Jump to content
IGNORED

Chord Hugo a Contender!


Recommended Posts

Surprised I am not hearing any feedback here on the Chord Hugo!

Just had a chance to hear and compare it this evening against a Lampizator Level 4 and Meitner MA-1 and it really held its own very well.....did not expect it to perform as well as it did.

 

Sounds really good on 16 44 tracks fed off highly modified Audio PC.

I expect it is going to make a big impact.

Audio PC - Gigabyte H97M-D3H, i7 at 800Mhz, RAM at 800Mhz & PPA OCXO Mobo, Teradak ATX Linear for 20 pin ATX on Mobo, Paul Hynes SR7EHD 12v, 5v & 5v supply on Mobo, Stammheim 12x LT3045's for 1.3v to RAM direct supply, JCat V2 USB Card, WTFPlay Linux Audiophile Player control by MELE F10, Startech LEX to REX on 12v Paul Hynes with 2x SLC cards and out by POE to ISO/Regen, PPA Red USB Cable, Lampizator Big7, Nige design Lifepo4 powered amp, Raidho C1s.

Link to comment

We have a 60+ thread on it in my feedback to my review on the Qute EX (front page). I have documented more that I bought it, what I've found so far, and have now both the Hugo and the Qute EX, after reviewing both the HD and the EX. A formal Hugo review (Chord Part 3) is forthcoming. It is indeed quite a DAC. My use is purely non-portable (i.e main rig DAC).

Link to comment
Just had a chance to hear and compare it this evening against a Lampizator Level 4 and Meitner MA-1 and it really held its own very well.....did not expect it to perform as well as it did.

 

Could you please describe how you saw the differences between the Hugo, the Lampizator and the Meitner. Which did you prefer?

Link to comment

I've had mine for a little over a week now, and I readily admit that I have nowhere near enough hours on it so these are just some random thoughts :

 

- love the sound, but less impressed with some of Chord's design choices. There is an element of the 'horse designed by a committee' to the Hugo and I really think this DAC deserved better, even if it would have made the end result more expensive. I would have gladly sacrificed some of the transportability of the unit in exchange for a larger case and better ergonomics.

 

- when my Auralic Taurus arrives, I intend pressing the Hugo into fulltime DAC duty by disabling the variable output. The plan is to have it hooked up to my Mac Mini fulltime, feeding the Taurus headphone amp. I'm 100% happy with the job the BDP-105D is doing in my speaker rig, and there was only ever going to be so much I could do with the PM6005->BX-2 combination anyway - my headphones will render a lot more of the detail coming from the Hugo's RCA outputs. If you can find a pair of speakers that image like the HD800 for anything like the money, buy em;)

 

- I've had some issues with the USB connection - it seems a lot more sensitive to other activity on my laptop (I suspect its my wireless internet connection) than any other USB DAC I've owned. I'm going to try a couple of things once I get the Mac Mini set up, including a HiFace to see if things improve over coax. I may also try the iFi USB, as I'm back to my Bangkok dealer next week anyway to pick up my Taurus.

 

- the headphone amp in the Hugo is not to be discounted - I particularly love the fact that there is zero perceivable channel imbalance at low volumes - but I think the DAC is the star of the show and I am very keen to see what I can do piping the analog output into a dedicated headphone amp.

 

As my Sydney dealer put it when he handed me the Hugo, 'I dont think Chord realise what they have here'. Technically, I believe John Franks knows exactly what he's got, but I'm unsure as to how well they've implemented it and that seems borne out in the magazine reviews I've read. They rave about the technology and the sonics, then get stuck into the designers for some of their choices : I'm especially unimpressed with the power switch and the choice of micro USB connectors over the mini. I'm convinced that a lot of that angst will disappear once I get the Hugo into fulltime DAC mode, although the charging requirement will mean that it will never be completely out-of-sight-out-of-mind. That might seem like an odd thing to say about something I paid a significant amount of money for, but its the niggles that stand out from a product that has so much potential.

Just one more headphone and I know I can kick this nasty little habit !

Link to comment

there's almost 200 pages of Hugo discussions on head-fi (i assume the CA rules allow me to mention another forum...). overall, the feedback is very positive. what's interesting that Rob Watts, the designer who designed the Hugo, is posting his comments there and his feedback is, if i might say, very eye opening.

 

Rob's quote on Hugo as preamp in non-portable setup:

 

"I use one directly into small active loudspeakers, and another one feeding my power amp in my main system. There is no point in using a pre-amp, unless you want to use analogue sources. You will get much better transparency and musicality by avoiding pre-amps of any nature. Have fun with your Hugo!"

