[514077]

Did you inadvertently leave it on overnight? I have done this once. Whilst it appears to be dead, if you switch it off and leave it on charge it will come back to life after a couple of hours.

Tried it. No lights. And left it off and plugged in all night. I'm going to contact Bluebird and see if they have a replacement. If the replacement doesn't work, then I have bigger problems.

 

[Hooster]

Are you christer?

No, I am Hooster.

TT: Tap length filter: 26,368 – 4 element Pulse Array design

Hugo2: Tap-length: 49,152 - 10 element pulse array design

The Hugo2 is far more advanced than TT.

 

[Christer]

Just curious have you even listened to Hugo 2 with or without accessories, before declaring any other chord product surpassed, be it Dave or TT or 2 cute etc...

No unfortunately I haven't yet auditioned HUGO 2.I even spent an extra month in Asia this spring hoping to do so, but alas no show. But I have auditioned DAVE closely and simply applying some logic and listening to what Rob himself has to say on the subject I find it very likely that the pecking order will be as I guess as far as CHORD's products are concerned.
Sorry if you are one of those who bought HUGO TT, but technically it is less advanced than HUGO 2 and so says Rob.
I have on the other hand also heard both some of the pro equipment used by the people actually making the recordings I prefer listening to,some of whom also make very upmarket DACs that might rival Chord's products.
Chord is not the only company on planet earth making listenable DACs.
And if anything it was a bit sobering to read some of what Atkinsson had to say in his review of DAVE although I strongly suspect he is wrong as far as MQA is concerned.
I happen to know one of the examples he used in his review pretty well, the Beethoven sonata recorded by my friend Morten Lindberg having heard it both via the ADC used recording it and several others including DAVE and to me there is no doubt that the best most realistic SQ is from the DXD version.
Morten's recordings sound very very realistic via DAVE.
Hearing the ones I have covered as photograper via DAVE was like being back at sessions again.
I haven't spoken to Morten in quite a while and I am bit puzzled as to why he now offers MQA releases of his often superb, but to my taste sometimes a bit too closemic'd DXD recordings.
I find it very unlikely that a compressed lossy MQA version of any of them would sound better than the native one via any really capable system.
MQA seems to sort out some pre-ringing artifacts and such mainly pcm related problems. But I think Rob's solutions to such problems are much more advanced and efficient compared with MQA's.
MQA saves storage space and makes licencing money for those behind it, but I see no reason to assume it delivers the ultimate in SQ.
I am sure it sounds better than MP3 though.
Though not in a context of highend and SOTA SQ.
But I haven't heard MQA for myself either. I am just applying the same logic as above.
Cheers Christer

 

[Whazzzup]

No pitty needed for TT users, we have been quite happy and with the utilities since its launch, and expect years more enjoyment until its next upgrade. Enjoy your ride with chord as i have for years now. May we share hugo 2 as a purchase at some point in the future, if you see fit to acquire it among the many choices out there.
whazzzy out.

 

[514077]

No unfortunately I haven't yet auditioned HUGO 2.I even spent an extra month in Asia this spring hoping to do so, but alas no show. But I have auditioned DAVE closely and simply applying some logic and listening to what Rob himself has to say on the subject I find it very likely that the pecking order will be as I guess as far as CHORD's products are concerned.
Sorry if you are one of those who bought HUGO TT, but technically it is less advanced than HUGO 2 and so says Rob.
I have on the other hand also heard both some of the pro equipment used by the people actually making the recordings I prefer listening to,some of whom also make very upmarket DACs that might rival Chord's products.
Chord is not the only company on planet earth making listenable DACs.
And if anything it was a bit sobering to read some of what Atkinsson had to say in his review of DAVE although I strongly suspect he is wrong as far as MQA is concerned.
I happen to know one of the examples he used in his review pretty well, the Beethoven sonata recorded by my friend Morten Lindberg having heard it both via the ADC used recording it and several others including DAVE and to me there is no doubt that the best most realistic SQ is from the DXD version.
Morten's recordings sound very very realistic via DAVE.
Hearing the ones I have covered as photograper via DAVE was like being back at sessions again.
I haven't spoken to Morten in quite a while and I am bit puzzled as to why he now offers MQA releases of his often superb, but to my taste sometimes a bit too closemic'd DXD recordings.
I find it very unlikely that a compressed lossy MQA version of any of them would sound better than the native one via any really capable system.
MQA seems to sort out some pre-ringing artifacts and such mainly pcm related problems. But I think Rob's solutions to such problems are much more advanced and efficient compared with MQA's.
MQA saves storage space and makes licencing money for those behind it, but I see no reason to assume it delivers the ultimate in SQ.
I am sure it sounds better than MP3 though.
Though not in a context of highend and SOTA SQ.
But I haven't heard MQA for myself either. I am just applying the same logic as above.
Cheers Christer

Yes, I've noticed that Stereophile and its related site Audio Stream are extremely pro-MQA. Who am I to say, as I haven't heard it, and don't expect to, as my equipment choices don't use it. But, JVS and Michael Lavorgnia seem to be very imphatic in their defence of MQA, and I suspec that Stereophile is firmly on the side of the format. I've read articles pro and anti, and prefer to trust Rob et al with their take on it. Don't hate it, not violently opposed to it, just don't see it in my life of Chord DACs, Questyle DAPs and large storage drives and cards.
By the way @Christer, I bought a particular download from 2L at DSD128. Since you are acquainted with ML, does he restrict his recordings to 352.8 as original source? If so, I'll buy his stuff in that format.

