[Steve999]

I haven’t any experience with Chord products whatsoever so can’t pass any personal judgement.

Some of their products certainly look exotic, one of them even looks like a spaceship.

To Whom It May Concern:

I have one of these lying around the house because I used it to make digital recordings of LPs. . .

https://www.guitarcenter.com/Behringer/UPHONO-UFO202-USB-Audio-Interface.gc

But I'd recommend the Behringer UCA 202 if you don't need to digitize LPs. It's more versatile and sometimes a few dollars cheaper.

SO:

Maybe you could try one of these things--$20 or $30. . . a possible but rather extreme cure for the placebo syndrome. . . The real medicine may be too strong! It's like moving to the P-Funk from disco!!!! (This was reportedly George Clinton's motivation when he recorded the LP Funkentelechy versus the Placebo Syndrome... highly recommended by yours truly.) Anyway, I have the 202-family Behringer DAC with the phono preamp in it . .

On to my narrative I wrote before I got sidetracked AGAIN and AGAIN:

I got curious tonight and I've done a little research for you and I'm giving you five independent sources to look over in case you are skeptical (and why wouldn't you be?). You've got a detailed review with measurements and history, a musician, an audio geek, and an audiophile, and a bunch of Amazon customers. You'll see people put these to quite different and varying uses and in very demanding situations.

They're worth their weight in plastic and, um, whatever else they're made of!

First:

http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/02/behringer-uca202-review.html

From the article directly above I learned this should be a great headphone amp for my Beyer studio phones (DT880s and DT990s) and my Senns (HD 580s) but not for my cheaper low impedence headphones. However, as far as using it for a DAC per se, or using the line outs, you should be golden. I checked the volume on my 200-ohm headphones and it's in excess of what is comfortable for me so I can use my nicer headphones with this. You can also read in the directly above article about a double-blind test (DBT) where audiophiles couldn't tell the difference between cheap Behringer and Sony components with intentionally sub-optimal cables versus super-expensive audio components. The article is nice because it doesn't pull any punches--it points out strengths and weaknesses of this Behringer DAC alike and then puts it in perspective for you. It was also good book learning material for me. And after reading the article I am using it right now to listen to my nicer headphones outboard from my computer.

Honestly, I have two more expensive DACs so I am not immune to being human. Although they are worth it in some ways for some of my headphones because they are more suitable for a wider range of headphones due to their variable or lower output impedance for the headphone monitor jack. And they serve other functions. I read! I learned!

The above-linked article and the second video will show you the internals of this DAC and how seemingly comically simple the board layout of a DAC can be if done well.

The article and the second video have some differences in opinion you can look for. It just means you are getting more learning and information. I can try things out at home and see what I think because I paid my $30 to THE MAN (i.e., Jeff Bezos).

Now, on to the fluff:


Amazon Customers:

https://www.amazon.com/BEHRINGER-U-Control-Low-Latency-Interface-Digital/dp/B000KW2YEI


Musician who records using IPad:




Techie guy:




Audiophile:

 

[Amberlamps]

there is a need to be specific here.
1/ you're talking about a DAC/amp, are you describing using purely the DAC part(if that's possible)? otherwise, I don't think this is a relevant example as the amp section could very well cause most of whatever difference you experience.
2/ obviously there is the question of the testing method. I have very little faith in sighted experiences, mostly because of how often they've been proved to be wrong for me and many other humans. there is a habit of burying our head in the sand and pretend that uncontrolled impressions are the best impressions, but they're for sure not the most reliable impressions about sound.
as I mentioned, the simple issue of properly matching the listening levels between 2 devices is a major factor in perceiving differences or not. out of the few line outputs I have available, a DAP's LO is at 0.25V, while a desktop DAC outputs around 2.5V full scale. of course that's a 20dB difference and nobody would mistake that for just a difference in sound quality, soundstage, details... but DACs do come in all sorts of output voltages. often just off of the old 2V standard, noticeably different but not yet feeling like a clear change in loudness. again, I became so insistent on this only because of how drastically different my own impressions were between just trying gears casually, and having both gears volume matched to as little as 0.1dB(when possible). they're the same gears, same audio quality, and yet my impressions turn out to be drastically different with matched outputs(sometimes they do help me notice a specific change I didn't notice before, so it can go both ways). but this got me to become very supicious of impressions formed without at least a clean volume matching(matching by ear isn't always enough sadly). it's nothing against you or the legendary tradition from everything said on the web to be 100% true ^_^, it's just that I like to rely on solid information as long as it's possible.

