[phiemon]

USB is faster than anything except maybe IIS (I2S). Other interfaces can be less noisy.

With the Hugo 2 and TT, Toslink is faster than USB and the audio quality is also better, which is why I asked. I thought it was the same for the ADI-2.

 

[gimmeheadroom]

With the Hugo 2 and TT, Toslink is faster than USB and the audio quality is also better, which is why I asked. I thought it was the same for the ADI-2.

Not sure what you mean, but S/PDIF is never faster than USB on any device in the last decade or so. USB has huge bandwidth, toslink specification calls for 24/96, USB can do DSD512, video etc. There is no room for opinions on this.

If Toslink sounds better on your devices it is not because of speed, it's because of some other reason(s).

 

[phiemon]

Not sure what you mean, but S/PDIF is never faster than USB on any device in the last decade or so. USB has huge bandwidth, toslink specification calls for 24/96, USB can do DSD512, video etc. There is no room for opinions on this.

If Toslink sounds better on your devices it is not because of speed, it's because of some other reason(s).

I have no idea, it is a known fact in the forum of the Hugo 2 and TT2.

Other two questions:

1. With installed USB drivers I cannot select 32 bit, only 16 bit or 24 bit. What can I do for the 32 bit?

2. If I set "Mute Line" to "OFF", I have the option to set "Hi-Power" on Phones. This makes the volume louder with the headphones. I mean: The same volume is with Mute Line active/Hi-Power not active "-25", but with Mute Line not active / Hi-Power active about "-48". What is correct now? Why can't I activate "Hi-Power" when "Mute Line" is off and "Auto Ref Level" is on?

 

[dougq]

I have no idea, it is a known fact in the forum of the Hugo 2 and TT2.

Other two questions:

1. With installed USB drivers I cannot select 32 bit, only 16 bit or 24 bit. What can I do for the 32 bit?

2. If I set "Mute Line" to "OFF", I have the option to set "Hi-Power" on Phones. This makes the volume louder with the headphones. I mean: The same volume is with Mute Line active/Hi-Power not active "-25", but with Mute Line not active / Hi-Power active about "-48". What is correct now? Why can't I activate "Hi-Power" when "Mute Line" is off and "Auto Ref Level" is on?

I recommend going through the manual. There is virtually no reason to turn on hi power. With auto ref it will give you full dynamic range at the given listening level. You will hear it click into hi power mode when you turn the volume up enough.

 

[evhvis]

Not sure what you mean, but S/PDIF is never faster than USB on any device in the last decade or so. USB has huge bandwidth, toslink specification calls for 24/96, USB can do DSD512, video etc. There is no room for opinions on this.

If Toslink sounds better on your devices it is not because of speed, it's because of some other reason(s).

Higher bandwidth doesn't mean it has lower latency. It will depend on the implementation and USB will always have a buffer which causes latency. E.g. with a 1024 sample buffer you will have a minimum of 21.3ms latency for USB at 48khz but there may be additional buffering for jitter rejection, filters etc. in the DAC. S/PDIF is a synchronous stream without buffering in the transfer but there may be buffering on each end. The only way to know for sure which solution has lower latency is to either measure the latency on the different inputs from the source that will be used.

 

[gimmeheadroom]

Higher bandwidth doesn't mean it has lower latency. It will depend on the implementation and USB will always have a buffer which causes latency. E.g. with a 1024 sample buffer you will have a minimum of 21.3ms latency for USB at 48khz but there may be additional buffering for jitter rejection, filters etc. in the DAC. S/PDIF is a synchronous stream without buffering in the transfer but there may be buffering on each end. The only way to know for sure which solution has lower latency is to either measure the latency on the different inputs from the source that will be used.

I agree with you, I was speaking only to the bandwidth issue. But, latency is not audible (as long as it does not change dynamically) and doesn't matter unless you're syncing video or other audio tracks. Could be that Chord just doesn't have a good USB interface, does not reject noise, etc. Some have said the reason the MScaler helps so much with Chord gear is the better USB interface.

Anyway, great post!

 

[technobear]

Two other different questions:

1. Any news about the release date of the RME ADI-2/4 PRO SE DAC?

2. Any comparison between the ADI-2 DAC FS and the Hugo 2?

Unfortunatelly I cannot find an answer.

I did hear the release date at Canjam London but I can't remember it. I'm sure it's very soon but I can't find it at any dealers yet. I didn't listen to it.

