Chord Hugo Re-Examined

[ted_b]

Al, once again, who are you directing this question to? If me, then "mini" is the wrong USB cable, Al! I've mentioned many times...a mini USB connector is NOT a micro USB connector. We need MICRO for Hugo. I wouldn't worry about subway-grade anything. A stock USB cable is fine for listening on the subway.

[ALRAINBOW]

Anyone hahaha sorry yes micro . Why would it not matter in the subway as I use a iPhone 5 witha camera adaptor . So do you think I am going to waist my money on a better one ?

I am asking you ted lmao.

Al

[ted_b]

Al, why is this LMAO territory? Micro is the name of the connector, not mini. And the subway is hardly the quiet of your dedicated room-treated listening room. So the choices for setting up listening to music on the NY subway are hardly the same as the tolerances required for listening in a dedicated room with full-range speakers properly positioned 6 ft out into the room, for example. I would not think this is highly debatable. if you think so, then buy a JCAT or TotalDac D1 USB cable and an Audioquest micro USB adapter and go for it.

[junker]

I did have a dealer tell me he thought it didn't have as much bass as the Qute. Are they not running as much bias current or same op-amps before to save the battery?

 

* The Kylie comment is funny btw!

[hersorin]

What disadvantages has Bel Canto 3.5 ? I am interested to buy a Bel Canto 3.5 . My system is Pioneer S1 EX and Unison Unico 200 .

Thanks

[ALRAINBOW]

Al, why is this LMAO territory? Micro is the name of the connector, not mini. And the subway is hardly the quiet of your dedicated room-treated listening room. So the choices for setting up listening to music on the NY subway are hardly the same as the tolerances required for listening in a dedicated room with full-range speakers properly positioned 6 ft out into the room, for example. I would not think this is highly debatable. if you think so, then buy a JCAT or TotalDac D1 USB cable and an Audioquest micro USB adapter and go for it.

Ted

I laughed cause as hard as I try I still screw up the terms I guess it's not funny to all.

Regarding the subway comment. To be honest as good as the dac is to you or some i am not using it in any of my dedecated rooms although I did give it a listen in one of them .

The whole reason for buying the device is for the subway and or travel as such why would I not try to achieve a better sound if possible. Beyond this I need an angle micro connector as well , but using a full size USB and adaptor i would think might strain things a bit . I read about someone who damaged there's already .

Thanks for replying

al

[chrille]

I tried to explain basically what you are saying,in a maybe much less polite way. But it still bugs me a bit to keep reading a lot of absolute nonsense on many threads here from people who obviously have got no clue whatsoever,as to what makes a true reference point regarding SQ. For me there is only ONE e g live acoustic music performed and recorded as realistically as possible. Everything else and especially the compressed and completely artificial pop rock genre has little to do with HI FI at all.

Before I get too far in my not so polite way. Let me just say that connected either straight to my 910 watts per channel power amp and played via my electrostatic speakers or via my HD 800 headphones ,this amazing little thing the HUGO comes closer to the sound I heard live in churches and concert halls during actual recording sessions both in DXD and DSD than any other consumer product I have heard so far!.And I have heard some costing a lot more that don't get even close to Hugo's resolution. Unlike the thread starter who said that "the Hugo effect was wearing off" I would say if it does, either you have a malfunctioning unit ,or you need to re-calibrate your ears and /or get some better listening material for your comparisons "Nuff said"

 

This is funny stuff, and as I kinda like funny stuff I'm gonna poke my noggin in...

 

'It seems their consensus is that the battery power is holding it back and unlilke a great LPSU cannt deliver the full body and do justice to the SOTA digital section.'

 

Actually it seems that 'they' have absolutely no basic understanding about power supply design period, nor that of the output stage design employed in the Hugo.

 

Which is entirely understandable given that most consumers of hifi gear are simply that, and perhaps also great lovers of music... The technicalities of how the gear works is usually far beyond their scope of interest or comprehension.

