[canali]

"what hifi" review of the Hugo 2 just in.
https://www.whathifi.com/chord/hugo-2/review

 

[Dvdlucena]

Nordost is a safe bet.

How about Moon audio Silver dragon?
sorry about the off topic question....

 

[hypnos1]

"what hifi" review just in.
https://www.whathifi.com/chord/hugo-2/review

Thanks canali...just what the doctor ordered. (Helps to ease the pain of the wait a bit more lol!).

As I myself will be using H2 purely as DAC for my tube HP amp - (but can't wait to see just how it compares used direct to my T1s) - it is indeed encouraging that they rate it so very highly, especially compared to anything anywhere near the price. However...I would have welcomed the likes of Gungnir, Yggdrasil etc. as opposition, to give a more 'balanced' flavour to the review...(I still have a terrible suspicion it's going to be very difficult indeed to get a truly impartial/unbiased/meaningful comparison of such units...but then again, I am becoming more and more cynical in my old age, alas!).

As for interconnects, I personally believe in pure silver (as previously mentioned)...ie. nothing less than 99.9%, and solid, annealed...(but cost factor will probably restrict things to DIY, unfortunately - with the added benefit though of being able to ensure that the [good quality] plugs used actually fit!!)...

Still eagerly awaiting......

 

[Rob Watts]

Yes, well noted and in some PM's, well discussed. We have holiday 4 July, and my "hope" is mid July, generously stated.

The price drop matches what others in the US all have now. So much for the anti-Chord conspiracy theory of price gouging.

Christer, above post: good questions.

As to recent discussion on H2 being "forgiving" of lesser quality recordings. Anyone with H2 listen to music from the 30's and even the 40's that could comment on H2 for me? Thanks in advanced.

This post rang a bell with me, as it covers something that has puzzled me for several years - how it is that recently, as I have made progress with digital, that poorer quality recordings are so much more musically involving - when in the past the opposite was true.

I have been designing DAC's from 1988 - initially using regular audio chips - then from 1994 using my own pulse array DAC technology using FPGA's. Then in 1999 I was handling the whole signal path from digital input to analogue output, and developed the WTA filter. So I have seen major changes in performance, and generally speaking as improvements were made, then with the better transparency, the gulf between high quality recordings and poorer ones became much more apparent; so much so that poor recordings were un-listenable. And I kind of accepted this vicious circle, because I knew deep down that the only way the audio industry would make progress was by raising technical standards - and my life-time goal was being able to close that huge gap from live un-amplified sound to reproduced sound - that gap being two-fold - pure sound quality on one hand and musicality on the other. With musicality, by this I mean the ability to be emotionally involved in the musical performance - and live un-amplified is so very involving - the life and soul of music is seriously mangled by reproduced audio.

So I was making progress both technically and audibly, and musical recordings were getting more involving - but as progress was being made, poorer recordings just sounded unacceptable. And this path was true until Oct 2012 when I listened to the first Hugo. And it was a profound shock. Hugo was doing things that I had never heard before from any DAC. Now I won't bore you with the technical details, but I was doing things with the FPGA design that I had never been able to do before. Also, the quality of simulation tools had gotten a lot better, and I could analyse and do digital measurements on individual blocks of my code - verilog modules - that I could not do before - and Hugo was the first audiophile product to get these module upgrades.

When I first heard it, it sounded very natural, with exceptional timing (being able to hear the starting and stopping of notes properly) and range of timbre (before piano sounded tonally boring - now each key had life, vitality and vibrancy). And I found that it was if a veil had been lifted, and I could connect to the soul of the music. I dsicovered that I was listening to much more music, as Hugo had an addictive quality. But what was truly bizarre was that poor quality recordings still sounded poor technically - but the quality of connecting to the music was still there - and I could listen to 1930's mono recordings and enjoy the music. Indeed, I have actively bought archive mono recordings - something I never would have done 4 years ago.

I once chatted to a recording engineer, who used Hugo for mastering. He summarized it perfectly - "Hugo tells me exactly what is wrong with the recording - but it also tells me what is right with the music."

Now at that time, I did not understand exactly why Hugo was so much better musically - how did that quality of connecting to the music work technically? And why is it poor quality recordings sound so good musically? It does not make rational sense, as normally better transparency equates to poor sound for bad recordings.

This takes me back to last year, where I attended a Hi-Fi show in Poland. Chord's distributor has a very interesting segment, where they play back original Beatles master tapes on an analogue reel to reel. These master tapes were used to make the Beatles pressings in Eastern Europe.

And when they play them back, they sound awful. Flat. Noisy. Distorted. Stereo that is left right or center. Bright.

But...

