Where has the NDX into Hugo thread gone?

It seems you would dilute the words "precisely this failing" by focusing on "addresses". There is a clear implication to the reader of 4 microseconds because of the words "precisely this failing" but lets play the game for a moment.

Given CD does 22 microseconds and you feel there is no implication the Hugo does 4 microseconds please can you enlighten us all as to what number of microseconds, between 5 and 21 microseconds of course, the Hugo does do? Please answer with an integer only. Unless, that is, you feel 'precisely another failing' has been addressed instead.

Agreed.

I didn't dilute the term "precisely this failing" the preceding word "addresses" did precisely that.

Why would I know how accurate the Hugo is, but I must agree it will probably be between 5 and 21 microseconds.

Precisely

However, whilst you know it cannot do 4 microseconds precision, you believe it might do 5 microseconds precision. Makes sense.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Dave, everyone else has precision at 0 and 22 microseconds. You have precision at 5, 10, 15 and 20 microseconds as well. How so?

This feels like wheel spinning to me. Mark, Is there any chance that you are equating "precision" to "exact"? I can't follow the argument otherwise. If we agree that, for example, calculating more and more digits of pi produces a more and more precise approximation, but never an exact value for this transcendental number, then perhaps we can return to discussing how some interpolation schemes can outperform others by giving more precise and, in this pedantic case, more accurate reconstructed signals than others...even if they are not guaranteed to be exact replicas of the original signal that was sampled for the digital recording. In common parlance, "exact" and "precise" can be synonyms; in math and science, they are distinct concepts. 

Regards alan

What is a certainly true is that all recordings are imperfect, including ones made on analogue tape and cut on wax discs.

Digital replay is the recreation of a sonic illusion of reality contained in a myriad of momentary samples. Much like a cine-film is made up of many individual exposures per second giving the impression of movement, even though no individual frame of film exposed is actually moving itself ...

Without question there will be increasingly successful attempts to recreate a better sounding illusion with digital recordings, but it cannot be said that the better sounding results are actually perfect in their accuracy. 

However digital replay is now so fine that it can rival the timbres of the best analogue recordings in credibility. And credibility is the point, rather than particularly worrying about the details of the improved scheme for better reproduction replay of whatever sort. 

For the individual attempting to enjoy music in the home, then very good replay, unprecedented in quality is now available at a price that is far lower than the best replay of previous decades even from the most expensive replay systems.

In my previous post on this thread I discussed some experiments with test tones at musical and non-musical sound frequencies. What became eminently clear to me with this was that the entire musical range of sound frequencies - 33 Hertz to between 3000 and 4000 Hertz for fundamental frequencies - is well produced already. If one considers the overtones that give the character of timbre of the instruments and voices, the current possibilities of reproduced music demonstrates that they system is capable of reproducing any sound frequency that the normal human ear can perceive. 

Once this situation is achieved, then it merely becomes an issue of improving perceived quality whether by better digital recreation algorithms or improved electronics and speakers. In this case it is arguable that better is not other than something that is perceived as better than than being demonstrably more accurate!

What cannot be done is to make the results perfect in fidelity to the original musical performance!

No microphone yet made is capable of that. No mixing desk. No recording system [be it analogue or digital] and no replay system. 

But this should be no barrier to improvement to the current imperfections. 

The benefit for the end user such as myself, is that nowadays I can own superb replay for a fraction of the cost of what similar quality did cost me a decade and a half ago. 

The best is finer, but it is quite marginal in the bigger picture. 

The days when the bottom octave of notes was cut off by recording techniques ended ninety or so years ago, and replay itself has with ever greater quality been full-musical-range for at least the last sixty-five years. 

I suppose that if I did not already have the DAC V1, then it would have been sensible to have demonstrated the Hugo. As it goes there is absolutely no reason to do so now, though when the V1 is up for a service in perhaps ten years, then it would make sense to consider replacement with what newer technologies of replay have been developed, just as much as considering a full service.

I hope that this makes some sense, and is intended to offend no person here.

Very best wishes from George

This man speaks truth!

My previous posts on some aspects of the "how" were intended to ease fretting, not give a treatise on design or theory... My own gig is about being comfortable with my level of understanding, and I thought others were exploring that same space.

I absolutely agree that things sound better in many ways these days and I'm pretty happy with that. I moved my UnitiQute to the bedroom and added a SuperUniti to the living room. Both are awe inspiring and fun.