I don't have those devices so I won't just go and say that you're wrong and they don't have any audible differences. I simply don't know that. but when you spend a few years in this hobby, you meet a lot of people who claim night and day differences between a DAC and a DAC with a twig on top of it that costs 5 times the price of the other. so you just grow a thick skeptical skin. from the few specs I rapidly googled, the Hugo2 seems to be very clean device, so I'm also not trying to spit on it in any way. I'm just interested in properly acquired data about the sound before we decide that we know how different the sound is. even more so when I didn't get to listen to it myself.

I agree and I get where your coming from with regards to setting everything up correctly, voltage and decibel wise etc to get a real comparison between one dac and another.

In this example that I speak of, I think it’s the dac part that I mean as Chord dac’s as far as I’m aware, they don’t have an amp in the traditional sense, they have an output stage that is similar to an amp, but is just an increase in volume or something like that. Well thats what I read, something along those lines. I read it here on headfi, but I really don’t know if it’s true.

Personally, I found with Hugo 2, the difference between that and my other dacs really is a night and day difference. How Chord and Rob achieved it, I have no idea, but hugo has helped me to hear things in music that I just never heard before.
Example, some Pink Floyd albums, we all know they are more or less one big story. For years before I got my hugo, alot of the audio was all jumbled up together and making parts of their albums undecipherable, upon getting hugo, the jumbled mess was no longer jumbled and it was much easier to pick out and hear parts that just were not there before.

I totally get that whats needed is real figure’s on what my dacs can do. Setting then up correctly etc, and I mentioned to bigshot that, if he can bring the testing equipment to me, I’m all for allowing him or someone to test my dacs, but it isn’t realistic for me to ship a 2 grand dac to someone I don’t know and in another country.

I’m not averse to testing, I’m all up for it if it can come to me,

If not, why not ask a chord retailer near yourselves about a home demo, they will put a hold on your credit card, you take it away and do the tests and return the hugo back and say it isnt for you. Just a thought.

 

[Amberlamps]

OK. Here in Sound Science we know that subjective impressions based on tests with no controls can be completely wrong at times. This forum is the only place in Head Fi where we ask for evidence to back up claims. Can you point to any measurements that indicate that there is an audible difference? Has anyone else done controlled listening tests? The reason I ask is because I do controlled tests of every piece of audio equipment I buy and I have dozens and dozens in all different price ranges and they all sound exactly the same. There are plenty of other people here in this forum who have done the same as me and came up with the same results.

There is a concept called audible transparency. That means that sound reproduction has reached the degree of fidelity that it exceeds the ability of human ears to hear differences. DACs and amps are designed to be audibly transparent. If they aren't, either they are colored, meaning they have a deliberately different sound, or they are defective. We would be happy to help you find out if your DAC is transparent, colored or defective if you would like our help. Just let us know.

But I'm afraid if you have no evidence to back up your claim, then we're free to think that the difference is probably a result of your casual way of comparing, not because the DAC actually sounds different. My advice is however, that you might want to check into it. Because if a DAC does sound different than other DACs, odds are it is defective either by design or due to a manufacturing defect. If it's still under warranty you could get it repaired.

Not disagreeing with most of your post, but to suggest my hugo 2 is defective is weird, just because it doesn’t sound similar to normal dacs, that means it is broken ?

If that’s the case, why is it that basically every single reviewer who sampled hugo before it’s release, then shortly after release and again still being reviewed today as we speak. They have nothing but good words to say about it ?

We can’t all be wrong and listening to broken hardware. And not every review is a review trying to net Chord sales.

