Next DAC after Chord Mojo - upgrade?

[surfgeorge]

I guess I'm the outlier here? Had a Mojo, sold it on early in the 'process'... the Emotiva PT-100 (at under $400 for an all-in-one DAC/pre/tuner/bluetooth transmitter) sounds just as good to me if not better, backed by thousands upon thousands in speaker gear. Similarly, after owning a Jotunhiem all-in-one and a D90/A90 stack, they both beat the Mojo all around. Granted, $600 all in one, $1500 stack.. yes, they should. If they didn't that'd be embarrassing.

I guess the thing that sets me apart from most is I'm looking for a pure, flat, analytical sound. People talk about how 'pleasant' and 'agreeable' the Chord sound is. Ok, good for you -- to my mind, DACs shouldn't be coloring sound at all, and most seem to agree Chord is. So, as far as I'm concerned, Chord isn't doing their job. If I want EQ in my path, I'll put in dedicated software or hardware.

I want to comment that the Mojo is the entry level DAC from CHORD and sounds quite different to the Hugo 2 which I also own.
What Mojo does better than any DAC I have heard anywhere close to that price range is the combination of high detail and separation in the time and space domain without any artificial sizzle or harshness. I fully agree with you - it's not analytical, even though you can still analyze music very well.

But the Hugo 2 highlights the compromises and limitations of the Mojo. It has significantly more acuteness and definition of the notes. This is especially obvious in the bass range and then in the treble. Bass is very defined, textured and extended and that extends to the whole frequency range. The notes seem to be more sharply defined, especially in the leading edge and texture. And they remain clean and clearly separated in even the busiest tracks. Neutral in the best sense IMO. It also has a much bigger and more layered sound stage with much better imaging.
IMO CHORD absolutely pursues the most accurate reproduction of music, but it does that less with manipulating the signal to sound analytical but rather with putting a lot of engineering and processing power behind minimizing errors in signal reconstruction.

If you want analytical, Mojo is not a good choice. But if you have a chance to listen to a Hugo 2 or other Chord DAC higher up the line it would be really interesting to hear what you think of them.

 

[Moose246]

I guess I'm the outlier here? Had a Mojo, sold it on early in the 'process'... the Emotiva PT-100 (at under $400 for an all-in-one DAC/pre/tuner/bluetooth transmitter) sounds just as good to me if not better, backed by thousands upon thousands in speaker gear. Similarly, after owning a Jotunhiem all-in-one and a D90/A90 stack, they both beat the Mojo all around. Granted, $600 all in one, $1500 stack.. yes, they should. If they didn't that'd be embarrassing.

I guess the thing that sets me apart from most is I'm looking for a pure, flat, analytical sound. People talk about how 'pleasant' and 'agreeable' the Chord sound is. Ok, good for you -- to my mind, DACs shouldn't be coloring sound at all, and most seem to agree Chord is. So, as far as I'm concerned, Chord isn't doing their job. If I want EQ in my path, I'll put in dedicated software or hardware.

Interestingly, as I get better gear (DAC's primarily) I find myself gravitating towards a more flat shaped EQ. Historically I would always prefer a deep U curved sound, with little appetite or tolerance for anything remotely flat. Who knows why. Getting old and ears changing; being able to appreciate the intricacies of the music by way of better sources (lossless and hi-res files) and gear; who knows. I think it depends on the music as well though, there are still songs and bands that I like to really have slam and feel it versus others I want to just relax and hear all they layers.

But if I'm going to tolerate anything it will something on the warmer side, which I think the Mojo leans that way. So no surprise I enjoy it, even if not up to par from a resolving or straight transfer perspective. But I can totally understand and relate to those who may not agree with the sentiment.

 

[RONJA MESCO]

I want to comment that the Mojo is the entry level DAC from CHORD and sounds quite different to the Hugo 2 which I also own.
What Mojo does better than any DAC I have heard anywhere close to that price range is the combination of high detail and separation in the time and space domain without any artificial sizzle or harshness. I fully agree with you - it's not analytical, even though you can still analyze music very well.

But the Hugo 2 highlights the compromises and limitations of the Mojo. It has significantly more acuteness and definition of the notes. This is especially obvious in the bass range and then in the treble. Bass is very defined, textured and extended and that extends to the whole frequency range. The notes seem to be more sharply defined, especially in the leading edge and texture. And they remain clean and clearly separated in even the busiest tracks. Neutral in the best sense IMO. It also has a much bigger and more layered sound stage with much better imaging.
IMO CHORD absolutely pursues the most accurate reproduction of music, but it does that less with manipulating the signal to sound analytical but rather with putting a lot of engineering and processing power behind minimizing errors in signal reconstruction.

