Article: My Quest for a New DAC, Part 5: Chord Electronics Hugo M Scaler & Hugo TT 2

[sdolezalek]

Other than the fact that it is its own piece of hardware, does the Hugo M-Scaler do anything more than what HQPlayer does when running on a standalone computer (assuming you set its outputs to match those of the M-Scaler)?  If I remember correctly, you don't use upscaling in your reference system, but it would be interesting to compare hardware vs software solutions.  My guess is that the purpose designed hardware of the Hugo has some noise benefits, but the software solutions is far more easily upgradeable on a continuous basis.  

[sdolezalek]

1 hour ago, ted_b said:

Thanks.  Although I respect your opinion, I have to say that I don't think HQP was being used to anywhere its fullest here.  Why?  Twofold (at least):

1) the iFi dac does not get out of the way, entirely.  That is to say, it is not an NOS dac, nor has an NOS setting (to my knowledge) so the full extent of HQP's upsampling to one's sweetspot is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. 

2) HQP on a laptop does not represent anywhere near a fair fight against HMS!    My HQP i6700k server environment is tweaked to the max, with some very heavy lifting occurring.  And we have not begun to discuss any possible advantages of an NAA in this comparison. 

 

Ted: Although it may not be possible, my original question would essentially say "What would it take, in combination of computer/HQP/NAA outputting the same signal to a Hugo TT2 to equal what an HMS does.  In other words, leave the DAC static.  

 

A separate test would be to say what computer/HQP/NAA/NOS DAC combo might equal the HMS/TT2 combination in sound, but that introduces a bunch of DAC variables on top of the upsampling.  

 

Lastly, I have found that my taste in filters might not be the same as that of others.  Software gives me the option of choosing the one I like best; hardware tends to lock me into the filters the designer likes best.