As for the Hugo2, since no-one else has chimed in, I was led to try Hugo2 because of dissatisfaction with the sound from the ADI2-DAC (and the iFi Audio iDAC2). I have owned and used all three together for two years now. The ADI2-DAC has a couple of flaws to my ears. The first is the soundstage which is rather 2-dimensional. It is wide but doesn't have much height and has very little depth to it. The Hugo2 puts the stage in a sphere around your head with better height and much better depth. The second flaw occurs whenever the recording contains any harshness, squeal, screech, sqawk, metallic sheen or undue sibilance. The ADI2-DAC makes it worse and is fatiguing to listen to for those tracks. It makes me want to turn it down or listen to something else. The Hugo2 is far more refined. It doesn't add distortion of its own to what is already distorted. It just sounds natural and unfatiguing because it is far more accurate in time than the RME. You can still hear the flaws in those recordings. They are just not thrown at you in an unpleasant way.

The best I can describe it is that when I first got the Hugo2, I found myself tensing and flinching for faults I was expecting to hear, only for them not to occur. I quickly learned to stop flinching and tensing and just relax knowing that the Hugo2 was not going to offend my ears. I wrote somewhere else (but can't now find it) that the Hugo2 is what I've been waiting 40 years for digital audio to sound like. The ADI2-DAC is still a good and very versatile piece for it's price, but I'm afraid the Hugo2 plays on an altogether loftier plain and is worth every penny of its asking price. Of course if you already have a headphone amp, you could save some by getting the Qutest.

On the subject of USB, neither ADI2-DAC nor Hugo2 are perfect here. Both can be improved by addition of an iPurifier2/3 (disclaimer: I own a bunch of these, other decrapifiers are available but the iFi ones are very good in my experience). I feed my DACs by optical or coaxial where those options are available.

EDIT: one more thing on latency. The ADI2-DAC has a couple of short delay filters - SD Sharp and SD Slow. Be sure to use those. Personally I use both the ADI2-DAC and Hugo2 on optical with the TV and have never had any lipsync issues.

 

[Another Audiophile]

I did hear the release date at Canjam London but I can't remember it.

in September

 

[jamca]

I did hear the release date at Canjam London but I can't remember it. I'm sure it's very soon but I can't find it at any dealers yet. I didn't listen to it.

As for the Hugo2, since no-one else has chimed in, I was led to try Hugo2 because of dissatisfaction with the sound from the ADI2-DAC (and the iFi Audio iDAC2). I have owned and used all three together for two years now. The ADI2-DAC has a couple of flaws to my ears. The first is the soundstage which is rather 2-dimensional. It is wide but doesn't have much height and has very little depth to it. The Hugo2 puts the stage in a sphere around your head with better height and much better depth. The second flaw occurs whenever the recording contains any harshness, squeal, screech, sqawk, metallic sheen or undue sibilance. The ADI2-DAC makes it worse and is fatiguing to listen to for those tracks. It makes me want to turn it down or listen to something else. The Hugo2 is far more refined. It doesn't add distortion of its own to what is already distorted. It just sounds natural and unfatiguing because it is far more accurate in time than the RME. You can still hear the flaws in those recordings. They are just not thrown at you in an unpleasant way.

The best I can describe it is that when I first got the Hugo2, I found myself tensing and flinching for faults I was expecting to hear, only for them not to occur. I quickly learned to stop flinching and tensing and just relax knowing that the Hugo2 was not going to offend my ears. I wrote somewhere else (but can't now find it) that the Hugo2 is what I've been waiting 40 years for digital audio to sound like. The ADI2-DAC is still a good and very versatile piece for it's price, but I'm afraid the Hugo2 plays on an altogether loftier plain and is worth every penny of its asking price. Of course if you already have a headphone amp, you could save some by getting the Qutest.

On the subject of USB, neither ADI2-DAC nor Hugo2 are perfect here. Both can be improved by addition of an iPurifier2/3 (disclaimer: I own a bunch of these, other decrapifiers are available but the iFi ones are very good in my experience). I feed my DACs by optical or coaxial where those options are available.

EDIT: one more thing on latency. The ADI2-DAC has a couple of short delay filters - SD Sharp and SD Slow. Be sure to use those. Personally I use both the ADI2-DAC and Hugo2 on optical with the TV and have never had any lipsync issues.

i agree with your conclusions about the rme adi-2 fs soundstage. But it is so versatile that is unbeatable ... never heard hugo2 but even compared to chord mojo it feels less 3d dimensional...