If you want analytical, Mojo is not a good choice. But if you have a chance to listen to a Hugo 2 or other Chord DAC higher up the line it would be really interesting to hear what you think of them.

I always held out from getting the Mojo for a long time because I never jump on the hype train. But its time to try em out now...

 

[Moose246]

@surfgeorge Is the Mojo your portable solution at the moment? After listening to the RME ADI-2 and THX AAA 789 desktop stack for a couple weeks there's a massive drop-off in my DAP/Mojo stack. We've discussed it before, but I use either a Cayin N5ii or HiBy R3Pro with the Mojo, and I couldn't believe the difference in sound vs the desktop - it was a steep dropoff. The Mojo connected to the PC sounds much better than with the DAPs so there must be source impact. The DAP market is so broad and overwhelming that it's hard to even know where to start. Wondering if there are any that would come close to the ADI-2 sound.

 

[surfgeorge]

@surfgeorge Is the Mojo your portable solution at the moment? After listening to the RME ADI-2 and THX AAA 789 desktop stack for a couple weeks there's a massive drop-off in my DAP/Mojo stack. We've discussed it before, but I use either a Cayin N5ii or HiBy R3Pro with the Mojo, and I couldn't believe the difference in sound vs the desktop - it was a steep dropoff. The Mojo connected to the PC sounds much better than with the DAPs so there must be source impact. The DAP market is so broad and overwhelming that it's hard to even know where to start. Wondering if there are any that would come close to the ADI-2 sound.

@Moose246 Yes, the R3/Mojo stack is my portable solution.
Your statement made me run a few comparisons, listening to the same track (https://tidal.com/browse/track/4360967) in various configurations.
I used a ALAC (Apple lossless) file on the R3 which I have ripped from CD, and the Tidal Hifi version for streaming.
Sources were the R3, an HP laptop in docking station with power supply, an iPad 10 Pro with Meenova cable, and a Macbook Pro 2014 run from the internal battery with USB and Toslink.
The Sony IER M9 was used, as this is the most revealing ear piece I have.
I also used the Hugo 2 for reference.

A very clear order of source quality emerged:

Best: MBP with Toslink
compared to MBP/USB and R3 the soundstage is bigger and everything sounds cleaner
But while it is clearly audible, it's a

Top level: Hiby R3 & MBP USB
This appplies to all 3 combinations, R3/USB, R3/Coax, MBP/USB
There are small differences, with the coax sounding slightly smoother on the R3, USB a little sparklier and open, but generally similar SQ

Slightly behind: iPad with Meenova cable
Sounds a little compressed and not as clean, a bit smeared attacks
But quite acceptable and not far behind.

Clearly the worst, actually shockingly bad: HP laptop USB
This sounds shockingly bad, notes are smeared, soundstage collapses and bass extension and impact is significantly reduced.
Surprisingly even the Hugo 2 which has an isolated USB input sounds really bad, the Mojo with the R3 sounds significantly better than the Hugo 2 from the HP USB.
I should point out again that this is my work computer with docking station and 2 big monitors, while I ran the MBP off it's battery.

Conclusion:
Yes, the source can make a huge difference. In my case the R3 did very well and was near the top as a source for both Mojo and Hugo 2.
It makes me wonder how we come to such different conclusions. Could you describe in more detail what you are hearing and with which tracks and headphones?
But I'm glad I did the comparisons, I need to find another way to listen to music with my work setup... If only the Hugo 2Go would be cheaper...

 

[Moose246]

@Moose246 Yes, the R3/Mojo stack is my portable solution.
Your statement made me run a few comparisons, listening to the same track (https://tidal.com/browse/track/4360967) in various configurations.
I used a ALAC (Apple lossless) file on the R3 which I have ripped from CD, and the Tidal Hifi version for streaming.
Sources were the R3, an HP laptop in docking station with power supply, an iPad 10 Pro with Meenova cable, and a Macbook Pro 2014 run from the internal battery with USB and Toslink.
The Sony IER M9 was used, as this is the most revealing ear piece I have.
I also used the Hugo 2 for reference.

A very clear order of source quality emerged:

Best: MBP with Toslink
compared to MBP/USB and R3 the soundstage is bigger and everything sounds cleaner
But while it is clearly audible, it's a

Top level: Hiby R3 & MBP USB
This appplies to all 3 combinations, R3/USB, R3/Coax, MBP/USB
There are small differences, with the coax sounding slightly smoother on the R3, USB a little sparklier and open, but generally similar SQ

Slightly behind: iPad with Meenova cable
Sounds a little compressed and not as clean, a bit smeared attacks
But quite acceptable and not far behind.

