[dmance]

...But we did agree (after lots of time going back and forth) my large MSI battery powered lap-top had better depth, even if they overall preferred the custom server.

Rob, on this one point ...are you referring to TOSLINK or USB output?
Thanks

 

[Rob Watts]

It was the USB we were comparing.

 

[Sunya]

Some MQA fresh air

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/...-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions-r701/

 

[Bill13]

Some MQA fresh air

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/...-of-controversies-concerns-and-cautions-r701/

An important post from computeraudiophile.com.
Of interest was that this review presented objective evidence that 'debunks' (as I understood it) much of MQA's claims. The review stated that "independent objective evaluations have demonstrated that (lossy) MQA appears to degrade quality".

MQA is a closed system. Locks out competition.
"Remember, in time, if MQA were to be successful, there would be increasing control over authorized playback software and device firmware across the product lines of various manufacturers."

If MQA ever succeeded in dominating the music recording industry then it appears that audiophile investment in WTA & future SOA DACS and ADCs could be jeopardized.

The review mentioned DRM issues: "I think we have to look at why the “Big 3” music labels seem to want to “get in” on this system. Warner Music was the first to make an agreement in May 2016, followed by Universal in February 2017, and Sony Music in May 2017. These entities control about 75% of the music market."

 

[Currawong]

I wouldn't use the term 'fresh air", I'd say it was carnage. Read through the comments too. What is telling to me is that all the descriptions of it reproducing the "studio master" which can still be found in description of it on review sites, unless I'm mistaken is nowhere to be found on Bob's site. It's now a "studio preview".

 

[Mython]

Looks like the emperor may be stark b0110ck-naked.

How embarrassing for the tailor and his fashionista groupies, to be called-out on it, and have no response to offer...

 

[Bill13]

Why would the combo 'BluHugo2' sound worse than 'BluDAVE'? --- as explained by the difference in the DACs, and reconstruction filter DSP processing (theory)...
References:
1.ray-dude said: "I’d put the Hugo2 roughly 1/3rd of the way between a Mojo and a DAVE, and a BluHugo2 roughly 1/3rd to 1/2 of the way between a DAVE and BluDAVE."
2. Rob Watts said:
"For Hugo 2/Qutest the signal path is: 1FS to 8FS input > 16FS WTA1 filter (49,152 taps) > 256FS WTA 2 filter > 3rd order 2048 FS filter > pulse array noise shaper at 104 MHz > analogue. also: "--- >350 dB THD and noise performance; each module must pass a -301 dB sine wave with perfect amplitude reproduction..."
--- When an M scaler is connected, the WTA1 filter is not used, and it is passed through to the 256 FS WTA 2 filter."
Also: "The measurements shown earlier in this thread and the Hugo 2 thread show zero measurable noise floor modulation and zero source and master clock jitter aberrations; you could not get this level of measured performance without the extensive 2048 FS filtering, or the pulse array running at 104 MHz." ---"the noise shaper runs at a fixed 2364 times (and 2172 times for 48K) (104.25MHz) ."

So, when the Blu2 M-scaler is connected to Qutest or Hugo2, the biggest degradation of sound quality compared to 'Blu2Dave' is due to the shortcomings of the 10 element pulse array compared to Dave's 20-element pulse array? I understood that doubling the number of pulse array flip-flops only results in say, a 3 dB noise floor improvement - or is the theoretical improvement actually about 50 dB in noise + THD to ~ 350 dB? Maybe the noise-shaper implementation is better in Dave due to its 20 element pulse array & DPLL?

 

[514077]

Why would the combo 'BluHugo2' sound worse than 'BluDAVE'? --- as explained by the difference in the DACs, and reconstruction filter DSP processing (theory)...
References:
1.ray-dude said: "I’d put the Hugo2 roughly 1/3rd of the way between a Mojo and a DAVE, and a BluHugo2 roughly 1/3rd to 1/2 of the way between a DAVE and BluDAVE."
2. Rob Watts said:
"For Hugo 2/Qutest the signal path is: 1FS to 8FS input > 16FS WTA1 filter (49,152 taps) > 256FS WTA 2 filter > 3rd order 2048 FS filter > pulse array noise shaper at 104 MHz > analogue. also: "--- >350 dB THD and noise performance; each module must pass a -301 dB sine wave with perfect amplitude reproduction..."
--- When an M scaler is connected, the WTA1 filter is not used, and it is passed through to the 256 FS WTA 2 filter."
Also: "The measurements shown earlier in this thread and the Hugo 2 thread show zero measurable noise floor modulation and zero source and master clock jitter aberrations; you could not get this level of measured performance without the extensive 2048 FS filtering, or the pulse array running at 104 MHz." ---"the noise shaper runs at a fixed 2364 times (and 2172 times for 48K) (104.25MHz) ."

