[Pastwa]

The thing I am curious about is DACs that may be better than the DAC in the TT2 at the same price

I used to have TT2 and moved very recently to a slightly more expensive Naim NDX2. The Naim produces a better soundstage (scale) with more weight/body to the sound, having said that, when TT2 was connected to NDX2 (Naim acting as pure streamer, Chord as pure DAC), then it gave a further improvement. To summarise it, Chord has a better DAC section, but Naim, in overall, is the better source, not sure however if this is what you are after. TT2 performance can obviously be improved further with the m scaler but Naim moves considerably up with the external PSU (i.e. Teddy Pardo XPS Plus, as a cheaper alternative to the Naim's XPS DR).

 

[betula]

I didn't have to use test albums to hear TT2's superiority over my previous Qutest/Taurus combo. Just my two cents.

 

[Ragnar-BY]

Given the TT2 is a DAC/Amp, it would stand to reason that there ought to be devices that are DAC only that should be superior to the TT2? I used the Yggdrasil as just a random one.

Strictly speaking TT2 is not a “DAC/Amp” . It is just a powerful DAC. Chords are made not like typical DAC/Amps, the headphone output is exactly the same output as it’s RCAs. Actually, this is one of the reasons why Chords are so good for headphones. Shorter signal path - more transparent sound.

 

[CreditingKarma]

Had anyone here auditioned the Auralic Vega G2? I just picked up an Aries G2 and some folks have said the the Aries G2 and Vega G2 combo is close to the Dave.

I am currently using the Aries G2 with my TT2. I know that this is sacreligous here but I found that the Aries G2 made more of an improvement in sound than the Mscaler did when I was auditioning it with the TT2. I fell like the Mscaler made more of a difference when I had one earlier this year with a hugo 2.

 

[Bonddam]

Strictly speaking TT2 is not a “DAC/Amp” . It is just a powerful DAC. Chords are made not like typical DAC/Amps, the headphone output is exactly the same output as it’s RCAs. Actually, this is one of the reasons why Chords are so good for headphones. Shorter signal path - more transparent sound.

I thought it is a dac/amp. It’s not as impressive as my tt2 and gsx mini combo.

 

[supervisor]

"strictly speaking" TT2 has an "AMP" mode... so not sure why @Ragnar-BY would say it's not an amp. it powers passive speakers on its own.

 

[Ragnar-BY]

"strictly speaking" TT2 has an "AMP" mode... so not sure why @Ragnar-BY would say it's not an amp. it powers passive speakers on its own.

P 7.3 of TT2 manual:
"Amplification Mode deploys the Hugo TT 2’s digital preamplifier capabilities enabling the volume to be attenuated to prevent clipping or to feed directly into a powered amplifier or speaker."

I was talking about design principle. Typical DAC/Amps are built, like this Audinst HUD-mx2:

Audinst have DAC section and analog signal from it is fed to "Headphone Output" which amplifies this signal and drive your speakers. Actually, this Audinst have both DAC and amplifier in one box.

Chords design is different. It does not have a DAC and an amplifier, it's DAC output stage is driving your headphones or in case of TT2 even speakers:

 

[supervisor]

i am not talking about the implementation, just talking about the functionality. it has an AMP mode and surely functions as a pre-amp.

 

[JaZZ]

The difference is that with conventional designs adding an external amp, attached to the line out, has the potential to sound better than the built-in amp.

With Chord DAC/amps on the other hand you can't bypass any «amp section», as DAC and output stage are inseparable. So an added amplifier will complicate the signal path, as it has to be attached to an output that carries the same signal as the headphone output.

 

[Bonddam]

P 7.3 of TT2 manual:
"Amplification Mode deploys the Hugo TT 2’s digital preamplifier capabilities enabling the volume to be attenuated to prevent clipping or to feed directly into a powered amplifier or speaker."

I was talking about design principle. Typical DAC/Amps are built, like this Audinst HUD-mx2:

Audinst have DAC section and analog signal from it is fed to "Headphone Output" which amplifies this signal and drive your speakers. Actually, this Audinst have both DAC and amplifier in one box.

