[AGB100]

  According to Audiostream, the Ayre QB-9 DSD is a better performer than the Hugo, they rate the QB-9 as a "Class A" and the Hugo as a "Class B".  
 
However the Ayre's retail price is $1K more than the Hugo.
 
Hugo review is here: http://www.audiostream.com/content/chord-hugo-mobile-dacheadphone-amp

He'd better relisten to the two. I don't agree. The Ayre is very good, but...size has nothing to do with it. The number cruncher inside has everything to do with it. As I said, there's a dichotomy between what you see and what you hear. If you see something large and substantial, you will hear what you want to hear. Do a double blind test between any DAC under $5-10K and the Hugo and you'll find out the hard way.

 

[OK-Guy]

  I have been trying to buy that ZX1 USB cable - it's very hard to get hold of!

 
copy the item code and email them for a price inc. delivery, they're real helpful & offer a fast service.
 
http://www.pricejapan.com/front/e_good_info.php?code=1247&category=17

 

[estreeter]

  Here is my question. How are the Chord Hugo DAC sonics compared to those from companies that offer some DACs that are not crazy-expensive:
1. Schiit
2. Audio-GD
3. Ayre
4. Bryston
5. Bel Canto
6. Benchmark
7. PS Audio
8. Meridian
9. Grace
10. Antelope Zodiac
11. Musical Fidelity
12. Mytek
13. M2Tech
14. Rega
15. Auralic

 
I'll get right on that ...... I'm assuming you aren't looking for comparisons with every single DAC on that list ?  
 
As for 'not crazy expensive', unless you want to nominate specific models I think you'll find that several of those companies have DACs which are more expensive - in some cases by a factor of 1.5-2 - than Hugo. The Auralic Vega, undeniably a much sought after DAC and the perfect mate for my Taurus, is over 1K USD more than Hugo and takes up considerably more real estate but the FEMTO clock is unheard of at  that price point - I'd love to hear one. Ditto NAD's M51 - might be cheaper than Hugo, but it has a massive fanbase. I did try spending some time with my HRT microStreamer yesterday - casual listening from my laptop - and the gap between that cheap little DAC and the Hugo is massive - whatever the law of diminishing returns says, nothing I could put in place after the mS is going to give me the incredible detail and resolution minus grain and harshness that Hugo gives me - nothing. Tube stages and various amps might take some of the edges off, but I'm confident that I could still nail which was which in a blind A/B test any day of the week. 
 
If the cliche for solid-state digital sound revolves around derogatory terms like 'shrill' and 'fatiguing' - and there are still audiophiles who refuse to accept that it can ever be anything else - then Hugo is the antithesis of that cliche. One of the reasons so many in this thread and elsewhere are raving about this gadget is that they can finally kick back and listen to hour after hour of the music they've collected over the years without being forced to abandon YT vids and other low bitrate sources of entertainment. In a world where we probably spend more time online than gazing at cover art or fondling our fave vinyl, that makes a lot of sense to me. 

 

[estreeter]

 
Not just my opinion. Audiofile Engineering creates a lot of apps for the pro industry. Fidelia uses iZotope and among those who have tested a number of these resamplers, sonically it is at the top. DS? I don't know, I don't much care at this point in time with few DS titles I'm really interested in. I'm sure Fidelia people will keep up with the trends. Anyhow, new standards will soon surface and some of the boys I know at TAS are not at all enamored with DS.

 
Nor is Charles Hansen from Ayre or the guys at Schiit - the threads are all there at CA and on Head-Fi to see their respective opinions - and the reasons for those opinions - laid out in black and white. Hansen basically had a gun held to his head by a rather large tail which would seem to be wagging the dog at the moment, and some of the very same people on CA who put the guy through hell were the first to post that the QB9-DSD was so much better with Redbook-quality files than it's predecessor. Schiit will sell you a DSD-only DAC, but Jason's product announcement made it very clear how they feel about DSD at this point in time. I would far prefer to get some of my favorite artists back into the recording studio to re-record tracks which the record companies foisted on us at the height of the loudness wars but I guess that's just me. 

 

[rgs9200m]

Thanks for the comparison comments so far; just what the doctor ordered I think for what seems to be a device with no equivalent. [ I love the shell program estreeter... standard output and error may get overloaded fast ].

