Chord Hugo

I have the Cavalli Liquid Carbon coming. Am looking forward to seeing how it sounds with the Hugo, especially with my Ethers, which are also so smooth and transparent that, for some kinds of music (rock, blues, Coltrane, etc.), I find myself wanting a little more oomph. 
 
Then again, listening to ambient, or Rennaisance choral music, or acoustic guitar, Hugo + Ether is so glorious I don't see how it could be improved upon.

You can't gain accuracy with an amplifier fed by the Hugo.  But you can strengthen the signal so as to properly drive those speakers/headphones that require more power,  thus you hear the accuracy of the feed.  How much accuracy you lose is determined by the amplifiers design and it's transparency.  Obviously the speakers and headphones also play as much or more apart of that accuracy due to their transparency.
As far as coloration, each to their own.  Personally I want my SQ from the Hugo as accurate and transparent as possible.  Thus I built my system around the Hugo.

phonomat said:

 

jazz said:

  I'm not saying it's wrong to add an amp to the Hugo, but the reason is most likely not the lack of power (with exceptions), but the want for a more colorful, bassier presentation, which an external amps may achieve by means of euphonic coloration. It may result in a better sonic synergy, but inevitably comes with a loss of accuracy and transparency. There's no headphone amp in the Hugo, so no amp to be bypassed and improved upon. You can only make the signal less accurate.

Click to expand...

 
Completely agree with everything.
 

jazz said:

  Note that beautiful and spectacular isn't synonym for accurate! I for one use a software equalizer to get the sonic balance I want. It may not create the same effect as an amp, but that's what I'm thankful for.

Click to expand...

 
You see, that's the thing that baffles me. Of course they're not the same thing, but why on earth someone would prefer accuracy to beauty (which, as we know, lies in the ear of the beholder) is just completely beyond me, at least when it comes to private listening enjoyment. I'm not a sound engineer, I just like to listen to music I like. And as I see it, I'm the only one responsible for how I shape it. I guess it's possible to have a more theoretical approach to the whole complex and be more interested in the technical side of the hobby and the arms race/rat race towards some ideal of theoretically achievable perfect tonal accuracy -- which is, unnecessary to add, absolutely fine as well; celebrate diversity! It's just not really my thing.
 
And EQ'ing is great, I'm just dxxn lazy to permanently fiddle with minuscule controls by way of a minuscule cursor on a computer screen. Would drive me crazy. Speaking of which, if someone can recommend a great hardware EQ, I'd even be crazy enough to add that to the chain on top.

Click to expand...

 
I understand you to some degree, but my standpoint is that it's absurd to spend (possibly) thousand of $ for degrading the signal with the goal of making the sound more beautiful – if you can have that for free without the adverse effects of the former approach. Beauty and spectacularity on the one hand aren't equivalents of accuracy and transparency on the other hand – but they aren't opposites either. You can have both at once if you just dare to try it. Of course it takes some effort(s) and patience to get the right EQ curve, but you have to do it just once (per headphone), save it as preset and are done. Unless you're like me and are constantly trying to further improve the sonic balance, of course. That's hard for me to understand: how one can renounce this plausible option and go for the illogical just because it's more comfortable. I'm tempted to consider it a mere «consumer attitude».
 
 

edwardsean said:

  HI, I come from a different perspective. For a long time I used the Hugo straight, because it made sense to me that additional amplification would only degrade the signal. The thought was that you could add an amp for pleasing color/distortion. However, you could not improve on the sound quality; only alter it to taste. 
 
I think this approach may be misleading. The Hugo's output may top out for IEMs but more can be done for full-size phones. If this weren't the case, we would not have such things as small portable headphone amps. They would just be called headphone amps, built in the space required. The raft of full-size components that are employed in full-size headphone amps are doing more than providing an alternate frequency response or euphonic harmonics.
 
Compared to portables, including the Hugo, full-size amps improve on low-level detail, soundstage dimensions, imaging accuracy, dynamic range, etc., i.e., they improve on performance. The handling of voltage swings that translate into nimble dynamics that translate into realism of sound require certain components and design. A good full-size amp improves sound quality in ways you cannot expect from the Hugo. That is to say, there is a reason the Hugo TT exists. 
 
