users of Blu 2 can chip it!

 

[QueueCumber]

If the original format is redbook 44.1 KHz and 16 bit, don't convert it to 192 KHz and 24 bits using iTunes, just feed the raw data directly to HMS, and let HMS do the job.

If the original format is truly 192 KHz and 24 bits, it does benefit from the HMS, and less beneficial to 44.1 KHz and 16 bit??? have to do a side-by-side comparison, or users of Blu 2 can chip it!

Well, I have iTunes set to stream music at 192 KHz and 24 bits, and then my Hugo 2 seems to be accepting it at that rate as well from the PC. I’m not using redbook/CDs in my HP system at all anymore. I do use CDs and SACDs in my Home Theater system, but not in my headphone system. It looks like Apple does stream the downloads at the 192 KHz and 24 bits from their server, but I’m not sure what their servers have the files originally sampled at on their end. That info doesn’t seem readily available.

If I switch to Tidal, they have lossless streaming, which I would assume would be the most pristine option available for streaming. Albeit, I’m not sure how their original files are sampled and stored in their servers either.

 

[Triode User]

Well, I have iTunes set to stream music at 192 KHz and 24 bits, and then my Hugo 2 seems to be accepting it at that rate as well from the PC. I’m not using redbook/CDs in my HP system at all anymore. I do use CDs and SACDs in my Home Theater system, but not in my headphone system. It looks like Apple does stream the downloads at the 192 KHz and 24 bits from their server, but I’m not sure what their servers have the files originally sampled at on their end. That info doesn’t seem readily available.

If I switch to Tidal, they have lossless streaming, which I would assume would be the most pristine option available for streaming. Albeit, I’m not sure how their original files are sampled and stored in their servers either.

It is almost certain that iTunes (or Tidal) does not have the files at 192 and is merely upscaling to produce the 192. I do not use ITunes but I stream Qobuz and also buy Hi Res files for download from Qobuz and so can see exactly what the file is that is available before I buy. Most are 44.1. Many of the 'High Res' on Qobuz for download are 48, a few are 96 and even fewer are 192. Having said that, even the 48 files are well worth the extra in my opinion. But that is when the files are actually hi res. I suspect you may be better off setting your os to output at 44.1 and feed that to your H2.

 

[x RELIC x]

Well, I have iTunes set to stream music at 192 KHz and 24 bits, and then my Hugo 2 seems to be accepting it at that rate as well from the PC. I’m not using redbook/CDs in my HP system at all anymore. I do use CDs and SACDs in my Home Theater system, but not in my headphone system. It looks like Apple does stream the downloads at the 192 KHz and 24 bits from their server, but I’m not sure what their servers have the files originally sampled at on their end. That info doesn’t seem readily available.

If I switch to Tidal, they have lossless streaming, which I would assume would be the most pristine option available for streaming. Albeit, I’m not sure how their original files are sampled and stored in their servers either.

I presume you are using 256kbps AAC since you mentioned streaming, which is 16/44.1 lossy. So if I get this straight you are using an upsampler (built in to the OS?) to modify the lossy file to 24/192 before you send it to the Hugo2.

It’s been recommended not to do this as the Hugo2 will upsample the file to 104Mhz in the DAC anyway and convert it much better if the file is left untouched before hand. This is what Rob means when he says send bitperfect files (not upsampled, and leave in the original format). I do have some older AAC files that I purchased from iTunes, but they were likely mastered for iTunes as well, which is not usually a good thing for dynamic range, and to me they sound... adequate.

 

[Rob Watts]

Sorry Rob, the three places specify explicitly 768KHz on 3.5mm Coax input, not on USB. If it is a typo it should be corrected.
I understood clearly from your excellent presentation (on video) that something special happens when going from 0.5 M to 1M taps, and therefore we should aim to 1M taps. I am following you all the way.
But not being able to buy both Hugo 2 at Mscaler at the moment, only one of those, wouldn't the 500K of Mscaler + Mojo be significantly better than 50K or 100K from Hugo 2 or Hugo TT2 alone?

I can't answer with certainty as although Mojo would get a big uplift by using 0.5M taps, it's not the same as the full 1M possible, and I have not listened to Mojo with the M scaler. You may be better off upgrading Mojo rather than getting an M scaler; that's why an audition is important.

I would have done a listening test, but I have brought on holiday a TT2, Hugo 2 and the Hugo M scaler, no Mojo...

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/hug...-official-thread.885042/page-24#post-14402373

No he did not answer. My question is *why* it does not support. Rob just states it does not support, not why.

Yes I read that post from Rob before posting. I read all the thread. I even copy paste all posts from Rob to a private file, so that I can access it easily.

Moreover I did no complain anything. I even said: "That is no problem, I am not complaining at all, it is what it is. I just want to get things clear."

It seems it was you that did no read correctly before posting.
Goodbye. I am logging off permanently.

The issue is power consumption; adding an extra SPDIF decoder module in the FPGA would add to power loss, and everything about Mojo is power. At the design time, there was no M scaler, so I had no inclination of the transformational possibilities at that time of the M scaler; saving a few mW of power was simply more important.