There's one long post by Rob Watts, regarding the quality of the dac and the headphone amp, i thought it was a very interesting read. An excerpt from this post tells a lot about Rob's view on the Hugo:

 

"When I finally heard the pre-production unit with all the improvements in place I could not believe the sound quality improvements that I first heard. It completely changed my expectations of what was possible from digital audio - I was hearing things that I have never heard from Hi-fi ever - in other words, the gap from Hi-fi to live acoustic music was suddenly very much closer. Most notable was rapid rhythms being reproduced with breathtaking clarity - before piano music sounded like a jumble of notes, now I could hear each key being played distinctly. The next major change was timbre variations - suddenly each instrument had their own distinct timbre qualities, and the loudest instrument dominance effect was gone. Also gone was listening fatigue - I can listen for 12 hours quite happily.

 

But by far the biggest change was not sound quality, but on the musicality. I found myself listening and enjoying much more music, in a way I have never experienced before with a new design (and anybody who knows something of my designing career knows that is a lot of designs).

 

So my conclusion is this: Hugo does things that no other DAC at any price point does."

 

See the whole post here Chord Hugo - Page 123, i think it is an interesting read and beneficial for discussion purposes (all Watts's 38 posts must be a mandatory read) . Hopefully, Rob Watts (as Mr Wang from Auralic) joins this forum and posts his views.

Link to comment

I'm in an ongoing chat with Rob Watts and have asked him to join us on my thread (where we've discussed DSD vs PCM, USB power, etc). I will point him here, too. For those interested in a non-portable DAC with the timbre and textures of Hugo (and have likely 3X $ to spend :( ) Rob and Chord are currently creating the new QBD replacement DAC. He is quite excited about it, especially given all he has learned from the Hugo development. The FPGA-based process is really paying dividends.

Link to comment
I'm in an ongoing chat with Rob Watts and have asked him to join us on my thread (where we've discussed DSD vs PCM, USB power, etc). I will point him here, too. For those interested in a non-portable DAC with the timbre and textures of Hugo (and have likely 3X $ to spend :( ) Rob and Chord are currently creating the new QBD replacement DAC. He is quite excited about it, especially given all he has learned from the Hugo development. The FPGA-based process is really paying dividends.

 

ted_b, do u know if the QBD replacement will have a volume control built in (same as Hugo) in order to avoid using a separate pre-amp?

Link to comment

Please note that the line level "bypass" is not a bypass at all, but simply a 3V boot up (hold crossfeed button while powering up) volume level that was created so Rob could a/b with the Qute EX (same gain). The digital volume is still in the mix, and can be tweeked from there. I have found that an ever so slight lowering from preset is exactly what my 2V max preamp enjoys, and takes the soundstage into a deeper and slightly more 5-7th row center perspective (rather than front row and slightly hot in my setup).

Link to comment
For those interested in a non-portable DAC with the timbre and textures of Hugo (and have likely 3X $ to spend :( ) Rob and Chord are currently creating the new QBD replacement DAC. He is quite excited about it, especially given all he has learned from the Hugo development. The FPGA-based process is really paying dividends.

 

I would be more excited if all the Hugo technology would be translated into the Cute Form Factor. Not that QBD is big, it's also beautifully proportioned.

 

But I cannot help to think that quality can improve with more space for components to "breathe" and perform ok in termic terms. After all it's an analog component!

 

For the QBD replacement, if Chord is to make quite an impression they should integrate a network player inside (ethernet in) besides usb; That would keep me really interested and making a lot of math...they have the know how.

Link to comment

Mike and all (Junk, etc) I will let Rob know of your QBD needs.....but the QBD is no behemoth, it''s only larger than the Qute series (but smaller than most DACs), and the real estate is necessary for a good internal power supply, single ended and balanced outputs, AES, SPDIF, toslink, USB, etc. It is a home DAC and most will require the necessary set of input/outputs. I doubt it will have a volume control, but who knows. I think Chord will have a server/streamer product update too.

 

IMHO Chord makes their "impressions" with timbre, pacing and dynamics. But I understand the marketing features are what sells many of today's audiophiles. I'd rather a master of one rather than a jack of all trades. My $.02

Link to comment
I would be more excited if all the Hugo technology would be translated into the Cute Form Factor. Not that QBD is big, it's also beautifully proportioned.

 

But I cannot help to think that quality can improve with more space for components to "breathe" and perform ok in termic terms. After all it's an analog component!

 

For the QBD replacement, if Chord is to make quite an impression they should integrate a network player inside (ethernet in) besides usb; That would keep me really interested and making a lot of math...they have the know how.

