[alota]

Has anyone pre-order it yet? And what headphones are you going to use? Imagine TT 2 with something like Abyss Phi, The sound wow : who does need electrostatic?

or an electrostatic energizer connected to balanced output

 

[miketlse]

Reply. Not so ridiculous when considering actual factory production costs and then, subsequent additional price markups finally resulting in the market retail price.
So, if a high-end product basic parts (chassis, display + electronics) cost is say, X pounds or dollars, then after adding factory overhead(s), profit, distributor makeup, plus dealer markup, the list retail price could end up being 5X, or often much more (remember, this is for 'high-end' market where the targeted customer often tolerates high price markups (as I see it))..
'Guesstimate': So, if factory parts + labor + tooling cost are say, 400 pounds before other adding factory overhead(s) then I feel it's not unreasonable to see the enclosure component's portion of the high-end retail list price roughly = 2000 pounds.
Ridiculous? Perhaps, but it's the 'real world'..

Example: Just look at what a high-end loudspeaker manufacturer often pays for the drivers in say, retail $10K speakers. I read that the cabinet often costs much more to build and finish than the all the internal crossover parts, terminals + drivers! I'm not prepared at this time to provide you a reference explaining the economics of typical high-end audio component retail pricing. Anyway, you can research this for yourself.

Don't worry, after 12 years spent as a cost engineer, I have a good grasp of how to model the cost of a product.

 

[austinpop]

Thank you @Rob Watts for sharing your presentation. The TT2 looks like it is going to be really special, and I can't wait to get my ears on it!

... I went through a lot of power supplies and a couple of design revisions, to ensure that when connected there was no measured change in performance at all. So this power structure has the benefits of ultra low noise from batteries - without the worry of battery life - but also huge dynamic current capability....

Rob

Based on your design experiments and findings, do you feel there is potential for still higher performance by using a top-notch external PSU, or would you recommend users not bother, and just enjoy the supplied SMPS? If the former, what would the recommended capacity of the external PSU be?

 

[x RELIC x]

Although I've quoted Rob's post, please can anyone help. I'd like to know about an aspect of the TT2, and the DAVE if it's the same.

It's about something from Rob's presentation, and this quote of Rob's above. In Rob's presentation he says, "Hugo TT 2 has a very high power discrete OP stage integrated into the DAC output amplifier and filter".

Also with all this talk about the TT2 having lots of power output. It leaves me wondering if there is an amplifier in the TT2. ......... Whereas I with the Mojo, output is taken straight from the DAC output, with no amplifier involved. I thought it was the same with the Hugo 2 and all Chord DACs. I'm not sure now.


I've quoted Rob's post above to make easy reference. If you run from RCA, with the TT2, does it mean going through an amplifier. If there is an amplifier there? Or does it run just straight from the DAC output, like the Mojo?

Or (as per Rob's post), does it bypass amplification (if there is amplification) in DAC mode.


Sorry I am so confused.

Yes, there's a line-stage amplifier in every Chord DAC, and it also serves as a headphone amp with all of them. So the same from Mojo up to DAVE.

What is intersting in Rob’s presentation slide is, in one slide it mentions the OP stage integrated in to the DAC (notice TT2 has no analogue inputs), but then on the next slide highlights ‘DAC only mode’. Given that this OP is based on the Power Pulse Array amp even more information would be welcome from @Rob Watts.

Plus, this isn’t the same output as the previous product line Mojo up to DAVE. The new (crazy high power) DX OP stage that is built in is very intriguing to me. This TT2 seems like a much larger upgrade over the Hugo2 than it’s predecessor was over the Hugo1.

As a side note... all the thread choking about price won’t change how much it costs....

 

[Bill13]

Your original post stated "I understood Rob Watts to say that more than half the price of Chord DACS was due to the fancy machined solid-block aluminum enclosures."
Now you state that your raw info relates to factory costs. Factory costs and the final retail price are two completely different things, and should not be confused.

Reply: You are right about factory costs as opposed to retail. My intent was to comment on the component of retail pricing resulting from the actual factory cost.
Perhaps my writing was a bit hasty in assuming that the reader would get what I tried to say (my intention was to talk about impact of factory costs) -- anyway, my wording of the post might have been better. Lack of time and motivation.

