[iDesign]

I understand all the points of view on the Hugo TT pricing and I dont wish to debate it. However, I can see why there is a growing interest in a "Mojo TT" or "DAVE-ette." A more affordable version of DAVE or a Mojo in a larger desktop enclosure that is optimized (warmer and more bass) for headphones like the HD 800/S and HE1000 and without a battery and remote would be ideal.

I think if Chord offered a Mojo TT or DAVE-ette it would be very successful and it allow them to increase the ROI already made into the Mojo platform/manufacturing. For me the Hugo TT does not fulfill all my needs and I'm looking at other options in and out of its price range-- the DAVE is on my radar. 

 

[yadoo]

   
You don't get it: You can't bypass the so-called amp in the TT (which is just the line-out stage), so with an external amp you have two amps in series and twice the coloring/obscuring effect. It's the same topology as in the original Hugo: no dedicated headphone amp built in!

 

Why is that? As far as I know, hugo does not have an amp in it. TT have one build-in amp on a separate board which is attacked to the DAC. 
 
The topology Hugo>external amp>speakers: you will get one amp in the system.
The topology TT>external amp>speakers: you will get two amps in the system. 
 
Unless you can somehow you make TT act like a pure DAC, the hugo setup is less coloring and more pure. Please correct me if I wrong? But then what is the point of TT if you want a pure DAC? 
Perhaps, TT is suitable for people who does not have any external amp and likes to have DAC and headphone amp in one box. That is totally understandable, but as discussed earlier this system has its own advantages (one box, no external factors, etc) and disadvantages (price, less flexible, etc). Buying TT alone won't get you only advantages, you will gain serious disadvantages.
 
I think my points are clearly explained, so lets just move one. 
 
Cheers,
Y

 

[Whazzzup]

I paid more for my Hugo TT.

It sits better in my sytem. It has balanced outputs. It has a remote so I can use it as my pre amp in my main system and not have to fiddle to turn it up.
It has an input memory.
It sounds better than my old Hugo.
It still makes my Grados sound wonderful. And the jacks all fit. As do any cables.

That justified it to me. Yes, the cost doesn't add up to a literal improvement, but so what. You have made the point and I don't disagree. I can see it's a Hugo with bits added.

I'm happy.

me too

 

[JaZZ]

 

   
You don't get it: You can't bypass the so-called amp in the TT (which is just the line-out stage), so with an external amp you have two amps in series and twice the coloring/obscuring effect. It's the same topology as in the original Hugo: no dedicated headphone amp built in!

 

Why is that? As far as I know, hugo does not have an amp in it. TT have one build-in amp on a separate board which is attached to the DAC. 
 
The topology Hugo>external amp>speakers: you will get one amp in the system.
The topology TT>external amp>speakers: you will get two amps in the system. 
 
Unless you can somehow you make TT act like a pure DAC, the hugo setup is less coloring and more pure. Please correct me if I wrong? But then what is the point of TT if you want a pure DAC? 
Perhaps, TT is suitable for people who does not have any external amp and likes to have DAC and headphone amp in one box. That is totally understandable, but as discussed earlier this system has its own advantages (one box, no external factors, etc) and disadvantages (price, less flexible, etc). Buying TT alone won't get you only advantages, you will gain serious disadvantages.
 
I think my points are clearly explained, so lets just move one.

 
So I will correct you: you're wrong. It seems that your EE background hasn't helped you, but mislead you in this case. I don't know much about electronics, but maybe the second board is for balancing the signal for the balanced outputs.

 

[rgs9200m]

Notice you never see a pre-owned TT for sale around here. (Just one ever as far as I can see).

 

[yadoo]

   
So I will correct you: you're wrong. It seems that your EE background hasn't helped you, but mislead you in this case. I don't know much about electronics, but maybe the second board is for balancing the signal for the balanced outputs.

First, take it easy

. The amp has to be somewhere in the box, there is no magic here. I think we both agree on that. I strongly believe that It is in the second board. It should be something like this http://uk.farnell.com/audio-amplifiers. There is no other place! The first board is the original hugo board. That is why the expanded the board with the second board. If they rely on the original hugo amp, then this is worst. You are paying 2K USD for just output mapping! Clearly TT is not because it can power more demanding headphones. 
 
The only other place where the amp is in the FPGA chip, but I highly doubt it. I am pretty sure it is not possible. I don't recall a company done that, may be the chord is the first. How knows? I have to say I am not familiar with FPGA chips. Another question: is why they even do that? It does not make scenes. FPGA for DAC is highly understandable. Many high-end companies did it before, but amp and dac together in a chip? why? is it even possible? (It is extremely interesting. I have some reading to do then

). There are limitations for cells in FPGAs, one of which if I recall correctly FPGA only works on digital domain, then implementing approximate analogy amp mahhh. There is this thesis claims they done it 193501.pdf
 
Unfortunately, there is no published schematics, and close up pictures on the Internet do not show the second board. Otherwise, it is extremely easy to verify. 

