[analogmusic]

Here is what Rob Watts posted a few years ago

"I have been seeing some comments describing Hugo as excellent DAC with a good headphone amp. Both comments, in my view, are wrong and way off the mark - and seeing these comments are starting to bug me, so I would like to get it off my chest. So forgive me if I am overstepping the mark - commenting on honest posts about a product I have designed, but I thought it might be useful for Head-fi'rs to read my views.


First, I would like to talk about what as a designer I am trying to accomplish, as it has a bearing on one's opinion of Hugo's sound. Imagine going around CES and carefully listening to all the high end hi-fi on show, so you can carefully listen to all the major high end brands available today. Next, listen center stage row 10 to an orchestra. Now, in my opinion, high end Hi-fi sounds from very bad to absolutely awful compared to live acoustic music. The key difference in the sound is variability - live acoustic music has unbelievable variations in the perception of space, timbre, dynamics and rhythm. Additionally, each instrument sounds separate and as distinct entities. By comparison, high-end audio is severely compressed - depth of sound stage is limited to a few feet (listen to off stage effects in say Mahler first - in a concert the off stage effects sound a couple of hundred feet away but on a hi-fi it is an ambient sound a few feet away). Timbre is compressed - you don't get a really rich and smooth instrument playing at the same time as something bright. The biggest problem is the dominance effect - the loudest instrument is the one that drags your attention away - this constant see-saw of attention is the biggest reason for listening fatigue, a major problem with Hi-fi.


So I am approaching designing of Hi-fi from the POV of accepting that there are enormous differences between conventional Hi-Fi and real music, and that I want my equipment to be as transparent as possible. Now some peoples idea of transparency is to use distortion to artificially enhance the sound, and this is a real problem with listening tests - a superficially brighter sound, giving the impression of better detail resolution, is often distortion. So a real challenge is defining what true transparency is. My definition, is to latch onto the idea of variations - if a modification makes the sound more variable, then its more expressive, and hence more transparent, even if it sounds, in tonal balance, darker or smoother and superficially less impressive. Now, if you think that your Hi-Fi sounds better than live acoustic music - then fine, we will agree to disagree. You are looking for a sculpted sound, not a truly transparent one, and I would strongly advise never to buy equipment designed by myself, as I am striving for equipment with no added sound.


So how does this relate to Hugo? Hugo was on the tail end of a long series of incremental improvements in digital design. I have spent the last 7 years on R and D to fundamentally improve aspects of DAC performance - improvements in the jitter rejection, RF noise filtering, noise shaper topologies, WTA filter length, analogue design plus a lot of other things. Moreover, Hugo took advantage of a big step forward in the capabilities of FPGA's - I could do important things that I knew influenced the sound but that previously were not possible due to FPGA limitations. So Hugo was at the confluence of two events - a big step forward from 7 years work in understanding digital design plus a major step forward in FPGA capability. It is just an accident that it happened with a portable headphone product.


So Hugo was the first instance when all these improvements came together. When I finally heard the pre-production unit with all the improvements in place I could not believe the sound quality improvements that I first heard. It completely changed my expectations of what was possible from digital audio - I was hearing things that I have never heard from Hi-fi ever - in other words, the gap from Hi-fi to live acoustic music was suddenly very much closer. Most notable was rapid rhythms being reproduced with breathtaking clarity - before piano music sounded like a jumble of notes, now I could hear each key being played distinctly. The next major change was timbre variations - suddenly each instrument had their own distinct timbre qualities, and the loudest instrument dominance effect was gone. Also gone was listening fatigue - I can listen for 12 hours quite happily.


But by far the biggest change was not sound quality, but on the musicality. I found myself listening and enjoying much more music, in a way I have never experienced before with a new design (and anybody who knows something of my designing career knows that is a lot of designs).


So my conclusion is this: Hugo does things that no other DAC at any price point does. Now I can say readers saying, well OK he would say that anyway, it's his baby. True - I can't argue with that POV. But let's examine the facts:


1. The interpolation filter is key to recreating the amplitude and timing of the original recording. We know the ear/brain can resolve 4uS of timing - that is 250 kHz sampling rate. To recreate the original timing and amplitude perfectly, you need infinite tap lengths FIR filters. That is a mathematical certainty. Hugo has the largest tap length by far of any other production DAC available at any price.


