Chord Electronics - Hugo 2 - The Official Thread
Jan 29, 2017 at 6:53 PM Post #526 of 22,546
  Jude has already posted his review in the CES highlights part 1 video. He is clearly an enthusiast for the Hugo 2.
The Poly will be in part 2 video.


 
 
This video is a CES highlight video that has Hugo 2 in it.  I saw it.  
 
I am hoping for a  review which is why I wrote "an in-depth review" including sound comparison of the Hugo 2.  
 
Jan 29, 2017 at 7:20 PM Post #527 of 22,546
Yeah that's similar to where I ended up. x RELIC x said the management of jitter in Chord products is pretty tight so to pamper the Hugo 2 (or me), the Regen or Recovery are what I will toss up between, as well as considering cable upgrade options if I want more than bluetooth or it becomes less practical for a desktop setup. I am going to wait to hear in the meantime :) Thanks UELong!


To be clear, I'm not simply sharing my opinion on the matter but referencing what Rob Watts has said about jitter. Basically, just focus on sending a bitperfect signal to Chord DACs with as little modification and as little noise from the source as possible. Personally, I wouldn't waste my money on a re-clocker for the sake of improving jitter with the Chord DACs. If curious about the ins and outs of his designs I highly recommend you read the third post of the Mojo thread (which largely shares the same implementations and information across all his designs). There is an amazing wealth of information there from Rob and John that has been gathered by Mython:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/784602/chord-mojo-dac-amp-faq-in-3rd-post#post_11992416

Some small excerpts from that giant post of information regarding jitter and other influences on sound from the source (bold emphasis by me):


Originally Posted by Rob Watts View Post

Originally Posted by musicheaven View Post

Digital transmission is based on SPDIF standard which transmits data and clock information as an encoded signal usually using PCM, that information is decoded on the Mojo into data and clock signal so it's important that the encoded information be jittered free and not degraded over short distance.

The USB transmission on the other end is a device to device transmission mechanism using an encoding scheme and handshaking mechanism, it is usually stream based so more tolerant to poorer wire as frames are transmitted and decoded from the source to the target device. The target device will reconstruct the data and clock signal from the frame and then feed it to the DAC to be analog reconstructed and eventually band pass filtered to remove any residual high and low frequency signals out of the audio band.I still think you need to keep the USB cable short but it is more tolerant of longer lengths up to a limit.

To make a story short, the short USB cable is fine but an analog cable used as a digital one is just a bad idea. Again, that's just my opinion.


Just to clarify:

1. SPDIF decoding is all digital within the FPGA. The FPGA uses a digital phase lock loop (DPLL) and a tiny buffer. This re-clocks the data and eliminates the incoming jitter from the source. This system took 6 years to perfect, and means that the sound quality defects from source jitter is eliminated. How do I know that? Measurements - 2 uS of jitter has no affect whatsoever on measurements (and I can resolve noise floor at -180dB with my APX555) and sound quality tests against RAM buffer systems revealed no significant difference. You can (almost) use a piece of damp string and the source jitter will be eliminated.

2. USB is isochronous asynchronous. This means that the FPGA supplies the timing to the source, and incoming USB data is re clocked from the low jitter master clock. So again source jitter is eliminated.

So does this mean that any digital cable will do?

Sadly no. Mojo is a DAC, that means its an analogue component, and all analogue components are sensitive to RF noise and signal correlated in-band noise, so the RF character of the electrical cables can have an influence. What happens is random RF noise gets into the analogue electronics, creating intermodulation distortion with the wanted audio signal. The result of this is noise floor modulation. Now the brain is incredibly sensitive to noise floor modulation, and perceives this has a hardness to the sound - easily confused as better detail resolution as it sounds brighter. Reduce RF noise, and it will sound darker and smoother. The second source is distorted in band noise, and this mixes with the wanted signal (crosstalk source) and subtly alters the levels of small signals - this in turn degrades the perception of sound stage depth. This is another source of error for which the brain is astonishingly sensitive too. The distorted in band noise comes from the DAP, phone or PC internal electronics processing the digital data, with the maximum noise coming as the signal crosses through zero - all digital data going from all zeroes to all ones. Fortunately mobile electronics are power frugal and create less RF and signal correlated noise than PC's. Note that optical connection does not have any of these problems, and is my preferred connection.

Does this mean that high end cables are better? Sadly not necessarily. What one needs is good RF characteristics, and some expensive cables are RF poor. Also note that if it sounds brighter its worse, as noise floor modulation is spicing up the sound (its the MSG of sound). So be careful when listening and if its brighter its superficially more impressive but in the long term musically worse. At the end of the day, its musicality only that counts, not how impressive it sounds.

Rob

Originally Posted by Rob Watts View Post

The reasons why sources and digital interconnects sound different are well understood - see some of my posts. In a nutshell it is not jitter (all my DACs are completely immune to source jitter) but down to RF noise and distorted currents from the source flowing into the DAC's ground plane. The RF noise inter-modulates with the analogue electronics, creating random noise as a by product, which creates noise floor modulation, and that makes it sound brighter or harder. The correlated or distorted currents very subtly add or subtract to small signals, thus changing the fundamental linearity, which in turn mucks up depth perception.

