Thanks for this perspective, perhaps I was too harsh on the HD800s. I figured since the the hugo 2 was such a high end amp/dac it would handle the HD800S well. But I see that this headphone is extremely source dependent.
the Chord method to achieve incredible MUSIC
ality is something no one else does.
for music it is incredible.
when I compared a 'lowly' iFi Diablo vs the Chord Hugo (nothing on the Hugo 2 btw), the Diablo won a range of listening tests as voted on, blindly, by the family.
Once I had their approval the Diablo won 'top dog' status.
There was a song where my child swung in fovour of the Hugo..and I could hear it too.... it was a Tool track and MayrdJamesKeenan (or whatever the legends' name is who fronts Tool (and writes Fractals as music)) was singing,.. the voice was nicer.. it was arguably 'more forward', and this was a direct result of how the Chord DACs process sound.
It was, sadly, less technically accurate to the track.. something the Diablo got right.. (Whilst sounding worse for it, in terms of what is 'pleasing')
A Chord DAC is a good thing.. please do not take my 'last 2%" of the sound comment out of context.. it is just for 'positional information' and certainly HRTF processing 'by our brains' - a more honest DAC is better for true stage setup (in this case depth of some low level information that would, in any other typical recording, not be placed the way it was.
As a test it showed me something interesting, and the Hugo was replaced by a Diablo for 'console gaming' (Playstation 5 has some of the best headphone 'surround' due to the audio processing chip involved, title dependant of course...(Tempest Engine needs to be utilised to experience this))
For the largest stage and 'full surround sound' under headphones, the Chord products are 'slightly less useful' as they arguably homogenise aspects of the sound (Which is how they work, in order to create
very pleasing music.
I suppose it just means different tools for different tasks.
is why studio reference is great for HRTFs playback, but most would prefer an music expereince that isn't 'that honest'.
my opinion is everyone should use Chord DACs for replaying music. Studio mastering maybe not... (maybe a second feed!)
Chords are amazing!
I know aspecs of this post might need further evidence or I get the ire of many pundits,.. but as someone who has owned many many PC soundcards back to the eighties.. (my original soundblaster, the 'original' Creative Labs card - had a 4Watt amp on board I believe). listening to nuances in soundcard evolution, like OPL and midi processing getting better over the evolutions,.. to things like Aureal A3D and then the nice stuff like Auzentech Prelude and Asus Xonar Essence etc) (budget cards doing consumer-fi mostly, but with 'cool HRTF technologies).. my ear training is towards soundfields.. (I have never really played instruments, hence why I do not review..)
the whole tech tree contribules to 'soundfield'..
may on these forums swear that audio doesn't stage front to back or 'beyond speakers' and when we look at their setups they use all sorts of digital processing to reequalise sound or do headtracking etc.. (or 'well benching modern parts that just do not stage as great as 'older' less well benchmarking parts).
The audio science crew might hate this post (subjective, subjective, subjective!),.. but this is many decades of experience playing with 'all the fruit'.
Every bit of 'echo' and 'decay' our brains can hear is CRUCIAL to great staging.
benchmarking doesn't EVER look at that info, or have a way to 'see' it...