 

[estreeter]

 
He'd better relisten to the two. I don't agree. The Ayre is very good, but...size has nothing to do with it. The number cruncher inside has everything to do with it. As I said, there's a dichotomy between what you see and what you hear. If you see something large and substantial, you will hear what you want to hear. Do a double blind test between any DAC under $5-10K and the Hugo and you'll find out the hard way.

 
Dunno - I simply saw his comments as reflecting his own personal preference and it comes back to what I've been banging on about re using an external headphone amp to give the Hugo a richer sound. Clearly, Lavorgna didnt have the time or energy to mess around with options like Fidelia but my jury is still out on that one - a lot more listening to do before I'm prepared to accept that any amount of EQ and software wizardry can give me what the Taurus gives me with the HD800. Anyway, back to the Lavorgna comparison:
 
Overall, I'd describe Hugo's sound as delicate and detailed with a very nice sense of fine-grained resolution and clarity that doesn't strip music of its timbral richness. You feel as if you're hearing everything the recording has to offer. That said, compared to the review Ayre QB-9 DSD, Hugo does sound more light weight, with less apparent body to the presentation. The Ayre DAC sounds bigger and beefier compared to Hugo's more nimble and quick sound. In terms of personal preference, I lean toward the Ayre which comes across as richer and more engaging but I can see how other listeners would prefer the Hugo's more sprightly sound. Of course you cannot take the Ayre on the road and it does not have a headphone amp or Bluetooth input capability.
 
The earlier post seems to have decided that the above means the Ayre is 'better' - I completely reject that conclusion. Let's agree to let our own ears be the judge, shall we chaps ?  The only DAC I've heard which sounded 'better' was the Weiss DAC202 and the sticker on that is Goliath to Hugo's David.
 
http://www.kosmic.us/weiss-dac-202.html
 
When that DAC was released, I recall several on the CA forums ridiculing it for the aesthetics - particularly the 'smiley face' - clearly, they've never actually heard it. These guys know how to build a DAC - albeit at an eye-watering price point. 

 

[7ryder]

 
He'd better relisten to the two. I don't agree. The Ayre is very good, but...size has nothing to do with it. The number cruncher inside has everything to do with it. As I said, there's a dichotomy between what you see and what you hear. If you see something large and substantial, you will hear what you want to hear. Do a double blind test between any DAC under $5-10K and the Hugo and you'll find out the hard way.

Double blind test?  them's fighting words around these parts! 

 

 

[7ryder]

   
 
The earlier post seems to have decided that the above means the Ayre is 'better' - I completely reject that conclusion. Let's agree to let our own ears be the judge, shall we chaps ?  The only DAC I've heard which sounded 'better' was the Weiss DAC202 and the sticker on that is Goliath to Hugo's David.
 
 

I wasn't making any decision about which was better from the review, I was just reporting the facts as listed on the Audiostream website.  
 
One DAC is Class A, the other is Class B. Their rankings, not mine.  
 
While I do own the Ayre, I haven't heard the Hugo yet so I can't comment as to which sound I prefer.  I was simply pointing the OP to a comparison of the Hugo to one of the DACs he had on his extensive list.

 

[ALRAINBOW]

My direct stream is better as it's note thickness as well ease of presentation is better. After all,it is double the price .

I will,say the direct steam is very dac but so,is the Hugo .
Al

 

[ALRAINBOW]

Is the new qb9 dsd a FGPA dac as well
Al

 

[7ryder]

Is the new qb9 dsd a FGPA dac as well
Al

It does have a SABRE chip in it but, as I understand it, Ayre is also using FPGA to get the sound they want out of the chip.  Linn does the same thing in their DS players - uses FPGA in addition to a chip.

 

[ALRAINBOW]

That's why I am confused . It's both. I owned the original qb9. . Thanks for the clarification .
Al

 

[SleepyOne]

From my 2-3 hrs demoing of the Ayre I still notice some of that Sabre characteristics though.

 

[ALRAINBOW]

Isn't it funny how some of us know and hate that sound. And others say it's great. All,I know is I like what I like and know as soon as I he's it.
Al

 

[rgs9200m]

It would be nice to hear from the Stax Mafia how the Hugo sounds as a DAC with a high end Stax system.