When you ignore the audiophile things that are wrong you hear things that are very right. Notes that start and stop correctly. Timbre variations. Instruments that sound solid with power. Bass where you can follow the tune.

In short, its very musical and engaging, in spite of the audiophile things that are (seriously) wrong - but this does not detract from the music. And each instrument, even though its noisy and distorted sounds - real.

So how does this get back to digital? Digital is a mincing/reconstituting machine. It takes analogue in on the ADC, samples it, then the DAC recovers the original analogue waveform that was in the ADC and reproduces it.

So it's like a mincemeat machine, where you take prime mature fillet beef, and mince it (samples the signal). Then the DAC comes along and reconstitutes it and returns prime fillet beef (recovers the original analogue signal). Now in principle, what should come out with an ideal ADC and DAC is perfectly reconstituted fillet beef - indistinguishable from the original. But the reality is it comes out like meat that your dog would not eat - but maybe your kids would. And the reason for this is that the ear/brain is incredibly sensitive to minute changes in the re-constituted (interpolated) waveform.

Now when Hugo first came out, I had no idea where this SQ improvement was coming from technically - being able to hear the starting and stopping and notes, being able to reproduce timbre properly, and getting the sense of instrument power correctly - and these aspects are crucial for getting musicality right. And at the time, I didn't care too much, as I had hit the maximum constraints of the FPGA. But I needed to understand it, as this allows for true progress. And with the Dave program, I did indeed manage to find out how and why the qualities I heard were happening in purely technical terms. In a simple nutshell, I had seriously under estimated how sensitive the ear/brain is to the timing errors that occur when a DAC reconstitutes the original analogue signal; and it seems that any difference from the original, no matter how small is extremely significant musically.

Now with Hugo 2 I have an FPGA that is about 5 times more powerful, together with all the knowledge gained from Dave; and for me it gets me much closer to the original master tape. Because the mincemeat/reconstitution is much more accurate, you do indeed get the best of both worlds - more transparency, but with the ability to connect to the musical soul even with poor quality recordings. So Hugo 2 in my opinion - and we all have different sensitivities so you will have to judge by listening for yourself - gets much closer to the original master tape sound, and so I do indeed enjoy older recordings more. That's the quality I found so musically appealing on the Beatles master tapes, in spite of objectively poor sound quality.

I was listening to a 1930's mono recording this morning on a Dave and M scaler - and yes it sounded distorted, and very noisy - but - it sounded like a real piano nonetheless. Something that conventional digital, because of the poor reconstitution, absolutely fails to do.

Rob

 

[Peter Hyatt]

Rob, it is fascinating to read of the evolution of your work. Thanks. I've got quite a few apple lossless Bing Crosby, Jessie Matthews, Jeannette McDonald, etc, as well as acoustic blues from the 30's, Robert Johnson and the fascinating folk-blues collection in MP3 320, and so on.

The "soundboard" bootleg material is something else I am interested in hearing what Hugo2 does with. This material can sound harsh; it is unmixed and taken right from the boards of the live concerts.

 

[Light - Man]

How about Moon audio Silver dragon?
sorry about the off topic question....

I am happy with my Atlas (Scottish company) Hyper (OCC) Copper RCA cable available from Amazon UK and futureshop.co.uk

Since I got mine they now have a cheaper integra plug version of it.

 

[canali]

Thanks canali...just what the doctor ordered. (Helps to ease the pain of the wait a bit more lol!).

As I myself will be using H2 purely as DAC for my tube HP amp - (but can't wait to see just how it compares used direct to my T1s) - it is indeed encouraging that they rate it so very highly, especially compared to anything anywhere near the price. However...I would have welcomed the likes of Gungnir, Yggdrasil etc. as opposition, to give a more 'balanced' flavour to the review...(I still have a terrible suspicion it's going to be very difficult indeed to get a truly impartial/unbiased/meaningful comparison of such units...but then again, I am becoming more and more cynical in my old age, alas!).

As for interconnects, I personally believe in pure silver (as previously mentioned)...ie. nothing less than 99.9%, and solid, annealed...(but cost factor will probably restrict things to DIY, unfortunately - with the added benefit though of being able to ensure that the [good quality] plugs used actually fit!!)...