But I also agree in that lots of people hear changes that are not there - I for one have never heard any difference with optical cables (assuming all are bit perfect) with my DAC's, but lots of folks claim big differences. Placebo, or listening with your wallet, plays a part here. Then there are cases of people preferring more distortion... Listening tests must be done in a very controlled and careful fashion, particularly if you are trying to design and develop things.

Rob
 
Jan 29, 2017 at 9:17 PM Post #529 of 22,546
What! New chord Hugo 2 on Audiogon! Only $1879.
Why and How?
https://www.audiogon.com/listings/da-converters-chord-electronics-ltd-hugo-2-new-the-brand-new-dac-headphone-amp-from-chord-2017-01-29-digital-54351-marbache
 
Jan 29, 2017 at 9:54 PM Post #530 of 22,546
...probably Chord see less need to target the Hugo 2 as primarily a portable dac (and remove market share from the Mojo at the same time).

In which case I think they could have done better with port positioning.
Again in the Hugo2 the USB input (signal & charging) and RCA out are on opposite sides, which makes it a nightmare for a desktop use.
I would have put USB in, charging and RCA out on one side and headphone out on the other side.
But I guess there is some other reasons why they didn't do it.
 
Jan 29, 2017 at 10:49 PM Post #531 of 22,546
What! New chord Hugo 2 on Audiogon! Only $1879.
Why and How?
https://www.audiogon.com/listings/da-converters-chord-electronics-ltd-hugo-2-new-the-brand-new-dac-headphone-amp-from-chord-2017-01-29-digital-54351-marbache


Mm...that appears to be legit (followed the link to the dealer's website) and, if so, the price is very attractive. Anyone dealt with Highendplay or Undercut Electronics Ltd. in Cyprus?

Edit: they promise delivery in 2 to 3 weeks time.
 
Jan 30, 2017 at 12:00 AM Post #532 of 22,546
In which case I think they could have done better with port positioning.
Again in the Hugo2 the USB input (signal & charging) and RCA out are on opposite sides, which makes it a nightmare for a desktop use.
I would have put USB in, charging and RCA out on one side and headphone out on the other side.
But I guess there is some other reasons why they didn't do it.


Chord have announced that there will be a Poly for the Hugo 2, called the 2Go. This will plug into the Hugo 2, in a similar manner to the Poly and Mojo.
If the USB and RCA were on the same side, the 2Go would block access to the RCA sockets.
 
Jan 30, 2017 at 6:51 AM Post #533 of 22,546
Thanks for the extra clarification x RELIC x. I trust the jitter free claim that Rob makes. I have the 2qute and it is proven his knowledge has been applied to what I can hear. So it makes sense that re-clocking would seem superfluous. Oh how I would love hearing a Hugo next to the 2qute to hear if the 2qutes galvanic isolation in and of itself makes a difference in my setup. But once the DAC has converted the digital information to analogue, RF noise would still be able to be picked up right, it is more than just the input that causes RF noise?
 
As a newbie it seems a task to listen out for hardness so I am after some innoculative measures, whether they are cheap by simply improving my understanding or whether an expense like an improved cable will minimising RF noise. Or even making sure all cables have better RF shielding. Either way I will likely wait to hear the Hugo 2 first....if I hear optimal musicality with what Rob says to look out for, I will likely rest my endeavor and just focus on enjoying the music. It is a rabbit hole of a topic but fun to dig a bit. 
 
Hans Beekhuyzen made comment of how the microRendu definitely improved the Hugo's USB performance. It seems reasonable to say with what has been covered now that it is not a clocking improvement the Hugo benefited from. Hans said it is also a "reshaper". I don't know what that means or if that helps in practice with the Hugo. Perhaps it is the best elimination of RF noise into the USB that it has acheived.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XRi9utNBl4&t=1s
 
So I guess that is the topic I wish to further understand. Reducing RF noise. A cable that has good RF qualities is a starting point. Galvanic isolation is still desirable as it cleans noise from power right, which may cause noise in the device in the analogue realm? Does bluetooth inherently cause some RF noise in the analogue stage seeing as it is RF based? 
 
Jan 30, 2017 at 6:53 AM Post #534 of 22,546
Does anyone know the specific specs of the improved range Bluetooth? I haven't been able to track down any information confirming what a guy in a hi-fi shop told me about its Bluetooth, that it would be able to go up to 24/96 lossless as other devices catch up. Do we know what type of Bluetooth Hugo 2 will use, whether it is truly lossless and what its bitrate/frequency capabilities will be?
 
