384khz?

[Gazjam]

Ain't no one stoppin' you.

Uhm...
thanks for that.

[Gazjam]

bit depth (16, 24 etc) surely?
Sorry Martin, I'll get me coat.

Regarding dynamic range and mastering, good insight in this video from a mastering engineers perspective.

Some confusion here. Bit rate (16, 24 etc) is only relevant to dynamic range, not frequency response. Since the dynamic range of pretty much any recording will be limited by the mastering to below what 16 bits is capable of, 24 bits will add nothing to the party.

This is the problem we have with digital. People ascribe what they hear to completely the wrong thing and so the myth is created. So instead of getting genuine improvements in digital playback, we get manufacturers chasing the chimera of 'high resolution' because that is what the punters think is better.

[Gazjam]

And another from Bernie Grundman himself, he talks about audiophiles and common misconceptions about mastering and audio.

[the_doc735]

Aside from bragging rights and a box swap fix it seems unlikely, if you're already turning the treble down in the audible spectrum you probably don't need any more info beyond that. Perhaps you should look at the rest of your system and see if you can't come up with something that has a naturally more pleasing sound to you?

Interestingly the spec for the m-dac says it's 20Hz-20kHz (despite being able to decode higher sample rate files) the Hugo just doesn't publish its analogue frequency response. It's a relevant point to consider I think, just because the chip can decode and put put audio signals up to 192kHz is the analogue stage up to it too (and not just the dac output, the amp input and the speakers too)?

LOL ~ I am always looking for something naturally more pleasing to me! I wonder what the Hugo's analogue frequency response is? The amp is the puresound 2A3 with NOS valves and the speakers are Monopulse A; I don't know if these are "up to it" or not? Any one got any ideas please? Many thanks!

[Gazjam]

LOL ~ I am always looking for something naturally more pleasing to me! I wonder what the Hugo's analogue frequency response is? The amp is the puresound 2A3 with NOS valves and the speakers are Monopulse A; I don't know if these are "up to it" or not? Any one got any ideas please? Many thanks!

Your system is more than pretty decent I'd have thought?

[the_doc735]

Your system is more than pretty decent I'd have thought?

Well, yes certainly there are some fine individual components, away from the technical, scientific, & mathematical arguments on here, but instead in terms of "when the sound meets the ear - direct experience" ~ without a hifi Guru around I can't ever rule out what they would say about compatibility between the various elements concerned? Bluntly, "what goes well with what?". Just throwing money at it, is not the way to go! Whatever I purchase now doesn't make it any better ~ just different. I can't imagine what improvement people think they are getting by spending £10,000 on amps and £10,000 on speakers etc? Must surely be tiny? Diminishing gains for colossal spends!!

[Macca]

? Bluntly, "what goes well with what?". Just throwing money at it, is not the way to go! Whatever I purchase now doesn't make it any better ~ just different. I can't imagine what improvement people think they are getting by spending £10,000 on amps and £10,000 on speakers etc? Must surely be tiny? Diminishing gains for colossal spends!!

I used to think that too, not so sure now, Of course you can pay £10K for something that isn't remotely worth that kind of money. You can also pay £2K for something that used to be £10K new and get real value for money.

[Sherwood]

Well, yes certainly there are some fine individual components, away from the technical, scientific, & mathematical arguments on here, but instead in terms of "when the sound meets the ear - direct experience" ~ without a hifi Guru around I can't ever rule out what they would say about compatibility between the various elements concerned? Bluntly, "what goes well with what?". Just throwing money at it, is not the way to go! Whatever I purchase now doesn't make it any better ~ just different. I can't imagine what improvement people think they are getting by spending £10,000 on amps and £10,000 on speakers etc? Must surely be tiny? Diminishing gains for colossal spends!!

Comes back to price/performance issue. Expenditure is always additive: a system with components costing 2k, 3k, and 4k costs 9k. Performance is not necessarily additive: a poorly matched system will perform less than the sum of its parts and vice versa. Performance/price ratios are rapidly subject to diminishing marginal returns so that a 10k system will not be twice as good as a 5k system (subjective measurement issues aside). I guess for most of us, the goal is to define our performance expectations and then decide how much we are willing/able to spend in achieving that level of performance. The real art is finding that combination of components that best meets those performance goals at a particular price point.

My primary (i.e. streaming) system costs significantly less than £5k. I think it would be difficult for me to improve upon this system within a 5k budget. I suspect that I would have to spend significantly more than 5k to achieve worthwhile improvements and for me that would not represent value for money.

All highly personal and subjective. As it should be!

Geoff

[the_doc735]

I used to think that too, not so sure now, Of course you can pay £10K for something that isn't remotely worth that kind of money. You can also pay £2K for something that used to be £10K new and get real value for money.

Oh yes! I agree that there are some real bargains to be had occasionally. That's how I got all my stuff in fact!

[Macca]

Oh yes! I agree that there are some real bargains to be had occasionally. That's how I got all my stuff in fact!

Likewise. All my kit was bought used except the stylus, phono stage and interconnects. Oh and the RCM.

No way could I afford to buy gear of that quality new, I just don't earn enough. I'm happy to have rich people's cast-offs, though