[flyte3333]

Same here music first. Rob's measurements are absolute. The matrix ddc is loosing it's appeal fast. Added circuitry.

The added circuitry isn't an issue here (in my opinion) since you're not introducing any new PSU (it can be USB powered) and the added circuitry of the converter is anyway perfectly isolated from your M-Scaler anyway (via optical connection).

It's more-so there's probably nothing to gain for the high cost ? (if you believe Rob's measurements but one can always test and listen if they doubt - this part not directed at you again, just general disclaimer repeated)

 

[musickid]

ipod touch to tt2/hms is excellent. screen closed dark during playback. my favourite source so far. compared to usb/optical from mac details were heard in dvorak today for the very first time on a piece i thought i knew very well. Rob's advice on small form factor pays off. ipod touch is just an iphone minus cellular. excellent. stripped down of course to all but the essential features/apps.

 

[rrolls]

ipod touch to tt2/hms is excellent. screen closed dark during playback. my favourite source so far. compared to usb/optical from mac details were heard in dvorak today for the very first time on a piece i thought i knew very well. Rob's advice on small form factor pays off. ipod touch is just an iphone minus cellular. excellent. stripped down of course to all but the essential features/apps.

How do you connect your ipod to hms? I wonder if this would work with a blue2 as well. Thank you for your help.

 

[ecwl]

How do you connect your ipod to hms? I wonder if this would work with a blue2 as well. Thank you for your help.

It definitely works with Blu2 as well as I just connect my iPad using the Apple Camera Connection Kit Lightning to USB adaptor and then using a USB cable to connect to the Blu2 at my dealer to play from iPad to Blu2 to DAVE. It should work the same way with your iPod

 

[rrolls]

It definitely works with Blu2 as well as I just connect my iPad using the Apple Camera Connection Kit Lightning to USB adaptor and then using a USB cable to connect to the Blu2 at my dealer to play from iPad to Blu2 to DAVE. It should work the same way with your iPod

Ok, if you are right, there is no difference between, phone, pod or pad. I think I'll give it a try, thank you.

 

[steam412]

Sorry if this information already have in threads, but ask.
If in Hugo TT2 in specification write what Tap length filter: 98,304-tap 16FS WTA 1 – 10 element design, then how specification this information will have dac dave, i ask about WTA 1, and in dac dave only WTA filter 1 level, or have 2, 3 level?
Hugo TT2 ,10 element design same have in dac dave right?

And yet Rob your sayed what snr in dave -350 db, then how snr will have Hugo TT2 and just hugo 2? Just in specification write next
dave
Tap length filter: 164,000

THD + N: 127.5dB (AWT)

Channel separation: >125dB @ 1KHz

Dynamic range: 127.5dB (AWT)

TT2

Dynamic range: 127dB ‘A’ weighted

Noise: 4 uV ‘A’ weighted (high gain), 1.7 uV ‘A’ weighted (low gain) with no measurable noise floor modulation

Distortion: 0.00008% @ 2.5 V 300Ω; 0.00016% @ 6 W 8Ω

Output power (unbalanced): (@1% THD) 288 mW RMS 300Ω; 7.3 W RMS 8Ω

Output power (balanced): (@1% THD) 1.15 W RMS 300Ω; 18W RMS 8Ω

Output impedance: 0.042Ω

Stereo separation: 9 V RMS 300Ω -138dB

 

[musickid]

ecwl is correct. i'm also using an energizer 20,000mah powerbank to charge and play and just charge. with the small battery of the ipod touch i've got 20-30 hours play time. taking into account i need not have the powerbank connected when the ipod is fully charged. ipod has about 4 hrs on wifi streaming roon. controlled from core with private zones off. Apple cck 3 adaptor is what you need for the ipod which is the same one used for ipads/iphones. Lightning to USB 3 Camera Adapter.

