Hugo woe

Timo posted:
nickpeacock posted:

(In other news, see my profile for my latest Hugo-related acquisition...)

Nice -- a big step up with the TT? Please share your impressions/assessment. 

Well spotted! So far so good - putting a Hugo TT into the system after a week or so bare NDX brought back a nice big grin. Difficult to say yet whether it's an improvement over the Hugo but I greatly appreciate the TT features of it (including remote, good for headphone use).

Sloop John B posted:
audio1946 posted:

had same failure ,twice .   life of battery is a problem/ recycling battery charging I guess. I no longer have hugo

Oh you tease, okay then I'll ask- What DAC do you have now?

.sjb

ps audio dac.   sold hugo after battery/repair  .   batteries will always start to fail after a year or two.  prefare the psaudio.  also needed more connectivity.  listened to the dave but out of reach.  did consider the auralic too after trial , thought that dac was very good.    plenty of good dacs on the market all with a slightly different presentation.   running a auralic mini fitted with 2 tera digital out.  with a great ipad application.this unit also has a good internal dac all for 450£

Sorry to hear about the Hugo woes. Great technology in the DAC, but ion batteries will always present problems. (Having worked in the mobile phone industry, power management is the biggest constraining factor in technology progress).

There are intrinsic issues with these batteries becoming less effective over time, and generally - not always - these are exacerbated by being left on mains power for long periods. They are often optimised for complete cycles of empty/full, rather than constant charging. 

If I were a dealer, I would recommend Chord DACs that are mains powered, but not the Hugo.

Have been toying with the idea of trying out a Hugo 2 with my NDX but, living in NZ, threads like this concern me.  Would the local agents Rappalo AV be able to replace the battery and if so, would they do so free of charge?  Or would it need to be returned to the UK?  In which case I would probably have to cover shipping costs etc... 

King Size posted:

Have been toying with the idea of trying out a Hugo 2 with my NDX but, living in NZ, threads like this concern me.  Would the local agents Rappalo AV be able to replace the battery and if so, would they do so free of charge?  Or would it need to be returned to the UK?  In which case I would probably have to cover shipping costs etc... 

Try a 2Qute no batteries and mains powered some people have an issue with the gain which is quite high for Nac's but not Naim integrated amps I believe. I have mine into Nac 282 and although it is loud low down the volume dial it is not an issue for me.

King Size posted:

Have been toying with the idea of trying out a Hugo 2 with my NDX but, living in NZ, threads like this concern me.  Would the local agents Rappalo AV be able to replace the battery and if so, would they do so free of charge?  Or would it need to be returned to the UK?  In which case I would probably have to cover shipping costs etc... 

There has been some indication that the problem may have been confined to the earlier production of Hugo, though I don't know that we have enough info to be definitive. And of course it is likely to have been something Chord will have been concerned about themselves when revising the device.

Why not speak to your local distributor to find out if they do any servicing or repair themselves, and if that extends to battery replacement in the event of failure. Also worth contacting Chord themselves direct and asking about the battery given the history with the original Hugo, and see what they have to say.

Otherwise if you still feel it is too much of an issue there is 2Qute, as BtB has mentioned, though it is reputed not to sound quite as good as H1, and certainly not as good as H2 (unless they produce a 2Q2 in due course). There is alsoHugo TT, though it is a lot more expensive and perhaps not better sounding as it was only slightly better than H1 - whether that will now come down in price at all, or also be improved, of course are also unknown factors.

King Size posted:

Have been toying with the idea of trying out a Hugo 2 with my NDX but, living in NZ, threads like this concern me.  Would the local agents Rappalo AV be able to replace the battery and if so, would they do so free of charge?  Or would it need to be returned to the UK?  In which case I would probably have to cover shipping costs etc... 

The Hugo 2 has a "desktop mode", and it is claimed that this extends the lifetime of the battery significantly. I think it was suggested that it could last 10 years, as the battery is not effectively charged anymore in desktop mode. And apparently the Hugo 2 can run without battery. So maybe there is no battery issue anymore -- but of course the proof of the pudding is in the eating...

