[Phronesis]

@gregorio, maybe it's just your personality and you can't help it, but if you talked with people with more tact and respect, people would be more receptive to what you say, rather than writing you off as an unusually pompous and obnoxious keyboard warrior. Surely this has been pointed out to you in the past?

 

[Amberlamps]

blah blah blah burp burp argh argh listen to me I’m ALWAYS right, I play internets for REAL, and I’ve only punched my monitor twice today, btw does anyone know where I can buy replacement keys for my mechanical keyboard ? as I broke mine by thumping it when somebody on the internet didn’t care about my book of a post, burp

Don’t tase me bro.

I’m only here for the free beer, not an arguement or to have opinions forcefully shoved down ones throat.

Test, what test, if you mean me playing music via a dac and hearing what it sounds like, sure, we can call it a test, and one that’s repeatable. You know, like one of them double blind tests where there is also placebo’s handed out in the form of peanut M n M’s

Hugo 2 sounds better to me than my other dacs, and I can easily notice it, and be able to tell that this is the dac that I’m listening to, if one day I should ever happen to find myself blindfolded.

True story, believe it or not, but throwing forceful opinions about like your first reply to me is highly likely to not get you a nice reply. Now it’s time to eat as it’s 5:37pm and my MnM’s have ran out.

 

[bigshot]

Not disagreeing with most of your post, but to suggest my hugo 2 is defective is weird, just because it doesn’t sound similar to normal dacs, that means it is broken ?

The overwhelming number of DACs are audibly transparent, which means that they produce sound that is better than the ears can hear. One DAC can have a little better specs than another, but because it's beyond the range of human hearing, you can't hear the difference. If a DAC does sound different, odds are that it is colored... which means that it is putting out modified signals within the range of human hearing. Either that modification is deliberate (the DAC is designed to not be transparent) or it is accidental (the unit is defective and not performing to spec). I'm assuming that the published specs to your DAC are well beyond the range of human hearing, so if it isn't transparent, then it is probably defective in some way.

There is no such thing as "more transparent". Once you hit that line, it can't sound any better.

Does that make more sense?

If that’s the case, why is it that basically every single reviewer who sampled hugo before it’s release, then shortly after release and again still being reviewed today as we speak. They have nothing but good words to say about it ?

If everyone else says that this model sounds perfect, and yours isn't transparent, tthen that probably means that just your unit is defective. Manufacturing errors happen. If I was you, I would do a controlled listening test to make sure... a line level matched, direct A/B switchable, blind comparison. That is very easy to do. All you need is a way to measure the output level and a preamp. That is how you determine if it's defective.

It's entirely possible that you discerned a difference because of bias and your DAC is fine. It is easy with uncontrolled testing for bias to make you think you are hearing a difference that doesn't actually exist. Casual subjective impressions can be very inaccurate for several reasons. That is why we apply controls like level matching, quick switching and blind comparison. Those things are essential to sorting out the truth.

DACs that are performing to spec, should all be transparent, and they should all sound the same. The only way for one to sound better than another is to upgrade your ears to hear better than human ears can hear.

And to answer your question before you ask it... Yes, a lot of what you read about home audio online and on manufacturer's websites *is* a lie.

 

[bigshot]

Gregorio is a very knowledgeable and experienced person. He is doing us a favor by participating here. If you give him respect, you'll get it back. He isn't being pompous or obnoxious. He actually *does* know things we aren't aware of. If you want to learn those things, you have to maintain respect yourself. People argue with Gregorio when they flat out don't know what they are talking about or who they are trying to argue with. They should lurk a bit more and get the lay of the land before they try to "assault the Matterhorn" so to speak.

I've been around Sound Science for a long time. The same stuff happens over and over. People come in and say something that is totally wrong. One of the regulars points out their errors and lets them know why. The person doesn't understand what he is being told, and doesn't want to know, so he starts arguing. It escalates. Reams of information are shared, but it falls on deaf ears because these argumentative people just want self validation, not the facts. They get madder and madder and eventually resort to ad hominem attacks. Eventually either they disappear or they are banned. Someone else comes in with an incorrect statement and starts the cycle all over again. It's a revolving door and we deal with it here all the time while we struggle to fit our own conversations in the cracks between all of the BS.

It isn't Gregorio's fault that people don't recognize that he knows what he's talking about. And it isn't Gregorio's fault that they refuse to listen. Patience is great, but it is a limited resource when it's assaulted over and over on a daily basis.