 

I don't have much motivation to spend too much time on the subject here (instead, below I have cut and pasted a couple of my own prior posts, either from PM's, or on other forums -aka. Humble Experiences).

 

However for those inclined, I do know that Rob Watts the designer of the Hugo has explained several more salient facets of the power supply and output stage design over on the Head-Fi forum, and both aspects are indeed quite remarkable achievements on both levels of ingenuity, and capability.

 

The Hugo really breaks new ground with its output stage design as far as raw current ability and EXTREMELY low impedance....

 

Humble experience #1:

 

Recently I spent quite sometime experimenting with various options of transformer coupling/fully balanced conversion of the HUGO output to determine various sonic outcomes between components in my system. Ultimately reverting back to the HUGO directly driving pseudo balanced lines into my pro gear directly as it has ZERO issue driving 30 foot plus lines to my quad amped fully active monitors, and actually sounds better like that than via any other means !!)

 

In my case the HUGO as previously mentioned has nothing short of astounding bottom end, not only quantity but even moreso, quality of definition.

As a recording engineer who is also involved in production and much less frequently mastering, I was doing back to back tests with the latest dac from Prism Sound (these are commonly employed as Mastering Studio Reference Dac's worldwide) a couple of weeks back, and the low end drive & resolution of the Hugo was unequivocally far advanced over that of the Prism, as superb as it was.

 

In fact the HUGO was simply the much more resolving and NATURAL sounding device in ALL respects.

Upon first listen, without any clue as to which was which, my loving female partner (!) immediately remarked how dac B was significantly more pronounced in the low end dynamics, sure enough dac B was the HUGO, and although the bass was what she immediately noticed, it was not due to any imbalance of the rest of the spectrum as she, like myself noted that recorded spacial cues defining the ambient nature of the samples we listened to were also much more lifelike.

 

Humble experience #2

 

Just for chuckles earlier today I soldered up a 1/4" jack and connected it directly from one of the the Hugo's headphone outputs to my pair of custom Zingali speakers (2 x 15" bass + 2 x 15" horn) in the main room... running SOLELY from its internal batteries, fed via usb (self powered and no OS X driver required) from a MacBook Air with Audirvana+, playing all kinds of music from my own recordings to stuff like the truly phenomenal Joe Holland Klipsch Tape Project in DSD128.

Totally off the grid, totally off the planet, brother.

 

Hugo IS the Brother From Another Planet*

 

Up to what many would call LOUD listening levels what we heard was extremely well resolved, articulate, spacially and tonally complete with bottom end that plumbed the depths with composure.

 

No it did not compete with my $20k tube reference amp, the insanely dynamic and sublime Silbatone JI-300B equipped with NOS Western Electric 300B's, 16lB silver foil output transformers and an ultra low impedance Mil-Spec power supply etc, etc... but seriously,

 

Fark Me !!!

 

........................

 

So when I hear cats out there essentially saying that the Hugo lacks fullness of body with its Achilles heel rather likely being its feeble battery power supply (which employs Li-po batteries having enough instantaneous current potential to start a cold motor vehicle engine, or spot weld a lackadaisical technicians screw driver to the chassis).... I really do laugh.... out LOUD :^]

 

When I had the QuteEX I modified a high current fully discrete power supply to supply exceptionally low noise to it, yes it was an improvement over the supplied $10 switching wall-wart supply, but it was of its own incapable of transforming the Qute into the truly reference class (IMHO) device which the Hugo unequivocally is, to me, in my system/s, YMMV yada, yada .....

 

A point I'd like to add, and one which I believe is most relevant is that very few devices in the world of shall we say 'hifi' as different from the broadcast industry, are in fact designed to be truly transparent to the source.

Notably the few which do bridge these markets are more often disparaged than embraced by audiophiles.

Most every device is voiced to represent either the designers inclinations or that of a perceived market.... Such a context sounds initially absurd, surely these esteemed designers are seeking 'the truth, the original sound', are they not ??

 

Rarely.