Yes my issue doesn't appear battery related but an issue with the internal PSU, as Chord are not replacing batteries at no charge. The internal power supplies in the Hugo are quite advanced devices. I also understand that the new advice from Chord for the Hugo 1 is not leave it connected to external power continuously, and occasionally discharge battery. This has changed from the initial advice. Regarding TT I borrowed one when my Hugo 1 was at Chord.. no comparison to my ears Hugo1 wins rather clearly, it really is quite noticeable. I have noticed this before. I will listen out for Hugo2, as DAVE wasn't my cup of tea. I do wonder if the original Hugo1 was a one off however, and I have found not all Hugo1 sound the same either especially with regard to the inner detail you experience, and before my failed completely it's performance had started to ebb, but now repaired all is restored.

Simon

 

DUPREE posted:

I have never really understood the worship and infatuation with the Hugo... I guess horses for courses but I perfect the sound of the Naim DAC's

Not sure who worships or is infatuated with Hugo, rather my impression from this forum is that a good proportion of those who have listened to it may adore or be in love with the sound the quirky little box produces, which having heard it I find quite understandable - though after a couple of blissful years together I ended up jilting mine after being seduced by Dave.

I agree with Dupree, can't see what the fuss is about with the Hugo. I had one on trial and despite trying different cables, volume settings etc it never sounded more than mediocre at best. Be wary of the hyperbole.

Not that I'm bothered, just got a bit tedious when The Hugo was getting recommended ad nauseum a few months ago. 

The other thing that I find odd is posts on the Naim forum from posters that have no Naim equipment at all and are not planning to (excluding those seeking advice). What's the point, there are plenty of other generalist forums?

Jonn posted:

I agree with Dupree, can't see what the fuss is about with the Hugo. I had one on trial and despite trying different cables, volume settings etc it never sounded more than mediocre at best. Be wary of the hyperbole.

Not that I'm bothered, just got a bit tedious when The Hugo was getting recommended ad nauseum a few months ago. 

The other thing that I find odd is posts on the Naim forum from posters that have no Naim equipment at all and are not planning to (excluding those seeking advice). What's the point, there are plenty of other generalist forums?

It would be interesting to know what you were using as a renderer when you had Hugo on trial, and with what other DAC(s) you compared it with?

As for reasons for some people not owning Naim gear posting on the Naim forum, there could be many reasons-  e.g. to learn, or to assist others (or both), or to provoke thought. Maybe other reasons. And unless they declare to the contrary, who knows whether they may or have plans to buy, or try, Naim equipment, or whether that might come to be a desire? 

Jonn posted:

I agree with Dupree, can't see what the fuss is about with the Hugo. I had one on trial and despite trying different cables, volume settings etc it never sounded more than mediocre at best. Be wary of the hyperbole.

Not that I'm bothered, just got a bit tedious when The Hugo was getting recommended ad nauseum a few months ago. 

The other thing that I find odd is posts on the Naim forum from posters that have no Naim equipment at all and are not planning to (excluding those seeking advice). What's the point, there are plenty of other generalist forums?

Hyperbole unfortunately is pretty rampant on hi-fi forums. However, having tried the Hugo recently, in my mostly Naim system, I also found it extremely good, and only slghtly less so than my considerably more expensive Chord QBD76HDSD. It really is a game-changer, and my experiences with Chord's other DACs echos Simon's - I preferred the Hugo (Mk 1) to both TT and DAVE. If you found it mediocre, then there's something wrong somewhere.

tonym posted:
Jonn posted:

I agree with Dupree, can't see what the fuss is about with the Hugo. I had one on trial and despite trying different cables, volume settings etc it never sounded more than mediocre at best. Be wary of the hyperbole.

Not that I'm bothered, just got a bit tedious when The Hugo was getting recommended ad nauseum a few months ago. 

The other thing that I find odd is posts on the Naim forum from posters that have no Naim equipment at all and are not planning to (excluding those seeking advice). What's the point, there are plenty of other generalist forums?

Hyperbole unfortunately is pretty rampant on hi-fi forums. However, having tried the Hugo recently, in my mostly Naim system, I also found it extremely good, and only slghtly less so than my considerably more expensive Chord QBD76HDSD. It really is a game-changer, and my experiences with Chord's other DACs echos Simon's - I preferred the Hugo (Mk 1) to both TT and DAVE. If you found it mediocre, then there's something wrong somewhere.

