goldjazz

Yeah the TT is about $500 less. I do have Balanced or RCA inputs on my Accuphase A-30 so I could go either. thanks

Thanks for the replies. Looks like 6moons will review the Hugo 2 soon when they get it in and hopefully make comparisons to the TT. So that review could be worth waiting for. Also if I wait a little long some forum back to back reviews might start comin in, so if anyone has tried both please post a review.

Hi all. I'm considering buying a second hand Chord Hugo TT dac (it's mint and approx USD2.2K) just wondering if I should instead get a new Hugo 2 which will be a only a little more expensive. I don't care about portability, it's just for my home hifi system. Anyone know if the Hugo 2 would actually sound better than the Hugo TT for home hifi,even though its a portable device? Also I was hoping to use the Hugo TT as a preamp as well, could the Hugo 2 also do this? My system is a pair of Altec 604e and an accuphase A-30 power amp. Thanks.

Here's the REW page on the issue. Finally got this working ok. https://www.roomeqwizard.com/help/help_en-GB/html/calsoundcard.html#audioconfig

So is this measurement done independent of the mic and speakers? It must be right? So wouldn't you want to not be producing any sound for this test? So you would connect the output of the dac to the input of the mic "box". Instead of to the amp and speakers. And you dont connect the moc at all. Does that make sense to you guys? So in my case the output of the dac is rca while the input in the mic box is 3 pin xlr. So i assume i need an rca to 3 pin xlr cable to create the loop?

Yeah i only just realised too. So as i u derstand it REW wants you to set up a "loop back". I guess this is so it can compare the input and output to work out the discrepwncy and create a correction ie calibration file. Now i use a dac so if i select the mic as "input" and the dac as "output" will this work? Also there is software called "asio" which jas a loopback option. Also REW cal gives you the option to use asio. Any thoughts on using asio or not? Thanks

Hi. I might be mistaken but it looks like you need to calibrate mic and soundcard. There-s two different sections in preferences.

Hi all, I'm trying to get Room EQ Wizard setup properly. So I've got a Behrnger ECM8000 mic which is connected to Steinberg UR12 USB interface box which is connected via USB to my computer. I play from my computer to a Musical Fidelity M1 DAC. Ok So REW expects you to calibrate your soundcard, is this necessary when you are using a DAC? Doesn't the soundcard get bypassed and the DAC takes over? Or do I need to include the DAC in the Loop back and calibrate it? Thanks.

Ok yeah. I have RoomEQ Wizard (REW) and a mic. I'm actually taking measurements right now. I do think the logical next step in my setup is room treatments. I've been avoiding it for a long time but I think you get to a point with tweaking where you can no longer avoid the elephant in the room (ha literally) i.e how the room itself is affecting things. e.g. I know you can be chasing a flat response with EQ and simply making things worse (minimum phase and all that).

Excellent explanation, thank you Barrows. Your comment has opened my eyes to a few things. I''d never considered this: So there is a limit to the practical resolution and dynamic range that can be conveyed through the air in a room, due to all the reflections and so on in the room itself, those fine details and low level sounds are just lost anyway? Interesting. Also interesting to note your comments about the kind of bit "headroom" this provides in terms of bits you can lose and what that relates to in db reduction, also how padding helps this. Seems to be a tricky topic with lots of misconceptions. I'm starting to try to understand some of these concepts by looking at some of the info on Xiph such as

Cool, thanks Mike.

Ok so I tested two setups and there is a slight difference: Setup 1: No preamp, PC and Spotify volume both set to 50%, going direct from DAC to Power amp Setup 2: Preamp set to "1" i.e attenuating a lot, and PC and Spotify volume both set to around 80%, Going from DAC to preamp to power amp. Audible volume was basically the same for both by ear. So Setup 2 sounds better to my ears. A little bit more "Lively". Possibly a better low end too. I guess it could be bit depth, it could be signal to noise ratio, or I could just be crazy. So the Seta article stated that when you use a preamp to attenuate, usually, the preamp first amplifies the signal as normal then attentuates it. Is this correct? Therefore you are imparting the sonic characteristics of the preamp, the distortion of the amplification of the preamp, as well as any possible nastiness that may exist in the attenuation? I have a pretty good preamp (Mark levinson ML-1) so I guess any of these negatives outweighed bit depth and SNR. That Seta thing is starting to make sense, why the hell do you need a preamp in digital audio? A separate box that does the attenuation really well, which also ensures the impedence is matched, then just use DAC and power amp. Is anyone on this forum using one? Surely one of the High end DAC makers has considered this and effectively has a SETA encorporated into the DAC? In which case dont you just need an awesome DAC with attenuation and an great power amp?

Thanks for the link to that article on the Seta MikeD, opened my eyes to a few things. Cheers.

Ok So I'm finding that 100% PC and Application (Spotify) volume while attentuating in Analog is not the best result. What ever gains in bit depth seem to be offset by a reduction in SQ due to the attenuation and or the DAC not coping with the higher input signal. I'm going to do a more controlled experiment and capture what I'm finding, see if this makes sens to you guys. Cheers for the great discussion so far.

Excellent explaination thank you. Yeah so spotify and tidal mainly, media monkey occasionally when I use flacs.