 

....and perhaps for many a good reason, that I am not here to question.

 

Hifi.. is a hobby, it's supposed to be about suspending disbelief and there are many avenues by which to pursue this goal. The journey, is often a larger part of the fun !

 

Just as the cd mastered with greater compression initially may appear to be the one with a better sound, or the TV in the show room with its colours and contrast tweaked for punch, the meal with enhanced levels of salt or msg for flavour, the girl with enhanced... Y'all catch my drift :-P

 

A bespoke built room acoustically treated and optimised for minimal sonic anomaly, with speakers similarly tuned, can initially sound to the unfamiliar, shall we say somewhat lacklustre, maybe even dull or lacking something.

Indeed visitors to my space are not immediately struck with sonic excitement.

Although many many hours later, I have often been asked, 'so what's for breakfast ?' !!!!!!

 

Similarly I find the Hugo as a device which is a considerable departure from many other products of its vein by its apparent absence of intentional voicing, embellishment or discrepancy.

 

This can be a double edged sword.. on one hand it is entirely undemonstrative, thus I can see why some may find its character as almost insufficiently descript or developed, whilst on the other it's almost too capable for its own good, as much as there are some people whom may in fact not 'connect', nor wish to revel in such unadorned, unadulterated clarity and correctness to the source !

 

Although even then, excluding such aspects of patent artifice, it also displays something profoundly pleasurable and simultaneously intangible, an innate sense of timing and flow the degree of which up to this point I have only ascribed as belonging outside of the digital domain.

 

My references for sonic truth are not recordings made by others, of voices and instruments with which I am intimately unfamiliar, (to the contrary)...yet all too often such arbitrary comparisons (relative or otherwise), as 'reviews' define others judgements.

 

The Hugo fares exceptionally well in regards to my own captured source/replay comparisons. Ideally what I would really like to have for capture is an ADC which similarly employs Rob Watts brilliant technological developments.

 

Opinions, such as my own are merely that, and like my own should never be taken too seriously. Just read between the lines and listen with your own ears heheheh.

 

On that note I will pull the plug by saying that Hugo may require one to 're-calibrate' their sonic replay preconceptions, or not.

Different will remain different and better will hopefully always come, there is nothing quite like the real thing after all.

 

If it does happen to pleasurably tickle your auditory bones however, you can always pack it along with a portable music source, your favourite pair of headphones and take a mountain hike or head to a tropical island escape and get fully immersed in the transcendental healing power of music.... That's what I'm about to do anyway.

[johndoe21ro]

What disadvantages has Bel Canto 3.5 ? I am interested to buy a Bel Canto 3.5 . My system is Pioneer S1 EX and Unison Unico 200 .

Thanks

 

This is not the appropriate thread for your question. This is a thread about the Chord Hugo DAC and anything linked to it.

[rossb]

"Nuff said"

 

Yes.

[RKlein]

Howdy:

 

I am the "Classically Trained Friend" of Ted's. Over the years I have had the pleasure of 4-5 DACS in my system. Some of which are currently being discussed on this forum. These DACS ranged in price from $1k to $3k. Rather than get into this DAC is better than that DAC, I would choose instead to focus on what I heard when listening to the Hugo in Ted's sublime system.

 

As some of you already know, I am a classically trained musician. I have had the opportunity to play in the Philadelphia Orchestra and the Pittsburgh Symphony while in college and played in symphony orchestras for over 35 years.

 

What I listen for and what "floats my boat is not so much hearing every little thing that was recorded but more the timbre and tone of the recording. In addition, the musicality/performance of the artist is way more important to me than whether the recording medium was vinyl, RB, HiRez, DSD, etc. This view is in direct conflict of what audiophiles might consider to be a "great" recording. An example of this would be my collection of 78 recordings of Fritz Kreisler, who was a great Austrian violin virtuoso at the end of the 19th and early 20th century. Even though the audio quality on the 78's are atrocious, one can easily hear Kreisler's burnished tone and the warmth of his playing shine right through.