 

[JaZZ]

 

  So I will correct you: you're wrong. It seems that your EE background hasn't helped you, but mislead you in this case. I don't know much about electronics, but maybe the second board is for balancing the signal for the balanced outputs.

First, take it easy

. The amp has to be somewhere in the box, there is no magic here. I think we both agree on that. I strongly believe that It is in the second board. It should be something like this http://uk.farnell.com/audio-amplifiers. There is no other place! The first board is the original hugo board. That is why the expanded the board with the second board. If they rely on the original hugo amp, then this is worst. You are paying 2K USD for just output mapping! Clearly TT is not because it can power more demanding headphones. 
 
The only other place where the amp is in the FPGA chip, but I highly doubt it. Unless chord is doing outstanding FPGA programming to embed a powerful amp in the FPGA. I am pretty sure it is not possible for powerful amp. I don't recall a company done that, may be the chord is the first. How knows? 

 
You seem to accept this scenario for the Hugo, but not for the TT. Please don't put your own assumptions so arrogantly above reality! There is no headphone amp neither in the Hugo nor in the TT nor in DAVE. Headphones are driven by the DAC's line-out stage. Rob Watts should know, right? There are a few other DACs with headphone outputs without dedicated headphone amps, BTW.
 
Here's a TT test with a block diagram. And here's Rob Watts' comment about the changes compared to the Hugo.

 

[yadoo]

   
You seem to accept this scenario for the Hugo, but not for the TT. Please don't put your own assumptions so arrogantly above reality! There is no headphone amp neither in the Hugo nor in the TT nor in DAVE. Headphones are driven by the DAC's line-out stage. Rob Watts should know, right? There are a few other DACs with headphone outputs without dedicated headphone amps, BTW.
 
Here's a TT test with a block diagram. And here's Rob Watts' comment about the changes compared to the Hugo.

You are right. My bad. In all three, apparently there is no dedicated amp (very impressive and well-done chord). Thanks JaZZ for clearing this out. Usually, this is not the case. You want to add a powerful amp, just use the same DAC and add a dedicated chip with a separate board. 
 
Cheers, 

Y

 

[Whazzzup]

 

   
You seem to accept this scenario for the Hugo, but not for the TT. Please don't put your own assumptions so arrogantly above reality! There is no headphone amp neither in the Hugo nor in the TT nor in DAVE. Headphones are driven by the DAC's line-out stage. Rob Watts should know, right? There are a few other DACs with headphone outputs without dedicated headphone amps, BTW.
 
Here's a TT test with a block diagram. And here's Rob Watts' comment about the changes compared to the Hugo.

You are right. My bad. In all three, apparently there is no dedicated amp (very impressive and well-done chord). Thanks JaZZ for clearing this out. Usually, this is not the case. You want to add a powerful amp, just use the same DAC and add a dedicated chip with a separate board. 
 
Cheers, 

Y

 
Sooo, Glad we could clear that up, TT seems to be a misunderstood dac/amp. Thanks jazz for the info into chord through six moons and the TT bloc diagram.

 

[yadoo]

Guys,
 
One question: I wonder if anyone compared TT with Schiit Yggdrasil?
 
Many thanks for your answers in advance.

 

[Mojo ideas]

I am sorry but 2600 USD more for a couple of capacitors with better USB is just ridiculous. Coming from electrical engineering background, I know from a true fact the chord didn't spend even 1% of that amount. You may wonder then why Chord puts this price tag? Because the market is stupid enough to accept. But what can you do? there are a lot of people with $$$$ like to be fooled and there is nothing you can do about it!

I am not against high-priced DACs like Dave. In Dave, you get a much much better algorithm with 126K tap filters (four times more hugo). Give yourself a bit of time and think before ordering TT. 

The Bill of materials of the Hugo TT is far more than 100 percent than that of the original Hugo the TT have additional super caps yes 10,000,000 microfarads worth not cheap by any account, The TT also has an additional micro processor that takes over the control functions drives a display and receives remote control codes. The main board was redesigned to accommodate galvanic isolation! Which unusually works all the was up to 384k most only work to 48k maximum. The complete pulse array circuitry was totally redesigned to dramatically reduce the residual noise by 4dBV! The battery capacity was doubled. The charging circuit was boosted to cope with the extra demands of the super caps and the extra battery capacity. XLR signal balancing circuitry was designed and added along with connectors a carrier board was designed. New volume circuitry was developed so that it would operate via remote controls and a new larger ball made. It's very easy to make a judgement without the facts to hand and come to a totally erroneous conclusion. After developing Hugo aimed at first for the mobile market, we soon realised we'd missed the mark. Hugo was considered too large by most mobile users but it soon became loved by desktop users because of it's great audio performance. However some users wanted other features. For this and room system applications. So we listened to those with gripes about Hugo such as wanting bigger cables XLRs and the other stuff so Hugo was born and frankly it's measured performance easily outstrips its price competitors and higher too. All of this design work has to be covered over a smaller number of higher value units too. Therefor we would hope that perhaps now you will possibly be more ameanable to thinking that this award winning, all five star review product is actually a bit of a bargain.
I would also like to announce that the TT will be joined by a partnering product which will be shown for the first time at the Munich High End audio show next week.

