[RAPGOD]

Mr Watts would say that though wouldn’t he, as it’s a direct competitor’s product..... (and I have owned a Mojo, Hugo, and currently am very pleased with my Hugo 2). But if this Sabre noise was in practise bad/audible, we’d have heard about that issue by now. So much hype about Hugo tech, and dissing of the competition, but I’m only concerned if it obviously affects performance. Otherwise it’s merely a form of school playground my product measures better than yours boastings.....

He's explained this already..

All off-the-shelf chip designs have noise floor modulation issues. Even if they get better in terms of S/N ratio every few years, that will not be audible - noise floor modulation will.

Rob isn't the only person who tackles noise floor modulation issues in the industry, look up some Dolby Laboratory papers on the subject. It's a known performance issue that most manufacturers and designers do not care to address.

Going back to ESS; another big flaw of their designs in regards to audio performance is the filter. The reason Chord DACs are so expensive is mainly because of the filter design and FPGA chip. Stock filters that come with off-the-shelf DAC chips come with budget-level filters. You can bypass the stock filters with your own - but 99% of DAC brands do not..

 

[RAPGOD]

Pretty sure ps4 doesn't BT with audio devices. I bought an optical cable and use that instead from ps4 to Hugo2.

I use my Hugo 2 with my PS4 too, it sounds amazing. Easier to figure out where players are shooting from in FPS games and everything sounds very realistic.

 

[RAPGOD]

I really don't understand why with dac s that they bother with the different filters,it's just another button to press to drive me around the bend,I would rather have no filters and just the pure sound of the dac if that makes any sense,to me it's like tone controls with bass and treble...I don't want it

Everybody wants different things from their equipment. You may not desire filter choice, but others may..

 

[RAPGOD]

Yes its about 31 mS for 48 kHz input, and it's down to the WTA tap length and 16FS oversampling on the first filter WTA1.

Would you recommend setting your display lip sync setting to 31ms then?

 

[RAPGOD]

For those discussing listening to music as their primary activity vs listening to music as a background activity while doing something else. I definitely agree that making your listening experience TO good can lead to a loss of productivity because you end up focusing on the music more than on your work. I find that it does help in order to cut out outside noise. I work in an open office environment and sometimes it can get a little chatty. I think closed back headphones in combination with low music volume is definitely the way to go. You probably don't need something quite as overkill as the Hugo 2 for background music but it's portable so if you don't want to invest in another gadget than I don't see an issue with using it. Just keep the volume low.

There's been studies on this. If you want music to help productivity, you need it quiet (at least quiter than speech) and it needs to be music with no/minimal vocals to not distract you (we will naturally be drawn to other human voices).

Here's a good article which references good types of music for such:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/music-that-increases-productivity-2017-9?r=US&IR=T

 

[RAPGOD]

By coincidence, I was in my audio shop yesterday trying some headphones, tried the Meze 99 for the first time, and liked it enough to take it home for a few days to spend more time with it. I find that it sounds noticeably better when moving up my chain of DAC/amps: iPhone < DF Red < Mojo < Hugo 2. Like many others, I find that the bass can be a bit much, and I agree that this effect is most pronounced with the Hugo 2 (though the bass is also best defined and controlled with the Hugo 2).

I too find that my equipment preferences can vary with track and mood (and time of day), and it can be nice to change things up sometimes. From that perspective, I can see the Meze 99 + Hugo 2 working well sometimes, but other times it will be too much of a basshead sound. The Mojo may actually be the better pairing most of the time. Interesting headphone ...

Perception is affected by emotional state. Emotions are regulated by your hormones. Hormones are effected by various things; stress, diet, sleep, health, age etc etc..

 

[Phronesis]

There's been studies on this. If you want music to help productivity, you need it quiet (at least quiter than speech) and it needs to be music with no/minimal vocals to not distract you (we will naturally be drawn to other human voices).

Here's a good article which references good types of music for such:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/music-that-increases-productivity-2017-9?r=US&IR=T

With that in mind, I think the Hugo 2 is overkill for background music, and any decent DAC/amp should be fine. That doesn't mean the Hugo 2 can't be used for background music, but IMO its best use is for attentive listening. I don't think of having background music as even a form of music listening, it's more just shaping the environment.