Why does there have to be something wrong somewhere? Perhaps I just didn't like it much.


I have to completely and utterly disagree with the idea that the QBD76 is better than Dave. It's just plain non-sense - in every single regard Dave hugely beats the QBD, they are not even comparable.

This kind of absurdity is one reason why I disengaged from high end audio in the noughties.

Moderated Post:  Jonn, I have edited out part of your post as it contravenes forum rules - please ensure your posts comply with forum rules.  Please do not bring over discussions from other forums.  Thanks.

I agree, there becomes these religious cult like totems like the Hugo worship or crazy cable stuff. There does not have to be anything wrong. I have listened to the Hugo I thought it was meh. Things are subjective but I thought it was subjectively different but worse than the built in DAC on the 272/NDX. If you like it great, I don't. 

I can understand why some people are a bit fed up with the praise of Hugo or the praise of Tellurium Q -- especially when the praise comes repeatedly from the same people... Though we can't really blame them -- one recommends what one believes in! It is a bit funny though if the appreciation the Hugo receives is described as a "religious cult" for instance. Well, a bit funny when this comes from deeply committed Naim users, who are elsewhere often seen as serving an extreme cult... 

The very use of such words as "Mediocre" and "Meh" immediately puts you in the hyperbole camp. Unless there's something genuinely wrong with the setups through which you heard the Hugo. My experiences with DAVE are by no means unusual, and a few other members of this forum, unprompted by me when they heard it in my system, agreed. It wasn't "Mediocre", "Meh", or any other such term, it just wasn't as good at playing music as either the Hugo or my own DAC.

tonym posted:

The very use of such words as "Mediocre" and "Meh" immediately puts you in the hyperbole camp. Unless there's something genuinely wrong with the setups through which you heard the Hugo. My experiences with DAVE are by no means unusual, and a few other members of this forum, unprompted by me when they heard it in my system, agreed. It wasn't "Mediocre", "Meh", or any other such term, it just wasn't as good at playing music as either the Hugo or my own DAC.

Well in my system the DAVE is  very much better at playing music than the Hugo! 

 

likesmusic posted:
tonym posted:

The very use of such words as "Mediocre" and "Meh" immediately puts you in the hyperbole camp. Unless there's something genuinely wrong with the setups through which you heard the Hugo. My experiences with DAVE are by no means unusual, and a few other members of this forum, unprompted by me when they heard it in my system, agreed. It wasn't "Mediocre", "Meh", or any other such term, it just wasn't as good at playing music as either the Hugo or my own DAC.

Well in my system the DAVE is  very much better at playing music than the Hugo! 

 

Good, glad it works for you.

tonym posted:

The very use of such words as "Mediocre" and "Meh" immediately puts you in the hyperbole camp. Unless there's something genuinely wrong with the setups through which you heard the Hugo. My experiences with DAVE are by no means unusual, and a few other members of this forum, unprompted by me when they heard it in my system, agreed. It wasn't "Mediocre", "Meh", or any other such term, it just wasn't as good at playing music as either the Hugo or my own DAC.

Look up the definition of "mediocre" . How can this term be described as hyperbole?

Why do you assume that if you think something sounds good then everybody else should or if they don't then there is something wrong with their system? Such arrogance.

Jonn posted:
tonym posted:

The very use of such words as "Mediocre" and "Meh" immediately puts you in the hyperbole camp. Unless there's something genuinely wrong with the setups through which you heard the Hugo. My experiences with DAVE are by no means unusual, and a few other members of this forum, unprompted by me when they heard it in my system, agreed. It wasn't "Mediocre", "Meh", or any other such term, it just wasn't as good at playing music as either the Hugo or my own DAC.

Look up the definition of "mediocre" . How can this term be described as hyperbole?

Why do you assume that if you think something sounds good then everybody else should or if they don't then there is something wrong with their system? Such arrogance.

I've listened to many DACs in my time (built quite a few as well), and the term "mediocre" (don't need to look it up) is not an appropriate word for any of them if they're working correctly. You may prefer another DAC of course, that's fine. Of course you might. But if you want your views to be taken seriously then applying that word to the Hugo, which many folk really like, is bound to attract comment and to wonder under what circumstances you heard it. Do you believe then that the large majority of us who hold Hugo in high regard are all misguided or prone to hyperbole? Is it arrogance for me to query how you might have reached your conclusion? 