2. RF noise has a major influence in sound quality, and digital DAC's create a lot of noise. Hugo has the most efficient digital filtering of any other production DAC - it filters with a 3 stage filter at 2048 FS. The noise shapers run at 104 MHz, some 20 times faster than all other DAC's (excepting my previous designs). What does this mean? RF noise at 1 MHz is 1000 times lower than all other DAC's, so noise floor modulation effects are dramatically reduced, giving a much smoother and more natural sound quality.


3. The lack of DAC RF OP noise means that the analogue section can be made radically simpler as the analogue filter requirements are smaller. Now in analogue terms, making it simpler, with everything else being constant, gives more transparency. You really can hear every solder joint, every passive component, and every active stage. Now Hugo has a single active stage - a very high performance op-amp with a discrete op-stage as a hybrid with a single global feedback path. This arrangement means that you have a single active stage, two resistors and two capacitors in the direct signal path - and that is it. Note: there is no headphone drive. Normal high performance DAC's have 3 op-amp stages, followed by a separate headphone amp. So to conclude - Hugo's analogue path is not a simple couple of op-amps chucked together, it is fundamentally simpler than all other headphone amp solutions.


This brings me on to my biggest annoyance - the claim that Hugo's amp is merely good. Firstly, no body can possibly know how good the headphone amp in Hugo is, because there is not a separate headphone stage as such - its integrated into the DAC function directly. You can't remove the sound of the headphone amp from the sound of the DAC, it's one and the same.


Struck by these reports, I decided to investigate, as I see reported problems as a way of improving things in the future. I want to find weakness, my desire is to improve. So I tried loading the OP whilst listening on line level (set to 3v RMS). With 300 ohm, you can hear absolutely no change in sound. Running with 33 ohm, you can hear a small degradation - its slightly brighter. This is consistent with THD going from 0.0004% to 0.0007%. Note these distortion figures are way smaller than desktop headphone amps. Also note that with real headphones at this level you would be at typically ear deafening 115dB SPL. Plugging in real headphones (at much lower levels) gives no change in sound quality too. This has been reported by other posters - adding multiple headphones to Hugo does not degrade sound at all.


So how do we reconcile reports that desktop headphone amps sound better? I don't believe they do, its a case of altering the sound to suit somebody's taste. Now as I said at the beginning of this post, that is not what I want to do - I want things to sound transparent, so that we can get closer to the sound of live acoustic music. Adding an extra headphone amp will only make things worse as extra components degrades transparency. Another possibility is that people are responding against Hugo's unusually (for a headphone amp) low output impedance of 0.075 ohms. Now, compared to headphone amps of 2 to 33 ohms impedance, this will make the sound much leaner with less bass. Additionally, the improvements in damping can be heard as a much tighter bass with a faster tempo. So if you find your headphone too lean, the problem is not Hugo's drive - your headphone is just been driven correctly.


Just to close to all Hugo owners - enjoy! I hope you get as much fun from your music as I have done with Hugo. "

 

[analogmusic]

I liked hearing about the cheeping birds, momentarily I was transported from my desk to the periphery of a jungle, the only things making a noise, was a tiny bird, way way away. I wasn’t sure whether the bird was cautioning me or welcoming me, I decided to post here, whilst trying to decide, was it safe.

The bird was chirping to alert fellow birds that a rant about the soundstage width of the chirping of the birds was forthcoming from the guy who lived across the jungle.

 

[Christer]

Here is what Rob Watts posted a few years ago

"I have been seeing some comments describing Hugo as excellent DAC with a good headphone amp. Both comments, in my view, are wrong and way off the mark - and seeing these comments are starting to bug me, so I would like to get it off my chest. So forgive me if I am overstepping the mark - commenting on honest posts about a product I have designed, but I thought it might be useful for Head-fi'rs to read my views.


First, I would like to talk about what as a designer I am trying to accomplish, as it has a bearing on one's opinion of Hugo's sound. Imagine going around CES and carefully listening to all the high end hi-fi on show, so you can carefully listen to all the major high end brands available today. Next, listen center stage row 10 to an orchestra. Now, in my opinion, high end Hi-fi sounds from very bad to absolutely awful compared to live acoustic music. The key difference in the sound is variability - live acoustic music has unbelievable variations in the perception of space, timbre, dynamics and rhythm. Additionally, each instrument sounds separate and as distinct entities. By comparison, high-end audio is severely compressed - depth of sound stage is limited to a few feet (listen to off stage effects in say Mahler first - in a concert the off stage effects sound a couple of hundred feet away but on a hi-fi it is an ambient sound a few feet away). Timbre is compressed - you don't get a really rich and smooth instrument playing at the same time as something bright. The biggest problem is the dominance effect - the loudest instrument is the one that drags your attention away - this constant see-saw of attention is the biggest reason for listening fatigue, a major problem with Hi-fi.