Now that you have suggested that my dac is basically defective, I would like proof of what you say is true. It’s a two way street, you can ask for proof from me and/or testing, which I have said I will allow if it can be brought to me.

But you must also provide proof that my dac is defective, and to make it clearer, I have heard a good few hugo 2’s and they all sound the same as mine.

It’s just that I wouldn’t like to turn up at my retailers store and make a fool out of myself by saying, this dac is broken as some guy on the internet said so. Then the store will ask, what exactly is broken, what do I say ? “it’s broken because it sounds good” ?

If you can provide me with proof that it’s defective, I will even record me taking it back to the store.

 

[Steve999]

I agree and I get where your coming from with regards to setting everything up correctly, voltage and decibel wise etc to get a real comparison between one dac and another.

In this example that I speak of, I think it’s the dac part that I mean as Chord dac’s as far as I’m aware, they don’t have an amp in the traditional sense, they have an output stage that is similar to an amp, but is just an increase in volume or something like that. Well thats what I read, something along those lines. I read it here on headfi, but I really don’t know if it’s true.

Personally, I found with Hugo 2, the difference between that and my other dacs really is a night and day difference. How Chord and Rob achieved it, I have no idea, but hugo has helped me to hear things in music that I just never heard before.
Example, some Pink Floyd albums, we all know they are more or less one big story. For years before I got my hugo, alot of the audio was all jumbled up together and making parts of their albums undecipherable, upon getting hugo, the jumbled mess was no longer jumbled and it was much easier to pick out and hear parts that just were not there before.

I totally get that whats needed is real figure’s on what my dacs can do. Setting then up correctly etc, and I mentioned to bigshot that, if he can bring the testing equipment to me, I’m all for allowing him or someone to test my dacs, but it isn’t realistic for me to ship a 2 grand dac to someone I don’t know and in another country.

I’m not averse to testing, I’m all up for it if it can come to me,

If not, why not ask a chord retailer near yourselves about a home demo, they will put a hold on your credit card, you take it away and do the tests and return the hugo back and say it isnt for you. Just a thought.

Another thing you can do to hear things in specific music that you never noticed before is to close your eyes and concentrate effortfully on the music. Works for me every time, I hear new things in music I started listening to 40 years ago. I’ll admit a reasonably flat frequency response in your gear does help. If you don’t have everything covered from 40 hz to 10 kHz you could miss some cool stuff by reason of your equipment. But even on a less capable system effort in listening will take you new places and very cheaply. I wouldn’t expect a new DAC to hand that to you on a silver,platter. Today I used the DAC on my iPad to listen to music, the DAC I had hooked up to my headphones on my computer to listen to music, the DAC I had running from my computer to some speakers to listen to music, the DAC that runs from my wife’s iPad to a Bluetooth speaker to listen to music, etc. If I concentrated on the music I heard new details! If you practice concentrating you get better at it! I would never expect even a poor DAC to get in the way of that. And poor DACs are hard to come by, as far as I know.

I don’t mean to be condescending, I am just trying to make this real for you.

 

[Amberlamps]

Another thing you can do to hear things in specific music that you never noticed before is to close your eyes and concentrate effortfully on the music. Works for me every time, I hear new things in music I started listening to 40 years ago. I’ll admit a reasonably flat frequency response in your gear does help. If you don’t have everything covered from 40 hz to 10 kHz you could miss some cool stuff by reason of your equipment. But even on a less capable system effort in listening will take you new places and very cheaply. I wouldn’t expect a new DAC to hand that to you on a silver,platter. Today I used the DAC on my iPad to listen to music, the DAC I had hooked up to my headphones on my computer to listen to music, the DAC I had running from my computer to some speakers to listen to music, the DAC that runs from my wife’s iPad to a Bluetooth speaker to listen to music, etc. If I concentrated on the music I heard new details! If you practice concentrating you get better at it! I would never expect even a poor DAC to get in the way of that. And poor DACs are hard to come by, as far as I know.

I don’t mean to be condescending, I am just trying to make this real for you.