 

MikeJazz, Chord already has a few streamers DSX1000, Code X, MX Series IX, Chordette Hi-Fi and Home Audio, music systems, components, home cinema

Link to comment
MikeJazz, Chord already has a few streamers DSX1000, Code X, MX Series IX, Chordette Hi-Fi and Home Audio, music systems, components, home cinema

Just to add to that... My understanding is the DSX1000 is a QBD76 plus streaming board and the CodeX is QuteEX plus streaming board and updated PSU.

 

I imagine as the QBD is replaced there will be a new streamer in the same way as their Reference CD player (originally a DAC64 plus Blu transport essentially) was updated as their DAC developed.

 

Eloise

Eloise

---

...in my opinion / experience...

While I agree "Everything may matter" working out what actually affects the sound is a trickier thing.

And I agree "Trust your ears" but equally don't allow them to fool you - trust them with a bit of skepticism.

keep your mind open... But mind your brain doesn't fall out.

Link to comment
Just to add to that... My understanding is the DSX1000 is a QBD76 plus streaming board and the CodeX is QuteEX plus streaming board and updated PSU.

 

I imagine as the QBD is replaced there will be a new streamer in the same way as their Reference CD player (originally a DAC64 plus Blu transport essentially) was updated as their DAC developed.

 

Eloise

 

Both DSX1000 and CodeX also include an inbuilt analogue volume control as used in Chord's CPA8000 Reference preamp

Link to comment
Both DSX1000 and CodeX also include an inbuilt analogue volume control as used in Chord's CPA8000 Reference preamp

You are correct :-)

Eloise

---

...in my opinion / experience...

While I agree "Everything may matter" working out what actually affects the sound is a trickier thing.

And I agree "Trust your ears" but equally don't allow them to fool you - trust them with a bit of skepticism.

keep your mind open... But mind your brain doesn't fall out.

Link to comment

I have had mine for 3 months now. I bought it for portable use and it drives my AKG Q701 headphones better than anything else I have tried.

These are my favourite headphones but seem very hard to drive.

Rob Watts stated in one thread where its output was being questioned that it has enough power to drive efficient speakers directly.

I have a pair of 108dB/watt speakers and if I can be bothered to make up leads I may well try it!

 

It is a bit big, for a portable, but it contains a good range of inputs and outputs, which make it wide even using miniature connectors and switches. Swings and roundabouts!

 

All in all one of the most satisfactory bits of kit I have bought in decades.

Frank[br]Mac mini, Amarra, Pure vinyl, Resolution Cantata, Metric Halo LIO-8, dCs P8i,DeVialet 800, Goldmund Mim 20/36+/22/29.4, Epilog 1&2[br]Reference Turntable Ortofon Jubilee pickup

Link to comment
  • 4 weeks later...

Confused by Rob Watts mention of DXD here, any thoughts?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenLeo View Post

 

Hi Rob,

 

Given that there are no native DSD player for the Android platform so far and HUGO actually decimates DSD rather than playing it in native form, is it possible to transform a DSD file into a PCM file that is equivalent to the decimated form of the HUGO or would you suggest any next better alternative?

 

Matt from Chord tells me that the Android situation re DSD may be solved shortly.

 

The filter actually used in the Hugo to filter DSD is much more sophisticated than normal DSD to PCM filters - there are actually two dedicated custom DSP cores handling it. I doubt very much that you would get Hugo performance from regular computer converters. It would also have to be DXD output (352.8k 24 bit) - which would be a huge file size.

I have a strong suspicion that the Hugo DSD conversion works so well because it converts DSD back to DXD, the original DSD mastering recording standard, without the front end ADC noise shaper noise, or the DSD noise shaper noise, as all this is filtered out.

 

Rob

DIGITAL: Windows 7 x64 JRMC19 >Adnaco S3B fiber over USB (battery power)> Auralic Vega > Tortuga LDR custom LPSU > Zu Union Cubes + Deep Hemp Sub

 

ANALOG: PTP Audio Solid 9 > Audiomods Series V > Audio Technica Art-7 MC > Allnic H1201 > Tortuga LDR > Zu Union Cubes + Deep Hemp Sub

 

ACCESSORIES: PlatterSpeed, BlackCat cables, Antipodes Cables, Huffman Cables, Feickert Protracter, OMA Graphite mat, JRemote

Link to comment

First off, Rob was answering a question (not quoted here) about whether offline PCM conversion would be as good as Hugo's internal. He said you'd have to use DXD (at least).