So I am approaching designing of Hi-fi from the POV of accepting that there are enormous differences between conventional Hi-Fi and real music, and that I want my equipment to be as transparent as possible. Now some peoples idea of transparency is to use distortion to artificially enhance the sound, and this is a real problem with listening tests - a superficially brighter sound, giving the impression of better detail resolution, is often distortion. So a real challenge is defining what true transparency is. My definition, is to latch onto the idea of variations - if a modification makes the sound more variable, then its more expressive, and hence more transparent, even if it sounds, in tonal balance, darker or smoother and superficially less impressive. Now, if you think that your Hi-Fi sounds better than live acoustic music - then fine, we will agree to disagree. You are looking for a sculpted sound, not a truly transparent one, and I would strongly advise never to buy equipment designed by myself, as I am striving for equipment with no added sound.


So how does this relate to Hugo? Hugo was on the tail end of a long series of incremental improvements in digital design. I have spent the last 7 years on R and D to fundamentally improve aspects of DAC performance - improvements in the jitter rejection, RF noise filtering, noise shaper topologies, WTA filter length, analogue design plus a lot of other things. Moreover, Hugo took advantage of a big step forward in the capabilities of FPGA's - I could do important things that I knew influenced the sound but that previously were not possible due to FPGA limitations. So Hugo was at the confluence of two events - a big step forward from 7 years work in understanding digital design plus a major step forward in FPGA capability. It is just an accident that it happened with a portable headphone product.


So Hugo was the first instance when all these improvements came together. When I finally heard the pre-production unit with all the improvements in place I could not believe the sound quality improvements that I first heard. It completely changed my expectations of what was possible from digital audio - I was hearing things that I have never heard from Hi-fi ever - in other words, the gap from Hi-fi to live acoustic music was suddenly very much closer. Most notable was rapid rhythms being reproduced with breathtaking clarity - before piano music sounded like a jumble of notes, now I could hear each key being played distinctly. The next major change was timbre variations - suddenly each instrument had their own distinct timbre qualities, and the loudest instrument dominance effect was gone. Also gone was listening fatigue - I can listen for 12 hours quite happily.


But by far the biggest change was not sound quality, but on the musicality. I found myself listening and enjoying much more music, in a way I have never experienced before with a new design (and anybody who knows something of my designing career knows that is a lot of designs).


So my conclusion is this: Hugo does things that no other DAC at any price point does. Now I can say readers saying, well OK he would say that anyway, it's his baby. True - I can't argue with that POV. But let's examine the facts:


1. The interpolation filter is key to recreating the amplitude and timing of the original recording. We know the ear/brain can resolve 4uS of timing - that is 250 kHz sampling rate. To recreate the original timing and amplitude perfectly, you need infinite tap lengths FIR filters. That is a mathematical certainty. Hugo has the largest tap length by far of any other production DAC available at any price.


2. RF noise has a major influence in sound quality, and digital DAC's create a lot of noise. Hugo has the most efficient digital filtering of any other production DAC - it filters with a 3 stage filter at 2048 FS. The noise shapers run at 104 MHz, some 20 times faster than all other DAC's (excepting my previous designs). What does this mean? RF noise at 1 MHz is 1000 times lower than all other DAC's, so noise floor modulation effects are dramatically reduced, giving a much smoother and more natural sound quality.


3. The lack of DAC RF OP noise means that the analogue section can be made radically simpler as the analogue filter requirements are smaller. Now in analogue terms, making it simpler, with everything else being constant, gives more transparency. You really can hear every solder joint, every passive component, and every active stage. Now Hugo has a single active stage - a very high performance op-amp with a discrete op-stage as a hybrid with a single global feedback path. This arrangement means that you have a single active stage, two resistors and two capacitors in the direct signal path - and that is it. Note: there is no headphone drive. Normal high performance DAC's have 3 op-amp stages, followed by a separate headphone amp. So to conclude - Hugo's analogue path is not a simple couple of op-amps chucked together, it is fundamentally simpler than all other headphone amp solutions.


