[dac64]

The cables come as RCA only so I'm using RCA-BNC connectors

Well...BNC the cables!

 

[Babysnake]

Normally converters will work fine but each ‘join’ can cause reflections. Or it might simply be that they just dint make a very good electrical contact. Also, again it would not normally cause an issue but are you sure the rca to rca cables you have are 75ohm?

What was it you liked about the sound of the different cables?

They are designed as digital cables so I assume they are true 75ohm, I certainly have no reason to think otherwise

The sound (in between drops) was a considerable improvement on the old cables is used - tighter bass, absence of mid/treble glare etc etc

All the things I have read described when efforts are taken to reduce the problem of RFI leakage from the Blu2

 

[calbu]

Hello all,

PS I will update this post as new configurations will be tested.. Mojo is coming next

Waiting..

 

[odessamarin]

@calbu

Mojo was tested.. and sold )
It has good depth in sounstage, but less detailed in compare to Hugo. Mojo sound more soft, layback with more boomy bass (less defined) but well extended. Mojo is really fantastic device for it size and price. But can't compete to bigger brothers IMHO.
Meanwhile I get Bryston DAC (BDA-1).. very intresting how this almost 10 years technology can still stay in pair to Hugo TT level. The only thing is USB input implimentation need to be fixed. I am on the market for a good USB to SPDIF solution.
Bryston is a great example how output amp stage is important in dac. Exactly where Hugo 2 fail to me, Bryston shine..
In compare to TT, yes it is less analogic sound, but soundstage.. like twice wider! In HD800s you really loosing reallity putting your mind within music. unbelievable feeling.

 

[csglinux]

I finally had a chance last week to listen to the M Scaler! Woohoo! I'd previously done quite a lot of listening comparisons between the Hugo 2 and the Dave and been quite impressed with the better focused sound stage on the Dave. The differences I heard with the M-Scaler were much less than I expected. My friend also heard the M Scalar and comparing by-pass to full upscale, he said he heard a considerable improvement - though in fairness, I should add that this is my same friend who heard a considerable improvement with hi-res PCM when I played him 44/16 and told him it was hi-res, then played him hi-res and told him it was 44/16 Even with a sighted listening test and the placebo effect in full swing, I didn't hear very significant differences. I wanted to ask the knowledgable folks on this thread whether I may have been overlooking something...

The demo rig used was playing PCM (Redbook CD and 96/24) via UAPP on my V30 to the M Scaler into the Qutest into a KSE1500. My understanding is the Qutest is basically the same DAC specs as the Hugo 2 - is that right? Is that good enough or should I have had the M Scalar connected to a Dave?? (How would/should one go about connecting the M Scaler to a Hugo 2?)

We had the Qutest filter on white the whole time. Does anybody know what the anti-aliasing filters on the Qutest do when changing the input sample rate? I presume they can't stay the same, i.e., you wouldn't want it rolling off at/near the Nyquist limit of one sample rate if we were actually feeding it a signal at a much higher sample rate, right?

Any thoughts/words of wisdom would be gratefully received.

 

[ZappaMan]

I finally had a chance last week to listen to the M Scaler! Woohoo! I'd previously done quite a lot of listening comparisons between the Hugo 2 and the Dave and been quite impressed with the better focused sound stage on the Dave. The differences I heard with the M-Scaler were much less than I expected. My friend also heard the M Scalar and comparing by-pass to full upscale, he said he heard a considerable improvement - though in fairness, I should add that this is my same friend who heard a considerable improvement with hi-res PCM when I played him 44/16 and told him it was hi-res, then played him hi-res and told him it was 44/16 Even with a sighted listening test and the placebo effect in full swing, I didn't hear very significant differences. I wanted to ask the knowledgable folks on this thread whether I may have been overlooking something...

The demo rig used was playing PCM (Redbook CD and 96/24) via UAPP on my V30 to the M Scaler into the Qutest into a KSE1500. My understanding is the Qutest is basically the same DAC specs as the Hugo 2 - is that right? Is that good enough or should I have had the M Scalar connected to a Dave?? (How would/should one go about connecting the M Scaler to a Hugo 2?)