Jan 30, 2017 at 6:58 AM Post #535 of 22,546
Does anyone know the specific specs of the improved range Bluetooth? I haven't been able to track down any information confirming what a guy in a hi-fi shop told me about its Bluetooth, that it would be able to go up to 24/96 lossless as other devices catch up. Do we know what type of Bluetooth Hugo 2 will use, whether it is truly lossless and what its bitrate/frequency capabilities will be?
30 miles.... not.
 
Jan 30, 2017 at 7:02 AM Post #536 of 22,546
I am not too fussed if it doesn't go beyond several metres as other Bluetooth devices I have seen. The main thing I am keen to confirm is the type of Bluetooth, its resolution specs and whether it is a truly lossless option.
 
Jan 30, 2017 at 7:06 AM Post #537 of 22,546
  will Hugo2 be an upgrade over Mojo? Price for the buck Hugo2 or Naim DAC-V1, Mytek Brooklyn?

I am also interested to know on this aspect. I want to compare only on DAC portion on both Mojo and Hugo 2.
 
I am still not able to decide whether i should by Poly or buy Hugo 2 and sell off the Mojo. :frowning2:
 
Jan 30, 2017 at 7:21 AM Post #538 of 22,546
  will Hugo2 be an upgrade over Mojo? Price for the buck Hugo2 or Naim DAC-V1, Mytek Brooklyn?

 
The original Hugo is clearly an upgrade over the Mojo to my ears. Some people still prefer the Mojo's sound signature which says that subjectivity is also at play, but the Hugo definitely sounded fuller and more realistic on both my Shure SE535s and Sennhieser HD800 headphones I auditioned. This means with the improved specs on the Hugo 2 it is already building on something that performs better than the Mojo. From my understanding, the Mojo is simply a more accessible market point for quality sound, the Hugo's superior sound is why Hugos are still more valuable than them.
 
From John Darko's review of the Mytek Brooklyn:
 
"Compared to the Mojo (not the Hugo), this Mytek offers a fuller body but isn’t quite as extended in the treble and doesn’t tease out the finer details quite as effortlessly as the Chord. But the Chord doesn’t have a phono stage or offer balanced headphone outputs (without modding). Neither does the Chord fully handle MQA."
 
 
You could extrapolate that seeing as the Hugo as a fuller body than the Mojo, and the Mytek didn't beat it on detail to John's ears, that the Hugo 2 would be the winner as it is likely to be full sounding like its predecessor (I can't imagine they's send out a thinner sound on an upgraded product...too many people would simply buy a second hand Hugo if that was the case), and on specs on tap length indicate increased realism is a given. Only extrapolations though, auditioning and trusting what you hear is the only way to be sure for your tastes. Portability and connection options may play a part too on what is a winner for your situation. 
 
P.S. @music4mhell I have already sold my Mojo in anticipation, it was an easy decision for my needs and wants.  The money you get selling the Mojo plus the money you would have spent on a Poly mean it you can mitigate the sting of the total expense. A bit of a gamble not having heard the Hugo 2, but the worst case scenario of simply getting a second hand original Hugo means a sound upgrade can be had either way. I think it is a safe gamble to believe the Hugo 2 will be an improvement though. My recommendation, if you can, is to audition the Mojo next to the Hugo and let your ears decide on whether it seems a reasonable gamble for you. What makes practical sense depends on how you plan on using the DAC you have. I have forgone caring about the smaller size of the Mojo, it isn't that much lighter than the original Hugo (the Mojo+Poly is verging on Hugo's size too) and I have lived with it knowing I have heard something better. Now I live in anticipation of hearing something even better than better! Happy days to be privileged enough to have these tough decisions to make!
 
Jan 30, 2017 at 7:30 AM Post #539 of 22,546
Hi all
I know almost nobody already heard hugo2 sonics....so my question is probably for those involved in Chord....I have the opportunity to upgrade from Hugo to used TT for almost rhe same amount I'd spend to upgrade to new hugo2......I use Hugo at home in my main system only so I don't need portability.....I know it's a hard question...but should I go with used TT or vew Hugo2 for best sonics?
Thanks for your time
Mauro
 
Jan 30, 2017 at 7:45 AM Post #540 of 22,546
P.S. @music4mhell I have already sold my Mojo in anticipation, it was an easy decision for my needs and wants.  The money you get selling the Mojo plus the money you would have spent on a Poly mean it you can mitigate the sting of the total expense. A bit of a gamble not having heard the Hugo 2, but the worst case scenario of simply getting a second hand original Hugo means a sound upgrade can be had either way. I think it is a safe gamble to believe the Hugo 2 will be an improvement though. My recommendation, if you can, is to audition the Mojo next to the Hugo and let your ears decide on whether it seems a reasonable gamble for you. What makes practical sense depends on how you plan on using the DAC you have. I have forgone caring about the smaller size of the Mojo, it isn't that much lighter than the original Hugo (the Mojo+Poly is verging on Hugo's size too) and I have lived with it knowing I have heard something better. Now I live in anticipation of hearing something even better than better! Happy days to be privileged enough to have these tough decisions to make!

Thanks for your input, let me compare Hugo to Mojo once and then will decide.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top