[Whazzzup]

be prepared with the soap

 

[JaZZ]

The HE1000 isn't really hard to drive, certainly not for the Hugo₂. The sonic result is not far behind the combination with the DAVE. Of course the latter sounds a bit more solid and authoritative, but that's with every headphone (HD 800, Grado PS1, Shure SE846, Campfire Andromeda), so it's not a matter of power. If you want options, try to steer away from the «power» concept – it's worth it.

Seriously, I could live with the Hugo₂ for all my headphones – if it had been launched before the DAVE, it would now probably be the heart of my system instead.

 

[Christer]

For seemingly power hungry TOTL headphones such as the Hifiman 1000 V2 that may need more than the CHORD Hugo 2 can supply for larger sound stage, dynamics, improved bass impact/slam, I have come across several reasonably priced amps that others have reported good synergy with the HEK V2 in this regard including the MicroZOTL2 tube amp, the Violectric HPA V281, the Trilogy 931 (special order from England), the very inexpensive Schiit Jotunheim, and finally the Wells Audio Milo. Has anyone heard any of these with the HEK V2 and also with the Focal Utopias?? At the moment I am mostly considering the Vioelectric vs Milo. I have heard amazing things about the Trilogy but few reviews. The Vioelectric can drive two cans at once and powerful, the Milo is most tube like and perhaps better synergy with the Focals.

I know that the CH2 without any amplification is ideal for transparency but wanted more options to try.

Thanks

Not yet having auditioned HUGO 2 I still really hope it sounds fuller and weightier than HUGO1 via my HE1000V2.
The bass instruments of a symphony orchestra sound really BIG live and via both good old LP like the 60s DECCAs for example and the best of digital, but HUGO 1 falls clearly short of delivering that fullness and weight and timbre.
But when adding any amp as suggested, you have to realize that you might also lose some resolution doing so. One of the amps you are thinking of has an SNR of only 85dB which seems very low by today's standards? Some newer DACs feature SNR values approaching 135 and even 140dB! Trilogy obviously costs more than 800 "quid". I would expect much better noise levels from something costing that much. Both my current Benchmark DAC2 with its reasonably quiet class A headhone amp has an SNR of 126 dB and so does HUGO 2. Benchmark's new version DAC 3 has got an SNR value of 128 dB.
Apart from sounding a bit thin AND TOO LEAN.
DEFINITELY LEANER THAN NEUTRAL, HUGO 1 with a quoted SNR of 122dB if my memory serves me right, can also be a bit too hissy and noisy with classical music with very low level ppp/pppp passages both with my HD 800 and my HEKV2.
I am a bit surprised Rob did not target even lower noise levels with Hugo 2.
There are competitors that do.
A difference of say 2 dB may not seem like much. But it can actually be a very audible difference. Try playing two identical tracks at 2dB level difference via a pair of good headphones or speakers and it ought ought to be pretty obvious how big the difference actually is.
I also wish more DACs /amps worked at 0,5 dB steps instead of full 1 dB steps.
If I remember correctly even DAVE only works in 1 dB steps?
When reaching this elevated PRICE level of HIGHEND HIFI being able to really fine tune levels actually matters imho.
And so does the absence of noise.

 

[JaZZ]

Christer: The Hugo₂ sounds fuller and warmer than the Hugo₁. While I wouldn't consider the original Hugo's tonal balance a downside with the HE1000, it's definitely not an ideal synergy with an unmodified HD 800 if you belong to the people who explicitly want to rely on component synergy. On another note, the Hugo₂'s distinct smoothness and treble refinement is a great match with the HE1000's treble characteristic apart from tonal-balance issues.

Note: I edited above text due to the misleading original wording. (Sorry!)

 

[Whazzzup]

The HE1000 isn't really hard to drive, certainly not for the Hugo₂. The sonic result is not far behind the combination with the DAVE. Of course the latter sounds a bit more solid and authoritative, but that's with every headphone (HD 800, Grado PS1, Shure SE846, Campfire Andromeda), so it's not a matter of power. If you want options, try to steer away from the «power» concept – it's worth it.