 

While some have stated that the "clarity" of the Hugo is a minus, I would beg to differ. For me, the separation and placement of instruments both in sound and timbre are essential to my enjoyment. The Hugo delivered this is spades while maintaining a fullness to the overall sound. Never did I think the Hugo the least bit clinical. In addition, I did not find it light on bass. I did find the bass very well defined. The first cut from Patricia Barber (A Fortnight in Paris) was mesmerizing. Classical music was also a joy to listen to.

 

While at Ted's, he did put into the system a DAC costing 3x's the Hugo. After a time he reinserted the Hugo and it was like going back to your Mother's comfort food or a very nice Merlot. I will leave the technology behind this DAC to others. To my ears, the Hugo does exactly what I want it to do and that is to let me enjoy the music. What a plus to be able to take the Hugo out of my main system and cart it upstairs and have the ability to listen in bed with closed cans! In my humble opinion, Chord has come up with an outstanding offering in the Hugo for a very competitive price.

 

Regards,

 

Randy

[earflappin]

Howdy:

 

I am the "Classically Trained Friend" of Ted's. Over the years I have had the pleasure of 4-5 DACS in my system. Some of which are currently being discussed on this forum. These DACS ranged in price from $1k to $3k. Rather than get into this DAC is better than that DAC, I would choose instead to focus on what I heard when listening to the Hugo in Ted's sublime system.

 

As some of you already know, I am a classically trained musician. I have had the opportunity to play in the Philadelphia Orchestra and the Pittsburgh Symphony while in college and played in symphony orchestras for over 35 years.

 

What I listen for and what "floats my boat is not so much hearing every little thing that was recorded but more the timbre and tone of the recording. In addition, the musicality/performance of the artist is way more important to me than whether the recording medium was vinyl, RB, HiRez, DSD, etc. This view is in direct conflict of what audiophiles might consider to be a "great" recording. An example of this would be my collection of 78 recordings of Fritz Kreisler, who was a great Austrian violin virtuoso at the end of the 19th and early 20th century. Even though the audio quality on the 78's are atrocious, one can easily hear Kreisler's burnished tone and the warmth of his playing shine right through.

 

While some have stated that the "clarity" of the Hugo is a minus, I would beg to differ. For me, the separation and placement of instruments both in sound and timbre are essential to my enjoyment. The Hugo delivered this is spades while maintaining a fullness to the overall sound. Never did I think the Hugo the least bit clinical. In addition, I did not find it light on bass. I did find the bass very well defined. The first cut from Patricia Barber (A Fortnight in Paris) was mesmerizing. Classical music was also a joy to listen to.

 

While at Ted's, he did put into the system a DAC costing 3x's the Hugo. After a time he reinserted the Hugo and it was like going back to your Mother's comfort food or a very nice Merlot. I will leave the technology behind this DAC to others. To my ears, the Hugo does exactly what I want it to do and that is to let me enjoy the music. What a plus to be able to take the Hugo out of my main system and cart it upstairs and have the ability to listen in bed with closed cans! In my humble opinion, Chord has come up with an outstanding offering in the Hugo for a very competitive price.

 

Regards,

 

Randy

 

Randy, thanks for an excellent post. Based on your, and other user reviews, I am adding the HUGO to my 'new DAC' shortlist.

[Clemmaster]

Excellent write-up there rossb!

 

Having owned (and deeply enjoyed) the QuteHD + TeddyPSU for 6 month, I pretty much agree with you that the Hugo is quite a departure from the analog and full-bodied sound of the qute.

It is, indeed, more resolving and has that ability to not sound harsh at the same time, that is quite something (though my PCM1704-based SA-2 does the same, albeit with slightly less details).

I can't help but thing they both have their place in the line-up and, while more refined overall, the Hugo is in the crystal clear camp, which might not suit everybody.

 

I should add the Hugo wins in features, hands down. The built-in amp is really good and the battery operation is very convenient to move it to others systems. The build quality is sub-par, though.