 

[DaveRedRef-III]

Why I suspect DSD may be still so popular among some audiophiles:

About 15yrs ago I went all-out SACD and bought many discs but unfortunately I had a bad experience as over time I realised that many of my favoured albums remastered in DSD had lost their dynamic and emotional feel. This resulted in me stopping playing the albums and assuming I had overplayed them, until one day I went back and listened to an 'original' CD mastering. Part of the problem I suspect with the DSD recordings and subsequent porting to CD layer will have been down to the related shortcomings of the protocol (as highlighted by Rob) and perhaps early adopters not mastering correctly and losing the original micro-dynamic delivery of the analogue recording.

Anyway, DSD is still around despite those early shortcomings and teething problems and I recently went back to giving it a listen just for assessment purposes. What stood out to me was that it is generally 'easy on the ears'. Whereas PCM can give an edgy presentation at times particularly with less well setup systems. Over the last 6 months I have spent a considerable amount of time testing my electrics and trying to improve them and what I have found is that (particularly when playing orchestral strings), PCM lays bear even the slightest hint of RFI/EMI in the system, whereas DSD appears on the face of it to be more immune to this problem. I say 'appears' because it may be simply covering it up.

My early conclusion is that DSD either a) Hides RFI/EMI more successfully or b) The process itself is somehow more immune?

I would not choose a DSD recording to test my system for RFI/EMI but hey perhaps they are a cheaper solution to the problem, though I am still not a convert

Whilst not wishing to insight a PCM/DSD war I would be interested to hear other peoples listening experience (and Rob's insight too) on this subject.

Lets please keep it to intellectual observations and not a turf war though please.

 

[Rob Watts]

DSD simply adds softness to the sound, so it's an unwanted aberration; it does this by not having sufficient resolution to accurately define transients - I can see these errors easily on simulation, in that small signal step functions have a longer time delay than large signal step functions. This amplitude related delay makes it difficult for the brain to perceive the starting and stopping of transients - so you can no longer hear the starting and stopping - that makes it sound soft. It's the equivalent of putting everything into soft focus.

Your better off fixing the hardness issues in your system rather than using distortions to balance the sound.

DSD also is poor at depth resolution, this is down to poor small signal accuracy, something that is fundamentally not fixable with any DSD format.

I agree with your lack of musicality - lacking dynamic and emotional feel - that's simply the SQ losses involved with DSD is too great. It's not a transparent format.

 

[DaveRedRef-III]

Thanks Rob your explanation doesn’t surprise me

 

[Whazzzup]

I prefer max pcm versus max dsd. Bit more depth coming from my server

 

[474194]

DSD simply adds softness to the sound, so it's an unwanted aberration; it does this by not having sufficient resolution to accurately define transients - I can see these errors easily on simulation, in that small signal step functions have a longer time delay than large signal step functions. This amplitude related delay makes it difficult for the brain to perceive the starting and stopping of transients - so you can no longer hear the starting and stopping - that makes it sound soft. It's the equivalent of putting everything into soft focus.

Your better off fixing the hardness issues in your system rather than using distortions to balance the sound.

DSD also is poor at depth resolution, this is down to poor small signal accuracy, something that is fundamentally not fixable with any DSD format.

I agree with your lack of musicality - lacking dynamic and emotional feel - that's simply the SQ losses involved with DSD is too great. It's not a transparent format.

Hi Sir Rob,

Since we are on the subject of SACD's, would extracting the rebook layer (hybrid SACD) bypass the "softness" issues with SACDs? I'm platform-agnostic so I don't discriminate which tech is used, but will bypass confirmed flawed tech. I just want the best mastering and SACDs provide some of the best rare mastering available so if the identical mastering is on the redbook layer, I want to exhaust that path. I consider converting from DSD to PCM lossy. My summer project is to extract redbook layer so if this inherits the "softness" issue, pls let know so I can move on to another summer project. I don't know how it could inherit, but maybe I'm missing something in the chain?