Seriously, I could live with the Hugo₂ for all my headphones – if it had been launched before the DAVE, it would now probably be the heart of my system instead.

While I have an amp with no regrets I would suggest source as the primary step in delivering better sound quality, authority, and depth. However a dac topography is what it is to begin with. Each are different and tap length is but one component.

 

[Wilderbeast]

In the manual, filters 1 and 2 are shown as 256fs, and filters 3 and 4 are 16fs.

Does anyone know what fs stands for and what it does?

I've only had a few hours listening so far but H2 sounds brighter than H1 to my ears. The overall sound is leaner and tighter, especially the bass. Of course these are extremely early impressions that could be completely wrong. I suspect the sound would thicken/deepen with an optical source - I'm using my phone.

Can anyone suggest an cheap optical DAP? (not Astell&Kern - the older ones have horrible UI and the newer ones are too expensive!)

 

[Martinrm]

In the manual, filters 1 and 2 are shown as 256fs, and filters 3 and 4 are 16fs.

Does anyone know what fs stands for and what it does?

I've only had a few hours listening so far but H2 sounds brighter than H1 to my ears. The overall sound is leaner and tighter, especially the bass. Of course these are extremely early impressions that could be completely wrong. I suspect the sound would thicken/deepen with an optical source - I'm using my phone.

Can anyone suggest an cheap optical DAP? (not Astell&Kern - the older ones have horrible UI and the newer ones are too expensive!)

Fs = sampling rate, 16 & 256 means they're interpolating the signal by that many times, usually an interpolating FIR filter and can run it at a higher rate.

Maybe someone else can comment on this, but I suspect that filters 1&3 and 2&4 (hf roll-off) IRs are the same just ran at different rates. 16Fs giving you the feeling of a smoothing effect compared to 256Fs.

http://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/upsampling-vs-oversampling-for-digital-audio

Also there shouldnt be any difference between optical/usb unless EMI is an issue.

 

[canali]

The HE1000 isn't really hard to drive, certainly not for the Hugo₂. The sonic result is not far behind the combination with the DAVE. Of course the latter sounds a bit more solid and authoritative, but that's with every headphone (HD 800, Grado PS1, Shure SE846, Campfire Andromeda), so it's not a matter of power. If you want options, try to steer away from the «power» concept – it's worth it.

Seriously, I could live with the Hugo₂ for all my headphones – if it had been launched before the DAVE, it would now probably be the heart of my system instead.

that is quite the endorsement... a friend and I are also considering the ps audio direct stream jr or kitsune halo as they're firmware upgradeable.
he's not into chord...but i am (i use the mojo for my 'dap' with an ipod touch 6)
so i'm very looking forward to getting in the hugo2 next week as part of the tour.
i'l share it with my colleague to have a listen: he's using a wadia 121 dac (he just sold
some set based hp tube amp)...has hifiman 1000 v1 cans.

 

[Christer]

Christer: The Hugo₂ sounds fuller and warmer than the Hugo₁. While I wouldn't consider the original Hugo's tonal balance a downside with the HE1000, it's definitely not an ideal synergy with an unmodified HD 800 if you belong to the people who explicitly want to rely on component synergy. On another note, the Hugo₂'s distinct smoothness and treble refinement is a great match with the HE1000's treble characteristic apart from tonal-balance issues.

Note: I edited above text due to the misleading original wording. (Sorry!)

