NDX and Chord Hugo

Thanks Doc -- it's truly a labor of love!

Watts did say on the Head Fi thread that he was now heads-down on the Chordette upgrade, but did not specify any time frame.  I wouldn't be surprised if it still a year out, but I am sure they will do their best to strike while the iron is hot, and before the competition can catch up.

ATB.

Hook

Which active speakers are you using?

Mark,

There's an interesting section on the Xiph website, titled Sampling fallacies and misconceptions. Not sure if it completely answers your question, though.

As I understand it, the 44.1 sampling frequency perfectly captures the original signal. The problem lies in reconstructing it perfectly. Rob Watts states that given an infinite tap length, this is a certainty. The Hugo's tap length is (according to him) the longest of any available DAC, so therefore goes further than any other in perfectly reconstructing the original signal. 

Is there anyone who has heard the Chord Hugo in their own system and preferred the Naim nDac or NDS to the Chord? Or is it 'game over' for Naim on this front pending a new DAC version.

All the popular Hi-fi mags (Hi-fi Choice, What Hi-fi etc.) seem to rate the Hugo as a ground breaking product and better than the smaller Naim Dac (which is still rated as excellent but not in the same league). It's rare I've read so much gushing praise of a product as the Hugo so either a new frontier has been crossed or sales commissions are suitably large (and, of course, you can't believe everything you read).

I guess there is a marketing machine operating somewhere... isn't there always in consumer land?

However having listened to it with possibly a negative preconception based on powersupply, fiddly controls etc, I was surprised and delighted with the step change performance it appeared to bring, I guess you should listen to appreciate/ make your own mind up.

i am listening to it now, and it has been operating almost continuously since Saturday and it has definitely opened up yet further, and now sounds like the demo version I borrowed. On some CDs it genuinely is head turning... Pretty impressive stuff... to use that oft used cliche .. I am rediscovering my music... Again... 

BTW the Naim DAC/555PS punches a stronger bass line, but the effect appears more realistic and balanced with the Hugo in my opinion.

Simon 

I still have my Naim DAC along with the Hugo, and agree with Simon's take (it punches a stronger bass line).

Each provides a slightly different, but equally intriguing view of music. You'll also need to consider the features, does the Hugo have enough digital inputs for your needs for example? Do you need a USB input ?

The Hugo is not a case of flavour of the month, nor is it a collective hallucination, although it has been giving me a bit of synaesthesia lately.

So what is the consensus here?

The Hugo is better than the bare NDX (Graeme)

it is better than the DAC + 555 (Simon)

it offers a different but equally intriguing view to the DAC (Jan-Erik)

Nobody has compared it to the NDS (No one)

it is ridiculously good value (Everyone)

Is the above a reasonable summary?

Apologies to those I've missed, but this thread is getting long!

Keith

Correction in relation to 1 & 2 down.

G

Hello - can anyone help me.

I have done something really stupid, and succumbed to the temptation. I have ordered a Chord Hugo to try it out with my ND5XS on the basis that if it doesn't live up to the hype I can probably sell it for not too much of a loss. The phrase "more money than sense" is probably appropriate here.

However, in preparation for its arrival I have been checking my connection options. I have both coaxial and optical spare digital cables and had naively assumed that the ND5XS would have conventional coaxial and/or optical digital outputs. It doesn't, and I don't recognise the connection type. How do I connect the ND5XS to the conventional optical or coaxial digital inputs on the Hugo?

Secondly, I also naively assumed that I would be able to stream 24/192 hi-res files to the Hugo from the ND5XS, but I now understand that there is a limit of 24/96. Is this the case?

Apologies for my lack of knowledge, but I'd be grateful for any advice.

Thanks.

Assuming you have a Naim BNC to BNC SPDIF lead you need a BNC to phono converter for the Hugo. 

The Hugo happily accepts 192/24 and possibly higher. Just ensure your ND5XS has the digital output set to 'Native' and not overridden to 96/24.

Simon

Hmack

if your spare coax cable is phono to phono, then i think your ND5 came with a BNC to phono adaptor. My ND5 and NDX both did. However the connection on the Hugo does not allow for large shroud connectors on the digital input, so this could be a bit tricky.

Graeme

I think the very first Hugo thread was by a guy that ran a hugo from the digital out on his NDS/555DR.  He indicated that the Hugo was on par with his NDS.

There were also my comments right at the beginning...some time ago!

Having now had some time to run the Hugo in and play with the various permutations, my view has been that it is better than an NDX/555 and different to an nDAC/555 - the latter having better bass, but the Hugo being to these ears more natural. FWIW, I prefer the Hugo and would do so irrespective of the cost and space implications of going with that option.

Re the comments about as good as an NDS - no idea as I've not really heard one. I would however  describe the Hugo's voicing as being reminiscent of the Klimax DS with a dash of Naim added to it. It really is absolutely fantastic.