---

FYI, I noticed this on Audio Bacon:

He's just stating the benefits of battery power for both Qutest and another product. I'm loving battery-powered and glass optical so far and reaping the same benefits Jay has stated above. Glad battery and optical is trending thanks to your valuable input. There is no going back. Zero RFI + Zero Ground Loop + Zero noise of any kind + pure black deep background is such a joy.

https://audiobacon.net/2019/12/24/topping-d50s-dac-review/

---

Is this a thing?

Someone (sergei?) posted a Mojo mod and I noticed they have a Hugo/H2 mod. Very skeptical, but after a few more years with the Hugo2 may re-evaluate. Sergei just bought identical parts and DIY'ed. They are referring to the original Hugo, not Hugo2. But H2 mod avail.

https://www.fidelizer-audio.com/portable-products/

Chord product mods at bottom of web page.

---

BTW, I'm planning on getting a Soundblaster G6 for positional accuracy in Games to test DSP out to H2 (7.1, 5.1 => 2-channel). If this works, then the 2-channel miniDSP for car audio should work as well (2-channel => 2-channel, mainly time alignment).

 

[jlbrach]

I think sacd's given the proper equipment sound wonderful

 

[Rob Watts]

The problem with SACD is the provenance of the original recording; if the master is DSD (rare) then stick with the DSD master; but it's more likely to be DXD (352k PCM) or some other PCM, in which case stick to PCM. If you want a quick way to finding out which is best, just listen to the depth reproduction.

Yes agreed on batteries and optical! My struggle is to make it such that mains powered USB connected is the same as optical and battery - and I am indeed getting there.

As to modifying my designs - well I am not going to pretend that each is perfect and incapable of improvement; that hubris would lead to my nemesis.

But - this year I enter my 33rd year of designing DACs - I am getting on for 100,000 hours of design time now. But I am still learning things; one project I am working on has taken a couple of years, and I am on the 4th PCB revision - and yet I am still finding subtle ways of improving performance, and discovering new things. Another project - I spent months on some coding, trying to get a particular performance level - and yes in designing gear extra-ordinary small levels of aberrations are audible - but this level I was working on nobody would hear or measure the difference - but it wasn't quite right. Fortunately, I cracked the issue and got the performance I was looking for. But I kept telling myself why? Nobody would ever know - and it was costing time and delaying other projects - but the issue was I would know and I needed it to be right.

So in modifying gear you are more likely to upset something that has been optimised than give a real improvement.

 

[474194]

The problem with SACD is the provenance of the original recording; if the master is DSD (rare) then stick with the DSD master; but it's more likely to be DXD (352k PCM) or some other PCM, in which case stick to PCM. If you want a quick way to finding out which is best, just listen to the depth reproduction.

Yes agreed on batteries and optical! My struggle is to make it such that mains powered USB connected is the same as optical and battery - and I am indeed getting there.

As to modifying my designs - well I am not going to pretend that each is perfect and incapable of improvement; that hubris would lead to my nemesis.

But - this year I enter my 33rd year of designing DACs - I am getting on for 100,000 hours of design time now. But I am still learning things; one project I am working on has taken a couple of years, and I am on the 4th PCB revision - and yet I am still finding subtle ways of improving performance, and discovering new things. Another project - I spent months on some coding, trying to get a particular performance level - and yes in designing gear extra-ordinary small levels of aberrations are audible - but this level I was working on nobody would hear or measure the difference - but it wasn't quite right. Fortunately, I cracked the issue and got the performance I was looking for. But I kept telling myself why? Nobody would ever know - and it was costing time and delaying other projects - but the issue was I would know and I needed it to be right.

So in modifying gear you are more likely to upset something that has been optimised than give a real improvement.

Okay, I'll experiment during the summer. It's worth a shot. I'll try to do research if the RB layer is indeed a PCM master now that I know what to target and skip any DSD masters.

Yes, I guess there are constraints on most things. I just came to the conclusion that by the time I want to mod my current Chord gear, new Chord gear would be released so budget better allocated towards new products instead of incremental improvements on older products past warranty.

I keep having to remind myself to keep it simple and not add complexity. It definitely would change the ecosystem and not for the better. Thanks for setting me straight.