[ALRAINBOW]

Absolutely not true. There is trade offs in everything. If the music is sweet it's fine. And a little EQ as well if need be. Keep in mind some here including me are just being critical and as some have much better equipment this adds to the discussion. They are fine but an add on amp does make it better but not needed .
Al

 

[SoundFreaq]

Totally satisfied with Hugo + Abyss. When I want to really wax enamored, I'll fire up the Liquid Gold.

I find Hugo handles anything satisfactorily.

 

[archeryc]

  So the Chord Hugo can't run the HD800? 

To my ear I don't consider the Hugo makes the HD800 sounds "thin", it's subjective and if you compare it with LCD3, yes the HD800 definetely sounds thin but does the sound really "thin" to every body, I would say it's all personal taste.

 

[ubs28]

  To my ear I don't consider the Hugo makes the HD800 sounds "thin", it's subjective and if you compare it with LCD3, yes the HD800 definetely sounds thin but does the sound really "thin" to every body, I would say it's all personal taste.

Will it sound thin to compared to a desktop $5500 DAC + AMP (not sure what brand it was I listened the HD800 on, but it didn't sound thin at all)?

 

[wisnon]

   
 
I have no problem with either of these viewpoints - you hear what you hear and that's great, but I'd be interested to know what you heard that cost around the same money as the Hugo, ran from battery power and would easily fit in a backpack without the need to carry a power brick around. Personally, if DSD went no further as a format I wouldnt shed a single tear, but its what the Chord does with lower bitrate material that blows my tiny mind. One comparison I havent seen - and I would very much like to - is with Ayre's QB-9 DSD - Charlie Hansen copped an absolute pasting on CA for his openly disdainful attitude to DSD and he responded by giving them the best Redbook DAC he could build for the money : the fact that it handles DSD would seem to be secondary, and I suspect that was the case with the Hugo. 

Charles is someone I like and have conversed with extensively offline. His real problem with DSD is not in performance per se, but in the fact that a new format is being promoted in a declining audio market, further hastening the industry's demise. In fact, it's a BUSINESS objection that he has to DSD. He feels that PCM is all we need, as it has 95% of the available content and that poor filter design has been holding it back. The key to good filter design he thinks is borrowing some key elements from DSD filter design/implementation and adapting that to PCM filter design and that is what he did with the QB-9 DSD. He is a sharp businessman and can see the rising tide of DSD and thus wisely offered it with his latest model and indeed even firmware-updated it to DSD2X (I think he has FPGA control of the Dac). I have extensive business training like him, so we could speak the same "language" when fleshing out his business objection.
 
Yes, I agree that the Hugo and the Qute (which I own) have a sweetspot on RBCD and that is indeed good. However, the other uber-Dacs do too and may be a shade or 2 better, but cost a lot more.
 
Finally, well recorded DSD128 sounds so incredible to me, its almost like a small epiphany when I hear it!

 

[archeryc]

  Will it sound thin to compared to a desktop $5500 DAC + AMP (not sure what brand it was I listened the HD800 on, but it didn't sound thin at all)?

Sorry not sure which one you mention here.
 
The HD800 is like a mirror, you give it thin sound, it will output thin sound. 

 

[kurochin]

  To my ear I don't consider the Hugo makes the HD800 sounds "thin", it's subjective and if you compare it with LCD3, yes the HD800 definetely sounds thin but does the sound really "thin" to every body, I would say it's all personal taste.

 
I tried the Hugo for the first time yesterday and the person who let me use it happened to have a HD800 as well. To my ears, the HD800 still sounds like a frickin tweeter with the Hugo. If I were to get one for myself, I'd still want a dark sounding amp with ample body for the HD800, no question.
 
Not going to comment on the Hugo since I didn't spend enough time with it. First impressions were positive, however.

 

[archeryc]

   
I tried the Hugo for the first time yesterday and the person who let me use it happened to have a HD800 as well. To my ears, the HD800 still sounds like a frickin tweeter with the Hugo. If I were to get one for myself, I'd still want a dark sounding amp with ample body for the HD800, no question.
 
Not going to comment on the Hugo since I didn't spend enough time with it. First impressions were positive, however.

Maybe a tube amp would do the job? I'm not familiar about dark sounding amps.... So far the Hugo along is enough for me.

 

[kkcc]

   
I tried the Hugo for the first time yesterday and the person who let me use it happened to have a HD800 as well. To my ears, the HD800 still sounds like a frickin tweeter with the Hugo. If I were to get one for myself, I'd still want a dark sounding amp with ample body for the HD800, no question.
 
Not going to comment on the Hugo since I didn't spend enough time with it. First impressions were positive, however.

 

  Maybe a tube amp would do the job? I'm not familiar about dark sounding amps.... So far the Hugo along is enough for me.

 
 
FWIW I do love my Hugo>WA22 (various tubes)>HD800 combination.

 

[deadie]

So the Chord Hugo can't run the HD800? 

 
Didn't say that.  My quote was "musical but thin".  I like the highs and mids straight out of the Hugo to fully hear "the Hugo sound", but to truly experience the bass and impact the HD800 is capable of, an amp is required.
 