Its cool, it’s not condecending at all.

I do understand what you mean and I do it all the time, thats when I find I get the best of out music, nothing to disturb me, just sitting or lying in bed and in the darkness and just focusing on nothing but the music.

 

[Kammerat Rebekka]

In the summit fi section Chord related threads always seem the current topic of conversation so I occasionally pop in to read. A lot of what is been discussed is way over my head (very technical) but there does seem to be immense pride in ownership and satisfaction.

I also watched part of the op video in which they guy stated sales of over 70k of the mojo product.

Surely a manufacturer can’t sell in such volume and success if product has no audible advantage?

Hi Laura
Well I used to think the same before I started testing these things for myself. Out of all the dacs I've tried there's only been one that sounded different..and that was actually my own, the Aune X1. Before running it on coaxial I had it on usb...and the usb chipset is simply out of date and produces significant amounts of distortion.
All the others sound exactly the same though. It is incredible! 40$ dac vs 2000$? No difference once you hide the merchandise from view.
We are humans and really we have no need for gear that can woo spermwhales and owls...when we can't even hear what we're supposedly wooing them with in the first place. We cannot hear those frequencies.
Studio mics don't really pick up anything in these frequencies either just as musical instruments don't produce sounds in them.
Sorta like buying a sword to open letters with.

Edith: for horrendous spelling.

 

[Whazzzup]

I tested ch1 and ch2 and the difference was neglidgeable. I couldn’t justify the purchase. Then again I did prefer hpa8 to Hugo and preferred TT to Hugo quite a bit and preferred tt to hpa8. So are there bad dacs in this bunch no. Are they all the same, not quite. I have noticed the same with cables some not so much difference others some...

 

[gregorio]

I also watched part of the op video in which they guy stated sales of over 70k of the mojo product. Surely a manufacturer can’t sell in such volume and success if product has no audible advantage?

The vitamin supplement and alt medicine market is worth billions, rather than a paltry 70k but for the vast majority of the masses who buy them the only benefit is placebo effect or nothing at all.

No, my opinion isn’t based on controlled testing, it was done purely with my ears ...

That's the problem, all your erroneous beliefs and conclusions stem from this one simple mistake: Your testing was NOT done "purely with your ears", if it were, then you wouldn't be making all the assertions you are. In other words, because you so strongly (but incorrectly) believe you were testing "purely with your ears" anything that contradicts your conclusions from your tests must be wrong. And that's where we run into problems such as; logical fallacies and contradicting the actual facts. For example, as already asked, if your ears are detecting such a huge difference, how come we can't measure it? The only possible response to this question (while maintaining your belief that you tested "purely with your ears") is to make up some theory that completely contradicts a century or more of science that's so well proven and demonstrated that it's not been rationally questionable for decades. The only two options available to you are:

1. To be irrational, to ignore the actual facts/science and make-up theories/conclusions which contradict not just the odd scientific fact but entire swathes of proven science.

2. To accept the simple proven/demonstrated fact that uncontrolled testing CANNOT be done "purely with your ears". Uncontrolled testing UNAVOIDABLY also includes the brain (human perception), not only the ears! Once you accept this one simple fact (and it's consequences), everything else falls into place and you no longer have to contract the actual facts. No one is doubting that you're detecting huge "night and day" differences, what we're doubting is where those differences are occurring. For example, the question of "how come we can't measure such huge differences" can now be easily and rationally answered: Because we're measuring in the wrong place, we're measuring the output of the DACs, while the huge "night and day" differences are actually occurring in you brain/perception!

G

 

[Amberlamps]

The vitamin supplement and alt medicine market is worth billions, rather than a paltry 70k but for the vast majority of the masses who buy them the only benefit is placebo effect or nothing at all.



