[Maxvla]

Is it really so hard to believe that someone might legitimately feel the Hugo is a product worth supporting?

There's a thread for that. It's not this one.

but it is well-known that the oversized openings around the plug sockets are in response to customer feedback that the original snug openings were preventing some exotic interconnects from mating correctly.

Ha. I had no idea, but that explains much more than just the over sized openings.

I wouldn't call this a lynch mob. We feel it's overpriced but we understand how some can feel it is a good item to have. There's a difference between outright negativity and criticism. It just happens that many of the things we are critical of (especially appearance and price) are very easy targets on this device, so comments can seem out of proportion.

 

[Insidious Meme]

Not your run of the mill "I like product X because I said so" threads. Logical reasoning and descriptions make this a worthwhile read.

 

[purrin]

Just to clarify a few things.
 
I don't mind if people say they like something that I don't. But when I directly ask "what else have you heard in comparison to X" and the answers I get back are "truths" (i.e., how well regarded X is in the community and also outside of it, citation of vaguishly high sales numbers (which MoTs usually keep secret), how excellent the manufacturer is in supporting the product, etc.), I get kinda irked. When these "truths" are then repeated, as if they came from a marketing manual, then I get suspicious (of shilling).
 
Was my tone assertive in the past few posts? Most certainly yes. However, I don't think my telling said person that his arguments weren't making any sense or questioning if he was a shill constitutes a personal attack. I really do think some people are reading way too much into it. I mean, aren't arguments supposed to be heated in audio sometimes?
 
Anyways, I simply just wanted to him to make a point of his own and tell me what he himself thought of the Hugo without citing "well known" truths. If he had come back and said, I compared it to my DX100 and the Hugo outright toasted it. I would have probably replied: fair enough. If he said that the Hugo was really detailed souding for its size, I wouldn't have disagreed.
 
This is why when my wife says "Lets go see movie X, lots of people say its good", I ask her "Who is 'lots of people'?" If "lots of people" is yahoo.com Internet buzz or certain friends, then I know to avoid it. If lots of people is Anaxilus or over 90% on Rotten Tomatoes, then I would probably be willing to see the movie with her.
 
I've had discussions over the phone with ALRAINBOW on the Hugo and many other DACs. He likes the Hugo for travel purposes and he explained why in way I totally understand. However, he also points out the the Hugo is no match for the bigger desktop DACs his owns like the OR5+M7 or MSB or PSA DSD. And by the way, if you guys go the first post, or some post in between, I did say that I preferred the Hugo over the PSA DSD in a direct comparison (but one of the other ninjas preferred the PSA DSD).
 
That's what this thread is all about. Relative comparison. Personal experience. It's not grading DACs via Internet popularity contest.

 

[purrin]

Bricasti M1 (cut and paste from another thread b/c it really belongs here)
 
 
I'll make a few succinct points (direct comparison with Wyrd->PWD2, Wyrd->OR5+M7 on EC 2A3 Custom / Levi with a wide variety of headphones) :
 

• The Bricasti M1 is very very nice.
• No OR5 required with M1. The XMOS USB implementation is good as it is.
• The M1 brings out details more than the OR5+M7. The M1 is more in toward the "hyperdetailed" school of DACs, i.e., PWD2, Berkeley Alpha 2, Vega, etc. I wouldn't say the OR5+M7 is any less detailed, but just more subtle about it. Not saying one is better. I can go either way depending upon system.
• However, the great thing about the M1 is that it manages the hyperdetailed sound without being anywhere as raspy or dry as the PWD2 or as artificial as the Vega (esp. if you cannot get EXACT more working).
• However, the M1 is also very obviously a sigma-delta sounding DAC. Hard to explain. You can hear that digital grain, but somehow it maintains an easy about it - there's a smoothness and liquidness to the sigma-delta presentation. The M1 is sort of self-contradictory that way.
• M1 has slightly better attack, dynamics, punch than OR5+M7. This sort of gives the extremes a little bit of emphasis compared to the mids. Not too much different from the PWD2. Yet at the same time, I wouldn't say the mids are recessed or anything. Again, it's sort of self-contradictory.
• Tonal balance is similar to the Berkeley Alpha 2. Less warm than OR5+M7, less bright, less raspy as PWD2.
• OR5+M7 stage is less expansive, especially in terms of depth.

