[KyaputenKatsura]

... ... ...

Why this is important is the lack of distortion from the PSU - there is only a faint trace of 2nd harmonic at -170 dB, with no higher order harmonics at all - and this is with the other ch running 213 mW into a 33 ohm load.

As to changing the supplied PSU with a linear one, then with headphones don't bother - you can't hear the PSU connected or not.

Rob

Thanks for your detailed reply mr. Watts!
I get what you're saying, no audible difference in using a LPS instead of the supplied SMPS as the battery is never disconnected; still I don't understand why, referred on headphone listening, you say "As to changing the supplied PSU with a linear one, then with headphones don't bother - you can't hear the PSU connected or not". Would I hear a difference if not using headphone but speaker?
There shouldn't be any difference as the battery is never bypassed as you've told.
Thank you for your time

 

[TheoS53]

Hello TheoS53,
I skimmed through your review maybe too quickly, but I did not hear one single mentioning of what music you played in your review comparing H2 and the Ifi Black.
And you only mentioned one single pair of iems used and no over ear headphones ?
Why?
For a review of products in the VERY ELEVATED PREMIUM PRICE RANGE for a portable unit,H2 sells at to be of any real interest to me I need a lot more in depth references and listening material mentioned.
IMO a product like H2 needs to be tested with the best possible most demanding material and headphones of similar quality.
When I audition DACs or any other HIFI products via headphones I use some of the best and most resolving headphones on the market.
I do so because if a DAC in this price range is not sounding good with headphones like HD800/HD800S or HEKV2 or Utopias and similar HIGHEND headphones I consider it a complete waste of money to spend on the product if it does not scale with those to pay anywhere near the price of H2.
I have not auditioned the iFi Black ,but maybe you would have come to different conclusions if you had used better than average IEMs in your review?
Since obviously take your reviewing quite seriously may I suggest that you include both material used and use more than IEMs next time you review an upmarket priced item like H2.

Personally I feel that the assumption that one must use expensive gear to test another piece of gear is a complete fallacy. Cost does not equate to performance. In an ideal world, yes, there would be a linear and direct relationship between cost and performance...but out in the real world things aren't so ideal.

To answer your question; unfortunately I do not have access to using over ear headphones. The products that I test are demo/display units from a shop, and so obviously I can't be taking their display models home with me every week lol.

Also, you mentioned my use of "average" IEMs. Again, I suspect that you've said this due to the cost, but I can assure you that the F9's perform way better than their price would suggest. I'm fortunate enough to have reviewed some very premium IEMs, including the incredible InEar ProPhile 8. The F9 has as close to a reference signature as I could imagine you'd get for that $100 price tag. It is because of this transparency that I felt that they're great for testing gear.

Besides, and as I mentioned in my video, when conducting any experiment, it's important to eliminate as many variables as possible. In this scenario, using the same DAP (Shanling M2s), and same IEMs (F9), ,and volume matching, the only variable being changed is the DAC/AMP (comparing the H2 to whatever), then that's a perfectly valid test.
Let's assume for a second that the H2 was a very bright sounding DAC, and the iDSD BL was a very warm sounding DAC. It won't matter which headphones or IEMs you use, that brightness vs warmth difference will always come across, because what you're doing is only comparing the different DACs, as the rest of your system had remained the same.
Please keep in mind that the point of a comparison is, well, exactly that, comparing one product to another. The point is not to try and describe every single nuance of the device's sound characteristic in the most accurate manner imaginable. Heck, if we could do that, that would be amazing, but that's simply impossible to do. That's why I find it far more efficient to make comparisons to other devices, as those other devices give you a point of reference and enables you to describe the differences, rather than the absolutes of a devices sound character. Whilst I try to be as objective as possible with my reviews, some element of subjectivity will always exist

 

[Christer]

Hmm, not the best example imo.