Thanks JaZZ, that sounds promising for a possible HUGO 2 sometime this autumn. I have to admit though,that once I first reverted to an original cable with my HD800 instead of a too bright pure silver one ,and then a few months ago first HE1000 and then HE1000V2 ,I was actually quite happy with how HUGO1 played back a lot of my music. But back home for more than two months now, I am enjoying HE1000V2 even more via both my much more powerful "weightier" headphone amp MP1 HPA class A amp and SACDs ,and downloads via my Benchmark DAC 2 both of which sound fuller and also warmer in a positive more realistic sounding sense than HUGO.
Both strings and woodwinds actually do sound both "warm" and "woody" live in most halls.
But my once so beloved HD800 will probably go up for sale as well.
Imho the HE1000V2 is a very clear step above not only HD800 but also HE1000.
If HUGO 2 can combine the timbral and tonal accuracy of my Benchmark with even higher resolution than it delivers, I might become convinced enough to bite in spite of the high price asked and those shortcomings of HUGO 1 I had hoped they had solved but that still seem to be carried over to HUGO 2 in some respects.
Cheers Christer

 

[JaZZ]

Imho the HE1000V2 is a very clear step above not only HD800 but also HE1000.

Just today I got the V2 pads for the HE1000 (finally they're available!). I haven't yet mounted and tried them, was too occupied with the Campfire Andromeda also picked up at the same time (preferred it over the Vega) – fantastic IEMs, but not free of (easily fixable) tonal issues. We'll see how much of a difference the new pads make! I suspect they're responsible for 85%, the rest goes to the thinner plywood frame and the closure of the gap between it and the pads (in my case already closed). Also, I'm sure my EQ curve already addresses the tonal-balance issues of the original HE1000. I'm curious about the effect of the stronger driver angling caused by the V2 pads, though.

 

[Wilderbeast]

Fs = sampling rate, 16 & 256 means they're interpolating the signal by that many times, usually an interpolating FIR filter and can run it at a higher rate.

Maybe someone else can comment on this, but I suspect that filters 1&3 and 2&4 (hf roll-off) IRs are the same just ran at different rates. 16Fs giving you the feeling of a smoothing effect compared to 256Fs.

http://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/upsampling-vs-oversampling-for-digital-audio

Also there shouldnt be any difference between optical/usb unless EMI is an issue.

I'll have to read up on the sampling. If filters 1 and 2 have a higher sampling rate they are technically better?

I know there shouldn't be a difference between input sources but there definitely was on the original Hugo - optical was a smoother, more rounded listen. I recall Rob Watts saying it was his preferred choice.

 

[JaZZ]

that is quite the endorsement...

Don't get me wrong: I don't regret to have bought the DAVE one bit, and it sounds better than the Hugo₂ with all my headphones. It's just that if the Hugo₂ would have been first, most likely I wouldn't have invested that much money in an upgrade for the DAVE – my most expensive hi-fi purchase ever. Because I could absolutely be happy with the sound of the Hugo₂. I have never aspired the best system available, it just happens that now with the DAVE I'm close to it. However, I will happily pass on the Susvara and the Blu₂. Maybe a separate M-Scaler will be an option one day.

 

[cs600]

Stupid question. I hadn't even considered using Bluetooth with my CH2. Are you using it to simply stream music from a computer instead of USB? If so, what's the difference in SQ between BT and USB and do you need anything special for the best quality on the computer side or standard BT supported by most new computers?

Hi
I simply stream through my galaxy note2 connecting it to h2 via bluetooth aptx....nothing else needed...the easieset way to access to thousands of songs without any audiophile paranoy....and sound quality is stunning
Next phone will have aptx....lukily many producers are now adopting it...galaxy s8, lg g6, oneplus5,.....for me it's a must have now....

 

[tunes]

Don't get me wrong: I don't regret to have bought the DAVE one bit, and it sounds better than the Hugo₂ with all my headphones. It's just that if the Hugo₂ would have been first, most likely I wouldn't have invested that much money in an upgrade for the DAVE – my most expensive hi-fi purchase ever. Because I could absolutely be happy with the sound of the Hugo₂. I have never aspired the best system available, it just happens that now with the DAVE I'm close to it. However, I will happily pass on the Susvara and the Blu₂. Maybe a separate M-Scaler will be an option one day

 

[tunes]

I was wondering if buying the CH2 then adding the M-scaler would be equal to selling the CH2 and buying DAVE. Does anyone think that CH2 with the M-Scaler could best the DAVE?