 

With regard to his "DXD, the original mastering recording" I posed the question

Rob,

Why do you assume all DSD recordings began as DXD? One of my jobs is as tech advisor for NativeDSD.com, a label co-op website where we sell stereo and multichannel DSD recordings. And yes, if the DSD was edited and mixed out of the box then Pyramix converted it to DXD for those edits or EQ's. However, many labels, like Jared's Channel Classics (the owner of the NativeDSD website) don;t go there. Jared does all his balancing and session work before the production recording, so no EQ or edit is applied. Worst case it's a millisecond time slice.....

Ted

 

Rob chatted me back:

Yes agreed some DSD is straight through, then it is not DXD as a source. But I don't think that changes anything; the HF noise is so awful with DSD 64 or DSD 128, it has to be filtered out, and for the best sound this has to be done digitally.

 

Some posters, because of my posts here, on other forums have said that Hugo decimates DSD therefore it must be bad. Too many audiophiles listen with their heads and not their ears (not including you here Ted!). One can theorize as much as you like, but at the end of the day it's a careful AB listening test that counts. When I developed Hugo, I did careful AB listening tests with this decimating DSD filter against a less capable (in terms of filter rejection) non decimating filter. Hugo's decimating filter easily won hands down - DSD was much smoother, with better focus and instrument separation. Indeed, I was surprised how much better it was.

 

Rob

Link to comment

The Hugo might indeed have great fidelity, but I found this very questionable. It's not a "DSD DAC" is it...if it is converting to DXD?

 

First off, Rob was answering a question (not quoted here) about whether offline PCM conversion would be as good as Hugo's internal. He said you'd have to use DXD (at least).

 

With regard to his "DXD, the original mastering recording" I posed the question

Rob,

Why do you assume all DSD recordings began as DXD? One of my jobs is as tech advisor for NativeDSD.com, a label co-op website where we sell stereo and multichannel DSD recordings. And yes, if the DSD was edited and mixed out of the box then Pyramix converted it to DXD for those edits or EQ's. However, many labels, like Jared's Channel Classics (the owner of the NativeDSD website) don;t go there. Jared does all his balancing and session work before the production recording, so no EQ or edit is applied. Worst case it's a millisecond time slice.....

Ted

 

Rob chatted me back:

Yes agreed some DSD is straight through, then it is not DXD as a source. But I don't think that changes anything; the HF noise is so awful with DSD 64 or DSD 128, it has to be filtered out, and for the best sound this has to be done digitally.

 

Some posters, because of my posts here, on other forums have said that Hugo decimates DSD therefore it must be bad. Too many audiophiles listen with their heads and not their ears (not including you here Ted!). One can theorize as much as you like, but at the end of the day it's a careful AB listening test that counts. When I developed Hugo, I did careful AB listening tests with this decimating DSD filter against a less capable (in terms of filter rejection) non decimating filter. Hugo's decimating filter easily won hands down - DSD was much smoother, with better focus and instrument separation. Indeed, I was surprised how much better it was.

 

Rob

DIGITAL: Windows 7 x64 JRMC19 >Adnaco S3B fiber over USB (battery power)> Auralic Vega > Tortuga LDR custom LPSU > Zu Union Cubes + Deep Hemp Sub

 

ANALOG: PTP Audio Solid 9 > Audiomods Series V > Audio Technica Art-7 MC > Allnic H1201 > Tortuga LDR > Zu Union Cubes + Deep Hemp Sub

 

ACCESSORIES: PlatterSpeed, BlackCat cables, Antipodes Cables, Huffman Cables, Feickert Protracter, OMA Graphite mat, JRemote

Link to comment
Rob chatted me back:

Yes agreed some DSD is straight through, then it is not DXD as a source. But I don't think that changes anything; the HF noise is so awful with DSD 64 or DSD 128, it has to be filtered out, and for the best sound this has to be done digitally.

 

On what basis is the HF noise inherent in DSD objectionable? It is a fundamental artifact of any 1-bit pulse density modulation bit stream, and can affect marginally stable downstream amplification by it modulating the audio frequencies. But is that a DSD fault? To me, it's like the throwing out the baby with the bathwater argument. In a well designed system, it has no negative affect. But the filtering necessary to eliminating it largely also negatively impacts the analog qualities that make DSD sound so attractive, and analog like.

Link to comment

Hifitubes, any DAC that accepts a DSD bitstream has been labeled a DSD-capable DAC. Then one needs to listen to hear how well DSD is processed and played back (as analog). Hundreds of DACs do this now, and only four or five are true one-bit architectures or chipless analog filters (EMM, Meitner, Playback Designs, Lampizator) that leave DSD as one-bit until the analog outputs. So if that is your goal, reduce your listening to those DACs. They will likely impress you with their DSD playback.