 

[RAPGOD]

Comparing BluHugo2 vs BluDAVE (both at 1M taps) has taught me that the impact of the pulse array elements and power supplies is huge

It was to my understanding that the more elements of DAVE were to allow for extremely low distortion at 0dB? If that’s the case, all it means with the other Chord DACs is that THD starts to increase slightly when close to 0dB on Hugo 2 and Mojo. Meaning; if you never drive them too hard or close to or passed fixed level output (3VRMS) the extra elements don't matter. More elements also allows for lower noise if the power supply design allows it, which the DAVE does have lower noise so; lower noise and lower distortion at higher volumes are the only advantages I can tell from extra elements.

The main reasons for DAVE sounding superior to say the original Hugo; is its 350dB digital noise shaping resolution, higher tap length, second-order analogue noise shaper, higher number of elements as explained above and 2048fs version of WTA filter.

Hugo 2 now has the same second-order analogue noise shaper and the same WTA filter as DAVE. Excluding higher elements if you don’t drive Hugo 2 to high volumes/voltages; the only big differences between Hugo 2 are the digital noise shaping performance and tap length. If the differences are really noticeable between the Hugo 2 and DAVE (I haven’t heard the DAVE), that’s the perfect testament to Robs work and shows the true importance of digital domain performance that other DACs just plainly don’t have.

Using a Blu MK2 on both the Hugo 2 and DAVE will bring the tap length to 1 million on both. Leaving only digital noise shaping performance drastically separating them. Which I believe is 260dB (Hugo 2) to 350dB (DAVE).

Obviously the DAVE and TT also have balanced output which also would mean a slightly different output stage, wether that be better or worse I don’t know. Rob Watts states unbalanced being technically better for transparency reasons and Chord DACs don’t have the noise issues non-discrete DACs have. But then DAVE has balanced output, so either it’s using a balanced output stage that's as transparent as unbalanced output or it's not and is simply there to please balanced output customers and people that expect it at that level of price.

As the Hugo 2 isn't a million miles away from the DAVE, this leads me to believe DAVE 2 will be announced in the next 1/2 years. Obviously Rob cannot speak of such, but I think as soon as a new FPGA chip is released that allows for everything the DAVE has in digital performance + M-Scaler and maybe even an upgraded crossfeed (as X-PHD runs at 256fs vs 2048fs with it off), that is efficient and noiseless enough to be integrated into the DAVE 2 itself - development will begin. Couple the digital performance upgrade with a few more analogue elements thrown in for a tad lower distortion and noise performance, plus maybe even slightly better digital noise shaping performance, a new 22KHz high-res filter (rejects all audio above 22KHz even at higher sample rates - wishful thinking on my part) and you have got yourself a true successor to the DAVE. In which the new M-Scaler FPGA chip will be efficient enough to be used in a small add-on for the Hugo 2/Qutest too. These are just my own predictions though..

 

[RAPGOD]

Admittedly the difference is subtle – but it can be crucial nonetheless (like at some point in the past with a deviating EQ setting for the HE1000). Also, I'm mainly referring to the DAVE with exactly the same HF filter characteristic. I don't hear up to 20 kHz myself, but the roll-off starts earlier, so there may be –0.5 dB at 15 kHz and –0.15 dB at 12 kHz.

Yup, we can detect difference in volume down to even 0.25dB. Here's a good article by Audioholics on the topic:

https://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/human-hearing-amplitude-sensitivity-part-1

 

[RAPGOD]

With that in mind, I think the Hugo 2 is overkill for background music, and any decent DAC/amp should be fine. That doesn't mean the Hugo 2 can't be used for background music, but IMO its best use is for attentive listening. I don't think of having background music as even a form of music listening, it's more just shaping the environment.

I do agree, I think for purely listening to background music the Hugo 2 is overkill. I wouldn't use a non-Chord DAC though, low quality transient reproduction and noise floor modulation will cause listening fatigue regardless of the volume level I would imagine..

