[Skyhawk182]

How would you guys describe the sonic upgrade of the TT2 versus Hugo2 with efficient headphones?

I had the Hugo 2 before getting the TT2. I noticed that the mid range and treble benefited from the additional output power, they were never strained on the H2, but somehow sound smoother and faster on the TT2. There is simply more current in the TT2, so the bass also became fuller with great cohesion and impact.

I travel a great deal for work, the TT2 is more cumbersome to put in my backpack and no longer works while in transit (H2 has batteries, TT2 does not) but in every other way the TT2 is a noticeable step up.

 

[JaZZ]

I had the Hugo 2 before getting the TT2. I noticed that the mid range and treble benefited from the additional output power, they were never strained on the H2, but somehow sound smoother and faster on the TT2. There is simply more current in the TT2, so the bass also became fuller with great cohesion and impact.

Please don't cultivate the urban legend of «more power = higher sound quality» any futher! The TT₂ differs in so much aspects from the Hugo₂ that it's unjustified to blame the higher power for the sonic differences. The increased smoothness may absolutely be caused by the more sophisticated noise shaping and/or the higher tap count, the same goes for the tighter bass, which may also benefit from the fundamentally different output stage (irrespective of power reserves) and/or the supercaps.

 

[Mediahound]

Please don't cultivate the urban legend of «more power = higher sound quality» any futher! The TT₂ differs in so much aspects from the Hugo₂ that it's unjustified to blame the higher power for the sonic differences. The increased smoothness may absolutely be caused by the more sophisticated noise shaping and/or the higher tap count, the same goes for the tighter bass, which may also benefit from the fundamentally different output stage (irrespective of power reserves) and/or the supercaps.

Look up damping factor - https://www.psaudio.com/askpaul/what-is-amplifier-damping-factor/

More power can certainly contribute to a better damping factor, depending on what you're driving.

 

[rkt31]

More unused power means more attenuation. More unnecessary attenuation is not good. Imho if someone is getting enough usable volume at around 12 or 1 o clock it is best. If it is getting too loud even at 8 o clock, there is no use if such extra power. It will only cause the signal to degrade by too much attenuation.

 

[JaZZ]

Look up damping factor - https://www.psaudio.com/askpaul/what-is-amplifier-damping-factor/

More power can certainly contribute to a better damping factor, depending on what you're driving.

I've just watched Paul McGowan's video, and it says nothing about the contribution of output power to the damping factor. I haven't read the comments below, but it would be hard to identify the experts among the commentators anyway. So the common notion of damping factor is that it is a function of serial impedance and load impedance, nothing else. Just in line with Paul McGowan.

 

[Mediahound]

More unused power means more attenuation. More unnecessary attenuation is not good. Imho if someone is getting enough usable volume at around 12 or 1 o clock it is best. If it is getting too loud even at 8 o clock, there is no use if such extra power. It will only cause the signal to degrade by too much attenuation.

None of this applies to the TT2 or other Chord products. Their noise floor remains exceedingly low throughout the digital volume.

 

[Mediahound]

I've just watched Paul McGowan's video, and it says nothing about the contribution of output power to the damping factor. I haven't read the comments below, but it would be hard to identify the experts among the commentators anyway. So the common notion of damping factor is that it is a function of serial impedance and load impedance, nothing else. Just in line with Paul McGowan.

Rob Watts has talked about it previously here in this thread:

OP impedance when driving transducers is important for two reasons:
1. The impedance of the headphone varies, and this together with the OP impedance of the amp modulates the actual frequency response.
2. Back EMF will create currents when the driver is stopped; this is damped via the OP impedance plus the mechanical damping of the driver.

With effect 1, you need damping factor of about 50 to 100 to ensure 0.1dB accuracy on frequency response. So no benefit in going better than this.

With 2, it's much more interesting. I did experiments many years ago (damn it, it's 35 years ago) with an amp I designed that had 2 wire sense feedback; with this I could get damping of many 1000's at the loudspeaker terminals. I could than add resistors to hear the effect of damping and got the following conclusions:

1. Damping 10 to 50 - bass sounds soft, big and fat; pitch discrimination was poor, tended to sound one note. Tube sound comes to mind...
2. Damping 50 to 100 - bass pitch discrimination gets better, less one note bass.
3. Damping 100 to 1000 - bass just sounds faster and tighter, with perceived tempo being faster. Not much change in pitch perception of bass.
4. Damping 1000+ tempo sounds a touch faster only, with bass being slightly leaner.