 
The M1 actually reminds me of the Empirical Audio Overdrive; but I think the Overdrive is a wee bit leaner sounding. Overall, the M1 is an excellent DAC.
 
 

how about the M1 to the Directstream? I am sure Directstream is way more ahead of PWD 2.
 
Does Vega sound so artificial ? how about the zodiac platinum ?

 
For background and to put things into perspective, I even preferred the PWD1->2 fw2.03 over PSADSD. PSADSD tonal balance is too much like like PWD1: lean in the bass (like Benchmark DAC1 lean) and slightly emphasized upper mids. However PSADSD was smoother and refined in the treble. Maybe too smoothed out where I felt some attacks were blunted (sort of what happens with a lot of DACs when you upsample PCM to hires in software - but the effect on PSADSD is even more exaggerated). PSADSD is flatter sounding than the PWD1->2 fw2.03. But there is definitely a PSA house sound to both DACs. Rather than one is outright better than the other, I would say they are different.
 
The Bricasti M1 captures the essence of those two PSA DACs (hyperdetailed, expansive, highly dynamic, etc.) but does it right by addressing what I view as the major shortcomings of PWD1->2 fw2.03 and PSADSD DACs. The M1 is like the sigma-delta twin brother of the resistor ladder MSB Analog DAC where I find it difficult to criticize either DAC. They do what they do best based on their DNA (DAC architectures) and make no mistakes. In the context of the OR5+M7, the OR5+M7 has a lot of similarities to the Analog DAC, especially with headphone use (but small little things: Analog hits harder with more dynamics, has more expansive stage; OR5+M7 brings out details more, is slightly warmer with hints of "PCM1704 bass")
 
That the Vega sounds artificial is certainly an exaggeration on my part. It is the brightest of the DACs discussed here. This brightness tends to highlight how much different its timbre is from the resister ladder DACs such as the OR5+M7. It wouldn't call the Vega's treble objectionable. But it is very different - almost a robotic sound. Hard to explain. Here's an exaggerated analogy: http://adventuretime.wikia.com/wiki/Auto-tune
 
EXACT mode on Vega does a lot to alleviate Finn's computer voice timbre effect.
 
If OR5+M7 was in left field, M1 would be in center field. EXACT mode moves Vega from foul ball territory into right field. Still right field, but at least in the field of play.

 

[En_R]

  Bricasti M1 (cut and paste from another thread b/c it really belongs here)
 

 
Vega is really only as good as the USB output of your computer, same with the meitner MA-1/ Emm DAC2X, which is why so many people have had bad experiences with them (though even under optimal conditions I still do not like the latter). A good USB card like SOTM/PPA/JCAT + a good linear psu or battery psu makes a world of difference. It would probably be comparable the first time you listened the OR5 -> i2s -> PWD MK2 =).

After listening to Vega and M1 for awhile I've noticed that in terms of detail and resolution the M1 actually loses quite handily to Vega (and this is not the accentuated treble coming into play), although both are still better than the Analog in this department. I think the Analog's forte is it's reproduction of tone/timbre.

 

[Argo Duck]

Really glad to see this thread re-opened. Good decision.

I've heard and own five discrete DACs, none of them covered here. Kinda hoping the Yggdrasil makes it to this list. That's a DAC I intend to get, and it'll give me a strong point of reference for the many others mentioned here.

Meantime, the criteria developed by purrin and his friends - such as 'plankton', microdynamics etc - have been directly beneficial to me in differentiating the 'information' inside the raw 'data' that listening brings (or as some may prefer, I am now better at differentiating among the auditory hallucinations engendered by audiophile placebo). Whether or not I hear the same things as purrin et al., I definitely hear more

 

[Clemmaster]

  [...]
 
That the Vega sounds artificial is certainly an exaggeration on my part. It is the brightest of the DACs discussed here. This brightness tends to highlight how much different its timbre is from the resister ladder DACs such as the OR5+M7. It wouldn't call the Vega's treble objectionable. But it is very different - almost a robotic sound. Hard to explain. Here's an exaggerated analogy: http://adventuretime.wikia.com/wiki/Auto-tune
 
EXACT mode on Vega does a lot to alleviate Finn's computer voice timbre effect.
 