As an example, Toto's "Without Your Love" starts off with strong, intense bass notes.  Straight from the Hugo into the HD800 it sounds like taps.  With a Taurus, GSX, or my McIntosh amp, these notes pound hard and fast without getting sloppy.  

 

[headfirocks]

Could the Hugo + LCD-X sound bright to me because I should use it with an amp?

 

[Rob Watts]

I owned the qb9 before it was dsd. It sat on a shelf after I both something better. I then had it upgraded. For dsd playback , I then sold it. It's the same as the two other I mentioned before . It apparently is geared to PCM not dsd. It's painfully obvious when you listen to it . Regarding your choice of PCM and not caring about dsd. That is fools attitude as we all strive for better and we had better 50 years ago called analog weather vinyl or open reels. And the Hugo you claim as the best now is attaining some of that sound quality and this is why yo like it. Any dac that gets the sound of analog is better than all the ones that do not. .its that simple . So the dacs that have FPGA in them seem to have this analog sound of varieing degrees . In a direct comparisons over days of the 4 dacs I have setup temporary in my home it's easy to pick one out from the other . All 4 have that analog sound but it's easy to tell the ones that do dsd well. And dsd is not only the future but it's also all we have now as when companies remaster from the master tapes this is done to dsd not PCM get my point now.
Al

Well I hope that in your tests that the DAC to sound most like analog, that Hugo came last.
 
Analog (that is analog reel to reel recording) sounds soft, with muddled overblown bass, poor instrument separation, with audible noise and distortion. Now it is more pleasant than conventional digital, but it is still far removed from the real reference - not analog sound, not digital sound, but the sound one hears from live un-amplified acoustic instruments. I get the distinct impression that some designers are trying to re-create analog, not the sound of live music. Now if that is what you want, then that's fine by me. But don't tell me which is more accurate or realistic. Indeed, one of the DAC's you so enthuse over has been measured with very poor performance, exactly like a reel to reel.
 
This reminds me of a well respected reviewer who once told me he preferred the sound of his Hi-Fi to real live music. Now if you are one of those individuals, who prefer the sound of distortion, steer clear of Hugo.
 
As to DSD - if this is the future, then we are in for trouble. DSD is severely limited in its technical performance, the noise shaping has poor performance. I have been listening to noise shapers recently, and started with a noise shaper that had a thousand times more resolution than DSD. I could increase the resolution - a million times more resolution gave much better sound. I kept increasing the resolving power of the noise shaper until I could hear no further improvements, and this happened at ten trillion times more resolution than DSD. Perhaps the changes in sound were nothing to do with the resolving power, but to me DSD is severely limited. If you don't believe me, check out 2L site where you can hear the degradation that DSD creates from the original DXD recording. To me, its a big loss in transparency, and in particular sound stage depth. This is precisely the same behavior I heard when changing the noise shaper resolution.
 
Rob    

 

[ALRAINBOW]

Mr watts thanks so much for responding. I M going out to the gym now something I must do at my age to keep what I am loosing anyway if you get my drift. I will comment later but again thanks for taking the time a quick note is the real un amplified sound is real so very true and something I often say and get bashed for doing so.
Al

 

[Sonic77]

  Well I hope that in your tests that the DAC to sound most like analog, that Hugo came last.
 
Analog (that is analog reel to reel recording) sounds soft, with muddled overblown bass, poor instrument separation, with audible noise and distortion. Now it is more pleasant than conventional digital, but it is still far removed from the real reference - not analog sound, not digital sound, but the sound one hears from live un-amplified acoustic instruments. I get the distinct impression that some designers are trying to re-create analog, not the sound of live music. Now if that is what you want, then that's fine by me. But don't tell me which is more accurate or realistic. Indeed, one of the DAC's you so enthuse over has been measured with very poor performance, exactly like a reel to reel.
 
This reminds me of a well respected reviewer who once told me he preferred the sound of his Hi-Fi to real live music. Now if you are one of those individuals, who prefer the sound of distortion, steer clear of Hugo.
 
As to DSD - if this is the future, then we are in for trouble. DSD is severely limited in its technical performance, the noise shaping has poor performance. I have been listening to noise shapers recently, and started with a noise shaper that had a thousand times more resolution than DSD. I could increase the resolution - a million times more resolution gave much better sound. I kept increasing the resolving power of the noise shaper until I could hear no further improvements, and this happened at ten trillion times more resolution than DSD. Perhaps the changes in sound were nothing to do with the resolving power, but to me DSD is severely limited. If you don't believe me, check out 2L site where you can hear the degradation that DSD creates from the original DXD recording. To me, its a big loss in transparency, and in particular sound stage depth. This is precisely the same behavior I heard when changing the noise shaper resolution.
 
Rob    

Al got owned! lol!

 

[kensonic]

Well I hope that in your tests that the DAC to sound most like analog, that Hugo came last.


Rob    

Very well said

I am not an analog junky nor an digital purist.
In my main rig, I have hybrid electronics (see profile) and ceramic + diamond chassis. After more than 10 years I am now closer to "live music" than ever before.
I felt the same when I heard the Hugo for the first time !

Thank you !