 

[miketlse]

What is intersting in Rob’s presentation slide is, in one slide it mentions the OP stage integrated in to the DAC (notice TT2 has no analogue inputs), but then on the next slide highlights ‘DAC only mode’. Given that this OP is based on the Power Pulse Array amp even more information would be welcome from @Rob Watts.

Plus, this isn’t the same output as the previous product line Mojo up to DAVE. The new (crazy high power) DX OP stage that is built in is very intriguing to me. This TT2 seems like a much larger upgrade over the Hugo2 than it’s predecessor was over the Hugo1.

As a side note... all the thread choking about price won’t change how much it costs....

I know it won't change the cost, but every time Chord release a product, you get people posting wild claims about how using a 'cheap as chips' case, would halve the retail price of that product.

 

[miketlse]

Reply: You are right about factory costs as opposed to retail. My intent was to comment on the component of retail pricing resulting from the actual factory cost.
Perhaps my writing was a bit hasty in assuming that the reader would get what I tried to say (my intention was to talk about impact of factory costs) -- anyway, my wording of the post might have been better. Lack of time and motivation.

That's ok.
Always remember that if one asks 99% of engineers, when they make claims about how their proposed design change, will reduce the cost of a product, they have no idea how to create the detailed cost model to back up their claims.
Most posters on this thread are not engineers, and cannot begin to visualise the many individual manufacturing/assembly activities that were involved, or how long they take or cost. Nor can they visualise how much of the final price is due to the margins added for R&T, Marketing, Management, HR, Sales, Distribution, Dealers etc. Consequently it is very easy to confuse posters, by combining activity based costing models with absorption based costing models, plus quoting cost and price interchangeably.
It is better to not open the can of worms in the first place.

 

[514077]

That's ok.
Always remember that if one asks 99% of engineers, when they make claims about how their proposed design change, will reduce the cost of a product, they have no idea how to create the detailed cost model to back up their claims.
Most posters on this thread are not engineers, and cannot begin to visualise the many individual manufacturing/assembly activities that were involved, or how long they take or cost. Nor can they visualise how much of the final price is due to the margins added for R&T, Marketing, Management, HR, Sales, Distribution, Dealers etc. Consequently it is very easy to confuse posters, by combining activity based costing models with absorption based costing models, plus quoting cost and price interchangeably.
It is better to not open the can of worms in the first place.

And as an uneducated-in-engineering customer, I have to decide if it's worth it to me, at its cost. And whether I can afford it. Yes, but no, at least at this time.

 

[Bill13]

That's ok.
Always remember that if one asks 99% of engineers, when they make claims about how their proposed design change, will reduce the cost of a product, they have no idea how to create the detailed cost model to back up their claims.
Most posters on this thread are not engineers, and cannot begin to visualise the many individual manufacturing/assembly activities that were involved, or how long they take or cost. Nor can they visualise how much of the final price is due to the margins added for R&T, Marketing, Management, HR, Sales, Distribution, Dealers etc. Consequently it is very easy to confuse posters, by combining activity based costing models with absorption based costing models, plus quoting cost and price interchangeably.
It is better to not open the can of worms in the first place.

Personally, retail price can be a deal-breaker.

I'm certain that Chord Inc. could significantly reduce the retail price by simplifying the enclosure design (justified IMO by Rob's comment re cost at NYC 2018 CanJam) --

Indeed, by commenting here, I want to try to motivate Chord Inc. to reconsider their approach to enclosure design.
Maybe even lower costs for manufacturing a future 'M-scaler' too.
IMO, I don't that feel that cost modeling complexities should prohibit a simplified discussion of product pricing.
I still feel that my remarks about enclosure production costs were reasonable. - anyway, such discussion doesn't necessarily 'open a can of worms'.

As an engineer, I used to do cost breakdowns/analysis, however I did not specialize with using cost models.
My impression is that the bulk of R&D is in the electronics including FPGA WTA filter, novel pulse-array power amp and so forth.
I still feel that retail price of a product performing the same functions as Hugo TT 2 could be lowed by say 25% or maybe even more by going to a simpler pedestrian enclosure approach.

Trade off enclosure cosmetics & some bells & whistles for affordability. IMO of course.