Clearly the worst, actually shockingly bad: HP laptop USB
This sounds shockingly bad, notes are smeared, soundstage collapses and bass extension and impact is significantly reduced.
Surprisingly even the Hugo 2 which has an isolated USB input sounds really bad, the Mojo with the R3 sounds significantly better than the Hugo 2 from the HP USB.
I should point out again that this is my work computer with docking station and 2 big monitors, while I ran the MBP off it's battery.

Conclusion:
Yes, the source can make a huge difference. In my case the R3 did very well and was near the top as a source for both Mojo and Hugo 2.
It makes me wonder how we come to such different conclusions. Could you describe in more detail what you are hearing and with which tracks and headphones?
But I'm glad I did the comparisons, I need to find another way to listen to music with my work setup... If only the Hugo 2Go would be cheaper...

Interesting findings. I used a pair of HD650's and, for really no other reason than it was the song I was listening to at the time, the 24/96 version of Meatplow by Stone Temple Pilots. I was actually listening to the HiBy/Mojo stack at the time and thought it sounded really poor so decided to a/b against the others.

- The RME ADI-2 / THX stack sounded the best. Running output from a desktop pc with decent cables (Audioquest Cinnamon USB; balanced from the RME to THX)
- The MacBook Pro with Mojo (Black Dragon USB) was really close to the RME but just didn't quite have the full crispness. Certainly still a great listen and who knows, doing a blind test may have been tough to really pick the winner.
- Cayin N5ii with Mojo using coax was noticably different than the MBP and RME. Just didn't have the clarity, air, tightness as the pc/Mac setup. Not terrible, but definitely not as good.
- HiBy with Mojo and coax was just horrible on all accounts. Relative to the others there was no life to the sound....thin, muddy, no detail or crispness. I was honestly shocked.

I will say that this was not a "flat" comparison, meaning I used my preferred EQ settings for each. Being impossible to truly match eq sound to eq sound across the spectrum may have an impact, but I don't think it would've mattered except in the RME and MBP/Mojo comparison since they were very close otherwise. The Cayin's eq isn't as refined and the clarity and crispness wasn't there to start with. With the HiBy, using the HiRes file the EQ doesn't work at all, so there's no chance to even tweak.

Some might say well of course they all sound different if you're using EQ with each (and impossible to match exactly). But my point is that I use EQ to get the best possible sound out of whatever I'm using - I think non-EQ'd music sounds worse than EQ'd on every setup, and for me, if EQ factors into the listenability and enjoyment factor than that's a source feed impact in and of itself (ie HiBy can't EQ at all and therefore is a poor source). But again, I don't think there's enough EQ impact with the Cayin to matter, as the detail wasn't there regardless.

From a portable standpoint, the Cayin N5 isn't a cheap unit (I think I bought it for $300 used several years ago...probably cheaper now), but I wonder if taking a big step up in DAP, something in the $800-$1k+ level would even need the mojo to be better at that point (which I'd be fine with, actually). Or if going to the level of a used AK SP1000 or Latoo PAW 6k would be better yet. Hard to know without just listening, I know, but it's tough to demo even a couple units.

 

[surfgeorge]

Interesting findings. I used a pair of HD650's and, for really no other reason than it was the song I was listening to at the time, the 24/96 version of Meatplow by Stone Temple Pilots. I was actually listening to the HiBy/Mojo stack at the time and thought it sounded really poor so decided to a/b against the others.

- The RME ADI-2 / THX stack sounded the best. Running output from a desktop pc with decent cables (Audioquest Cinnamon USB; balanced from the RME to THX)
- The MacBook Pro with Mojo (Black Dragon USB) was really close to the RME but just didn't quite have the full crispness. Certainly still a great listen and who knows, doing a blind test may have been tough to really pick the winner.
- Cayin N5ii with Mojo using coax was noticably different than the MBP and RME. Just didn't have the clarity, air, tightness as the pc/Mac setup. Not terrible, but definitely not as good.
- HiBy with Mojo and coax was just horrible on all accounts. Relative to the others there was no life to the sound....thin, muddy, no detail or crispness. I was honestly shocked.

I will say that this was not a "flat" comparison, meaning I used my preferred EQ settings for each. Being impossible to truly match eq sound to eq sound across the spectrum may have an impact, but I don't think it would've mattered except in the RME and MBP/Mojo comparison since they were very close otherwise. The Cayin's eq isn't as refined and the clarity and crispness wasn't there to start with. With the HiBy, using the HiRes file the EQ doesn't work at all, so there's no chance to even tweak.

Some might say well of course they all sound different if you're using EQ with each (and impossible to match exactly). But my point is that I use EQ to get the best possible sound out of whatever I'm using - I think non-EQ'd music sounds worse than EQ'd on every setup, and for me, if EQ factors into the listenability and enjoyment factor than that's a source feed impact in and of itself (ie HiBy can't EQ at all and therefore is a poor source). But again, I don't think there's enough EQ impact with the Cayin to matter, as the detail wasn't there regardless.