People should listen and lurk more.

Don’t tase me bro. I’m only here for the free beer, not an arguement or to have opinions forcefully shoved down ones throat.

Just so you know, Gregorio is a professional sound engineer and educator on this subject. You could learn a lot from him. He isn't trying to shove opinions down your throat. He is giving you a clue. If you have a question, ask it and he will answer it completely. If you don't care to hear what he has to say because you want to go on believing whatever you already believe, I would recommend not engaging with him at all.

This is Sound Science. It's different than the rest of Head-Fi and we have different rules. We can challenge your opinions and ask for the proof that you used to arrive at them. If you aren't prepared to support your arguments, it's best not to push it here. The rest of Head Fi will gladly accept unsupported claims. This isn't the place for that.

 

[bfreedma]

@gregorio, maybe it's just your personality and you can't help it, but if you talked with people with more tact and respect, people would be more receptive to what you say, rather than writing you off as an unusually pompous and obnoxious keyboard warrior. Surely this has been pointed out to you in the past?

Personally, I have a bigger issue with people (not you) posting in the Sound Science forum and insisting we are all idiots and that subjective testing supersedes measurements and proper testing protocol, then refusing to consider the responses. There's a separate DAC forum for that.

Considering how many times the same subjective opinion post has been asked/answered and the obvious lack of bothering to read the thread before the next one is posted, I understand the direct responses.

Edit - this post is a delayed echo of the post above caused by room reflections... Or simultaneous posting.

 

[Kammerat Rebekka]

Bigshot's post is full of wisdom. People should read it thrice and then start investigating this whole forum without making snide comments until they actually understand what they're objecting to.
There is absolutely no reasonable manner in which a proper dialogue about audio or anything for that matter can take place, if one side refuses to look at or understand even the most basic principles of sound reproduction and thresholds of the human hearing.

I am in awe of the folks who continue to soldier on in this part of Head-Fi. They provide real information based on science and working with these things hands-on for decades.
Why should we trust these people over fx Rob Watts and a cohort of similar manufacturers that continue to speak of magical proponents of sound and scientific holes overlooking the very same?
Simple really: they are not trying to sell you anything!
...aaaaand many of them seem like they have the dough to buy that superdac with the phosphordrive and ultracooler...yet they are contempt with a well-built unit that functions properly. That says it all really.

 

[Phronesis]

^ Regardless of all of the above, there's such a thing as outright rudeness, and we all know it when we see it. But sometimes people look the other way or try to justify the rudeness if the person being rude is on what they perceive to be 'their team'.

There are substantive issues worth discussing related to objective and subjective aspects of all of this, but the discussions tend to not get very far when people get into polarized debate mode rather than delving into the substantive issues in a dispassionate way which doesn't label people who disagree as fools.

On a positive but unrelated note, I'm listening to the HD800S right now, and blown away by how good it sounds. Reading reviews and impressions based on non-blind evaluation is part of what led me to give it a try.

 

[Kammerat Rebekka]

I'd probably get a little snippy if I used most of my time having to re-explain why water is wet to a flock of Gremlins.

 

[bigshot]

Why should we trust these people over fx Rob Watts and a cohort of similar manufacturers that continue to speak of magical proponents of sound and scientific holes overlooking the very same? Simple really: they are not trying to sell you anything!

I guess now isn't the best time to announce my kickstarter...

(just joking!)

I don't see any of us regulars being rude. Curt? perhaps. Impatient? definitely. But not rude. The people who are rude are the ones who march in and camp out in threads where they have very little interest in the topic. This is a forum about science as it relates to home audio. We are allowed to challenge opinions and demand proof. Anyone who feels that their feelings are hurt by being held to the rules of this forum can suck it up... or do as the chef said, "If you can't stand the heat... get out of the kitchen!"

We have a thread called "Testing Audiophile Claims and Myths". It currently has a couple of people camped out in it who have no interest in testing to verify their own opinions. Instead they post paragraph after paragraph of unsubstantiated, irrelevant, vague, unverified, purely subjective audiophile claims and myths. To me, THAT is rude.

This forum is under a constant barrage by people who are butt hurt because we aren't unquestioningly validating them. It isn't our responsibility to smile and nod and invite people to blather about stuff they don't know anything about. This forum has a definite purpose. I was here when it was formed. If someone doesn't know the purpose, they can ask me and I'll fill them in.

