You are basically relaying what Rob Watts wrote and assuming that, those claims directly translate to superior perceived-sound-quality of Chord DACs over, all other DACs in the market. What
@JohnM-73 asked in his post, and what I am asking now is,
how much of those better measurement actually translates to better perceived sound quality? There were similar claims on the Mojo. It sure did measure better than some of the more expensive DAPs. But in terms of music fidelity, it does not perform on the same level of those DAPs like Lotoo Paw Gold. Sure the Chord DACs are great. But so are so many other DAPs and DACs in the market.
Considering what Rob Watts says on lower noise floor modulation causing listening fatigue is indeed true, in audio, there are other variables that contribute to listener fatigue, than just "noise floor modulation". Even with EQ, there are certain albums that I cannot listen to with my HD800S directly connected to the Hugo2. But I have listened to the same album via Sony PHA-3 without any fatigue. Just because I experienced no fatigue on the PHA-3, does it make it superior to the Hugo 2?.. No! These factors below cause fatigue more instantly:
- Listening at very high volumes
- Headphones/Amps/Albums that are harsh in the treble region
- Listening to bassy music with bass-heavy headphones
- Lack of synergy between the DAC and headphone in terms of tone and impedance
I don’t buy DACs to measure. I buy DACs to listen to and enjoy my music. To say, Chord DACs are superior to other DACs, in terms of perceived Sound Quality just based on manufacturer's claims, is simply BS. If you have personally compared the Chord DACs to other DACs and found the Chord DAC to be better, please share your experience here, and be specific as to what other DACs you compared to, and in what ways you found it to be better than those DACs, and what headphones or speakers you used in the comparison. Such kind of information is more meaningful and helpful, than say, you
imagining how they compare.
Interesting reply...
To tackle your first paragraph, I'll use bullet points to simplify things:
-I am relaying the issue of noise floor modulation because it's
true. As stated before, this performance issue isn't exclusively tackled by Chord Electronics but by industry veterans
Dolby Laboratories. It's not something that is made up and if you believe such, you will have a hard time trying to go against the AV science giant that is Dolby.
-By measurements I assume you are speaking of Robs digital performance simulations. Or are you talking about Chord DACs measurements in general, like Stereophile's measurements?
If it's the former, I cannot comment on Robs noise shaping performance as it appears to be only him and MSB who claim extreme noise shaping resolution is desired, which considering what I have posted above in regards to Hugo 2 and DAVE main differences - it would appear 260dB vs 350dB is audible to anyone who has A/B tested them both with the Blu MK2..
If it's the latter, then I would say the best measurements in regards to the specific areas Stereophile measure are not always audible. Stereophile dominantly measure the frequency domain, with the exception of their impulse response measurements. Impulse measurements matters very little; only being a good indication of phase response and filter length. To truly see how good a DACs time domain performance is, you need to employ more sophisticated measurement techniques - like an
Energy Time Curve. If you look up the ETC measurements of the Chord Hugo, I won't tell you where to find them as that's spoon feeding at this point - you may understand..
While we know very little when it comes to the ear-brain connection and scientific research is still uncovering such in research, one thing that has been known for years now is our interaural time delay - which is close to 4μS acuity. Have a look at other DACs filter ETC measurements and then compare to the Hugo. 99% of other brands DACs have poor temporal resolution performance, smearing transient energy over other samples on the output. If a DAC does
not have lower than 4μS temporal resolution - it is
not full-filling the brains requirements for accurate L/R imaging, regardless of your emotional opinion on its "soundstage"..
-"it does not perform on the same level of those DAPs like Lotoo Paw Gold"
First of all, what has the Mojo got to do with the Hugo 2? Second, based on what? Irrespective of the price, nothing about the hardware in the device is state-of-the-art. They have whacked in an off-the-shelf DAC chip into the unit with a budget DSP to run the OS. At that price I would expect the output stage to be class A which it's not and does not have any of the time domain characteristics of Chord DACs at the price..
In regards to your second paragraph:
-What digital input are you using with your Hugo 2 and HD800 S and what's your music source and files in use?
Looking at the components of the Sony DAC and the performance of its predecessors, I don't understand how you feel it's "less fatiguing". I previously had the Audiolab M-DAC+ which uses the same ESS chip the Sony does; only superior components surrounding the chip - filter choice, class A output stage, low output impedance and shielded toroidal power supply etc. Upgrading from it to the Hugo 2, my previous fatigue (which I experienced with all off-the-shelf DACs I've listened to - which is a lot as I used to work in a hi-fi shop) has disappeared mainly because of the rendering of vocal sibilance on Hugo 2 which I have not found from any other brand (which will be down to its intelligent design). I used to use an external 88.2KHz upsampler which reduced digital edge and fatigue, but nowhere to the extent a Mojo or Hugo 2 does. My bet is your Sony DACs high output impedance is adding warmth to the bottom end as I will explain below..
"
Synergy" isn't what you think it is. It isn't "what goes together", what you're actually doing is masking one components flaws with another component. I have talked about this before in one of my earlier comments in regards to Sennheiser HD800 and their HDV 820 headphone amp. Here's my previous comment:
"Sennheiser make the HDV 820 which is designed with the intention to add extra warmth and bass to the HD800. Its poor damping factor is successful in giving the HD800 a bit more bass and tilting the overall balance away from its crazy treble peak - it also increases low frequency harmonic distortion. If the HD800s didn’t have these problems in the first place, they wouldn’t need to tune it in such a way - do you get my drift? If you’re going to consider spending thousands on an amp to go in between the Hugo 2 and your high-end cans, first consider changing your cans. There’s a huge amount of choice on the market and it’s perfectly possible that you have picked the wrong set for your tastes. While there’s no perfect pair of portable transducers yet - there are some that are much closer to perfect than others.
Another thing of note, sometimes imaging (soundstage) can change when using an amp after the DAC. This is down to analogue bandwidth. Hugo 2 has an extremely wide bandwidth and incredible phase accuracy - which account for its imaging acuity and depth. Any amp after the Hugo 2 signal will massively reduce bandwidth and phase accuracy, destroying all the original imaging nuance and harmonic separation - in favour of “bigger”, rounded off imaging. This is exactly what the Hugo 2 does when you switch it to the Mojo filter in a way."
I mainly use Focal Spirit Classic with my Hugo 2 which is incredibly transparent and natural/fatigue-free. I have used Audeze LCD-2, Focal Spirit Professional, HD700, HD650, HD598 and never experienced any fatigue when streaming Tidal Hi-Fi music via optical from my AirPort Express hmm.. it couldn't possibly be the HD800 + damping factor right?..
I don't need to worry about this topic anymore.