[ALRAINBOW]

Clemaster your a hugo hater hahahahaha. Just kidding. As I think its important for those who are classically trained to way in , I also feel they sometimes miss what everyone else warns or likes. So let me try to explain my view first off no form of recording nor reproduction is real as in a live in amped venue . So the moment we go from live to anything else having any form of real time experience will be very different from mine.

As in I have none . The why is simple it's just only has sounds that we know is lets say a piano . As good as it sounds does it sound correct to you ? Looking for timbre as you do is a must for you do know what is correct for most of us we only know what makes our brains feel its good. So inherently the two must be different. I found this out by accident as my 7 year old is taking piano lessons . I pride myself falsely on great equipment . So how come a 30 k DAC and another 12k in amps and headphones does not come close to a real piano . Same issue occurs with speakers as well. So in short if it sounds great to you

this is all the matters not a review or someone else's view including mine and having been trained only helps you not the rest.

Al

[Clemmaster]

It is indeed very hard to do piano right.

 

I have a special album that tells me immediately if the system sounds "right" or not: Thomas Newman - Horse Whisperer original score.

I don't think it is particularly well recorded, but the piano tracks are very hard to make sound right. Slightly too dark and the air is gone and the piano sounds muted (completely off). Slightly too warm and the piano sounds heavy and muffled.

Only Hifiman headphones do this right for me. The LCD-x was bad. Surprisingly, the QuteHD was very good, even though it is quite warm. Its ability to be warm and ​clean always wowed me.

[ALRAINBOW]

Post a link please

[Clemmaster]

 

Edit: despite the lower bitrate, this version actually seems to sound better than mine. Weird.

I must have a re-encoded version that is not 320kbps...

[rossb]

Al, I agree with you, live music just sounds so different - and better by orders of magnitude - than any hi fi system. This was reinforced for me when I attended a concert earlier in the week, of the Mahler 4th symphony and Sibelius 6. No hi fi system in the world can reproduce the sound of a full orchestra in a good venue.

 

I was again comparing the Hugo to my Invicta Mirus last night. I really want to like the Mirius better than the Hugo - it was twice as expensive and has so many more features. It does sound a little warmer and a little more colourful. But the Mirus, like most digital components, does not have the natural sound that even vinyl - despite all its faults - is able to produce. When we listen to a vinyl record, we hear all the noise, the distortions, the compression etc - but it doesn't take a mental effort to hear music in the way that digital does. The main achievement, for me, of the Hugo is that it is able to produce the same sense of naturalness, the same sense of realness that vinyl does, but without the disadvantages. The Hugo makes it easier just to hear the music without the "suspension of disbelief" that must be overcome with other digital components.

[tgb]

dear rossb

you tested the calyx M vs Hugo with headphones.

Did you try on speakers thru your preamp and amp ?

If yes do you confirm they sound different, and how ?

thks

Rgds

[rossb]

The Calyx M did not have sufficient output to be used the with preamp into my main system, so it would not be a fair comparison, and I did not pursue it.

 

Through headphones, the Calyx M is a little more colourful and dynamic, while being just as resolving. That said, the Hugo is also excellent with headphones, particularly custom IEMs.

[trappy]

I don't suppose that there is a way to mute the RCA outs when plugging in a headphone? My wife is anxious to not hear the Schoenberg Violin Concerto...

[ted_b]

I don't suppose that there is a way to mute the RCA outs when plugging in a headphone? My wife is anxious to not hear the Schoenberg Violin Concerto...

 

The outputs are all the same. I'd simply turn off the downstream equipment from the RCAs.

[trappy]

I'm running it direct into a power amp which I prefer not to turn off, but yeah I guess that's the way to do it (grumble, grumble.) I almost wish I didn't love the sound of this thing so much, because the form factor is somewhat irritating. But it really is mind-blowingly good...

[skyline]

I'm listening to the Hugo with Audezes. I was previously running a full home headphone setup.