 

[Whazzzup]

https://darko.audio/2018/07/chord-electronics-announce-hugo-m-scaler/

Came from roon community

 

[Samuel Snoopy]

I definitely will order a M-Scaler to pair with Dave, I hope Chord is preparing enough parts to fulfill the foreseeable huge demand.

 

[GreenBow]

Is there any benefit to having the TT2 versus the Hugo2 with the M Scaler if I don’t need the extra inputs or outputs of the TT2 and use the units as DACs for other amps (BHSE & MHA150)? Thanks again!

The advantage of the TT 2 over the Hugo 2, excluding sound quality, is that Hugo can work speakers without an amplifier.

Where you encompass the M-Scaler into that, is up to you.

Having said that, some people drive speakers from the Hugo 2.

 

[514077]

Why would I be better with 100K taps (TT2) over 500K taps (Mscalr + Mojo), and even paying more for that 4K (TT2) vs 3.5K (Mscaler) ?

Because the amplification in TT2 will be much better than the Mojo's. Just ask Wazzzzup, and he'll tell you that he prefers the sound of his TT1 over the more advanced Hugo2, due to its super-capacitors handling peaks better. It's not all about the taps.
And as for the Mojo and its coax not doing the 7xx.x from the M Scaler: The M S does 352.8/384 out of each of two separate BNC or coax connections. Unlike the rest of the Chord DACs, the Mojo has only one discrete coax path. In order to get the 7XX, Mojo would have to hav two coax paths designed to lock together when connected to benefit from the 1M taps of the M Scaler. (It cannot be done).
If I had my druthers, and money, of course, I'd buy the TT2 and then the M Scaler. I really hope this helps.

 

[Whazzzup]

The advantage of the TT 2 over the Hugo 2, excluding sound quality, is that Hugo can work speakers without an amplifier.

Where you encompass the M-Scaler into that, is up to you.

Having said that, some people drive speakers from the Hugo 2.

I think the other advantage of TT2 plus m scaler is the dual bnc connections. You really want TT2 to max out the mscaler capability. Or is it visa versa...

 

[elviscaprice]

Hugo 2, Qutest, TT2 and DAVE all can max out the Hugo M-Scaler capability.

 

[musickid]

For Rob,

Between H2 and mscaler is there any advantage in using a twin rca to 3.5mm adaptor instead of a 3.5mm to twin rca cable? The reason i ask is because the adaptor is providing a shorter signal path so maybe a better transmitted signal? However it may make no difference i don't know? Could you clarify this and indicate your preferred method from the above two options. many thanks MK

 

[staticdynamo]

I'm going to use HUGO M Scaler with HUGO2. The one thing I mind is the impedance matching. SPDIF using the AES3 protocol ,
the impedance of the cable may be 75Ω. If I use cheap analogue cable to connect M Scaler and HUGO2, will the signal be
transmitted rightly? Should I make a connecting cable using 75Ω cables?

 

[musickid]

dual bnc 75 ohms only.

Would very high quality iem's say with 8 drivers be revealing enough for H2/HMS??

 

[Rob Watts]

For Rob,

Between H2 and mscaler is there any advantage in using a twin rca to 3.5mm adaptor instead of a 3.5mm to twin rca cable? The reason i ask is because the adaptor is providing a shorter signal path so maybe a better transmitted signal? However it may make no difference i don't know? Could you clarify this and indicate your preferred method from the above two options. many thanks MK

I'm going to use HUGO M Scaler with HUGO2. The one thing I mind is the impedance matching. SPDIF using the AES3 protocol ,
the impedance of the cable may be 75Ω. If I use cheap analogue cable to connect M Scaler and HUGO2, will the signal be
transmitted rightly? Should I make a connecting cable using 75Ω cables?

dual bnc 75 ohms only.

Would very high quality iem's say with 8 drivers be revealing enough for H2/HMS??

So I have two BNC cables for Hugo 2 - one is about 15 cm long, and is a soldered together cables from a video BNC cable and a standard 3.5 mm cable. The other cable is a cheap "giveaway" type 1.5m RCA to phono with BNC adaptors, so I thought I would listen to both cables.

Initially, the short cable sounded better, with slightly better depth. But it was inconsistent. Then I noticed the difference was how the headphone cable cable was placed made a difference. So in both cases, the headphone cable was not allowed to touch the 3.5mm/BNC cables; and Hugo 2 was moved so each 3.5mm/BNC cable was stretched out; then the inconsistency on the AB listening test was removed. I could no longer hear a difference between the two cables.

So make sure the headphone cable does not touch the digital cable seems to be the most important factor; length of the cable is not important; I guess the only factor now is whether a true 75 ohm BNC cables connected to the 3.5 mm connector directly helps. My instinct is that it would not make much of a difference, but I will need to wait till I get home till I try that test.

But for sure, Hugo M scaler and Hugo 2 does not need exact 75 ohm cables for it to function. I have put digital de-glitch circuitry on the SPDIF inputs, so the digital extraction is tolerant of impedance mismatch.

As too needing high quality transducers - well I can hear the effect of the M scaler using cheap computer loudspeakers... So any quality HP will do. But you will of course get a bigger difference using transparent transducers.