[ALRAINBOW]

the hugo is a rreally good dac , i just wish it was a samller form factor. , but its performance is way above any portible i have heard ever. it does beat most if not all desktop combos too. but we do need to remeber this is a portible device and as such has its limits too. improvments in the case as in the headphone jacks would be nice . how come no one talks about it. is chord doing anything besides drilling the holes. since its not the top price i guess its still a great price in protible devices. But as time moves forward with digital audio we must assume the price point of such devices will fall .
as i own a 30 k plus digital front end i look for what is coming up to get near it . the hugo goes no where near it but does approach it . the new ps audio direct stream i own is very good and above a hugo but it too is twice the price.
so at the price point of a hugo i do not know any options but the hugo.

internal batteries please if anyone knows.
al

 

[nOtEcH]

the hugo is a rreally good dac , i just wish it was a samller form factor. , but its performance is way above any portible i have heard ever. it does beat most if not all desktop combos too. but we do need to remeber this is a portible device and as such has its limits too. improvments in the case as in the headphone jacks would be nice . how come no one talks about it. is chord doing anything besides drilling the holes. since its not the top price i guess its still a great price in protible devices. But as time moves forward with digital audio we must assume the price point of such devices will fall .
as i own a 30 k plus digital front end i look for what is coming up to get near it . the hugo goes no where near it but does approach it . the new ps audio direct stream i own is very good and above a hugo but it too is twice the price.
so at the price point of a hugo i do not know any options but the hugo.

internal batteries please if anyone knows.
al

It is in this thread. And the last time just a couple of days ago.. CosmicHolyGhost? The first time it was brought up I believe it was seeteeyou.

 

[ALRAINBOW]

Batteries ?? Thanks

 

[nOtEcH]

Batteries ?? Thanks

Yep

 

[sutjahjo]

Damn! I didn't see that. Just ordered the CD. Have to return it now...

Rest easy. Most people on this thread actually prefer the lower rest files with Hugo. I maybe the wrong person to listen to.

 

[ted_b]

I want to post a public apology to Al.  I was questioning his use of the term "bright" when describing the Hugo's affects on female vocals, etc.  However....and this is a big however, last night, during another incredible evening of music listening, I realized the obvious.... I don't listen to the Hugo directly.  I dial my Hugo to 2.11V RMS (aka turquoise) and send it to my Concert Fidelity CF-080 LS tubed hybrid preamplifier, which puts its own signature on the signal, then sends it down the line to my monoblocks.  Now...given that I do this for ALL my demos/evaluations/reviews/daily listening...it allows me to refer to each DACs sound relative to one another...but only in my system.  Maybe the Hugo's direct signal path via its own amp is indeed bright (others say no) but I can't sit here and refute Al's claim....cuz I don't listen to the same signal path.  Sorry Al, my bad.
 
Also, when Al mentioned that the Hugo and PS Audio DS are chipless, I came back and said, no, the only chipless design out there is the Lampi.  Well, after a long chat with Rob Watts we came to the conclusion that YES, indeed the HUGO DAC  is CHIPLESS.  The FPGA's are not the DAC, they are the filters.  The DAC is actually a pulse array DAC, a discrete set of clocks, flip/flops, element resistors and a reference PSU.  No chip per se.  So, again, Al you were at least half right (maybe more) about the chipless DACs (I don't know yet what to say about Ted's design).
 
Net/net, Al gets enough crap for being a poor typist and having owned a Lamborghini (yet none of us have ever been asked to ride in it)...I thought I'd cut him a break. 

 

[nOtEcH]

Rest easy. Most people on this thread actually prefer the lower rest files with Hugo. I maybe the wrong person to listen to.

I listen mostly to 16/44.1 but that is because that is what I mostly got. And Hugo make my 16/44.1 albums shine.

I have not experimented a lot with high res but I find the recordings to be more important. Great recordings in 16/44.1 sounds a lot better than poor recordings in 24/192..

If the recording is the same it could be better with higher resolution. Try and find out. And it has been said from they who knows.. it sounds best with the original sample rate. If it was recorded in 16/44.1 it will be best in 16/44.1. If the recording has been upsampled from 16/44.1 to 24/192, then you should go for the 16/44.1 version. Problem is that you don't know if this kind of information isn't specified.. so you will end up trying different formats to find out for yourself. Bottom line.. highest sample rate is not always the best.

 

[Mython]

What size and voltage are the batteries inside the Hugo
Does anyone know
Al

 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/702787/chord-hugo/4275#post_10620492
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/702787/chord-hugo/2220#post_10483339
 
 
.

 

[nOtEcH]

I want to post a public apology to Al.  I was questioning his use of the term "bright" when describing the Hugo's affects on female vocals, etc.  However....and this is a big however, last night, during another incredible evening of music listening, I realized the obvious.... I don't listen to the Hugo directly.  I dial my Hugo to 2.11V RMS (aka turquoise) and send it to my Concert Fidelity CF-080 LS tubed hybrid preamplifier, which puts its own signature on the signal, then sends it down the line to my monoblocks.  Now...given that I do this for ALL my demos/evaluations/reviews/daily listening...it allows me to refer to each DACs sound relative to one another...but only in my system.  Maybe the Hugo's direct signal path via its own amp is indeed bright (others say no) but I can't sit here and refute Al's claim....cuz I don't listen to the same signal path.  Sorry Al, my bad.