From a portable standpoint, the Cayin N5 isn't a cheap unit (I think I bought it for $300 used several years ago...probably cheaper now), but I wonder if taking a big step up in DAP, something in the $800-$1k+ level would even need the mojo to be better at that point (which I'd be fine with, actually). Or if going to the level of a used AK SP1000 or Latoo PAW 6k would be better yet. Hard to know without just listening, I know, but it's tough to demo even a couple units.

where to start.
Gave this track a short listen and it's pretty useless for critical listening.
Start with music that's really known for it's quality, like Pink Floyd The Dark Side of the Moon

Second - if you want to evaluate the source quality, make sure you switch of any digital processing, i.e. EQ and upsampling.
This way you can eliminate those unknown influences.

Third - if you are looking for a crisp signature, the Mojo might not be the best option since it's really free of any artificial crispness and does not have an emphasis on the high frequencies which other sources may use to increase the perceived detail.

Last - the HD650 are famous for a smooth and mid centric sound profile, albeit with very limited soundstage and not really strong detail.
Keep that in mind when evaluating the sound, try to listen beyond the headphone signature and hear the differences of your sources.

Once you have found source combinations that work well you can of course go back to using EQ, but also here there are differences, so you'll have to find again what works best.

But in the end, if crisp is your preference, then maybe the Mojo is really not for you...
Hope that helps!

 

[Moose246]

It's definitely helpful, and after reading your post I realized that I probably posed an unfair and impossible question to answer. In this instance I wasn't trying to compare sources from a technical perspective or against each other in the normal sense, rather I was purely interested in the sound each produced given the best adjusting I could do with them. "Best" being arguable, I know, as it's impossible to normalize EQ across all sources, other than simply setting each to the same levels. But normalizing the EQ defeats the purpose as well, since I want to test the best I can get out of each vs the other. I was just trying to find which piece of gear sounded best based on months, if not years, of tweaking each unit independently to the best I thought they could each sound. It wasn't meant to be a true "all else equal" comparison..the point being they all aren't equal given capabilities beyond their pure DAC.

Take the HiBy for example, if it turns off EQ for hi-res files, but any other device allows EQ, I'm likely going to find everything else to sound better - because I like using EQ and I'm tuning it to my tastes. It doesn't matter how powerful the chip or if it's a truly better player or any of that. And for me, the ultimate goal is to find the best possible sound I can - not necessarily find the best technical component (although there's certainly correlation there). I'm not a purist in the sense that I couldn't care less about reproducing the sound exactly like it was recorded, how the artist wanted it, etc....I play with the sound until I find what sounds best to my ears.

I'm actually a huge fan of the Mojo, but it sounds wildly different to me using the HiBy vs the Cayin vs the MBP. Again, it's how I'm able to make the sound mine in each (or lack thereof via the HiBy).

It's an impossible question for anyone to answer because everyone has their idea of what good sounds like...nobody will be able to truly say what device can sound better given my specific tastes.

 

[Ronnie54]

I also started with MOJO as the main DAC in my Home Stereo then upgraded to QUTEST. As it was burning in I thought I was noticing small improvements but it was slow and kind of snuck up on me.

After a week of use, it really came around. As a test, I put MOJO back into the system and...BIG difference between the two. It has been stated before but QUTEST provides more of what MOJO does so well.

Now onto the new "problem"- I thought I'd go with another upgrade to my system so I disconnected QUTEST and installed HUGO TT2.

I'm using an Yamaha A-S2100 Integrated and a Low-Powered PC-based Server with shielded components, M.2 system drive and (3) 4TB SSD drives. Speakers are "decent" and resolving: POLK AUDIO LSiM-707 towers. Much like QUTEST out of the box HUGO TT2 was not great until it had 80 hours or so on it and now it IS another improvement over QUTEST.

As much as I like CHORD products and their technology, I noticed ZERO difference when I added the M-Scaler to my HUGO TT2. This in spite of RAVE reviews and comments from those that have had great success with M-Scaler.

I tried a few different dual-BNC cables and different levels of Upscaling provided by M-Scaler. I also tried a good CD transport through Optical into M-Scaler and the same result. NO DIFFERENCE when switching between the Highest Upscaling offered and Pass-through mode.

I also had some experienced ears listening with me.

I am confused as to why M-Scaler made NO difference to HUGO TT2 in my system. As I've experienced positive change with HUGO TT2 over QUTEST, I believe my system IS resolving enough.

Thanks for any input.

MODERATOR: If you feel this post should be in a different thread, please feel free to move it.

Thanks!!

 

[cybergalaxy]

How about gettting a 2nd hand Hugo 1?