[Ableza]

  I don't think the Hugo has a digital line out, so that its output signal has already been processed through its onchip opamp.  It would be nice if it did give separate digital and analog outputs, so the the DAC and amp signal qualities could be individually evaluated.  As purrin has pointed out, I think the weakness of Hugo amp circuitry is likely to be the source of all its distractors complaints. I believe that the FPGA digital filter, DAC and amp are all on the same Xilinx chip, which is good for portability, but bad for optimization.  Perhaps the relative thinness of the Hugo output sound needs to be supplemented by a good tube amp is what purrin means as a dedicated DAC.  

I know nothing about this device but isn't it a DAC?  Why then would it have a digital output?

 

[jacal01]

Oops.  It's a portable DAC-amp.  I meant to say separate analog line out and headphone output, so that its DAC/filter circuitry can be separately accessed and assessed before its amp circuit processes the signal.

 

[purrin]

 
Perhaps the relative thinness of the Hugo output sound needs to be supplemented by a good tube amp is what purrin means as a dedicated DAC.  

 
Not so much the thinness - it's on the leaner side, but wasn't that lean sounding to me (in a direct comparison, the PSA DSD was even more lean with upper-mid forwardness). Hugo headouts to HD800 or various IEMs, just seemed to lack liveliness and was flat sounding. That really was my main complaint. As a dedicated DAC to a good amp, it wasn't as flat. My guess is that combination headamp / lineout circuit is not as strong for certain headphones or low-Z IEMs.

 

[jacal01]

Well, you know my vote, to segregate the Hugo's amp section off the Xilinx chip and into a separate opamp chip circuit where it can be optimized.  But that would probably call for a major product redesign, so I think the chances of that are diminished.  Too bad; I really like the Chord DAC FPGA filter implementation.

 

[Clemmaster]

  Well, you know my vote, to segregate the Hugo's amp section off the Xilinx chip and into a separate opamp chip circuit where it can be optimized.  But that would probably call for a major product redesign, so I think the chances of that are diminished.  Too bad; I really like the Chord DAC FPGA filter implementation.

 
In the new Qute maybe?

 

[jacal01]

I believe I read somewhere that the enhanced processing capabilities (increased filter taps, etc.) delivered by the new generation FPGA chips might first flow up into their flagship QBD76 HDSD DAC product, which preceded the Qute series. 

 

[Chris J]

  I never said you can't use headphone out from Hugo.
 
I just replied to Maxvla that Hugo sounds better as a dedicated DAC than as a DAC/Headamp (to Maxvla's HD800) - because I wasn't sure if Maxvla had a chance to try Hugo as a dedicated DAC. My first two experiences with Hugo were as a DAC/Headmp which I felt it sucked balls in that capacity. However, after successive listens with the Hugo as a dedicated DAC, I felt it was OK, but much overpriced still.
 
Not quite understanding what you are saying or getting at.

 
 
I think I read something into what you said that you did not actually say.  

I have noticed that a few posters do not seem to realize that the Hugo line out and headphone amp are one and the same.
On reading the posts again, that doesn't seem to include you.
 
Quote:

  Oops.  It's a portable DAC-amp.  I meant to say separate analog line out and headphone output, so that its DAC/filter circuitry can be separately accessed and assessed before its amp circuit processes the signal.

 
As I was saying, that's not possible in the Hugo....the analog line out is the same as the headphone output.
I've never heard the Hugo so I can't comment on the sound of the line vs. headphone out, etc.
Apparently the designer noticed that the DAC's analog output stage can output enough current to drive headphones, sooo.....

 

[Currawong]

It has enough current to drive sensitive passive speakers too. This got me thinking though: What will the "sound signature" of the Yggdrasil be?

 

[Ableza]

  It has enough current to drive sensitive passive speakers too. This got me thinking though: What will the "sound signature" of the Yggdrasil be?

My guess is somewhere between "neutral" and "none."  The sound signature of a bit-perfect DAC should be whatever is encoded in the original sample. 

 

[NoPants]

That would be ignoring the I/V output stage

 

[Baldr]

That would be ignoring the I/V output stage

 
Hint:  Out of our DAC circuit comes Volts -- No, make that VOLTS.  So many that our analog stage is only a buffer which loses some of the volts so you won't blow the snot out of whatever electronics/cans/speakers come downstream from Yggy.  It is FAR easier to design an analog section free of artifacts (fice?) and schitty sound when you don't have to worry about gain.  The huge signals coming into the analog buffer also get the decoded signal that much further away from the noise floor.

 

[Ableza]

   
Hint:  Out of our DAC circuit comes Volts -- No, make that VOLTS.  So many that our analog stage is only a buffer which loses some of the volts so you won't blow the snot out of whatever electronics/cans/speakers come downstream from Yggy.  It is FAR easier to design an analog section free of artifacts (fice?) and schitty sound when you don't have to worry about gain.  The huge signals coming into the analog buffer also get the decoded signal that much further away from the noise floor.

I am very much looking forward to this.

 

[estreeter]

  Oops.  It's a portable DAC-amp.  I meant to say separate analog line out and headphone output, so that its DAC/filter circuitry can be separately accessed and assessed before its amp circuit processes the signal.