Also, when Al mentioned that the Hugo and PS Audio DS are chipless, I came back and said, no, the only chipless design out there is the Lampi.  Well, after a long chat with Rob Watts we came to the conclusion that YES, indeed the HUGO DAC  is CHIPLESS.  The FPGA's are not the DAC, they are the filters.  The DAC is actually a pulse array DAC, a discrete set of clocks, flip/flops, element resistors and a reference PSU.  No chip per se.  So, again, Al you were at least half right (maybe more) about the chipless DACs (I don't know yet what to say about Ted's design).

Net/net, Al gets enough crap for being a poor typist and having owned a Lamborghini (yet none of us have ever been asked to ride in it)...I thought I'd cut him a break. 

Kudos to you.

Al is not saying that the Hugo is 'bright'.. but more that when compared to other dacs and using nautral as a baseline a subtle difference will be described as 'warmer' or 'brighter', but he is NOT saying that the Hugo is bright like a piercing ear drum killer that gives you listening fatigue.

 

[ALRAINBOW]

There is no need for any kind of apology
In this. Second my wording is horrible or at least
Of confusing Nature.
What I mean is it pitched a little high
So it takes say vocals and makes them sound
Different. But this is minor and comes at the expense
Of a excellent DAC and price point.
Anyway I am now comtimplating
A linear psu and larger external batteries to hear
What it does if any. And a big thanks to all
Including ted b for continuing the disiphering
Of my coded post s.
The lambo GALARZA is gone and that us my son and the only pic I had.
So I am much older and cranky.
Al

 

[AGB100]

  I want to post a public apology to Al.  I was questioning his use of the term "bright" when describing the Hugo's affects on female vocals, etc.  However....and this is a big however, last night, during another incredible evening of music listening, I realized the obvious.... I don't listen to the Hugo directly.  I dial my Hugo to 2.11V RMS (aka turquoise) and send it to my Concert Fidelity CF-080 LS tubed hybrid preamplifier, which puts its own signature on the signal, then sends it down the line to my monoblocks.  Now...given that I do this for ALL my demos/evaluations/reviews/daily listening...it allows me to refer to each DACs sound relative to one another...but only in my system.  Maybe the Hugo's direct signal path via its own amp is indeed bright (others say no) but I can't sit here and refute Al's claim....cuz I don't listen to the same signal path.  Sorry Al, my bad.
 
Also, when Al mentioned that the Hugo and PS Audio DS are chipless, I came back and said, no, the only chipless design out there is the Lampi.  Well, after a long chat with Rob Watts we came to the conclusion that YES, indeed the HUGO DAC  is CHIPLESS.  The FPGA's are not the DAC, they are the filters.  The DAC is actually a pulse array DAC, a discrete set of clocks, flip/flops, element resistors and a reference PSU.  No chip per se.  So, again, Al you were at least half right (maybe more) about the chipless DACs (I don't know yet what to say about Ted's design).
 
Net/net, Al gets enough crap for being a poor typist and having owned a Lamborghini (yet none of us have ever been asked to ride in it)...I thought I'd cut him a break. 

That's an illuminating background Ted, for the life of me I had no idea actually how the Hugo was designed, but just elementary notions. Now it's a little clearer. I do disagree however, that the Hugo is bright. It is clearer, more transparent and see through and has better HF extension. That could translate to seeming "lighter" to some in some systems. And no, once one puts another amp into the series, one can no longer hear the Hugo, but impedance interactions between the two. 
 
What I found is that most DACs are dark or "thick" (that is what many analogphiles also hear by the way) and the Hugo restores the separation between image elements, the light, illumination - as in the light at the end of the tunnel, figuratively speaking.
 
In any event, it may be chipless, but it has left me speechless.

 

[AGB100]

There is no need for any kind of apology
In this. Second my wording is horrible or at least
Of confusing Nature.
What I mean is it pitched a little high

So I am much older and cranky.
Al

 
See my post above. With everything that remains the same, add in some HF that were missing before and the human ear perceives it as lighter, brighter, depending on the EQ. Try it with a dark DAC. The dark DAC still won't have the Hugo's transparency and inner detail, however the perception will be closer, one to the other.
 
To others about purist listening. Restoring the original, whether by EQ or DSP, is, purist. When you restore the correct FR you will also restore the correct phase response. I wrote an article on this "FREQ YOU TOO!" at the PS site, that part is down for now. The FT analysis can prove that thesis. DSP EQ with a Q=1 does not alter phase, and unlike a stove, it won't burn your hands.
 
If recorded in its native format, higher rez has more refinement, and arguably more information. Analog has less information than CD, but it still can sound whole. What to do?
 
Lastly, the Hugo and Direct Stream appear to prove conclusively that there's far more info on a ripped CD than we ever thought possible, proving the theory about correct and the detractors dead wrong.
 
Al, you're not older, you just appear older in the mirror. Smash the mirror and the problem will be solved.

 

[ALRAINBOW]

as it appears to be going on . have you done the very simple test i asked to show your ears what i hear. i would assume you have but denounce the concept as such you find other ways to prove the point wrong. if i may what dacs do you own and base this info on. please answer if you did the test i have asked ,, then we can go on . weather its yes or no i do not care actually. lets talk dither does the dac perform this function as well . the dac is pitched a little high this makes the dac feel it has more details but at the expense of accuracy of pitch in all vocals and instruments to each there own .
Al

 

[SearchOfSub]

  @thebratts Likely the Android phone has a poor digital volume control. That is something you'd want to avoid. iOS doesn't do digital volume control when using a digital output AFAIK. You really want to use the volume control system Rob has programmed into the Hugo.

 
Sorry, does this mean you can control volume with a software program from your android phone that Rob programmed? 

 

[ALRAINBOW]

Agp pm sent please read
Al