[Pokemonn]

Rob...let me ask straight question. Is Mojo better than Hugo technically?? (aside cross feed function)

 

[analogmusic]

According to what I have read from the slides on the Mojo presentation, Hugo, 2qute and Mojo share almost identical code 
 
Doesnt matter how many more gates the mojo has, if it is running the same code as Hugo

 

[Pokemonn]

i guess Mojo is little different from Hugo..
 
 
 
 
You say you tuned the Mojo to have a smoother sound, was this in order to make it more forgiving of real world formats like MP3?

Yes I wanted it smoother and warmer, not so much with AAC or MP3, but more because it is likely to be partnered with harder sounding headphones.

http://www.the-ear.net/how-to/rob-watts-chord-mojo-tech

 

[jarnopp]

Dave has one FPGA, the 34 extra cores are custom coded using FPGA fabric (using gates to make DSP cores) - so 132 DSP slices plus 34 fabric = 166.

All the DAC's - Mojo, 2 Qute, Hugo, Hugo TT and Dave have identical source jitter rejection, that is the DAC eliminates it. Any SQ differences in sources is not down to jitter but source RF noise and correlated noise. The galvanic isolation (USB and optical) on Dave eliminates these problems - as far as the DAC is concerned - too.

Rob

Thanks, Rob! Your participation here is so valuable. I think asking which of your children is your favorite is not exactly fair... But, you have said lowering the noise floor results in a warmer sound and also the mojo is tuned warmer than Hugo....so I may just infer from there. Also, the better unit is the one that works for you (sound, features, price).

 

[Christer]

  Rob...let me straight question. Is Mojo better than Hugo??

I would like a straight answer to the same question too.
I am not at all interested  whether it sounds "better" or more forgiving via mp3 and other compromised formats or bad headphones.
You have  earlier said that your aim is always  maximum accuracy and transparence. But to me judging from the quote here, it seems like you might have "tuned" the sound of Mojo according to compromised and low res formats and headphones?
I want to know if it is actually BETTER and  more accurate  and transparent,using  high res and best most naturally and realistically  recorded acoustic music  material and played back  via the highest quality headphones like HD800 and planars and other true  highend headphones.
And also if it can be connected to a really  high quality hifi system with an SQ better than Hugo or not?
I know it plays DSD 256 which Hugo does not. I know you find DSD 64 a fundamentally compromised format. What about DSD 256 or 512?
Cheers Chris

 

[Kamil21]

I would like a straight answer to the same question too.
I am not at all interested  whether it sounds "better" or more forgiving via mp3 and other compromised formats or bad headphones.
You have  earlier said that your aim is always  maximum accuracy and transparence. But to me judging from the quote here, it seems like you might have "tuned" the sound of Mojo according to compromised and low res formats and headphones?
I want to know if it is actually BETTER and  more accurate  and transparent,using  high res and best most naturally and realistically  recorded acoustic music  material and played back  via the highest quality headphones like HD800 and planars and other true  highend headphones.
And also if it can be connected to a really  high quality hifi system with an SQ better than Hugo or not?
I know it plays DSD 256 which Hugo does not. I know you find DSD 64 a fundamentally compromised format. What about DSD 256 or 512?
Cheers Chris

Is a plum better than a cherry? Hmm. I am selling my Hugo for a Mojo because the Mojo is more convenient to carry around, but I will miss its direct RCA plug connectivity to my home system and my uber expensive cables. But if price were a factor.. Well..

 

[analogmusic]

I believe these differences are due to Hugo and Mugo having slightly different output transistors and different batteries 
Other than that, I think they run the same code !

 

[StryGR]

But what about the tap count in Mojo (with respect to Hugo)?
 
Will we ever have an answer on that?
 
Mr. Rob?

 

[Pokemonn]

 

and that was slightly off topic..

 

[SamS59]

Hugo uses the Spartan-6 LX9 (2, actually, one for the inputs). Not being an engineer, I don't know what all the specs mean, but that FPGA has 9152 login cells, 16 DSP slices, and maximum I/O of 200.