I read similar data last weekend about UK citizens and their lack of savings & investments. A worrying % had nearly none of either. But I don't understand what this has to do with the cost of the Hugo 2? No manufacturer or hi-fi dealer ever forced me to spend my money on expensive hi-fi equipment and if I fall into the category of having virtually no savings or investments, I probably shouldn't be buying a Chord Hugo 2 or anything else with a similar price tag. We can't nanny those who might be making foolish purchases (in relation to their lack of means) and there will always be items that seem expensive to most income & savings groups.

If I was wealthy, I'd love to own a helicopter but I'm not wealthy so does that mean helicopters should be priced more cheaply? Sorry, probably a poor example, best I can do.

Not really the best example imo.
As far Chord DACs and their pricing is concerned I find it absolutely relevant to question and criticise their pricing knowing for example that Mojo which sells at a quite reasonable price contains probably as much theory and know how input and technical parts as both HUGO1 and HUGO 2.
If anything I keep wondering why Mojo includes very similar FPGA capabilities as HUGO 2, but only running at half speed!
While the same? FPGA running at top speed is priced 5 times more.
I find it bit hard not to suspect that the price differences between these dacs does not at least in part include commercial considerations.

 

[Christer]

Hmm, not the best example imo.

I read similar data last weekend about UK citizens and their lack of savings & investments. A worrying % had nearly none of either. But I don't understand what this has to do with the cost of the Hugo 2? No manufacturer or hi-fi dealer ever forced me to spend my money on expensive hi-fi equipment and if I fall into the category of having virtually no savings or investments, I probably shouldn't be buying a Chord Hugo 2 or anything else with a similar price tag. We can't nanny those who might be making foolish purchases (in relation to their lack of means) and there will always be items that seem expensive to most income & savings groups.

If I was wealthy, I'd love to own a helicopter but I'm not wealthy so does that mean helicopters should be priced more cheaply? Sorry, probably a poor example, best I can do.

Not really the best example imo.
As far Chord DACs and their pricing is concerned I find it absolutely relevant to question and criticise their pricing knowing for example that Mojo which sells at a quite reasonable price contains probably as much theory and know how input and technical parts as both HUGO1 and HUGO 2.
If anything I keep wondering why Mojo includes very similar FPGA capabilities as HUGO 2, but only running at half speed!
While the same? FPGA running at top speed is priced 5 times more.
I find it bit hard not to suspect that the price differences between these dacs does not at least in part include commercial considerations.
Sorry about the double posting I don't know how to delete?

 

[TheoS53]

Hmm, not the best example imo.



Not really the best example imo.
As far Chord DACs and their pricing is concerned I find it absolutely relevant to question and criticise their pricing knowing for example that Mojo which sells at a quite reasonable price contains probably as much theory and know how input and technical parts as both HUGO1 and HUGO 2.
If anything I keep wondering why Mojo includes very similar FPGA capabilities as HUGO 2, but only running at half speed!
While the same? FPGA running at top speed is priced 5 times more.
I find it bit hard not to suspect that the price differences between these dacs does not at least in part include commercial considerations.

And you have every right to question it (and so you should). We live in the world of capitalism, where everything is done to make a profit. I should also note that I know exactly what the dealership pricing is for many of the audio device manufacturers, and of course even on that heavily discounted pricing the manufacturer is obviously already making a healthy profit for themselves. So in having a fairly good idea of what the total markup is by the time you get to the MSRP figure...then yes, this is why I often reference the cost to the customer and why there's no reason why tighter QC shouldn't be used.

My intent is not to bash or discredit people or products, but I'd simply like for us all to enjoy better and better equipment without the need for insane price tags

Just my 2c

 

[Mython]

.... Mojo which sells at a quite reasonable price contains probably as much theory and know how input and technical parts as both HUGO1 and HUGO 2.
If anything I keep wondering why Mojo includes very similar FPGA capabilities as HUGO 2, but only running at half speed!
While the same? FPGA running at top speed is priced 5 times more.
I find it bit hard not to suspect that the price differences between these dacs does not at least in part include commercial considerations.

You appear to be underestimating the technical complexity and technical performance of Hugo 2. It is very significantly evolved from the code running on Mojo.