I should qualify, I cannot speak for entry-level to mid-tier full-size amps. In that case the tradeoffs might very well be a wash. However, the misleading part of the Hugo-only principle is that there is no way up by addition.  I'm currently using the excellent Moon Neo 430HA and it isn't just a different sound; it is better. 
 
So, though you are losing accuracy to the Hugo DAC signal, it should be pointed out that you are gaining accuracy in regards to the source recording. I understand that adding an amp to the Hugo does not net you the Hugo TT. In some ways it will be worse, and in some ways it will be better. This is where it becomes more a matter of taste. 

Click to expand...

 
I'm somewhat open to your arguments, but I don't think they're really valid – according to my own experience in the first place and relying on Rob Watts' reasonings, which should know best of us.
 
None of my amps comes close to the accuracy, transient response and lifelikeness of the direct connection. I don't have to care for the sonic balance, because I equalize. And I don't have to care for power, because the Hugo has it in spades – in view of the headphones it has to drive in my system: HE1000, HD 800, some IEMs. I never perceive any weakness during dynamic passages; in fact it sounds livelier and more dynamic than via detour through my amps (Corda Symphony, Opera and Concerto, Mapletree EAR+++ w. Black Gates, Talisman T-3H), especially the bass is more controlled. I have tried much more expensive amps in the past, and although I don't have them at my disposal for direct comparisons, I dare to say that the Symphony sounds closest to neutral of the ones I've auditioned. That's not to say there may not be more neutral ones, but I've come to the conclusion that every amp colors and degrades the signal to a considerable degree. Not just from guessing, but from systematic tests with DACs with low-impedance outputs capable of driving headphones (Theta Pro basic II, Bel Canto DAC2). I don't expect any amp to be an exception to this experience. And I don't expect any amp to offer any sonic advantage beside the signal degradation with the Hugo and my current main headphones according to my sonic ideal. Of course it's possible that other DACs with the same ampless concept may behave differently, but I vouch for the Hugo in this respect.

Jazz, I know that's your view and Rob Watts as well. I respectfully disagree. I doubt a long and technical exchange would yield any difference to your thinking or mine. I listened for what I was gaining and what I was losing, and my experience of amplifying the Hugo signal has been different from yours. I offer that different perspective so that users who want to upgrade sound quality won't be discouraged from trying out amps and deciding for themselves. 

uelong said:

However, if you're using the computer USB, the Regen does wonders; at least to my ears.

Click to expand...

does it bring up higher spl?

@JaZZ @edwardsean
 
why some ppl cant just state they like the sound of one device above any other, without making it the most absolutely accurate thing, and anything else would just technically degrade, ruin it, and what not, like if they were taking some super standardized measurements and not just listening with their ultra subjectively biased human hearing organs, and ultra biased thoughts by manufacturer's statements...
 
...pls just stop, that is utterly wrong to do without going full scientific, or writing 'imo' after every second word one writes,
 
u r just ruining this thread by writing something totally irrelevant, it's about listening to music ,not the gear...
 
btw, i highly recommend blind testing to all of ya prophets of truth (myself included)
 
cheers and peace

If someone is set in stone with his opinion and you don't like it, what's the problem?
Just hit the ignore button and be done.
 
If other people feel discouraged to try separate headphone amplification because one or two are strongly opinionated against it ... these folks have a bigger issue in life than headphones
I don't have the hugo, never heard it either, maybe the headphone output is no slouch, so be it. I don't care too much.
I have a DAC and a SACD player, both with a SE headphone output and neither of these is able to convey the music to my HD800 as the GSX-MK2 can, fed balanced from either of these sources. Listen for yourself and make a judgement if whatever you try sounds better with your favorite music. There is no DAC police out there, at least not in my area 

Isn't the notion that amplification adds distortion the same argument that tube amplification does the same thing and is therefore something better avoided?
And isn't this the same argument for passive preamps if no gain is needed? (Some like passive preamps, some prefer active ones, including tubed ones, but it is by no means an open and shut case.)
 