I have never heard "meh" refered to hyperbole - it's kind of a slang as a luke warm reception. I didn't say it was terrible, or sucked or I would rather stick shards of glass in my ears. It just underwhelmed and I did not consider what it did to my system to be an upgrade. I liked it better with the Naim DAC in my preamp.

Hmmm.....so how can I possibly suggest that a piece of hifi equipment is moderate/adequate/fair/passable (i.e. mediocre) unless there is something wrong?

Surprisingly not everybody likes the same thing, so what if some people like the Hugo, I don't particularly. 

I reached my opinion by listening to the Hugo at home for a couple of weeks attached to my HDX and NDS. In both cases the sound was worse, even after changing cables and fiddling about with output levels and according to the dealer there was nothing wrong with the Hugo.

p.s. Thanks for giving permission to prefer another DAC 

Jonn posted:

Surprisingly not everybody likes the same thing, so what if some people like the Hugo, I don't particularly. 

I reached my opinion by listening to the Hugo at home for a couple of weeks attached to my HDX and NDS. In both cases the sound was worse, even after changing cables and fiddling about with output levels and according to the dealer there was nothing wrong with the Hugo.

 

Could you please clarify - when you say HDX, was that HdX digital out into Hugo compared with HDX digital out into NDS's DAC, or compared with HDX through its own DAC?

I am with Tony, I think words like mediocre and meh are  hyperbole when used in this context to draw attention to them selves when used to describe a quality piece of hifi audio equipment with many techniques for reconstruction with a generally regarded high level of proficiency . I totally accept however that one might like or prefer its type of reconstruction technique, but that is different. So a statement like it sounds worse is meaningless unless you describe what you didn't like and the context you listened to it.. Perhaps the inner detail and resolution made you feel uneasy and dizzy???

I was never a great fan of the NDS/555PS but I certainly wouldn't call it mediocre or meh. I wrote a description of the differences between the Hugo NDS and NDAC in a music context some time back if one wants to search.

Jonn and Dupree, if you're ever in my area (Suffolk) you would be very welcome to come & have a listen to a Hugo in my system (I'm sure Nick From Suffolk would lend me his one again) & I would be amazed if you found it less than very good indeed.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

I am with Tony, I think words like mediocre and meh are  hyperbole when used in this context to draw attention to them selves when used to describe a quality piece of hifi audio equipment with many techniques for reconstruction with a generally regarded high level of proficiency . I totally accept however that one might like or prefer its type of reconstruction technique, but that is different. So a statement like it sounds worse is meaningless unless you describe what you didn't like and the context you listened to it.. Perhaps the inner detail and resolution made you feel uneasy and dizzy???

I was never a great fan of the NDS/555PS but I certainly wouldn't call it mediocre or meh. I wrote a description of the differences between the Hugo NDS and NDAC in a music context some time back if one wants to search.

Hyperbole means: exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

Mediocre means: average or ordinary in quality.

So how can mediocre be hyperbole when it describes what I heard in comparison to the DACs in my HDX and NDS?

Specifically the Hugo to my ears lacked engagement and connection to the music. My feet weren't tapping. It just sounded fairly ordinary. YMMV

 

I can't believe how exercised some people get when somebody doesn't like what they like.

Jonn posted:
Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

I am with Tony, I think words like mediocre and meh are  hyperbole when used in this context to draw attention to them selves when used to describe a quality piece of hifi audio equipment with many techniques for reconstruction with a generally regarded high level of proficiency . I totally accept however that one might like or prefer its type of reconstruction technique, but that is different. So a statement like it sounds worse is meaningless unless you describe what you didn't like and the context you listened to it.. Perhaps the inner detail and resolution made you feel uneasy and dizzy???

I was never a great fan of the NDS/555PS but I certainly wouldn't call it mediocre or meh. I wrote a description of the differences between the Hugo NDS and NDAC in a music context some time back if one wants to search.

Hyperbole means: exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

Mediocre means: average or ordinary in quality.