Mojo uses the Artix-7 A15T which has 33,280 logic cells, 90 DSP slices, and max I/O of 250. Only one chip perhaps, so it may be doing more duty in the Mojo.

Anyone know which chip(s) in DAVE?

Interesting reading:
https://forums.xilinx.com/t5/Xcell-Daily-Blog/Battery-powered-Chord-Hugo-mobile-DAC-headphone-amp-implements/ba-p/541775

http://theproaudiowebblog.com/rob-watts-interview.html

Enjoying my Mojo but someday...DAVE!

 
Interesting that the conversation has touched on the Xilinx chips used in the Chord DACs.  Looking at their website they are introducing a Spartan - 7. 
 
http://press.xilinx.com/2015-11-19-Xilinx-Announces-the-Spartan-7-FPGA-Family
 
An excerpt reads:
 
The Spartan-7 FPGA family will deliver high I/O ratios in small form factor packages, critical for cost-sensitive markets. The family will provide up to 4X price-performance-per-watt improvement over previous generations for flexible connectivity, interface bridging, and companion chip functionality.
 
I wonder if Rob might be looking at this, assuming it is in fact an improvement over the Spartan-6 for the next Generation of DACs?  
 
Love my Hugo by the way Rob and thanks for all the insight on these pages.

 

[Christer]

  I believe these differences are due to Hugo and Mugo having slightly different output transistors and different batteries 
Other than that, I think they run the same code !

Advertising is advertising of course. But according to the product page for Mojo here in Malaysia  it is actually presented as "The ultimate headphone DAC in the world!"
And yes, they sell Hugo as well here.
With a bit of luck I will get to hear both Mojo and Dave for the first time and comparing them to my Hugo  here in KL tomorrow.
How they will  compare to Mahler's ninth at live rehearsals earier  today and  the concert tomorrow night ? Well that is another matter. But I am certainly  interested in getting the closest approach to the real sound as possible both via speakars at home and headphones when travelling.

 

[PANURUS]

  As we know, Mojo is designed as a portable DAC for headphone use.  It can be used for 2 channel but the SQ is then significantly impacted by the quality of the cabling used and this type of cabling (3.5 mm to RCA) has limitations.

A better way is to use a converter from 2.5mm minijack to RCA ( Audioquest) and 2 cables RCA to RCA.
 
I use  WIREWORLD gold eclipse 7 cables 0.5 m long.  Great result.

 

[PANURUS]

I have 2 monoblock Pass labs 260.5 and one Pass Labs XC10.
Actually I use audioquest cable between them. My set up is well balanced with Mojo and WIREWORLD gold eclipse 7
 
For my Dave, i am thinking about to use the same quality : WIREWORLD gold eclipse 7, XLR or RCA cables.
Or maybe the Platinum ones. So far better with Mojo but the price is twice.
 
Pass labs explains XLR is the best for the 260.5.
I read that XLR is better than RCA again RF noise.
Mr Watts explains RCA is better for Dave.
 
Can somebody gives me more technical explainations?
 
Thank you
 
Jean

 

[JaZZ]

  Pass labs explains XLR is the best for the 260.5.
I read that XLR is better than RCA again RF noise.
Mr Watts explains RCA is better for Dave.
 
Can somebody gives me more technical explainations?

 
Salut Jean
 
According to Rob Watts the XLR outputs call for a more complex signal path which is detrimental to the sound in view of DAVE's single-ended DAC architecture and its deliberately simple output stage.
 
On the other hand, noise rejection will theoretically be better with XLR connection. Probably the only way to know what counts more is trying both variants. Personally I'm leaning towards single-ended – in the interest of simplicity and signal accuracy.

 

[TomGi]

I think that the xlr output are balanced electronically. So there are more electronic components on the audio signal path as resistors, op amps and capacitors. I tested the TT and the balanced outputs are less transparent than the unbalanced output.