 

[Phronesis]

I'd probably get a little snippy if I used most of my time having to re-explain why water is wet to a flock of Gremlins.

Participation in the forum is entirely voluntarily, and no one is required to explain or re-explain anything to anyone. Further, nothing of real importance is being discussed here, this is just hobby stuff - that's why real scientists (not engineers) don't pay much attention to science related to audio gear, nor get funding for such research. People who are rude around here have either lost sight of these points, or are rude as a matter of personality (anonymous internet forums attract some of those people).

 

[Laura80]

To Whom It May Concern:

I have one of these lying around the house because I used it to make digital recordings of LPs. . .

https://www.guitarcenter.com/Behringer/UPHONO-UFO202-USB-Audio-Interface.gc

But I'd recommend the Behringer UCA 202 if you don't need to digitize LPs. It's more versatile and sometimes a few dollars cheaper.

SO:

Maybe you could try one of these things--$20 or $30. . . a possible but rather extreme cure for the placebo syndrome. . . The real medicine may be too strong! It's like moving to the P-Funk from disco!!!! (This was reportedly George Clinton's motivation when he recorded the LP Funkentelechy versus the Placebo Syndrome... highly recommended by yours truly.) Anyway, I have the 202-family Behringer DAC with the phono preamp in it . .

On to my narrative I wrote before I got sidetracked AGAIN and AGAIN:

I got curious tonight and I've done a little research for you and I'm giving you five independent sources to look over in case you are skeptical (and why wouldn't you be?). You've got a detailed review with measurements and history, a musician, an audio geek, and an audiophile, and a bunch of Amazon customers. You'll see people put these to quite different and varying uses and in very demanding situations.

They're worth their weight in plastic and, um, whatever else they're made of!

First:

http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/02/behringer-uca202-review.html

From the article directly above I learned this should be a great headphone amp for my Beyer studio phones (DT880s and DT990s) and my Senns (HD 580s) but not for my cheaper low impedence headphones. However, as far as using it for a DAC per se, or using the line outs, you should be golden. I checked the volume on my 200-ohm headphones and it's in excess of what is comfortable for me so I can use my nicer headphones with this. You can also read in the directly above article about a double-blind test (DBT) where audiophiles couldn't tell the difference between cheap Behringer and Sony components with intentionally sub-optimal cables versus super-expensive audio components. The article is nice because it doesn't pull any punches--it points out strengths and weaknesses of this Behringer DAC alike and then puts it in perspective for you. It was also good book learning material for me. And after reading the article I am using it right now to listen to my nicer headphones outboard from my computer.

Honestly, I have two more expensive DACs so I am not immune to being human. Although they are worth it in some ways for some of my headphones because they are more suitable for a wider range of headphones due to their variable or lower output impedance for the headphone monitor jack. And they serve other functions. I read! I learned!

The above-linked article and the second video will show you the internals of this DAC and how seemingly comically simple the board layout of a DAC can be if done well.

The article and the second video have some differences in opinion you can look for. It just means you are getting more learning and information. I can try things out at home and see what I think because I paid my $30 to THE MAN (i.e., Jeff Bezos).

Now, on to the fluff:


Amazon Customers:

https://www.amazon.com/BEHRINGER-U-Control-Low-Latency-Interface-Digital/dp/B000KW2YEI


Musician who records using IPad:




Techie guy:




Audiophile:

Wow, what a wealth of information you’ve provided!

The Behringer certainly seems an amazing and versatile device and at a crazy low price.

I clicked the blog you linked and ended up on a section titled ‘What we hear’ which makes for a very interesting read and mirrors many of the comments of members on this thread.

One particular take away from the blog:


‘MONEY WELL SPENT: I’m not suggesting there’s no reason to buy expensive audio gear. I own a $1600 DAC. There can be satisfying reasons to spend more including higher build quality, more peace of mind, the heritage and reputation behind certain manufacturers, better aesthetics, and other less tangible benefits. But, for the sake of those interested in getting the best sound for their money, it’s best not to confuse sound quality with those other benefits.’

 

[Amberlamps]

The overwhelming number of DACs are audibly transparent, which means that they produce sound that is better than the ears can hear. One DAC can have a little better specs than another, but because it's beyond the range of human hearing, you can't hear the difference. If a DAC does sound different, odds are that it is colored... specifically that it is putting out modified signals within the range of human hearing. Either that modification is deliberate (the DAC is designed to not be transparent) or it is accidental (the unit is defective and not performing to spec). I'm assuming that the published specs to your DAC are well beyond the range of human hearing, so if it isn't transparent, then it is probably defective in some way.

