Chord Hugo

estreeter said:

   
Rob Watts reportedly - and I havent seen the original claim - prefers the optical (Toslink) connection. I'd suggest that you try them all for yourself if possible. 

Click to expand...

Yes I have said many times that I prefer optical.
 
I have not done this listening test for many years - I just use optical always and that's that - I thought I would re-do the listening test. In this case, whilst listening between optical and coaxial, I disconnected the input as well as switched the source button.
 
Optical was indeed as I listened before - it is noticeably warmer, smoother, with better timbre variations on individual instruments and better instrument separation. Now it also sounds softer, as it is less hard and on a superficial basis is less impressive - the hardness can easily be confused with more detail resolution and impact. But it's a lot more natural.
 
Now optical gets a lot of bad press - more jitter etc. In the case of Hugo, the jitter levels does not matter, as everything gets re-timed against a low jitter clock, so source jitter is completely removed. Incidentally, the AP test equipment actually measures lower jitter levels on optical than the coaxial inputs, so the jitter story is, in this instance, false.
 
The benefits of optical is that it isolates the Hugo from the sources' ground injected RF noise. Now anybody reading my posts will say that I am a bit of a timing freak, but I am also a noise floor modulation freak too. RF noise, when it is mixed inside the active analogue electronics, creates inter-modulation distortion which results in the noise floor moving up and down with the analogue signal. I have measured this effect, so I know it is real, and reducing RF noise results in measurable reduction in noise floor modulation. Also I have seen on digital simulation extremely small levels of noise floor modulation, which when removed produces a very audible effect. So the ear/brain is somehow extremely sensitive to this problem.
 
So how does noise floor modulation account for the observed sound quality changes? Firstly, better instrument separation. Now imagine two instruments playing in a system that has noise floor modulation. You will get noise floor modulation that is a sum of both instruments. Now when the brain has to separate the sounds out, it has now 3 signals to worry about - the two instruments, plus the noise floor modulation which is a combination of both instruments. This confuses the brains processing to be able to tell instruments apart, and hence degrades the brain's perception of the instruments as being separate entities, because you have noise singing along as a combination of the two instruments. This confusion also makes it difficult for the brain, which then will give you listening fatigue. 
 
How does it explain timbre variations? Now imagine listening to one instrument - a saxophone - something rich and smooth sounding. Now noise floor modulation is white noise pumping up and down with the signal level - it has the timbre of hiss, that is very bright sounding. Now add some noise floor modulation, and you are mixing into the sound of the sax something that sounds quite bright. The brain can't tell the difference between the sax, and the noise floor modulation which is proportionate to the sax signal level. So it lumps the timbre together, the rich sound of the sax becomes brighter and less like a sax. We actually end up with all instruments sounding bright, so timbre variations are suppressed.
 
How does it explain it sounding softer? Well, if you have noise floor modulation, you get more noise with the music peaks, and this often occurs at the initial starting transient - so you get a burst of noise on peak transients, which artificially enhances the sound - it's the MSG of sound quality.
 
Many people have reported Hugo as having wide timbre variations - being able to distinguish different timbres on different instruments and noise floor modulation (or rather lack thereof) is one big reason for this. In the case of Hugo, I have been working hard in the digital and analogue parts on not merely trying to reduce noise floor modulation but to eliminate all sources of it.
 
My final point is this - be very careful about listening tests, and, in my view, the goal is to enjoy music, not to think the sound quality is impressive. At the end of the day, go for the more musical sound - testing for musicality takes a lot longer, but it is the ultimate goal.       
 
Rob

sam edwards said:

  As many others have said, it's a great combo, especially for detail-heads (me included). You won't hear a lot more of what's actually recorded in your digital files than with this combo. It's a sound that is very hi-fi, but not the ultimate in shake-your-booty fun, for which some bass emphasis can go a long way. 

Click to expand...

 
Stick a beefy amp in-between the Hugo and the HD800s and the HD800s can really party.

I just have one question , as optical sounds better to some . Then why with optical input l we cannot have dsd. As the Hugo is dsd over dop it should be able to use the optical. Again do not perceive this question As a gripe it's really just a question. My MSB dac does do dsd on all,inputs so I know it's possible.
Al

stormfriend said:

Stick a beefy amp in-between the Hugo and the HD800s and the HD800s can really party.

Click to expand...

This is exactly what I thought. And I did this. There us little to be gained besides making the amp add to the sound of the overall presentation of the music. . In other words if you want to change it's sound then go of it. To me it's best left alone.
Al

alrainbow said:

And the fact we have a designer like mr watts here is a very special thing to have. There is no downside to the product. I would hope this does not discourage him from still posting here .
I know I can learn plenty from him.
Al

Click to expand...

 
I try to get my head around how Rob explains things, although it comes across as academic & technical he writes in a way that a layman can relate to & understand, not an easy achievement imo.
 
what really impresses is that Rob 's focus is always on the music and how to make it more musical... there are plenty of hi-end brands that focus only on the detail making them sound 'industrial', by that I mean you hear all the detail but it's more clangy than musical if that makes sense.... the Hugo is very musical from my experience & being portable makes it a hoot.

ok-guy said:

Chord are about to release two cases for the Hugo so might be a good idea to hold off.

alternatively, we did find one that comes in different sizes from a third party, I've got one, it's excellent & does the job even holds my IEM Oteerbox.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/330777972892?var=540074998074&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

Click to expand...