I am also pretty happy with ease of access to my own collection and to high quality radio featuring more good music than I've encountered since the old days when it felt possible to listen to everything. Just today, Stevie Wonder then Billie Holliday simply stopped me in my tracks when they jumped into my living room thanks to Radio Paradise.

In my pi post above, I should have finished by saying that we are well into the realm of precision where things sound wonderful. Credible, wiser folk would say! Thanks George. 

Regards alan

My Raspberry Pi is definitely not irrational, very very irritating sometimes maybe.

i believe there is quite a difference.. Albeit when comparing USB and SPDIF from their respective sources.

i find when feeding the Hugo via choked SPDIF from my NDX, the sound can appear recording permitting very analogue and real. There is subtle bite to the sound across all frequencies, with great dynamics and timing and beautiful renditions of overtones and textures. There is not  smoothing or exaggerated sharpness. In fact this is the sound I fell in love with and prompted me to sell my other DAC.

The Hugo HD USB asynchronous port from my MacBook is different.. It sounds good, but to me it's a more traditional DAC sound. The dynamics seemed slightly flattened or frequency dependant, and the sound just didnt have that natural vibrancy and feel. This may be down to the interface, software, implementation on the Hugo,  source or RFI , I don't know.

I probably would not have traded in my other DAC if this was the sound I would be using, good though the MacBookPro/USB interface is.. to my ears it falls quite a bit short of the NDX/SPDIF interface.

However for Qobuz, which is what I use the USB for its great, and allows me to accurately sample and listen into recordings before I buy.

Hopefully I have given you something to chew on...

Simon

George wrote:

"However digital replay is now so fine that it can rival the timbres of the best analogue recordings in credibility. And credibility is the point, rather than particularly worrying about the details of the improved scheme for better reproduction replay of whatever sort. 

For the individual attempting to enjoy music in the home, then very good replay, unprecedented in quality is now available at a price that is far lower than the best replay of previous decades even from the most expensive replay systems"

George, I couldn't agree more with you on this.

George also wrote:

"I suppose that if I did not already have the DAC V1, then it would have been sensible to have demonstrated the Hugo. As it goes there is absolutely no reason to do so now, though when the V1 is up for a service in perhaps ten years, then it would make sense to consider replacement with what newer technologies of replay have been developed, just as much as considering a full service".

One of the most sensible and logical quotes on this forum recently, and bringing it back to Earth. The Hugo is simply another option which may or may not work for you, but only if you are not happy with what you already have, or have money to burn.  

I will now be adopting a very similar position. I am very happy with what I have got, and expect to live with it for quite a while with only a few minor tweaks. I feel no desire to make any more big changes to my system for quite some time. If something significantly better comes along, and if the price is right I might re-consider.

My efforts will now be concentrated on increasing my music collection, and also  on expanding my growing collection (still not very large) of well recorded classical music (no doubt much to the amusement of my brother who listens to nothing else, but who had given up on me years ago).

I don't think my growing appreciation of classical music would have got off the ground were it not for some of the excellent hi-res recordings now available for download. Still mostly into Blues, Rock and Folk, but there is so much music out there.

Absolutely.. Once you get to replay standard you take it for granted and focus more on the recordings and their quality to appreciate the music, performance, drama etc.. I agree with you and George on this.

Every so often something comes along that re calibrates your replay system.. Perhaps initially through curiosity.. and then one gets back to the recordings.

Simon

PS George I was going to comment on you frequency range post.. I agree with you and have done similar things.. It goes to show even with the bandwidth and timing limited CD signal there is more happening that we can knowingly hear that I am sure if reproduced with minimum distortion and error assists with us resolving the timing details within the recording without having to refer to bizarre interpolation ideas.

It is and always has been very easy to find people who will tell you there are alternatives to Naim which are cheaper and better. Try going to a Hi-Fi show or a non-Naim dealer. Try posting on other forums. 

The interesting question here is whether the Hugo is in a different category because it's so good and so cheap that it transcends hi-fi industry norms. Maybe it is or maybe it's just very good and has a dozen or so fans on this forum. 

For now, I'm with George and Hmack. I don't need to change or upgrade so I'll keep listening to the music and watch this thread with interest.

Keith

I should have added in my previous post the folk who tell you that they have something cheaper and better will sometimes be right and if you listened to their recommendations you might agree.