 
Rob Watts dedicated a lot of keystrokes to this aspect of the Hugo's design in the main Hugo thread - he is also adamant that all we are doing when we connect a dedicated headlamp is add unnecessary coloration to the sound and a few fanboys picked that up and ran with it.  That said, I'd like to know how many hours were on the Hugo units some here describe as 'thin' - that definitely isn't what i heard from either my Audeze phones or the Fidelio X1 - YMMV. The HD800 is an outlier, but this wouldn't be the first time a DAC/amp was found wanting when the Senns were plugged in. These phones need to be taken by the scruff of the neck and told who'll be calling the shots - any amp that can't do that, regardless of it's on-paper capabilities, will be found wanting. 
 
If I could pen a wish list for a digital source, item 1 would be 'Sounds great straight out of the box with no significant changes over the first 100 hours'.  Reading that an AMR dealer insisted on 1000 hours burn-in for the DP-777 - a claim that I've seen before for other components on Head-FI - does absolutely nothing for me, but I'm curious re the burn-in requirements for Yggdrasil nonetheless. Roll on November. 

 

[shortcuttomonct]

  If I could pen a wish list for a digital source, item 1 would be 'Sounds great straight out of the box with no significant changes over the first 100 hours'.  Reading that an AMR dealer insisted on 1000 hours burn-in for the DP-777 - a claim that I've seen before for other components on Head-FI - does absolutely nothing for me, but I'm curious re the burn-in requirements for Yggdrasil nonetheless. Roll on November. 

You can lump me in as a skeptic who does not believe in "significant changes after the first x hours" - I have always firmly thought that the Occam's razor answer is that it is our ears slowly adjusting to new equipment, and not the other way 'round.  (I should note that I have never bothered to see if there is any research which shows that spec measurements do change somewhat after a burn-in period...so if that has been done please feel free to show me, and I may no longer be so firm in my beliefs. 

  As a sub-note to this note, I will say that I absolutely do not believe that "measurements" are any requirement for great sound - but if the sound is actually changing, then something must be changing with the measured specifications.) 
 
Having said that, this is simply a factual question.  If you believe (or it is objectively proven) that burn-in periods do exist, then they must logically apply to all equipment - unless a manufacturer is coming out and claiming they have eliminated this problem via a special process/materials that no one else uses - and thus the only way to meet your "Item 1" would be for the manufacturer to burn it in themselves before shipping it to you.  (Not a bad solution actually.)  Otherwise, no matter what equipment you buy, there would have to be some burn-in time.
 
And if burn-in periods do not actually exist, then it doesn't matter if someone does claim "1000 hours" (which is ludicrous BTW) - there is no burn-in time and you do not need to listen to these claims at all, and simply start enjoying your new equipment.

So I guess your "Item 1" sounds like a weird requirement to me.  Especially so given that a reasonable burn-in time really is not much of an inconvenience, other than having to keep it on for a few days once you bring it home.  Given all the other things one might like from their digital sources, it seems a rather minor inconvenience of delayed gratification. 

 

[wnmnkh]

 

  If I could pen a wish list for a digital source, item 1 would be 'Sounds great straight out of the box with no significant changes over the first 100 hours'.  Reading that an AMR dealer insisted on 1000 hours burn-in for the DP-777 - a claim that I've seen before for other components on Head-FI - does absolutely nothing for me, but I'm curious re the burn-in requirements for Yggdrasil nonetheless. Roll on November. 

You can lump me in as a skeptic who does not believe in "significant changes after the first x hours" - I have always firmly thought that the Occam's razor answer is that it is our ears slowly adjusting to new equipment, and not the other way 'round.  (I should note that I have never bothered to see if there is any research which shows that spec measurements do change somewhat after a burn-in period...so if that has been done please feel free to show me, and I may no longer be so firm in my beliefs. 

  As a sub-note to this note, I will say that I absolutely do not believe that "measurements" are any requirement for great sound - but if the sound is actually changing, then something must be changing with the measured specifications.) 
 
Having said that, this is simply a factual question.  If you believe (or it is objectively proven) that burn-in periods do exist, then they must logically apply to all equipment - unless a manufacturer is coming out and claiming they have eliminated this problem via a special process/materials that no one else uses - and thus the only way to meet your "Item 1" would be for the manufacturer to burn it in themselves before shipping it to you.  (Not a bad solution actually.)  Otherwise, no matter what equipment you buy, there would have to be some burn-in time.
 
And if burn-in periods do not actually exist, then it doesn't matter if someone does claim "1000 hours" (which is ludicrous BTW) - there is no burn-in time and you do not need to listen to these claims at all, and simply start enjoying your new equipment.

So I guess your "Item 1" sounds like a weird requirement to me.  Especially so given that a reasonable burn-in time really is not much of an inconvenience, other than having to keep it on for a few days once you bring it home.  Given all the other things one might like from their digital sources, it seems a rather minor inconvenience of delayed gratification. 

 
Tubes, for example, probably need burn-in since they are mix of mechanical and electronical components. Speakers, which are also mechanical devices, may need some burn-in for domes and drivers to settle down. Headphones are essentially small speakers... They do have moving parts, but they move far smaller than speakers. Stuffs like cables, which do not have any mechanical movements, do not have such effect.
 
Actual burn-in effects exist on some of the audio components, but not all of them.