Chords design is different. It does not have a DAC and an amplifier, it's DAC output stage is driving your headphones or in case of TT2 even speakers:

That clears it up

 

[andrewd01]

I used to have TT2 and moved very recently to a slightly more expensive Naim NDX2. The Naim produces a better soundstage (scale) with more weight/body to the sound, having said that, when TT2 was connected to NDX2 (Naim acting as pure streamer, Chord as pure DAC), then it gave a further improvement. To summarise it, Chord has a better DAC section, but Naim, in overall, is the better source, not sure however if this is what you are after. TT2 performance can obviously be improved further with the m scaler but Naim moves considerably up with the external PSU (i.e. Teddy Pardo XPS Plus, as a cheaper alternative to the Naim's XPS DR).

It sounds like you are comparing apples and pears here. The difference you noted in the first sentence seems to be related to the source and not the DAC.
The TT2 is an intermediate processor between a digital source and analogue components, so the comment that the Naim is a better source than the TT2 doesn't make sense. What source were you using with the TT2 before you got the Naim? If it was a generic computer then the improvement with the audio-specific server in the Naim makes sense.

 

[Pastwa]

The difference you noted in the first sentence seems to be related to the source and not the DAC.

The comparison was very simple, initially, the music has been played played from my iMac (with ROON installed) to TT2 and then swapped for Naim NDX2 (still, connected to the imac), this excercise made it clear that Naim is the better 'player' when combined with a typical computer. In the next step I used the NDX2 as streamer feeding the signal to TT2, which proved that TT2 has a better DAC section. I didn't use in the test the Unity Core server.

In overall, NDX2 is an outstanding streamer with a good DAC section, while TT2 is a very good DAC, but needs to be paired with a quality (very expensive) streamer/transport to show its full potential.

 

[kelly200269]

TT2 is a very good DAC, but needs to be paired with a quality (very expensive) streamer/transport to show its full potential.

I disagree.
In the past I’ve used my HMS/TT2 with a Google CCA via TOSLINK, and it sounded sublime.
I now use it with a Roon Nucleus (a glorified NUC), and it still sounds sublime.
You don’t need an expensive streamer/source to make the TT2 shine.

 

[andrewd01]

The comparison was very simple, initially, the music has been played played from my iMac (with ROON installed) to TT2 and then swapped for Naim NDX2 (still, connected to the imac), this excercise made it clear that Naim is the better 'player' when combined with a typical computer. In the next step I used the NDX2 as streamer feeding the signal to TT2, which proved that TT2 has a better DAC section. I didn't use in the test the Unity Core server.

In overall, NDX2 is an outstanding streamer with a good DAC section, while TT2 is a very good DAC, but needs to be paired with a quality (very expensive) streamer/transport to show its full potential.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that in the first test you were using the iMac as a combined Roon core and player, whereas in the second test the iMac was the Roon core and the Naim was the Roon endpoint. This would be obvious in the Roon remote, as the naim would appear as the player in Zones. I think you are primarily hearing a difference in the renderers (Imac vs Naim) and this effect is more significant than the difference in DACs.

It gets confusing when comparing different components covering different parts of the signal processing chain. There are three parts required: a Roon core (commonly called an ‘audio server’), a Roon endpoint or ‘renderer’, and a DAC. Some products combine parts one and two (like the innuos Zen I use), whilst others combine parts two and three (like the Naim NDX and many others), In some cases you have three separate components, eg Antipodes CX,EX, plus a DAC.

 

[jarnopp]

I disagree.
In the past I’ve used my HMS/TT2 with a Google CCA via TOSLINK, and it sounded sublime.
I now use it with a Roon Nucleus (a glorified NUC), and it still sounds sublime.
You don’t need an expensive streamer/source to make the TT2 shine.

+1. I use a NUC/Roon ROCK to a Raspberry Pi with Hifiberry hat (<$150) or an ELAC Discovery Server ($400) (for TT2) or Poly for Mojo and all are great. I prefer optical, but Poly of course is USB.