 

[GreenBow]

The Hugo₂ always and exclusively runs from its batteries, that's also valid for the desktop mode. The difference to the regular/portable mode is that the battery doesn't get fully charged, but is regularly recharged on a lower level – as you're experiencing with your unit. So it behaves normal. Contrary to your fear the desktop mode is officially the most gentle operating mode.

BTW, I don't hear any difference with and without the charger.

I do not think you are correct.

This post from Rob Watts explains the opposite. https://www.head-fi.org/threads/cho...official-thread.831345/page-264#post-13529190

Quoted relevant part.
"So what I do when the charger is connected for more than 24 hours, and Hugo 2 is on, is to go into desktop mode. In this mode, the charger supplies current that matches the current needed for Hugo 2, current from the battery is only provided for dynamic current surges, so it's effectively no longer in a charge discharge cycle. Secondly, when in desktop mode, the sustaining voltage is reduced to ensure maximum life. If you want to charge it to the max, ready for portable use, simply turn Hugo 2 off, when it will charge it to 100% and turn off the charger. The auto shutdown is disabled in desktop mode.

Thirdly, I made sure that Hugo 2 will function with no batteries connected at all, just the charger. So if you intend to use it as a desktop DAC, you do not need to worry about battery life."


What I am seeing is my Hugo 2, appearing to be charging and discharging while in desktop mode. It heats and cools quite regularly.

 

[JaZZ]

You may be right indeed, but my unit behaves exactly like yours.

 

[EagleWings]

He's explained this already..

All off-the-shelf chip designs have noise floor modulation issues. Even if they get better in terms of S/N ratio every few years, that will not be audible - noise floor modulation will.

Rob isn't the only person who tackles noise floor modulation issues in the industry, look up some Dolby Laboratory papers on the subject. It's a known performance issue that most manufacturers and designers do not care to address.

Going back to ESS; another big flaw of their designs in regards to audio performance is the filter. The reason Chord DACs are so expensive is mainly because of the filter design and FPGA chip. Stock filters that come with off-the-shelf DAC chips come with budget-level filters. You can bypass the stock filters with your own - but 99% of DAC brands do not..

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.

I wouldn't use a non-Chord DAC though, low quality transient reproduction and noise floor modulation will cause listening fatigue regardless of the volume level I would imagine..

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.

 

[nanaholic]

and what I am asking now is, how much of those better measurement actually translates to better perceived sound quality?

That's not a valid question. Better measurement is an objective value while better perceived sound quality is a subjective value that differs from person to person.

Asking which gives better perceived sound quality is like asking whether sushi or hamburger is the better tasting food.

 

[EagleWings]

That's not a valid question. Better measurement is an objective value while better perceived sound quality is a subjective value that differs from person to person.

Asking which gives better perceived sound quality is like asking whether sushi or hamburger is the better tasting food.

Fair enough. But the point I am trying to get to is, if a large number of people with many other reference points (experience with other DAPs and DACs), actually find a certain DAP 'X' to sound better than a certain Chord DAC, in terms of transparency, blacker background, imaging precision, timbre accuracy etc., are the 'better measurements' truly indicative of the widely accepted sound quality? Of course, the 'large number of people' doesn't constitute a valid sample population. But this is a niche hobby and if there is a unanimous observation among audiophiles, however non-objective it may be, it starts to carry credibility.

Anyways, the point I am trying to make is, Chord DACs are hyped up to an extent, that makes readers buy these DACs blind. For people without other reference points, high chances that the Chord DAC is bound to sound good. And because of claims like Chord DACs are superior to other DACs, it is easy to imagine that other DACs must sound poorer than this. And they start sharing how amazing the Chord DACs are, and the process gets into a vicious cycle. But that is just one side of the story. You also have people who have other reference points, that bought the Chord DAC expecting a noticeable improvement over their other DAPs or DACs, but are disappointed as they realize it was just hype. So you end up with 2 crowds of people. One crowd who think that the Chord DACs are the best. And another crowd who starts to hate Chord products because of these kind of hype.

Realistically, Chord DACs are great, and so are many other DACs and DAPs out there.