If OR5+M7 was in left field, M1 would be in center field. EXACT mode moves Vega from foul ball territory into right field. Still right field, but at least in the field of play.

 
Thanks Marv.
 
Where would you place the NFB-7 in that field? Can you translate it to a hockey field instead? 

 

[purrin]

  Vega is really only as good as the USB output of your computer, same with the meitner MA-1/ Emm DAC2X, which is why so many people have had bad experiences with them (though even under optimal conditions I still do not like the latter). A good USB card like SOTM/PPA/JCAT + a good linear psu or battery psu makes a world of difference. It would probably be comparable the first time you listened the OR5 -> i2s -> PWD MK2 =).

 
That's a really good point you bring up - something that had not crossed my mind until recently: computer source side upgrades, i.e. dedicated USB cards / power. BTW, I consider the Wyrd to belong more in the computer source side upgrade category as well, with it being a USB data buffer/repeater/reclocker and some attention to +5V USB power regulation.
 
Just another factor which adds difficulty to comparing DACs, especially on the higher end.
 

  Thanks Marv.
 
Where would you place the NFB-7 in that field? Can you translate it to a hockey field instead? 

 
Hard to say with NFB-7.32. I've only heard it once, and via the coax (not i2s) of the OR5, so in essence, it was kinda of gimped. From that impression, the NFB-7.32 is in the penalty box, not on the ice. It's has a very obvious SABRE timbre which affects vocals and treble, but all other aspects are very good. It's hard for me to say because as you know, I don't like the SABRE sound. The Vega on the other hand is pretty special as far as SABRE DACs go especially with EXACT mode on. It's going to be the one to beat.

 

[Sorrodje]

Time to subscribe I think.
 
Anyone compare the Metrum Hex against other Big boys here or there?
 
What would be the logical upgrade of a Metrum Octave . In my mind, "Logical" = "same overall sound but better ( still ananog like but maybe with more refinement)  and with more features, especially XLR and RCA outputs who can work together with two amps.. for examples speakers amp and headphone amp.

 

[Clemmaster]

Time to subscribe I think.

Anyone compare the Metrum Hex against other Big boys here or there?

What would be the logical upgrade of a Metrum Octave . In my mind, "Logical" = "same overall sound but better ( still ananog like but maybe with more refinement)  and with more features, especially XLR and RCA outputs who can work together with two amps.. for examples speakers amp and headphone amp.

I think your mind is set . Start saving up!

 

[hans030390]

I had the Quad and Hex for a while. They sound pretty similar. Hex is a bit cleaner and a touch less laid-back sounding. However, I believe the output transformers have their own effect on the sound, where as the Quad/Octave don't have that for the analog out. Some have said this gives the Quad/Octave more of a "direct" sound over the Hex, whatever that means. I was stupid and didn't do direct comparisons listening for that when I had them, though. Honestly, I know the Hex got a ton of praise from reviewers, but I'm not really sure it's worth the extra cost over the Octave unless you're looking for those extra features. It's just such a huge price jump...
 
Audio-GD doesn't make them anymore, as far as I know, but the NOS-1704 DAC they put out had some interesting traits as well. Similar NOS sound as the Metrums, but with a noticeably cleaner and more detailed/more resolving sound. A bit darker and more intimate, though.

 

[castleofargh]

  Anyways, I simply just wanted to him to make a point of his own and tell me what he himself thought of the Hugo without citing "well known" truths. If he had come back and said, I compared it to my DX100 and the Hugo outright toasted it. I would have probably replied: fair enough. If he said that the Hugo was really detailed souding for its size, I wouldn't have disagreed.
...
 
...
That's what this thread is all about. Relative comparison. Personal experience. It's not grading DACs via Internet popularity contest.

there is irony in you being the one to say that when tens, maybe hundreds of people take whatever you say as gospel truth. not your fault in anyway, it's not like you're to blame for being popular, but you are by yourself one of those internet popularity contest. and people "fight" for you even when they don't have a clue what they are talking about. you saying something clearly became reason enough to believe it for a lot of people.
 