 

My point in quoting Rob is twofold:

1) it's nice when the mfg (or in this case the actual developer) is transparent about what happens internally with the DAC. As so often with those hundreds of DSD-capable DACs the actual machinations are kept away from the buyer as intellectual property. We are so concerned with faux-hi-rez (from a software side) that this skepticism is high, and frankly healthy. In Rob's case he seems eager to reveal the process, as he and Chord see it as an opportunity to educate and flaunt their FPGA accumen. (By the way, it ain't just DXD..the signal is upsampled to 2048FS for filtering, etc before that).

2) to illustrate that their are many ways to skin this cat. I'd love to have myself and CA readers get more and more educated as to why something sounds the way it does. Many DSD-capable DACs have obvious sweetspots (often PCM sources) and are average at others. When a DAC comes along and seems to handle both PCM and DSD with good control, timbre and pace then its time to highlight those units (and understand why, to some extent). I'm personally evaluating whether the Hugo is one of those.

Link to comment
Hifitubes, any DAC that accepts a DSD bitstream has been labeled a DSD-capable DAC. Then one needs to listen to hear how well DSD is processed and played back (as analog). Hundreds of DACs do this now, and only four or five are true one-bit architectures or chipless analog filters (EMM, Meitner, Playback Designs, Lampizator) that leave DSD as one-bit until the analog outputs. So if that is your goal, reduce your listening to those DACs. They will likely impress you with their DSD playback.

 

There are far more native DSD DACs than the ones mentioned above. For example, Marantz makes native DSD DACs and streamers. Luxman too. Hegel has a native DSD128 DAC with AKM chip on the way... the list goes on and on.

 

02_HD12.jpg

 

As for the 'awful' noise, Sony's new HAP-Z1ES HDD Player has no noise bump at all. Same for Miska's DSD DAC. Even Teac's UD-501 delivers up to 100dB of SNR up to 100kHz at DSD128, and it doesn't go through PCM process either.

Link to comment

Hiro, before we take this tangent back to the topic at hand:

1) those DACs you mention do not keep DSD at one bit till the analog stage. That is all I said. Many "purists" will scoff at 4-5-6 bit DSD, saying they are nothing but SDM, which is a PCM kissing cousin family member. I don't want to go there on this thread. I am simply trying to clear up a misquote from me. AKM does not make a one-bit chip, nor does SABRE or Cirrus logic.

2) there is no debate that I love DSD. There is also no debate that PCM and DSD formats have noise that needs filtering. DSD has inherent noise, due to noise shaping, and that some sort of ultra high freq filtering needs to be applied or it will affect frequencies we do hear. When it's done right it's great (cuz it's simpler, not easier, but simpler, than brickwalled PCM, and gets even simpler as you move to DSD128 and DSD256) The Sony has noise up there (I heard it in a modded unit that was a prototype and required a little more analog filtering) and if you didn't hear it means they, Sony, delivered a great filter (which they did), or that your system is immune to the artifacts of poor filtering.

Link to comment
Hiro, before we take this tangent back to the topic at hand:

1) those DACs you mention do not keep DSD at one bit till the analog stage. That is all I said. Many "purists" will scoff at 4-5-6 bit DSD, saying they are nothing but SDM, which is a PCM kissing cousin family member.

 

Then they are simply wrong. SDM is DSD, not PCM kissing cousin LOL! The people who think that a 1-bit SDM stream played back through 5-bit SDM loses anything of its nativeness need to wake up and smell the coffee.

 

AKM does make native DSD chips, and Hegel is using one of them in its upcoming HD12 DAC. Wolfson, Burr Brown, and Cirrus Logic also make native DSD DACs.

 

The Sony has noise up there (I heard it in a modded unit that was a prototype and required a little more analog filtering) and if you didn't hear it means they, Sony, delivered a great filter (which they did), or that your system is immune to the artifacts of poor filtering.

 

Check out Stereophile's measurements of the Sony unit. No noise bump spotted.

Link to comment
The people who think that a 1-bit SDM stream played back through 5-bit SDM loses anything of its nativeness need to wake up and smell the coffee.

 

We are in agreement that the right requantization works well for music, and that purists who run away when requantization is mentioned are often looking (not hearing) at the wrong thing.

 

Check out Stereophile's measurements of the Sony unit. No noise bump spotted.

 

? I agreed. It's what I just said above. They filter it well.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...