You also appear to be underestimating how much of the performance of Chord DACs is reliant upon the code being run on their FPGAs, and that is something that requires a return on investment, for both a lifetime of digital theory and design experience, and many hundreds of hours of specific R&D. Not only that, but Rob Watts is the creator of said code - it is his intellectual property. Chord manufactures the hardware. Therefore, every time Chord sell someone a DAC, they must pay Rob a royalty for his code residing within the FPGA of that DAC, and rightly so.

 

[Christer]

Thanks for the information. I did not know the exact details.

 

[Rob Watts]

Thanks for your detailed reply mr. Watts!
I get what you're saying, no audible difference in using a LPS instead of the supplied SMPS as the battery is never disconnected; still I don't understand why, referred on headphone listening, you say "As to changing the supplied PSU with a linear one, then with headphones don't bother - you can't hear the PSU connected or not". Would I hear a difference if not using headphone but speaker?
There shouldn't be any difference as the battery is never bypassed as you've told.
Thank you for your time

There was a reason why I specifically mentioned headphones - because that's how I did the listening test!

 

[Swiftfalcon]

Personally I feel that the assumption that one must use expensive gear to test another piece of gear is a complete fallacy. Cost does not equate to performance. In an ideal world, yes, there would be a linear and direct relationship between cost and performance...but out in the real world things aren't so ideal.

To answer your question; unfortunately I do not have access to using over ear headphones. The products that I test are demo/display units from a shop, and so obviously I can't be taking their display models home with me every week lol.

Also, you mentioned my use of "average" IEMs. Again, I suspect that you've said this due to the cost, but I can assure you that the F9's perform way better than their price would suggest. I'm fortunate enough to have reviewed some very premium IEMs, including the incredible InEar ProPhile 8. The F9 has as close to a reference signature as I could imagine you'd get for that $100 price tag. It is because of this transparency that I felt that they're great for testing gear.

Besides, and as I mentioned in my video, when conducting any experiment, it's important to eliminate as many variables as possible. In this scenario, using the same DAP (Shanling M2s), and same IEMs (F9), ,and volume matching, the only variable being changed is the DAC/AMP (comparing the H2 to whatever), then that's a perfectly valid test.
Let's assume for a second that the H2 was a very bright sounding DAC, and the iDSD BL was a very warm sounding DAC. It won't matter which headphones or IEMs you use, that brightness vs warmth difference will always come across, because what you're doing is only comparing the different DACs, as the rest of your system had remained the same.
Please keep in mind that the point of a comparison is, well, exactly that, comparing one product to another. The point is not to try and describe every single nuance of the device's sound characteristic in the most accurate manner imaginable. Heck, if we could do that, that would be amazing, but that's simply impossible to do. That's why I find it far more efficient to make comparisons to other devices, as those other devices give you a point of reference and enables you to describe the differences, rather than the absolutes of a devices sound character. Whilst I try to be as objective as possible with my reviews, some element of subjectivity will always exist

I think using an iem was fairer to Hugo 2. If over ear headphones were used, drivability would factor in and I can vouch for the power output of ifi micro idsd black label.
The Hugo 2 Is the best sound I ve heard through iems, but for over ear headphones I interpose an external amp whenever I can for maximum dynamism (at the cost of tiny bit transparency and resolution).

 

[Sonic77]

"Varatio delectat" I suppose but I personally care MUCH MORE about ergonomics and actual SQ than design for design's sake.
I am not at all interested in EYE FI over HI FI, I am only interested in the highest possible value for money in strict AUDIO PERFORMANCE and practical usage terms.
Any design or parts or connections compromises should always come second to performance IMO.
If I eventually buy a HUGO 2 I will do so in spite of its unfortunate compromises and weird design choices.
Not because of them.
But I have to confess I haven't shaken HUGO 2 at all during any of my auditioning sessions.
Shaking is something I do with some drinks but not with HIFI equipment.
Cheers Christer

So having listened to the Hugo 1 and Hugo 2, do you hear a huge night and day difference in sound quality? Or is it just subtle?
I could've lived with my Hugo 1 and been just fine, I never got an opportunity to listen to the Hugo 2 before purchase, and I don't plan on using the other functions of the Hugo 2. I was going to buy another Hugo 2 for my son, but he said don't bother they sound too similar to spend another 2k. That's just my and my sons opinion, YMMV.