That's the problem, all your erroneous beliefs and conclusions stem from this one simple mistake: Your testing was NOT done "purely with your ears", if it were, then you wouldn't be making all the assertions you are. In other words, because you so strongly (but incorrectly) believe you were testing "purely with your ears" anything that contradicts your conclusions from your tests must be wrong. And that's where we run into problems such as; logical fallacies and contradicting the actual facts. For example, as already asked, if your ears are detecting such a huge difference, how come we can't measure it? The only possible response to this question (while maintaining your belief that you tested "purely with your ears") is to make up some theory that completely contradicts a century or more of science that's so well proven and demonstrated that it's not been rationally questionable for decades. The only two options available to you are:

1. To be irrational, to ignore the actual facts/science and make-up theories/conclusions which contradict not just the odd scientific fact but entire swathes of proven science.

2. To accept the simple proven/demonstrated fact that uncontrolled testing CANNOT be done "purely with your ears". Uncontrolled testing UNAVOIDABLY also includes the brain (human perception), not only the ears! Once you accept this one simple fact (and it's consequences), everything else falls into place and you no longer have to contract the actual facts. No one is doubting that you're detecting huge "night and day" differences, what we're doubting is where those differences are occurring. For example, the question of "how come we can't measure such huge differences" can now be easily and rationally answered: Because we're measuring in the wrong place, we're measuring the output of the DACs, while the huge "night and day" differences are actually occurring in you brain/perception!

G

What can I say apart from, do you know me ? Do not presume what I think/know/do.

As for the test, sorry, but I had to use my ears for the test, as my feet can’t hear music. What else do you expect me to say ? C’mon, you want me to stick my finger in the usb port instead to get the results ?

Your post is akin to me saying, “Have you ever had a visual eye test ? if so the results are all wrong because you used your eyes”. You see how stupid that sounds. It’s like the stupid that you just wrote above, as we all know the brain distorts our vision by turning it the right way up, as we really see upside down, so any results are instantly void, plus our vision changes as the day goes on. See where I’m going with this ?

***The brain interpret’s and distorts everything the human body does, so picking on ears for a hearing test is dumb.***

As for “not being able to be measured”, infact It probably could be measured, but to do so it would probably require atleast an eeg, ct scan, petscan or mri to detect what happens in the brain when listening to different dacs. So don’t say it cannot be measured/detected, as it can be, it’s just that the people here don’t have access to the hardware needed to do so.

In one of those tests, if the person being tested liked the sound of a particular dac, it would show up as increased electrical activity in certain parts of the brain. It’s already been done with videos and pictures if I recall correctly. How that increased activity would be correlated into useable graphs I don’t know and don’t particulary care. But I’m sure a steady path of volunteers who want to be scanned would give them enough data to do something worthwhile with it.

Since we are all wrong, and that alI dacs sound the same, I would call you a hypocrite if you use a dac that costs more than $5, wait I will be generous, I will make it $15. No need to spend more if they all sound the same.

Out of interest, what dac do you use ?

There was no need for you to ride into town on your high horse dude, as it only makes you look small, and your post above makes you look angry.

 

[bfreedma]

Castle, is it possible to make the words "Sound Science" in the link to this subforum a larger font, blinking red, and bold?

Because some posters seem to be overlooking those words.

 

[Phronesis]

While it may seem that we listen with our ears, the real action is in our brains, based on what they do with the signals sent by the ears, and that signal processing is mainly subconscious. We know that the signal processing is selective, constructive, and highly influenced by things like expectations.

 

[Whazzzup]

What I have become skepticle is with upgrades. Unless we are in some type of rennasance of fidelity advancement, 3 years makes a difference? Hogwash, it’s marketing. Oh a faster FPGA or we added a couple of pulse arrays or add this upscaler dont buy servers or buy this upgrade to power supply.. it’s endless and even I’m sceptical. Course I’m guilty and see no wrong if it makes one feel better but

 

[Phronesis]

What I have become skepticle is with upgrades. Unless we are in some type of rennasance of fidelity advancement, 3 years makes a difference? Hogwash, it’s marketing. Oh a faster FPGA or we added a couple of piles arrays or add this upscaler dont buy servers or buy this upgrade to power supply.. it’s endless and even I’m sceptical.