Unfortunately, following these paths can be frustrating, confusing and expensive. The Naim way frees you up to upgrade when you have the funds and the inclination. In the meantime, you can relax and enjoy the music.

Keith

Agreed Wat.

i don't see the point in dissecting marketing puff.

To quote Dowding (Lawrence Olivier) in The Battle of Britain;

Minister: "...Can you verify the figures?"

Dowding: "I'm not very interested in propaganda. If we're right, they'll give up. If we are wrong, they'll be in London in a week"

+2  -   I'm in a very happy place with my NDX & the rest of the kit

- OK OK maybe I need to add "for the moment".. 

Aside from the pleasure, emotions, memories & thrill of listening to music on a good quality system; I am in a place where the anticipation of & listening to a new recording seems to give me more pleasure than thinking (obsessing) what a new box or wire will (or maybe not) bring.

The only downside IMO is availability of high-res or even 16/44.1 downloads,  why should we accept MP3 level (or eq) for most modern popular music recordings as the standard download format as a side offering (free even) for CD.  It seems hi-res is still an afterthought

- Catch up you recording/distribution cmpys - its the 21st century !!!.  

Then add the frustration of finding it without "regional restrictions" & at a price that is not just a rip-off riding on market availability & the premiums that follow latest technology & the elitism with all things “hifi".

A good post Wat, it's refreshing to read a post in this swamp of a thread that discusses music, rather than all the other associated garbage. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on Hugo/Qute, something I was going to consider. Have you any feedback on Hugo/MacMini v Hugo/iPhone (or iPad) I would be grateful if you could elaborate.

Thanks

Watt, TP does make a DAC with I believe an optional async USB interface.

The design is based on a Wolfson  Micro  DAC chip and digital receiver.

It uses 11 on board regulators, not dissimilar to the Hugo in that respect. it seems to be popular with people who have perhaps TP components elsewhere, certainly if you read the pink fish. There are some other older reviews where it is reviewed quite favourably, with some of the same language used as for the more recent Hugo magazine reviews. 

I have bought TP before where I was moderately impressed, but not listened to their DAC.

Simon

Hi war which laptop do you have that is still working after 10 years.

My 13 inch mid 2010 macbook pro is working well, and I haven't changed the battery yet.

In fact I upgraded it with 8GB ram and a SSD and it really is very fast and fun to use.

good for another 6 years then I hope...

Hi Wat,

Thanks for a nice response.

I am ok now, and have no issue at all with Hugo now.

In fact if anything these posts now have me curious about the Hugo, and other DACs like TPDAC.

My DAC V1 was disconnected from the main system for a few days, while it was serving Tv and Video duties and now is back playing music.

Who knows, maybe the Hugo will serve for TV and or music duties.

But I am really waiting to hear the Muso before I make any decision. Maybe the Muso will be the one doing the TV/Video/Music duties.

Anyway I'd like to say to anyone reading this (with or without a Hugo)

Really, really enjoy the music 

Dear Simon,

Thank you for your comments about my last two posts.

I did similar tests of frequency when I had my Royd Minstrels, and what is fascinating in that case is that they did make no audible musical fundamental below the 42 Hertz double bass "E" and that should be no surprise with a four inch bass driver per speaker. Of course with the Minstrels, it was possible to see the driver moving at these low tones, but all that was audible was the chuffing on the port if I turned up the gain. Particular care was needed with this as the excursions could easily catch the magnet with the coil! 

At least the ESL is musically full-range on this evidence. 

I am quite a pragmatist with respect to replay. If it is going well, I generally loose interest in exercises like my sine wave efforts above. But in the context of this thread, my interest was piqued!

And now these files are safely lodged in iTunes for future reference and testing my own high frequency limit of hearing. 16K currently as a soon to be 53 year old. I don't know if this is better or worse than average for my age ...

Over the years I have been using Windows computers and now a MAC as the basis of my replay because I could not afford a CD player that I actually was completely satisfied with.

Along the way I had two different miniature Chinese made [not async] USB DACs, and the famous Lavry D10. Then I got an Arcam rDAC, as I gave up on Naim ever making such a machine, and then Naim issued the V1, which might have been designed to my wish in quality, form and function.

I did the home den, and the rest is history! Is it perfect. Nothing is, of course, but it is good enough for me.

Anyway, thanks to you and others on this thread who have been kind about my two big posts above on this page. I think I'll bow out of this now, and get back to cycles and a nice discussion with Kuma about Elgar on the listening thread!

Very best wishes from George