 

[phiemon]

In the meantime, I have had the opportunity to test the Hugo 2 myself and compare it with the ADI-2. Yes, it is true that the Hugo 2 is better overall. However, there is one thing that is an absolute deal-breaker for me: the gaming aspect! The Hugo 2 has strong audio delay (about 60ms as I read somewhere) and in fact it is a bit better via Toslink than via USB. The sound quality is also a bit better via Toslink. Still, there's too much audio delay, whereas the ADI-2 is absolutely direct, I notice no delay at all and no difference compared to the onboard sound - both via USB and Toslink. Since I need the amplifier mainly for gaming, the Hugo 2 is simply out of the question. For gaming, I probably wouldn't notice the better sound anyway.

 

[Slaphead]

In the meantime, I have had the opportunity to test the Hugo 2 myself and compare it with the ADI-2. Yes, it is true that the Hugo 2 is better overall. However, there is one thing that is an absolute deal-breaker for me: the gaming aspect! The Hugo 2 has strong audio delay (about 60ms as I read somewhere) and in fact it is a bit better via Toslink than via USB. The sound quality is also a bit better via Toslink. Still, there's too much audio delay, whereas the ADI-2 is absolutely direct, I notice no delay at all and no difference compared to the onboard sound - both via USB and Toslink. Since I need the amplifier mainly for gaming, the Hugo 2 is simply out of the question. For gaming, I probably wouldn't notice the better sound anyway.

And there you have the difference in philosophy between HiFi Audio (Chord) and Pro Audio (RME)

Pro Audio needs to perform with minimal latency and deliver accurate sound. HiFi audio just has to sound "euphonic", enjoyable, and portray a convincingly "real-ish" performance to the listener.

This is why my system now comprises purely pro audio components - RME included.

By the way, Chord's USB implementation seems really iffy for some reason, IMO.

 

[evhvis]

And there you have the difference in philosophy between HiFi Audio (Chord) and Pro Audio (RME)

Pro Audio needs to perform with minimal latency and deliver accurate sound. HiFi audio just has to sound "euphonic", enjoyable, and portray a convincingly "real-ish" performance to the listener.

This is why my system now comprises purely pro audio components - RME included.

By the way, Chord's USB implementation seems really iffy for some reason, IMO.

The delay is needed due to the longer filters (more samples). The impulse response and sharp roll off from chord filters are probably the best from a technical perspective out of all the DAC solutions on the market, but requires lots of samples and quite a bit of processing power to achieve. The filters on the RME DAC are the ones that come from the factory and all have tradeoffs with either impulse response or frequency response.

The RME DAC is great as an affordable DAC with headphone amp combo and I love the EQ, but calling it more accurate than chord etc. is just biased.

 

[jamca]

The delay is needed due to the longer filters (more samples). The impulse response and sharp roll off from chord filters are probably the best from a technical perspective out of all the DAC solutions on the market, but requires lots of samples and quite a bit of processing power to achieve. The filters on the RME DAC are the ones that come from the factory and all have tradeoffs with either impulse response or frequency response.

The RME DAC is great as an affordable DAC with headphone amp combo and I love the EQ, but calling it more accurate than chord etc. is just biased.

But what about the measurements of RME that seem to be equal or better than chord' s?

 

[evhvis]

But what about the measurements of RME that seem to be equal or better than chord' s?

Not sure how you can argue that having a few DB better noise floor in some cases with flawed reproduction impulse responses or frequency response makes a DAC more accurate.

If you go through the filters on the RME then you can hear subtle differences in the reproduction of music, e.g. some have more flow to the music in their presentation while others have better timing and fine detail but they all have small tradeoffs.

I don't have a hugo 2 and use the RME ADI 2 DAC FS as my DAC+Headphone amp as it is a small unit with a nice interface that is good enough for my headphone setup and love being able to EQ my headphones. It is a DAC I would recommend at it's price point as it is grain free and overall quite good, but I can easily hear the tradeoffs between the filters.

 

[jamca]

Not sure how you can argue that having a few DB better noise floor in some cases with flawed reproduction impulse responses or frequency response makes a DAC more accurate.

If you go through the filters on the RME then you can hear subtle differences in the reproduction of music, e.g. some have more flow to the music in their presentation while others have better timing and fine detail but they all have small tradeoffs.

Yes i agree but you know...there is an eternal debate about measurements and subjectivism and the great question is one ...the logic that prices are applied. For example Mofi's scandal...many vinyl audiophiles argued to death that "all analogue" chain sounded better from their mofi's records...and now it is proven that they had digital steps during the procedure...This shows that people are willing to pay for what they thing or believe, and not for the objective truth. That is why i lean towards the measurements .... the audiophile industry needs to get a little serious and not mislead the customers.