There is no such thing as "more transparent". Once you hit that line, it can't sound any better.

Does that make more sense?



If everyone else says that this model sounds perfect, then that probably means that if yours isn't transparent, then just your unit is defective. Manufacturing errors happen. If I was you, I would do a controlled listening test to make sure... a line level matched, direct A/B switchable, blind comparison. That is very easy to do. All you need is a way to measure the output level and a preamp.

This is the type of replies I like, no shouting, no assumption and no arrogance.

I agree that a dac should be fully transparent, whether hugo 2 is fully transparent is unknown to me. I did know some of the specs but it has now been forgotten. I’m open to it being doa or foa, it’s happened to me before, it happened to be an nvidia video card. I’m open to the idea that it could be faulty, but if I’m honest, I don’t think it is, as the other hugo 2’s I have heard sounded very similar. But who knows, maybe a faulty batch ?

I think I still have a selectable switch box around here somewhere, it’s along time since I used it, but since I’m a hoarder I probably still have it.

The measuring part will be hard, hmm, I do have some old sound card breakout boxes that may possibly work, as my audigy 4 pro came with a pilemof crap like that, same with fx platinum and my xonars came with right mark audio analyzer, not sure what it does, but it says for testing audio hardware.

Cheers for a cool and calm reply, much appreciated, and I will have a look and see if I can come up with something to test them with.


These are the specs of hugo 2, I just copied from their site. Most of it makes no sense to me, if I took a serious interest in it, I would know, but it ‘s not something that I’m interested in delving deeper into, as it would bug me in the end if I came to the conclusion that what I had just bought, wasn’t all that it was cracked up to be.

Cheers.


Chipset: Chord Electronics custom coded Xilinx Artix 7 (XC7A15T) FPGA

Tap-length: 49,152

Pulse array: 10 element pulse array design

Frequency response: 20Hz – 20kHz +/- 0.2dB

Output stage: Class A

Output impedance: 0.025Ω

THD: <0.0001% 1kHz 3v RMS 300Ω

THD and noise at 3v RMS: 120dB at 1kHz 300ohms ‘A’ wighted (reference 5.3v)

Noise 2.6 uV ‘A’ weighted: No measurable noise floor modulation

Signal to noise ratio: 126dB ‘A’ Weighted

Channel separation: 135dB at 1kHz 300Ω

Power output @ 1kHz 1% THD: 94mW 300Ω

740mW 32Ω

1050mW 8Ω

Weight: 450g

Dimensions: 130mm (L) x 100mm (W) x 21mm (H)

Boxed Dimensions: 220mm (L) x 122mm (W) x 85mm (H)

 

[iridium7777]

i just read the last 2 pages of this post and i'd like my time back... i think the large part of the arguing back and forth comes that people have no concept how their audio equipment works and is put together.

a hugo2, from what i can see, is both a dac and an amp, an integrated system, without you being able to simply take the digital out of it and pipe it into some other amp. that would be the only way one can compare the actual DAC, if you took a digital out of your laptop, phone, ipad and Hugo2 plugged them all into the same amp, and to the same out source (headphones or speakers) and then at the same volume with the same exact file for a digital source you'll realize that there is no difference.

it's like if you took the same cow hide, split it into two and stuck one into a leather seat in a honda accord and another one in an sclass and then argue that sclass is a much nicer car overall -- absolutely true, but the hide still came from the same cow and is identical.

 

[bigshot]

Still not hard to set up an A/B. Just need a headphone switch box. The amp should be transparent too. You just need to make sure that impedance mismatches don’t skew the results.

 

[Amberlamps]

Still not hard to set up an A/B. Just need a headphone switch box. The amp should be transparent too. You just need to make sure that impedance mismatches don’t skew the results.

The switch box I had was for letting my playstation and pc play sound via my stereos speakers, just rca was used, i think, it could of been rca to 3.5mm.

I can’t recall all of it’s feature’s as it had a few different inputs/outputs, even though I only used a couple. It will be around here somewhere, if not I will buy another one, as you have turned my curiosity meter upto 27, and now I need to know what the score is, even if it isn’t broke, I need to find out whats up or it will bug me until I do.