I spoke with Matt one of the Designers of Hugo at chord and he said there are no plans at this time of producing an alternate case design for Hugo.

I got the impression that OK-Guy was referring to a case to put the Hugo in so you can carry it around.

How about a complete dap. I would pay well for a complete end game dap device.
The Hugo is a really good device and using it with a I device is not a big deal
But I would love a complete device. If seems chord has gone after the desk top market
And allowed us to use it as a portible device as well.
The designing of the concept is very well done
And owning it has made the device a pleasure to use in every way.
Reg watts posts. I agree he gives understanding in a simple way as well as sparking ideas to try
For me. As we all have what we like great audio is both a natural and learned practice.
So what our brains tells us is good also must become what we want.
Like having a hd800 headphone unless we have a really good chain attached they scream
But give it good stuff and it fills us with pleasure.
The Hugo is a one stop shop in this chain.
Al

question.
my motherboard(z77 sabertooth) has a toslink optical output, i've disabled this option in replace for USB dac's in the past, as we all know onboard sound is utter rubbish.
i've recently enabled onboard audio again so that i can use the toslink option, all this talk of optical being better, i thought i'd give it a try.

now i'm not sure, is the signal passed directly to the hugo, or does it run though onboard sound first > hugo?

alrainbow said:

How about a complete dap. I would pay well for a complete end game dap device.
The Hugo is a really good device and using it with a I device is not a big deal
But I would love a complete device. If seems chord has gone after the desk top market
And allowed us to use it as a portible device as well.
The designing of the concept is very well done
And owning it has made the device a pleasure to use in every way.
Reg watts posts. I agree he gives understanding in a simple way as well as sparking ideas to try
For me. As we all have what we like great audio is both a natural and learned practice.
So what our brains tells us is good also must become what we want.
Like having a hd800 headphone unless we have a really good chain attached they scream
But give it good stuff and it fills us with pleasure.
The Hugo is a one stop shop in this chain.
Al

Click to expand...

Agreed! However, even we talk about the best dap in the world at the moment, none of them can match the SQ of Chord Hugo. Also the price of Hugo is very competitive as well. I would spend $2500 on Hugo and not AK240. You can just use a ak100 or 120 optical out to Hugo and the end game set up is done! As many people who owned Hugo, use it portably with no problem. Some even use it primarily as desktop setup and sold their old desktop gear. We can see how great the Hugo is.

Hi Rob Watts! - thanks for your fascinating and useful post about the benefits of optical s/pdif. Good that you've recently verified your long-standing opinion. But your preference begs the question .... what is the best way for those of us with our music on a pc/laptop to get that music down a toslink cable?  Would you advise a USB to s/pdif convertor? Or is a streamer - like a Squeezebox Touch - a better way? Or is there someway of isolating USB to give the same performance? What do you do!?!! I've hard discs full of wonderful music - I just want to get it to my soon-to-be-here Hugo using a route that will maximise the Hugo's performance and my pleasure.
 
Cheers!

archeryc said:

Agreed! However, even we talk about the best dap in the world at the moment, none of them can match the SQ of Chord Hugo. Also the price of Hugo is very competitive as well. I would spend $2500 on Hugo and not AK240. You can just use a ak100 or 120 optical out to Hugo and the end game set up is done! As many people who owned Hugo, use it portably with no problem. Some even use it primarily as desktop setup and sold their old desktop gear. We can see how great the Hugo is.

Click to expand...

For me I want the best the device can offer with my music so it's an I phone or I device. It's cheap and gives me all I need. I know some will,say it's strange limiting well I have almost 8 TB of music so it's not in my world.
The concept of a device made by Hugo and being a DAP is a dream come true for me. And would pay 3500 to obtain it.
There are people walking around with a AK240 and a Hugo. And they are not obtaining the best it had to offer so I am all about absolute in audio . As great as the AK240 is the sound is way below the Hugo only at dsd is it acceptable to me but still,below the Hugo.
Al

archeryc said:

Agreed! However, even we talk about the best dap in the world at the moment, none of them can match the SQ of Chord Hugo. Also the price of Hugo is very competitive as well. I would spend $2500 on Hugo and not AK240. You can just use a ak100 or 120 optical out to Hugo and the end game set up is done! As many people who owned Hugo, use it portably with no problem. Some even use it primarily as desktop setup and sold their old desktop gear. We can see how great the Hugo

Click to expand...

I absolutely love the Chord Hugo and now find it a pain to listen to ANY DAP without the Hugo. However I still don't understand why Hugo is constantly being compared to DAPs instead of other DAC/ Headphone Amp? 

flymetothemoon said:

That's a very fundamental mistake, isn't it?

Click to expand...

You could say it was a mistake but not in the way you think it was. Chord made the mistake of designing a "mobile " product with RCAs as a secondary addition to it's intended use. This would have been fine as smaller RCAs are in frequent use in mobile products in Japan What Chord really got wrong, fortunately for all of us. Was that they made Hugo so damned good that it imeadiately became a success in the desk top Dac market where it's cable outputs were far more important. Chord corrected their design error straight after the LasVegas launch back in January so I think they've been pretty reactive.

sutjahjo said:

I absolutely love the Chord Hugo and now find it a pain to listen to ANY DAP without the Hugo. However I still don't understand why Hugo is constantly being compared to DAPs instead of other DAC/ Headphone Amp? 

Click to expand...

So,let's compare it , I do not know of one that is a realistic in musical reproduction to compare it too. This is why it's compared to dacs alone.
Al