This brings me on to my biggest annoyance - the claim that Hugo's amp is merely good. Firstly, no body can possibly know how good the headphone amp in Hugo is, because there is not a separate headphone stage as such - its integrated into the DAC function directly. You can't remove the sound of the headphone amp from the sound of the DAC, it's one and the same.


Struck by these reports, I decided to investigate, as I see reported problems as a way of improving things in the future. I want to find weakness, my desire is to improve. So I tried loading the OP whilst listening on line level (set to 3v RMS). With 300 ohm, you can hear absolutely no change in sound. Running with 33 ohm, you can hear a small degradation - its slightly brighter. This is consistent with THD going from 0.0004% to 0.0007%. Note these distortion figures are way smaller than desktop headphone amps. Also note that with real headphones at this level you would be at typically ear deafening 115dB SPL. Plugging in real headphones (at much lower levels) gives no change in sound quality too. This has been reported by other posters - adding multiple headphones to Hugo does not degrade sound at all.


So how do we reconcile reports that desktop headphone amps sound better? I don't believe they do, its a case of altering the sound to suit somebody's taste. Now as I said at the beginning of this post, that is not what I want to do - I want things to sound transparent, so that we can get closer to the sound of live acoustic music. Adding an extra headphone amp will only make things worse as extra components degrades transparency. Another possibility is that people are responding against Hugo's unusually (for a headphone amp) low output impedance of 0.075 ohms. Now, compared to headphone amps of 2 to 33 ohms impedance, this will make the sound much leaner with less bass. Additionally, the improvements in damping can be heard as a much tighter bass with a faster tempo. So if you find your headphone too lean, the problem is not Hugo's drive - your headphone is just been driven correctly.


Just to close to all Hugo owners - enjoy! I hope you get as much fun from your music as I have done with Hugo. "

Eh puere se mueve...

Now we have both H2/Qutest /TT2 and DAVE and HMS each being VERY OBVIOUSLY more transparent and RESOLVING and very easily audibly closer to live acoustic music than HUGO was and is!
And who knows Watts up next?
What is the point you are trying to make by reposting this?

Are you reading Rob's older posts as some people read their religious texts?

He has made HUGE progress since HUGO 1 imho.

"This sounds pretty awful" is how he himself put it when he for some reason, had to listen without HMS!
Cheers Controversial Christer

 

[analogmusic]

Erm... progress .... Hugo 1 still is very good.

I use mojo and Dave at the same time.... sold my Hugo 1 to fund Dave

I think it largely depends on the recording.

The whole point of Dave, Naim amplifiers and Dynaudio speakers is to recreate an engaging performance at home.

I’m puzzled why anything else is required to enjoy music.

Either the music is engaging emotionally or not

 

[jarnopp]

...
What will it take to get as accurate truly WIDE, way beyond the speakers on the OUTSIDE, width as you have achieved with depth without sacrificing either of the two?
Cheers Controversial Christer

I think literally that it would take a concert hall. You can try to replicate a theater experience at home, but unless you have a screen the size of a theater screen, it’s inly going to be an approximation. It may even be better in some ways, like comfort and convenience, but not the same. Your audio system will also suffer from not being the actual size of the venue and placement of instruments. The room will always limit that. I think the best you can do is replicate what ultimately get recorded as heard by the engineer. It may be a better experience in some aspects, but they will always be different, especially with a large scale concert hall performance. Maybe a single miked, one performer acoustic recording would get you closest to being able to reproduce as you suggest.

 

[Christer]

Erm... progress .... Hugo 1 still is very good.

I use mojo and Dave at the same time.... sold my Hugo 1 to fund Dave

I think it largely depends on the recording.

The whole point of Dave, Naim amplifiers and Dynaudio speakers is to recreate an engaging performance at home.

I’m puzzled why anything else is required to enjoy music.

Either the music is engaging emotionally or not

Hmm, a bit puzzling again.
If what you say in the last sentence in this post really is all you REALLY CARE ABOUT,I fail to understand why you bother to post here at all on these forums that PRIMARILY discuss different aspects of SQ?

Or are you suggesting nobody needs a different or better and more resolving system than the one you have, to enjoy their music?

Since you don't mention which Naim amps and which Dynaudio speakers you are using, that makes it a bit difficult for the rest of us to follow your example.