 

[Christer]

Yes, I've noticed that Stereophile and its related site Audio Stream are extremely pro-MQA. Who am I to say, as I haven't heard it, and don't expect to, as my equipment choices don't use it. But, JVS and Michael Lavorgnia seem to be very imphatic in their defence of MQA, and I suspec that Stereophile is firmly on the side of the format. I've read articles pro and anti, and prefer to trust Rob et al with their take on it. Don't hate it, not violently opposed to it, just don't see it in my life of Chord DACs, Questyle DAPs and large storage drives and cards.
By the way @Christer, I bought a particular download from 2L at DSD128. Since you are acquainted with ML, does he restrict his recordings to 352.8 as original source? If so, I'll buy his stuff in that format.

Yes as far a I remember and know Morten does all recordings in DXD and he uses Merging Horus and Hapi since a couple of years. When I was photographing some recording sessions with Trondheimsolistene and another with the Nidaros Cathedral Choir he was still using a SPYNX2 converter and PYRAMIX all in Digital Extreme Definition ie DXD.
It was also Morten who introduced me to Sennheiser HD 800 which he was one of the first to use among several others as monitoring headphones at sessions.
All his DSD downloads and SACDs are conversions from DXD.
I asked why he did not record in DSD 128 which he could have done then. And he said it sounds basically the same as DSD 64 soft,nice and pleasing, but not as close to what we hear live now and with DXD.
I could only agree after comparing live versus recorded.

Regarding MQA I suspect that it is "vaporware" as someone put it in a discussion elsewhere.
Like you I have no need for it.
But there is obviously a lot of both hype and money involved and money talks!
And as far as hype is concerned this thread thrives quite a bit on hype and expectations too.

 

[LouisArmstrong]

SP1000 vs Hugo 2 anyone?

 

[jmills8]

SP1000 vs Hugo 2 anyone?

You getting both right ?

 

[musicday]

SP1000 vs Hugo 2 anyone?

SP1000 cannot decode DSD512. Hugo 2 is way superior from technical point, with the minimum distortion, low impedance and much more powerful, and it costs only half price of iRiver.
But give Hugo 2 a try yourself and prepare to be amazed.
Will try the iRiver out of curiosity at CanJam.

 

[toears]

will my cinnamon cable improve overall experince...

 

[JaZZ]

Update:

I continue to be fascinated by the Hugo². Although there's a difference in the sonic characteristic compared to the DAVE, it's effectively similar in that it is exceptionally smooth, transparent and threedimensional – not exactly on the same level, but similar enough.

Note that I can't express anything else than my personal impressions. Nevertheless, I'm trying to split the sonic criteria into three sections: From a technical aspect of the sound (the «objective» qualities), the Hugo² approaches the DAVE by about 50% with reference to the Hugo¹. From the similarity of the sonic characteristic, the approach is like 66%. And in terms of fascination and musicality it's 90-100% to my ears. I'm not lying – until the fascination turns out to be a new toy syndrome, I have to concede that at times I enjoy the music from the Hugo² just as much as from the DAVE. It is less natural and less transparent for sure, but it has a certain magic that the DAVE lacks (and I suppose it's a coloration). It's not related to its deviating perceived frequency response, since I consequently use the correction function below – which I have updated in the meantime. So for those anal or perfectionist enough to care or suffering from OSD, here's the new correction values for an octave equalizer:

31 Hz: –1.2 dB | 62 Hz: +0.2 dB | 125 Hz: – | 250 Hz: – | 500 Hz: – | 1 kHz: – | 2 kHz: – | 4 kHz: +0.4 dB | 8 kHz: +0.4 dB | 16 kHz: –0.6 dB

Personally I really think it matters, the high-frequency issue maybe even more than the low-frequency issue, although even without the correction the sound is absolutely enjoyable.

 

[Peter Hyatt]

[thanks jazz

 

[turkayguner]

316 pages already.. Wow..

 

[musicday]

316 pages already.. Wow..

This is just the beginning.
Wait until everyone receive their orders.
In conclusion Hugo 2 is a terrific portable DAC.

 

[miketlse]

316 pages already.. Wow..

Some of us started on the forum, when the Mojo thread started, and that has 2183 pages.
This thread has had a good start and managed approx 300 pages before any were shipped. I expect that the number of posts will start shooting up, as more people get their hands on their pre-orders, and have questions to ask. There will then be another surge in posts when the 2Go is released, because people will want to ask how to combine the Hugo2 and 2Go in the best way, and probably another surge in questions if/when people start linking the Hugo 2 to the Blu 2 or M Scaler.

Yes exciting times ahead.