 

[ChisChas]

That makes sence. The biggest difference, therefore the most important choice should be the HP; at least I think so.

The HP is an important component in the audio chain but like loudspeakers, the HP benefits from those components before it in the audio chain. My close to home example is the improvement in SQ for my HP's thanks to an upgrade in a new DAP and again proven when I demoed the Hugo 2 and then ordered one. My interest in Focal Utopia's has diminished because I upgraded the components pre-HP's. Similarly, years ago when I had a Linn Sondek LP12 turntable, I gained benefits from upgrading its arm, power supply & moving coil cartridge. Today I have a Mcintosh MCD1100 SACD player and that enables me to make the most of the pre, power & loudspeakers.

 

[ChisChas]

The metal work for the Demo unit’s was an earlier version. Extra fixing screws were added to fix the two haves together with more force which solved the issue.

Good to hear, i am becoming a little less patient now...............3 weeks to go but I must remember the delays faced by those who pre-ordered (as spoken about within this thread).

 

[ChisChas]

Hello TheoS53,
I skimmed through your review maybe too quickly, but I did not hear one single mentioning of what music you played in your review comparing H2 and the Ifi Black.
And you only mentioned one single pair of iems used and no over ear headphones ?
Why?
For a review of products in the VERY ELEVATED PREMIUM PRICE RANGE for a portable unit,H2 sells at to be of any real interest to me I need a lot more in depth references and listening material mentioned.
IMO a product like H2 needs to be tested with the best possible most demanding material and headphones of similar quality.
When I audition DACs or any other HIFI products via headphones I use some of the best and most resolving headphones on the market.
I do so because if a DAC in this price range is not sounding good with headphones like HD800/HD800S or HEKV2 or Utopias and similar HIGHEND headphones I consider it a complete waste of money to spend on the product if it does not scale with those to pay anywhere near the price of H2.
I have not auditioned the iFi Black ,but maybe you would have come to different conclusions if you had used better than average IEMs in your review?
Since obviously take your reviewing quite seriously may I suggest that you include both material used and use more than IEMs next time you review an upmarket priced item like H2.

Phew.............my K812's do scale nicely with the Hugo 2. Otherwise I'd be in trouble

 

[ChisChas]

"Varatio delectat" I suppose but I personally care MUCH MORE about ergonomics and actual SQ than design for design's sake.
I am not at all interested in EYE FI over HI FI, I am only interested in the highest possible value for money in strict AUDIO PERFORMANCE and practical usage terms.
Any design or parts or connections compromises should always come second to performance IMO.
If I eventually buy a HUGO 2 I will do so in spite of its unfortunate compromises and weird design choices.
Not because of them.
But I have to confess I haven't shaken HUGO 2 at all during any of my auditioning sessions.
Shaking is something I do with some drinks but not with HIFI equipment.
Cheers Christer

Well, good luck with trying to find the 'highest possible value for money' with premium hi-fi components! If you get lucky, please PM me. Joking, sort of, aside, as I've already said, the only value for money component I've purchased in recent years are the original AQ Dragonfly and the Dragonfly Red. Is the Chord Hugo 2 worth nearly 11 x the Dragonfly Red? No, course it's not but I can't wait to collect mine in 3 weeks time.

 

[highfell]

Now that I have heard the Hugo 2 a few times it’s really hard to forget the crazy resolution and how realistic instruments sound. Even though it’s a lot of money I am considering a purchase but I have a few questions.

Does the casing still have a slight gap that lets the led lights come through? (Something I dislike and stood out straight away)

Do the balls still rattle around? (Again this stood out straight away and I understand it’s not a fault but I prefer a more “fixed” build quality)

Thanks, hope you’re all enjoying your Hugos

I use a piece of sellotape, so no rattle now -