So how can mediocre be hyperbole when it describes what I heard in comparison to the DACs in my HDX and NDS?

Specifically the Hugo to my ears lacked engagement and connection to the music. My feet weren't tapping. It just sounded fairly ordinary. YMMV

 

I can't believe how exercised some people get when somebody doesn't like what they like.

My goodness -- is this still going on?! Don't you have any music to listen to? 

tonym posted:

Jonn and Dupree, if you're ever in my area (Suffolk) you would be very welcome to come & have a listen to a Hugo in my system (I'm sure Nick From Suffolk would lend me his one again) & I would be amazed if you found it less than very good indeed.

Thanks for the offer. I don't doubt that it would sound OK but compared to what I usually listen to maybe a bit "mediocre" 

Incidentally mediocre is not necessarily a perjorative term but can used in a comparative sense, so it seems the issue is to do with semantics.

 

Innocent Bystander posted:
Jonn posted:

Surprisingly not everybody likes the same thing, so what if some people like the Hugo, I don't particularly. 

I reached my opinion by listening to the Hugo at home for a couple of weeks attached to my HDX and NDS. In both cases the sound was worse, even after changing cables and fiddling about with output levels and according to the dealer there was nothing wrong with the Hugo.

 

Could you please clarify - when you say HDX, was that HdX digital out into Hugo compared with HDX digital out into NDS's DAC, or compared with HDX through its own DAC?

The latter.

Jonn posted:
Innocent Bystander posted:
Jonn posted:

Surprisingly not everybody likes the same thing, so what if some people like the Hugo, I don't particularly. 

I reached my opinion by listening to the Hugo at home for a couple of weeks attached to my HDX and NDS. In both cases the sound was worse, even after changing cables and fiddling about with output levels and according to the dealer there was nothing wrong with the Hugo.

 

Could you please clarify - when you say HDX, was that HdX digital out into Hugo compared with HDX digital out into NDS's DAC, or compared with HDX through its own DAC?

The latter.

Thanxs for that. Significant in knowing to what you were comparing - had it been just the NDS's DAC then the interrpretation might be different.

It would seem that quite simply you prefer the presentation of Naim DACs ovr Hugo, which from the number of ppeople overall who have written here about evaluating Hugo would seem to place you in the minority - but that of course does not in any way a negative statement, just fact: much as some people like bass and others avoid it like the plague, or some love jazz but others can't stand it.

I was never completely happy with the HDX until the software update a couple of years ago which seemed to take the occasional hard edge off so it's now more listenable across a range of music.

Using a Cisco switch and Chord C Ethernet cable from the switch also helped to sweeten the sound whilst maintaining the drive and pace.

Jonn posted:
tonym posted:

Jonn and Dupree, if you're ever in my area (Suffolk) you would be very welcome to come & have a listen to a Hugo in my system (I'm sure Nick From Suffolk would lend me his one again) & I would be amazed if you found it less than very good indeed.

Thanks for the offer. I don't doubt that it would sound OK but compared to what I usually listen to maybe a bit "mediocre" 

Incidentally mediocre is not necessarily a perjorative term but can used in a comparative sense, so it seems the issue is to do with semantics.

 

Of course, neither the Hugo nor the Naim DACs hold a candle to the DACs in the latest Klimax streamers 

I know we digress, but I was at a recent Linn listening event and I was listening to the new Klimax streamer with Linn amplification and PMC speakers and comparing with the older Klimax... although I was in the minority I definitely preferred the earlier Klimax model over the new one, it sounded less 'technical' in the higher frequencies and more natural. It was suggested I might not be gelling with the PMC speakers.. could be ... However I feel I still prefer the little DAC as it simply just does its stuff without drawing attention to itself on many systems, but the older Klimax feels close.. 

That is interesting, Simon.

I have the Klimax DS/1 which I feel is a big step up from my earlier DS/0. I haven't personally heard the Klimax Katalyst (the latest model) yet, but you are the first person I have heard say that an earlier model is better. Everyone else has claimed that the upgrade to Katalyst is the most effective Klimax upgrade yet.  

I had been thinking about upgrading (at circa £4,500) at some point, but I guess I will now definitely compare the two before committing to the upgrade.   

×
×
×
×