For instance, this is from the Placette site:
"Because Placette products are so transparent, they offer outstanding performance in just about any system. And since they don't have a sonic signature of their own, you can judge each new source or power amp on it's own merit, not just on how compatible it is with Preamp distortion."

jazz is right. adding an amp to Hugo is like introducing eq. punchier and impactful bass is nothing but compressing the dynamics specially the mid or lower mid bass. there is nothing wrong in it if some prefers it that way. but as some one pointed out, coming back to directly playing through Hugo, one understands what was missing. flatter and more transparent us the chain more headroom it has for everything. it is better perceived in watching movies through Hugo. movies have every kind of situations. I remember a scene of a club in a movie. Hugo so realistically portrayed the typical compressed bass beats of club music as if you were virtually there. adding any other chain would only degrade that ability to portray these different situations accurately. similarly a recorded live music situation would also be more accurate on Hugo.

I look at this from a different angle, my networking for my PC, I upgraded to a 200mbit plan with my ISP (let's say the Netgear R6250 router and the stock Intel AC7260 is the Hugo DAC and internal amp in this case) and had decent signal quality but inconsistent speed, so I upgraded the AC7260 to a TP Link T8E, now I have poorer signal quality but a much more consistent speed...

Does that above scenario mean that I should have stuck with the Intel NIC, as it was what was stock within the initial setup???

How is it actually known as unequivocal fact that the headphone out of the Hugo is the best source for ALL IEMs or headphones? It isn't is the simple truth... Personally I like the Vorzuge amps from the line out, adding more body to the tonality...

Actually, thinking about this, what you guys are saying is that for ANYONE that uses the Hugo line out (for speaker based setups lets now say), they're running sub-optimally? I'm sure that both Chord and their end users would refute that!

Absolutely - feeding a Hugo into a linear power amp ultimately degrades transparency compared to Hugo driving direct (the best power amp is non at all). If you have ever heard Hugo driving very efficient horn loudspeakers you will know what I mean - the sound stage depth is the best I have ever heard from loudspeakers. Hence the motivation for the Hugo amp project - Hugo levels of transparency but with enough power to drive loudspeakers. The trick is maintaining Hugo analogue simplicity (which gives you the transparency) with enough power from the linear (non switching) output stage.
 
Rob 

rob watts said:

Absolutely - feeding a Hugo into a linear power amp ultimately degrades transparency compared to Hugo driving direct (the best power amp is non at all). If you have ever heard Hugo driving very efficient horn loudspeakers you will know what I mean - the sound stage depth is the best I have ever heard from loudspeakers. Hence the motivation for the Hugo amp project - Hugo levels of transparency but with enough power to drive loudspeakers. The trick is maintaining Hugo analogue simplicity (which gives you the transparency) with enough power from the linear (non switching) output stage.

Rob 

Click to expand...

Hugo amp project ... ??!! .. wouldn't have anything to do with the launch at the Shard this week by any chance?

rob watts said:

Absolutely - feeding a Hugo into a linear power amp ultimately degrades transparency compared to Hugo driving direct (the best power amp is non at all). If you have ever heard Hugo driving very efficient horn loudspeakers you will know what I mean - the sound stage depth is the best I have ever heard from loudspeakers. Hence the motivation for the Hugo amp project - Hugo levels of transparency but with enough power to drive loudspeakers. The trick is maintaining Hugo analogue simplicity (which gives you the transparency) with enough power from the linear (non switching) output stage.

Rob 

Click to expand...

I appreciate this mindset. Best sound is no gear at all. Tells me why Hugo sounds so natural like real life.

rob watts said:

  Absolutely - feeding a Hugo into a linear power amp ultimately degrades transparency compared to Hugo driving direct (the best power amp is non at all). If you have ever heard Hugo driving very efficient horn loudspeakers you will know what I mean - the sound stage depth is the best I have ever heard from loudspeakers. Hence the motivation for the Hugo amp project - Hugo levels of transparency but with enough power to drive loudspeakers. The trick is maintaining Hugo analogue simplicity (which gives you the transparency) with enough power from the linear (non switching) output stage.
 
Rob 

Click to expand...

Mr. Watts, I have heard Hugo driving expensive Japanese horn-type IEMs (Piano Forte X-Gold) and I know well what you mean...
 
My best headphone experience so far!

a simple test for the headroom and accuracy of Hugo is to watch a good blu Ray like spr or master and commander ( these two movies are my favorite for most realistic sound effects) . set the digital coaxial out of bd player to 2 channel down mix pcm on dts hd ma sound track. feed it to Hugo and now watch movie and listen through headphones directly attached to Hugo and then through an amp attached to Hugo. I bet you would not want to go the separate amp route, such will be the realism listening directly through Hugo.