Still eagerly awaiting......

yes i agree that a more comparative review would have been even more valuable to us all.
..i mean for a reviewer to sweepingly say in the end, in the 'Verdict' that
''There isn’t another DAC around at anywhere near this sort of price able to communicate so torrentially, so unambiguously or so effortlessly. We like it a lot.''
leaves alot out.

i also wish to be clear: I'm not taking away that the Hugo 2 is all these things...but this summary shouts out for a comparison...like what did the reviewer have in mind and why?
more comparative details would have been more illuminating for us all.
Read more at https://www.whathifi.com/chord/hugo-2/review#Lr9YD7jtZY2002h8.99

Read more at https://www.whathifi.com/chord/hugo-2/review#Lr9YD7jtZY2002h8.99

 

[jmills8]

yes i agree that a more comparative review would have been even more valuable to us all.
..i mean for a reviewer to sweepingly say in the end, in the 'Verdict' that
''There isn’t another DAC around at anywhere near this sort of price able to communicate so torrentially, so unambiguously or so effortlessly. We like it a lot.''
leaves alot out.

i also wish to be clear: I'm not taking away that the Hugo 2 is all these things...but this summary shouts out for a comparison...like what did the reviewer have in mind and why?
more details would have been more illuminating for us all.
Read more at https://www.whathifi.com/chord/hugo-2/review#Lr9YD7jtZY2002h8.99

Read more at https://www.whathifi.com/chord/hugo-2/review#Lr9YD7jtZY2002h8.99

Is the reviewer on Head Fi ?

 

[514077]

How about Moon audio Silver dragon?
sorry about the off topic question....

They certainly opened up the treble on my Angies. They'd be a safe bet, I think.

 

[Peter Hyatt]

good review

 

[musicday]

What HiFi magazine review on Hugo 2 is spot on.
( There isn’t another DAC around at anywhere near this sort of price able to communicate so torrentially, so unambiguously or so effortlessly. We like it a lot. )
I like it too and many will when they will hear it.
This is exactly what i said the very first time i have heard it out of the box.
The sound it produces it is very relaxing , natural and addictive. The more you listen the more you want to.
Good audiophile times ahead thanks to Chord Electronics.
For those who want to get Dave but can't afford it, look no further, Hugo 2 is the one to consider.

 

[jmills8]

What HiFi magazine review on Hugo 2 is spot on.
( There isn’t another DAC around at anywhere near this sort of price able to communicate so torrentially, so unambiguously or so effortlessly. We like it a lot. )
I like it too and many will when they will hear it.
This is exactly what i said the very first time i have heard it out of the box.
The sound it produces it is very relaxing , natural and addictive. The more you listen the more you want to.
Good audiophile times ahead thanks to Chord Electronics.
For those who want to get Dave but can't afford it, look no further, Hugo 2 is the one to consider.

Dave cant use outside.

 

[canali]

Dave cant use outside.

what do you mean? what do you think backpacks are made for...and extremely long extension cords

 

[thePhones]

Hmm, that's an interesting take on things.
But why do you mention TT when you are actually talking about having added supercapacitors to your HUGO 1?
Did you put the "same" super capacitors that are in TT or others?
Applying some logic here again would indicate that doing the same,ie adding super capacitors to HUGO 2 would reap both the benefits of more taps and improved filters and better capacitors provided HUGO 2 does not already have super capacitors fitted of course.
What if maybe Chord is saving those super capacitors for TT 2 instead of adding them to HUGO 2 which they most probably could easily have done just as easily as adding proper galvanic isolation and full size usb connectors and rca ports had they so desired.
I still remember that one of the things both Rob and John mentioned when I asked them in which respects the Hugo TT John was holding,was better than HUGO,was "better capacitors" than HUGO.
It would be interesting to hear what type of capacitors they put in HUGO 2. Are they super capacitors or not?
And if not ? Why not?
How much did you pay for your supercapacitors?
And what brand are they?
Where they difficult to fit yourself?
Any such change of internal parts would of course void your guarantee.
Vielen Dank. "I wart auf Antwort."

So here comes your Antwort

Yes, they are the same capacitors like the ones used in TT (just different color but exact same specifications and form factor).
Maybe adding those in the Hugo 2 would do the same thing.. just have to find out if they fit in case again as the new case is a little different.
In the Hugo 1 I managed to get them just above the USB-connectors. It was a bit tricky to get them in there so that they hold but not damage anything inside but it works really well without problems for about a year now (also used mobile in the gym) . Technically the two super capacitors are just in parallel with the corresponding battery. Not soldered anything on the board itself. The capacitors were about 10 to 15 € each I think. I hope I could help you.
By the way I am using the Ultrasone Edition 5 with the EQ shown in my avatar wich is a very dynamic headphone, actually compared it for about 3 hours to the Focal Utopia (wich did not need EQ) but I did find the Focal on par with the Ultrasone in terms of dynamics and overall sound quality. Although it was not a fair comparison as my Edition 5 was heavily EQ´d

 

[jmills8]

what do you mean? what do you think backpacks are made for...and extremely long extension cords

Car battery? Carry it in this.