So the target was 1000+ using conventional loudspeakers.

Now with planers we do not need to worry about the impedance variation with frequency response; but we do need to worry about back emf and damping. Also planers tend to have a lower impedance, and so the back emf currents would be larger with all else being equal. But on the other hand I guess the damping required is less with planers. So to conclude I think damping is still important even with planers. Even if it wasn't, it would not change the importance of designing the OP impedance to be as low as possible, as the DAC/amp will be used with devices where it is important.

 

[JaZZ]

Rob Watts has talked about it previously here in this thread...

Thanks! I know this post. No mention of output power, though.

 

[rkt31]

None of this applies to the TT2 or other Chord products. Their noise floor remains exceedingly low throughout the digital volume.

Obviously it was about headphone amp with analog volume control not tt2. I know tt2 volume control is digital and extremely transparent.

 

[Mediahound]

Obviously it was about headphone amp with analog volume control not tt2. I know tt2 volume control is digital and extremely transparent.

Not really obvious since you're posting that in the Hugo TT 2 thread.

 

[rkt31]

Not really obvious since you're posting that in the Hugo TT 2 thread.

Tt2 does not have rotary volume control and i mentioned volume in clock position.

 

[JaZZ]

However, higher power is prone to higher noise floor. Generally speaking. Another argument (apart from the financial aspect) not to opt for excessive power that you don't need. Apparently I'm not speaking of (or against) the TT2.

 

[ToTo Man]

What Bluetooth codec does HTT2 use to play music from iOS devices? The manual lists only aptX, but it was explained to me a few posts back that iOS devices don't transmit aptX.

In his review of the Hugo 2 two years ago, Darko stated: "Despite the the absence of AAC, and thus falling back to SBC, the Hugo 2 comfortably outperformed the iPhone 6S Plus’ own analogue output; a more palpable midrange presence, better bass propulsion and – most obvious of all – greater finesse with the finer details. Users of aptX-capable smartphones and tablets can expect even better audible results."

Does HTT2 support AAC, or does it also revert to SBC? I began to suspect a software conflict with my 6th gen iPod Touch might be responsible for the "crunchy" distortion I'm hearing over BT playback. So, I dusted off my trusted 3rd gen iPod Touch, which I know for a fact sounds excellent and free from distortion artefacts when paired to an AAC-enabled Arcam irDAC-II, and it too exhibits the exact same crunchy distortion when I pair it with HTT2.

 

[Amberlamps]

What Bluetooth codec does HTT2 use to play music from iOS devices? The manual lists only aptX, but it was explained to me a few posts back that iOS devices don't transmit aptX.

In his review of the Hugo 2 two years ago, Darko stated: "Despite the the absence of AAC, and thus falling back to SBC, the Hugo 2 comfortably outperformed the iPhone 6S Plus’ own analogue output; a more palpable midrange presence, better bass propulsion and – most obvious of all – greater finesse with the finer details. Users of aptX-capable smartphones and tablets can expect even better audible results."

Does HTT2 support AAC, or does it also revert to SBC? I began to suspect a software conflict with my 6th gen iPod Touch might be responsible for the "crunchy" distortion I'm hearing over BT playback. So, I dusted off my trusted 3rd gen iPod Touch, which I know for a fact sounds excellent and free from distortion artefacts when paired to an AAC-enabled Arcam irDAC-II, and it too exhibits the exact same crunchy distortion when I pair it with HTT2.

Don't trust Darko, as he stated that Hugo 2 sounds better than an iphone.

Anyway, I think it's only SBC, as my ifun6s+ sounded much worse than a samsung galaxy s4 mini, which had aptx.

The difference between them audio wise when using BT was THIS BIG.

If you can/want, pick up an old samsung phone, you will be rewarded with aptx and, you can just use it for music playback, saving the battery in your iDevice.

I think BT in chords dac's is more of an after thought than anything, if they didn't include it in their products, no doubt folk would of moaned about it.

Aptx is pretty good if you are forced to use BT, say for example, going out jogging with TT2 and a battery strapped to your back. It's much better sounding than an iphone.

 

[bluenight]

TT3 and Mscaler2 are likely many many years away, since TT2 and Mscaler have just came out.
In fact there may never be a Mscaler2, as by then it may come intergrated in Chord dacs

This is what i want to see to for uppcoming chord dacs.