I don't have a take on the hugo as I didn't listen to it. I find it to be a ludicrously expensive toy. we can get a DAC1 at home + a good portable DAP+portable amp for the same money, so good or not I just don't care, it's a niche product for very very specific people.
 
anyway the one-voice system should be kept for blogs and magazines, forums should be full of opinions clashing and I hope this happens a lot more while still talking like gentlemen, and that moderation can moderate itself and use diplomacy before nukes. I disagree with your choices and reasons more than I can count on this topic, but I wouldn't like to solve it all with a mute button on your post.

 

[estreeter]

Unless you have al's budget or purrin's ready access to everything under the sun, is there any chance that those of us who havent even heard a given product might refrain from commenting on its sonic capabilities ?

 

[purrin]

  and people "fight" for you even when they don't have a clue what they are talking about. you saying something clearly became reason enough to believe it for a lot of people.

 
That's where I feel you are wrong. A handful of people who fought for me, I know personally. Another handful I have no interactions with at all. The rest I interact on a regular basis via e-mail, forums, private messages, phone calls. I wouldn't say these people are clueless. Many of them own some of the DACs on this list. Some of them own other DACs of which I have no experience. The reason they fought for this thread to be reopened is because they disagreed with the moderation, thought this was a useful thread, and felt Mython was "asking for it" with his first post passive-aggressive attacks and dishonest debate techniques. They did not fight for this thread to be reopened because they are clueless. I don't think it's fair for anyone to accuse to such people of being overly simplistic; nor do I think it's honest tactic for anyone to cite "purrin's cult of personality" to diminish either my likability or authority on the subject matter, or remind me of Stan Lee's wisdom: "With great power comes great responsibility". Lest I remind people of taking my word as gospel. I am a not Jude. I am not Robert Harley. I am not John Atkinson. I am not superhero and I bleed just as easily as any other human being.
 

  anyway the one-voice system should be kept for blogs and magazines, forums should be full of opinions clashing and I hope this happens a lot more while still talking like gentlemen, and that moderation can moderate itself and use diplomacy before nukes. I disagree with your choices and reasons more than I can count on this topic, but I wouldn't like to solve it all with a mute button on your post.

 
Although I am the voice of this thread (I am the thread starter after all), everything I have written is the synthesis of several peoples' thoughts. The differences among most DACs are not huge. I rely on having peers to bounce impressions: a half dozen others, some with expensive two-channel speaker setups, and others with modest systems. The entire point of this thread when I started it was to invite other opinions and experiences. Unfortunately there haven't been many other dissenting opinions where the arguments were truly honest; but there have been some. Unfortunately, most readers will only remember the drama. The more astute readers will have noted re-assessments and updates to the DACs on this list over time. This is the result of good honest discussion and "going back" to verify. Maybe this thread tends toward one voice because there's more agreement than disagreement, particularly with the descriptive specific aspects of DACs?
 
Finally, I don't think it's your call or my call what belongs here. Mind you that this was not the only DAC list thread on HF. Someone else tried and failed.

 

[purrin]

  I had the Quad and Hex for a while. They sound pretty similar. Hex is a bit cleaner and a touch less laid-back sounding. However, I believe the output transformers have their own effect on the sound, where as the Quad/Octave don't have that for the analog out. Some have said this gives the Quad/Octave more of a "direct" sound over the Hex, whatever that means. I was stupid and didn't do direct comparisons listening for that when I had them, though. Honestly, I know the Hex got a ton of praise from reviewers, but I'm not really sure it's worth the extra cost over the Octave unless you're looking for those extra features. It's just such a huge price jump...
 
Audio-GD doesn't make them anymore, as far as I know, but the NOS-1704 DAC they put out had some interesting traits as well. Similar NOS sound as the Metrums, but with a noticeably cleaner and more detailed/more resolving sound. A bit darker and more intimate, though.

 
NOS-1704 was more "tonally dense" correct? I suspect so because the NOS-1704 DAC seems like a M7 with two PCM1704s and no DSP (NOS) - where I ran the M7 in NOS mode. This is in comparison to your Quad (and I've heard the Octave too), but DACs seemed "lighter". Hard to explain or use words. I think you know what I mean.