Simon and Graeme,

Thanks for the replies. I don't actually have a BNC to BNC cable, so I will be using a phono to phono cable. I'll dig out my ND5XS box to see if I still have the BNC to Phono adaptor.

If the Hugo's voicing is "reminiscent of the Klimax DS with a dash of Naim added to it", I for one will be very happy.

Thanks again,

Harry 

FWIW I used an adapted BNC-Phono QED Digital cable whilst waiting for the Naim DC1 BNC-RCA.  The latter is clearly superior in every way.

G

Thanks again Graeme.

Perhaps because I come from an IT background, I have always been very sceptical about the benefits of 'better' digital cables, whether these be coaxial, optical or Ethernet. The phono to phono cable I will be using initially (at least) will be a well built but relatively cheap Cambridge Audio cable.

However, if you can tell me that in your opinion moving to a Naim DC1 BNC to RCA cable will make a significant improvement to sound quality, then I may well give it a go (even if this does go against my better judgement). Still not convinced about expensive Ethernet cables though, although following the advice of a number of well respected members of this forum, I will be adding ferrite chokes to my Ethernet cables. For the cost involved, it would be daft not to at least try. 

As a matter of interest, when I originally had a demo of my ND5 XS, the dealer tried to demonstrate the advantage of moving from a relatively cheap digital coaxial cable ( I think between the ND5 and an nDac) and an expensive (circa £250) cable from Chord. It was a very short demo, but I honestly could not hear a difference.

H    

Why not check out Mark Grant G1000HD BNC to Phono only £25.00, personally I could not hear the difference between the DC1 and my G1000HD BNC to BNC lead when I used this between my UQ and nDac.

Shanks

There are 3 or 4 mentioned on this page. I use a Tellurium Q Graphite, but the differences ive heard are only minor between cables ive tried apart from a Van Den Hull, which was very dull.

Graeme

I suspect the plugs may have played a big part as the QED was gold plated BNC-BNC with a steel BNC-RCA male adapter at the Hugo input. Slightly 'mushy' is how I would describe the resultant sound.

The DC1 much cleaner and more detailed by comparison. To my ears.

G

Is it the fact that the Hugo uses a FPGA instead of a mass produced solution that makes it such a "game changer" and worthy of competing with Naim?

I find it strange that discussions are limited to Naim vs Chord when there are so many other offerings out there - especially for those with "flexible" budgets.

I noticed the new less expensive Young DSD DAC also uses FPGA yet there is very little, if any, discussion about it.

The Xilinx FPGA in the Young DAC is only used for filtering duties.

The dac conversion is done by the mass produced Burr Brown 1795 chip.

The Hugo uses a sole Xilinx Spartan chip for both dac and filtering.

Its not only a more elegant design but more importantly takes advantage of the very low noise (-140dB) low supply of the Spartan 6 FPGA.

"Is it the fact that the Hugo uses a FPGA instead of a mass produced solution that makes it such a "game changer" and worthy of competing with Naim?

I find it strange that discussions are limited to Naim vs Chord when there are so many other offerings out there - especially for those with "flexible" budgets.

I noticed the new less expensive Young DSD DAC also uses FPGA yet there is very little, if any, discussion about it".

The same thought occurred to me. I guess that the pertinent points are 1) that a number of people in the forum have been in a position to review Hugo versus Naim and B) the relatively low price of the Chord Hugo DAC,

There are many expensive alternative DACs out there that may well be better - but probably at a cost.

From my perspective I had been about to order a Teddy DAC (older technology I know) before I came across this discussion and switched to the Hugo.

Still not seen any answers to the above although thanks to Jan for posting some reference material. Lets take a closer look at four areas then:

1) Recreates amplitude perfectly

Oversampling is done to help construct an analogue signal which is a good approximation of the original analogue signal. The 44Khz CD is itself also an approximation of an analogue signal. In other words, you're getting an approximation of an approximation. How can amplitute be recreated perfectly? Not from the original recording. From the CD? Well the CD is digital not analogue for starters. Furthermore, the issue is not so much creating an analogue signal from digital information as removing frequency artifacts. Many companies including Naim already use oversampling to deliver this.

2) Recreates timing perfectly

I know how long the track is. It plays back in the time period expected. Would I or anyone else notice if it by chance were one second longer or shorter over five minutes? No and it is not longer/shorter anyway.

3) One active stage is better than more than one

I feel this does not hold.

4) Hear every passive component.

Not sure about this. They are passive so....

Once again with digital hi-fi, unsure whether the issues the consumer is being saved from are issues the consumer needs to be saved from. It is all about creating a real or perceived need of course.

Still looking forward to hearing this device. Will be honest, somewhat sceptical now.