 

The Hugo is very good. It's definitely changed the way I listen to music. I listen to Spotify premium and I had an "a ha" moment the first time I heard Spotify this way.

 

It's very good that I'm not sure I miss my previous full setup.

[trappy]

Funny, I was listening to the Hugo earlier (even at only 10 hours it's great!) and then went back to the Benchmark Dac2D. It was like moving from a spacious meadow to an office cubicle. But now it's a bit later and I'm listening to the Benchmark without the immediate Hugo comparison and it still sounds like one of the best DACs I've heard. Very puzzling.

[rossb]

I thought I should update this thread, now that I have traded my Hugo for the QBD76. (Cross-posted from stereo.net..au.)

 

First, the QBD76 is without doubt the best dac I have ever heard. In saying this, I have not heard any of the super-expensive dacs, such as the MSB, DCS, Playback Designs, or even Weiss or Berkeley dacs, so cannot compare with those dacs. However, I can say that the QBD76 comprehensively demolishes the Bel Canto DAC 3.5 and the Resonessence Invicta Mirus.

 

The sound from the QBD76 is tonally rich and colourful, dynamic, detailed while remaining full-bodied, as well as being dramatic and musical. Bass seems to extend an octave deeper than I have heard with any previous dac. Images are large, fleshed out and realistic. This dac presents music with more presence and realism than I have heard with any digital component, and better than most turntables. Compare this with the Invicta Mirus, which sounded artificial, digital and totally non-musical by comparison. The Bel Canto Dac 3.5 was previously the best dac I had owned, and did have a rich, enveloping sound. But the Chord dac just resolves more tonal colour and complexities, while sounding more "real" and being generally more musical. And I was also unprepared for just how physically stunning this dac is. I really have nothing to criticise.

 

The comparison with the QuteHD and Hugo is interesting. The QBD76 sounds more like the QuteHD than it does the Hugo. There were suggestions when the QuteHD came out that it was 90% of the performance of the QBD76 for 20% of the cost. There is clearly a family resemblance, but it is like comparing a Corolla to a Lexus, even though they may come from the same factory. Even with a linear PSU the QuteHD is maybe 70% of the performance of the QBD76. The QuteHD sounds sensational, particularly at its price (I could easily have lived with it), but the additional fullness, depth and richness that the QBD76 brings is very substantial.

 

The Hugo is said to contain newer technology, and Chord have been saying that the Hugo is now their best dac, surpassing the QBD76. This was why I was hesitating in buying one. My original plan was to wait for the replacement for the QBD76, with the latest technology. But my guess is that that is at least a year away, and I did not have the patience to wait that long. Particularly when the few people who have done the comparison all seem to suggest that the QBD76 remains the better dac. And I agree with them, the QBD76 is no doubt better than the Hugo.

 

I should add here that - as noted in my initial post- I was becoming a little disillusioned with the Hugo. Whereas the QuteHD initially underwhelmed me, and I intended to sell it within a few weeks of buying it, the Hugo did the opposite. The QuteHD got progressively better, and slowly persuaded me how good it was. The Hugo started off sounding brilliant, but slowly some doubts crept in to the point where I was happy to trade it in on the QBD76. Let me be clear: the Hugo remains an outstanding dac, and a landmark product. It is incredibly resolving, particularly of high frequencies and transients, and has a real sense of presence. However, I started to find the sound a little insubstantial. It did not have the fullness or texture I was looking for. Tonally, it was a little colourless. It lacked the dynamics of other dacs. I do not want to exaggerate these "shortcomings" - they were very slight and took months to become apparent (to me, at least). I started to prefer the QuteHD for its bigger, richer, more dynamic sound, even though it clearly was not as resolving as the Hugo. The same is true again of the QBD76. It is like a QuteHD on steroids. It paints musical pictures in big, bold, colourful strokes. The Hugo just cannot match this. So to those who say that the Hugo is now Chord's best dac, I can only disagree. But then again I can only imagine how good Chord's replacement for the QBD76 will be.