 

[Whazzzup]

 

I am sorry but 2600 USD more for a couple of capacitors with better USB is just ridiculous. Coming from electrical engineering background, I know from a true fact the chord didn't spend even 1% of that amount. You may wonder then why Chord puts this price tag? Because the market is stupid enough to accept. But what can you do? there are a lot of people with $$$$ like to be fooled and there is nothing you can do about it!

I am not against high-priced DACs like Dave. In Dave, you get a much much better algorithm with 126K tap filters (four times more hugo). Give yourself a bit of time and think before ordering TT. 

The Bill of materials of the Hugo TT is far more than 100 percent than that of the original Hugo the TT have additional super caps yes 10,000,000 microfarads worth not cheap by any account, The TT also has an additional micro processor that takes over the control functions drives a display and receives remote control codes. The main board was redesigned to accommodate galvanic isolation! Which unusually works all the was up to 384k most only work to 48k maximum. The complete pulse array circuitry was totally redesigned to dramatically reduce the residual noise by 4dBV! The battery capacity was doubled. The charging circuit was boosted to cope with the extra demands of the super caps and the extra battery capacity. XLR signal balancing circuitry was designed and added along with connectors a carrier board was designed. New volume circuitry was developed so that it would operate via remote controls and a new larger ball made. It's very easy to make a judgement without the facts to hand and come to a totally erroneous conclusion. After developing Hugo aimed at first for the mobile market, we soon realised we'd missed the mark. Hugo was considered too large by most mobile users but it soon became loved by desktop users because of it's great audio performance. However some users wanted other features. For this and room system applications. So we listened to those with gripes about Hugo such as wanting bigger cables XLRs and the other stuff so Hugo was born and frankly it's measured performance easily outstrips its price competitors and higher too. All of this design work has to be covered over a smaller number of higher value units too. Therefor we would hope that perhaps now you will possibly be more ameanable to thinking that this award winning, all five star review product is actually a bit of a bargain.
I would also like to announce that the TT will be joined by a partnering product which will be shown for the first time at the Munich High End audio show next week.

Thanks john for that. It was immediately apparent the sonic improvements to me upon the first listen to my TT. good luck with the new product launch.

 

[JaZZ]

 

I am sorry but 2600 USD more for a couple of capacitors with better USB is just ridiculous. Coming from electrical engineering background, I know from a true fact the chord didn't spend even 1% of that amount. You may wonder then why Chord puts this price tag? Because the market is stupid enough to accept. But what can you do? there are a lot of people with $$$$ like to be fooled and there is nothing you can do about it!

I am not against high-priced DACs like Dave. In Dave, you get a much much better algorithm with 126K tap filters (four times more hugo). Give yourself a bit of time and think before ordering TT. 

The Bill of materials of the Hugo TT is far more than 100 percent than that of the original Hugo the TT have additional super caps yes 10,000,000 microfarads worth not cheap by any account, The TT also has an additional micro processor that takes over the control functions drives a display and receives remote control codes. The main board was redesigned to accommodate galvanic isolation! Which unusually works all the was up to 384k most only work to 48k maximum. The complete pulse array circuitry was totally redesigned to dramatically reduce the residual noise by 4dBV! The battery capacity was doubled. The charging circuit was boosted to cope with the extra demands of the super caps and the extra battery capacity. XLR signal balancing circuitry was designed and added along with connectors a carrier board was designed. New volume circuitry was developed so that it would operate via remote controls and a new larger ball made. It's very easy to make a judgement without the facts to hand and come to a totally erroneous conclusion. After developing Hugo aimed at first for the mobile market, we soon realised we'd missed the mark. Hugo was considered too large by most mobile users but it soon became loved by desktop users because of it's great audio performance. However some users wanted other features. For this and room system applications. So we listened to those with gripes about Hugo such as wanting bigger cables XLRs and the other stuff so Hugo was born and frankly it's measured performance easily outstrips its price competitors and higher too. All of this design work has to be covered over a smaller number of higher value units too. Therefor we would hope that perhaps now you will possibly be more ameanable to thinking that this award winning, all five star review product is actually a bit of a bargain.
I would also like to announce that the TT will be joined by a partnering product which will be shown for the first time at the Munich High End audio show next week.

 
I'm curious! What could that be? My guess is: a battery-powered miniature DAVE with reduced tap count (for reduced current consumption), mainly meant as a more lightweight travel companion for Rob instead of his obligatory DAVE.

 

[Jawed]

Phono ADC?

 

[Whazzzup]

A chord amp?