Both DAVE and Mojo at the same time???
One at a time please.
Or are you multi-tasking like some kids with one track playing via headphones and Mojo and another track via speakers and DAVE simultanously?
Some kids seem to enjoy sharing their "emotionally engaging" music by listening on the same IEMs with one ear.

But seriously, if you really find your music equally engaging emotionally via Mojo as via DAVE in your system,maybe you could sell me your DAVE at a good price?
I already have an M Scaler to go with it.

As I hear things, the music itself can be very engaging emotionally,but still sound prettty unlistenable in the longterm via a system not resolving enough or too coloured by boxy coloured speakers,or being underpowered by not enough amplification high distortion levels or other limiting factors from significant links like for example the dac ,in a HIFI system.



Cheers controversial Christer

 

[analogmusic]

Christer.... oh dear
When in a hole, stop digging

Oh, and .... Maybe the kids enjoying music got it right ?

 

[analogmusic]

But to clarify... what I meant is if the performance reproduced at home is engaging (regardless of brand of hi fi) then why should anything else matter?

Does one look for soundstage in a live concert?

 

[Christer]

Christer.... oh dear
When in a hole, stop digging

Oh, and .... Maybe the kids enjoying music got it right ?

Each to his or her own of course.

But I still wonder why you bother to post it here?

The kids with one channel of cheap IEM and music playing via iPhones don't.

But I don't listen to the stuff they do!

I listen mainly to classical and contemporary ACOUSTIC ART MUSIC like Mozart and Beethoven and a load of other composers whose music VERY OFTEN was actually composed with a clear STEREO EFFECT and STRONG left to right balance and dialogues between different sections of an orchestra being a VERY IMPORTANT part of the musical experience itself.

And the better those INTENDED EFFECTS are reproduced the closer to the live experience I get and that is partly what HI FI is all about.


And as far as SOUNDSTAGE at live acoustic concerts is concerned, IT IS HUGE and both VERY WIDE AND DEEP.
Unlike via some HIFI systems it is not something you have to look for or wonder where it went, it is very obvious.


And unless I have completely misunderstood his posts,these things are actually things Rob Watts is striving to improve with his designs because he too finds them vital to enjoying acoustic music closer to how it actually sounds live.
That is one of his goals which he has repeatedly declared here.

If you and the kids are happy with sharing one channel each,fine with me.

And I am sure they sell the things needed for such VERY BASIC kind of music listening even at Harrods!

But that is NOT what we are discussing here in these forums.

Cheers Controversial Christer

 

[analogmusic]

Man goes to Harrods

Wants to buy an Mscaler this time as is sure of it

He’s says at the top of his voice “DO YOU HAVE THE ROB WATTS MSCALER?”

Staff says yes. But why the need to shout?

“I AM NOT SHOUTING”

Then realizes his hearing aid has failed

“DO YOU HAVE HEARING AID”

What ? Harrods staff ask Mscaler and hearing aid

YES I NEED BOTH !

On the way out Man has cup of Harrods coffee and thinks....

Maybe I only needed the hearing aid....

 

[Triode User]

underscoring and BOLD are yet to be used . . . . .

 

[analogmusic]

question for @Rob Watts

How did you achieve the end of this weakness in DACS? Was it only from Hugo onwards? Or was this feature there from your first DAC?

"The biggest problem is the dominance effect - the loudest instrument is the one that drags your attention away - this constant see-saw of attention is the biggest reason for listening fatigue, a major problem with Hi-fi."

 

[Rob Watts]

It has been a constant struggle to reduce the dominance effect; and my milestones when there was a big improvement or breakthrough in this area was firstly with pulse array (1995); then WTA with the DAC64 (1999); then obviously with Hugo (2014); and then finally with the M scaler (2016).

 

[Sunya]

Rob, I was thinking about the interface limitations of the M Scaler for sending the full 1M tap upscaled signal over optical or single coaxial outputs and I was wondering if it wouldn't have been possible to also have an USB type A output that would allow the 1M tap 705.6/768kHz signal to be sent to non Chord DACs that can receive such a high sample rate over USB.

There are streamers like the Lumin U1 with USB type A outputs that can send 32bit/768kHz signals over it to USB DACs, so it occured to me that it might have been implemented as well in the M Scaler for non Chord DACs that don't have dual BNC inputs.

 

[Tims Fong]

Hello,everybody,
Mojo+Sennheiser HD 650 need schiit magni 3 for Headphone Amplifier?