We had the Qutest filter on white the whole time. Does anybody know what the anti-aliasing filters on the Qutest do when changing the input sample rate? I presume they can't stay the same, i.e., you wouldn't want it rolling off at/near the Nyquist limit of one sample rate if we were actually feeding it a signal at a much higher sample rate, right?

Any thoughts/words of wisdom would be gratefully received.

I feel my shure se846 do not really scale too well with h2 mscaler, even tt2 mscaler. Whereas with Hd800s the music is noticeably better (in general - not talking about passthrough).
Not sure if that helps, but try a different set of headphones, even old ones that you’ve consigned to the scrap heap can good sound noticeably better I’ve heard others say.

 

[odessamarin]

I may have been overlooking something...

i would suggest any good source with spdif interface.. instead USB uapp

 

[csglinux]

i would suggest any good source with spdif interface.. instead USB uapp

I did also test with a QP1R via toslink and a second headphone - an HD800s (I forget which amp the latter was connected through). I understand the comments about the SE846, but in my experience, the KSE1500 is more resolving than the HD800s or even the Utopia.

I'm specifically wondering about the Qutest/Hugo 2 in the chain (is it a weak link?) and what the anti-aliasing filters are doing withw the different input sample rates.

P.S. My previous Hugo 2/Dave comparisons also used a UAPP/V30 combo. It's a really clean, noise-free transport, capable of higher thoughput than toslink.

 

[JaZZ]

With a DAVE the M Scaler makes a clearer difference than with a Hugo₂, but not by much. What really may have been holding it back with the Qutest is the need for an additional amp (actually you could plug your headphones into its line outs – which are similar to the Hugo₂'s and Mojo's – and let your source do volume regulation, but I haven't seen anybody do so). Moreover the KSE1500 (which I haven't heard yet) may absolutely have been a bottleneck as well in the form of its own amp – and the electrostatic concept, enhancing «detail» and «resolution» while sacrificing accuracy and honesty («down to earth» characteristic). Also, in my experience full-size headphones make a larger difference than IEMs.

To answer your question regarding the filter characteristic at different sampling rates: The input signal is always upsampled to either 705.6 kHz (with 44.1, 88.2, 176.4 and 352.8 kHz recordings) or 768 kHz (with 48, 96, 192 and 384 kHz recordings), hence the ratio varies between 16x and 2x. Now when it comes to the filter frequencies resulting from the corresponding upscaling algorithms, Rob knows better than me (I don't recall to have seen any data to the matter). In any event, the Qutest's and the DAVE's own antialiasing filter is deactivated when they receive a 705.6 or 768 kHz signal.

 

[csglinux]

Bump on this question... Can anybody (Rob?!) tell me what, if anything, changes in the anti-aliasing filters on the Qutest (and/or Hugo 2) when being fed different sample-rate inputs?

 

[JaZZ]

In the «stereophile» test of the Qutest the filter effects are passably recognizable.

 

[csglinux]

In the «stereophile» test of the Qutest the filter effects are passably recognizable.

Interesting - thanks @JaZZ Would that be expected that the filters wouldn't change going from 96 kHz -> 192 kHz? I'd be curious to know what happens at 705.6 kHz and 768 kHz.

 

[JaZZ]

Interesting - thanks @JaZZ Would that be expected that the filters wouldn't change going from 96 kHz -> 192 kHz? I'd be curious to know what happens at 705.6 kHz and 768 kHz.

I'm not sure if with «filters» you mean the four presets or the sharp antialiasing filters just below the Nyquist frequency. I also wonder why John Atkinson hasn't drawn the vertical line from the blue (96 kHz) line's end point at ~47 kHz and from the red (192 kHz) line's end point at ~95 kHz down to show the steep filter slope, as at ~20 kHz and mentioned in the main text above the graph:

The responses at the two higher sample rates followed the same shape, flat to 20 kHz, with then a slow rolloff, disturbed by a sharp drop at each Nyquist frequency (cyan, magenta, blue, and red traces).

 

[csglinux]

I'm not sure if with «filters» you mean the four presets or the sharp antialiasing filters just below the Nyquist frequency.

I was assuming that those four presets are the choice of anti-aliasing filter. If that's not the case, then my question extends to them too.

 

[Siz.]

Post deleted (to avoid anyone wasting their time trying to understand what it meant - it was garbage!)