In the case of Chord in particular, they've hit it big in terms of popularity, so from a business standpoint it makes sense for them to leverage that by frequently rolling out new upgrades and product variants. I bet they're making a lot of money. Porsche does the same thing with its sport cars, and they have a similar market niche - sort of high end, but not so expensive that they can't sell a lot of them.

 

[castleofargh]

Castle, is it possible to make the words "Sound Science" in the link to this subforum a larger font, blinking red, and bold?

Because some posters seem to be overlooking those words.

with a big Degrasse Tyson dropping a mic on the side?
we can't force people to provide evidence, and they can't force us to care about anything unsubstantiated. seems fair game to me. I don't expect every audiophile losing himself in here, to instantly transform into someone who massively cares about the scientific method and blind tests. I'd love to see it, but I don't expect it. just tell posters that you/we care about some demonstration of claims in the section, and dismiss whatever doesn't come with one. it seems more practical and better for the nerves

 

[gregorio]

[1] As for the test, sorry, but I had to use my ears for the test, as my feet can’t hear music.
[1a] What else do you expect me to say ?
[2] Your post is akin to me saying, “Have you ever had a visual eye test ? if so the results are all wrong because you used your eyes”. You see how stupid that sounds.
[3] It’s like the stupid that you just wrote above, as we all know the brain distorts our vision by turning it the right way up, as we really see upside down, so any results are instantly void, plus our vision changes as the day goes on. See where I’m going with this ...
[4] As for “not being able to be measured”, infact It probably could be measured, but to do so it would probably require atleast an eeg, ct scan, petscan or mri to detect what happens in the brain when listening to different dacs.
[4a] So don’t say it cannot be measured/detected, as it can be, it’s just that the people here don’t have access to the hardware needed to do so.

1. It seems like you can't even read what you yourself wrote, let alone my response. You are the one who stated you did the test "purely with you ears", clearly that's impossible unless you don't have anything between them (IE. A brain!). And, if you had any understanding of hearing and perception, you'd know that neither your feet NOR your ears can hear music!
1a. Nothing, you've made it clear that you're going for option #1.

2. But you weren't doing a hearing test, you were using your perception to test DACs. Are you saying that your hearing perception (or vision) is immune to perception biases, that you can't be fooled by aural or optical illusions and that you're some sort of new species of human being? You see how stupid that sounds??

3. No, I don't see where you're "going with this", it could be one of two places: A. Exactly the place where we are: that your perception is highly susceptible to changing what you think you're hearing, even to the point of creating huge differences where none exist or B. Up your own a$$, IE. Contradicting yourself and/or making up ludicrous theories to defend an indefensible position.

4. Huh, how would you measure a DAC with an eeg or MRI? Or are you actually agreeing with me and admitting that measuring the output of a DAC is not where we should be looking for your "night and day" differences, your brain is?
4a. Where did I say that we can't measure brain activity?

[5] In one of those tests, if the person being tested liked the sound of a particular dac, it would show up as increased electrical activity in certain parts of the brain.
[6] Since we are all wrong, and that alI dacs sound the same,
[7] I would call you a hypocrite if you use a dac that costs more than $5, wait I will be generous, I will make it $15. No need to spend more if they all sound the same.
[8] Out of interest, what dac do you use ?
[9] There was no need for you to ride into town on your high horse dude, as it only makes you look small, and your post above makes you look angry.

5. And if they DISLIKED the sound of a particular dac, it would show up as increased electrical activity in certain parts of the brain. So, how can we measure which is which?

6. What do you mean, "since we are all wrong", who is this "all"? How does a few thousand extremist audiophiles qualify as "all", you know there are more than a few thousand people in the world right?

7. I mostly use DACs that are about $9k because it's an ADC/DAC combo that provides me with a bunch of features that other DACs don't. Such as 32 ins/outs, clock looping and other features I need in the studio. If you did call me a hypocrite you would therefore be making an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have!

8. 2 x AVID HD I/O.

9. Pot, kettle, black! BTW, the high horse I'm riding is called "the facts/science", what's your's called, "option #1"?

G