 

[austinpop]

A case in point is the recent relaunch of the Audio Alchemy line under new owners’ Elac label at significantly lower cost.

At AXPONA, Peter Madnick indicated one the primary ways they did that was by foregoing the sleek curved Audio Alchemy cases with cheaper black boxes.

Now this is by no means an easy decision by Chord or any other company. You and I may want lower cost at the expense of the aesthetics and looks, but this is their brand identity, so this is where their marketing and product management teams have to earn their keep. Companies make business decisions based on the potential profitability, and as long as they do it well, you have to respect that.

 

[musicday]

Chord Electronics deliver high quality audio products. They are a visionary, revolutionary company and they have their own original design both external and sound wise. From Mojo all the way up to Dave everything is beautifully crafted always using the best procedures and materials. Obviously I would like that to remain the main focus in the future along with the remarkable sound quality. Yes TT 2 is expensive but the ones that can afford it will be rewarded many years with great sound. So the only way to get a cheaper TT 2 is to wait couple of years after the release and to try to get a second/third hand one.
But in this case the price is reflected directly in the performance/buld quality ratio, that is not always found with other companies.

 

[Bill13]

A case in point is the recent relaunch of the Audio Alchemy line under new owners’ Elac label at significantly lower cost.

At AXPONA, Peter Madnick indicated one the primary ways they did that was by foregoing the sleek curved Audio Alchemy cases with cheaper black boxes.

Now this is by no means an easy decision by Chord or any other company. You and I may want lower cost at the expense of the aesthetics and looks, but this is their brand identity, so this is where their marketing and product management teams have to earn their keep. Companies make business decisions based on the potential profitability, and as long as they do it well, you have to respect that.

Agreed. Nice post.

Anyway, if enough customers like me express a strong preference for Chord product affordability over current brand identity cosmetics, maybe Chord could actually increase their profitability. Economy of scale, and all that.
For example, I have the new Qutest DAC in my audio system, but once initial setup of the DAC was completed, I hardly ever need to look at it anymore.
So, superficial appearance not that important to me.
When looking at home theater movies, I want all the audio hardware to stay out of my way, be 'invisible', and not demand further attention.

 

[ZappaMan]

if robs latest talk turns up on youtube, please share...

 

[JaZZ]

What is intersting in Rob’s presentation slide is, in one slide it mentions the OP stage integrated in to the DAC (notice TT2 has no analogue inputs), but then on the next slide highlights ‘DAC only mode’. Given that this OP is based on the Power Pulse Array amp even more information would be welcome from @Rob Watts.

Plus, this isn’t the same output as the previous product line Mojo up to DAVE. The new (crazy high power) DX OP stage that is built in is very intriguing to me. This TT2 seems like a much larger upgrade over the Hugo2 than it’s predecessor was over the Hugo1.

The Hugo TT 2 (Hugo₂ TT [?] – according to the stamping on its top) is certainly a highlight of Chord's Munich presentation – after the general disappointment about the missing M-Scaler and the still not launched PowerPulse amp. If I didn't already own the DAVE, I would immediately buy it and call it my end-game source. And maybe add a Susvara to the mix to challenge the DX amp.

It's very well possible that future Chord DACs will have PowerPulse output stages – starting with the Mojo₂ (if the power demand allows it).

 

[514077]

Agreed. Nice post.

Anyway, if enough customers like me express a strong preference for Chord product affordability over current brand identity cosmetics, maybe Chord could actually increase their profitability. Economy of scale, and all that.
For example, I have the new Qutest DAC in my audio system, but once initial setup of the DAC was completed, I hardly ever need to look at it anymore.
So, superficial appearance not that important to me.
When looking at home theater movies, I want all the audio hardware to stay out of my way, be 'invisible', and not demand further attention.

That makes one, maybe two. Is it likely the fact of Chord's strong case design protecting their advanced internals, makes it possible for you to forget that it's sitting in your equipment rack? I doubt that one voice can sway them in compromising or altering their designs. I think their long history and track-record are proof enough that they found their place. A rare case for customer possible influence, was JF's positive response to my hope they might be able to take blind guys into account when designing the 2go. At least he listened.
But, I doubt they'd cheapen their products because some of us can't afford them. He**! I'd like a one hundred dollar DAVE, but ain't gonna happen.