So, when the Blu2 M-scaler is connected to Qutest or Hugo2, the biggest degradation of sound quality compared to 'Blu2Dave' is due to the shortcomings of the 10 element pulse array compared to Dave's 20-element pulse array? I understood that doubling the number of pulse array flip-flops only results in say, a 3 dB noise floor improvement - or is the theoretical improvement actually about 50 dB in noise + THD to ~ 350 dB? Maybe the noise-shaper implementation is better in Dave due to its 20 element pulse array & DPLL?

How about considering the analog stage diference btw the H2 and DAVE?

 

[ray-dude]

Why would the combo 'BluHugo2' sound worse than 'BluDAVE'? --- as explained by the difference in the DACs, and reconstruction filter DSP processing (theory)...

Remember that the other main difference between the Hugo2 and DAVE is how they are powered. I'm looking forward to compare the BluQutest vs BluHugo2 vs BluDAVE, since the additional data point would help tease apart the PS impact from the pulse array impact

 

[ecwl]

Maybe the noise-shaper implementation is better in Dave due to its 20 element pulse array & DPLL?

Hugo 2 noise shaper is 11th order and DAVE is 17th order. At one point Rob Watts said the original Hugo 1 FPGA would not fit the DAVE’s 17th order noise shaper.

 

[Bill13]

QUOTE ecwl post: "Hugo 2 noise shaper is 11th order and DAVE is 17th order. At one point Rob Watts said the original Hugo 1 FPGA would not fit the DAVE’s 17th order noise shaper."

Thanks for your reply. I wonder if Rob could post a bit more about his noise shaper technology when he gets a spare moment. Perhaps the larger size Qutest and Hugo2 FPGAs (not Hugo 1) also cannot accommodate a 17th order noise shaper? Noise shaper is an IIR filter (?) running at a fixed 2364 times (and 2172 times for 48K) (104.25MHz) -- is the decimated digital signal resampled again to the noise shaper's 104.25MHz?
My impression, so far, is that the pulse array is part of the audio stage where the flip flops convert digital to pulse density modulation which is low-pass filtered to generate the analog OP?
Maybe 11th order Vs. 17th noise order shaper accounts for roughly 50dB worse THD + noise performance in Qutest and Hugo2 -- compared to Dave = ~ 350 dB ?
Otherwise, I wonder if there's not all that much that much audible difference between Hugo2 and Dave when a separate power amp with volume control is used to drive loudspeakers (not headphones)?

I have a Qutest on order and am curious how much relative SQ improvement can be obtained if and when an M-scaler is connected.

 

[Bill13]

Remember that the other main difference between the Hugo2 and DAVE is how they are powered. I'm looking forward to compare the BluQutest vs BluHugo2 vs BluDAVE, since the additional data point would help tease apart the PS impact from the pulse array impact

Very curious to hear what your listening tests will reveal.

Hope to receive my backordered Qutest in a week or two --- & expect a big increase in SQ if and when an affordable "economy" version of an M-scaler ever becomes available.

 

[Rob Watts]

There are a host of other reasons why Dave has much better transparency than just the noise shaper - and with the noise shaper performance I have with Hugo 2 and Qutest, it's these other reasons that dominate.

And yes, Hugo 2/Qutest benefit enormously by using an M scaler!

 

[Bill13]

There are a host of other reasons why Dave has much better transparency than just the noise shaper - and with the noise shaper performance I have with Hugo 2 and Qutest, it's these other reasons that dominate.

And yes, Hugo 2/Qutest benefit enormously by using an M scaler!

Yes there are other, dominant, reasons Dave is more transparent, but it would be great to understand more specifically just what these reasons are --- including a technical explanation ? ..{ please! } ---

 

[514077]

Yes there are other, dominant, reasons Dave is more transparent, but it would be great to understand more specifically just what these reasons are --- including a technical explanation ? ..{ please! } ---

You might find these answers for yourself if you read through parts of the thread. Mr. Watts has explained many times, his research complete with pics, charts and diagrams. The DAVE thread is endowed with lots of information for your peroosal.