NDX and Chord Hugo
Posted by: Foxman50 on 18 April 2014
I have been contemplating adding a DAC to my NDX/XPS2 to see (or should that be hear) what it can bring to the party. And so thought it about time i made inroads into Having a few home demos. After looking around at products that are within my budget i came across the Chord Hugo DAC.
Although it is meant to be a portable headphone unit, it can be used as a full line level fixed DAC.
The dealer lent me a TQ black digital coax lead, which have twist grip plugs. This was required as the present batch of Hugo's have a case design fault that wont allow any decent cable to fit, soon to be rectified. Thankfully the TQ just manages to hang on to the coax port.
Once all connected and gone through the minimal setup procedure of the Hugo, what does the red LED mean again, i left it to warm up for half an hour.
Poured a beer and sat down for an evenings listening.
What was that, where did that come from, that's what that instrument is. OMG, as my little'n would say, Where is it getting all this detail from.
After spending last night and today with it, all i can say is that it has totally transformed my system from top to bottom. I never considered my NDX to be veiled or shut in, not even sure that's the correct terms. All i can say is its opened up the sound stage and space around instruments. Everything I've put through it has had my toes, feet and legs tapping away to the music.
Even putting the toe tapping, the resolution the clarity to one side, what its greatest achievement for me has been in making albums that I've had trouble listening too enjoyable now.
One added bonus is that it has made the XPS redundant. I cannot hear any difference with it in or out of the system.
While i thought a DAC may make a change in the degree of the jump from ND5 to NDX, i was not prepared for this. Anyone looking at adding a PSU to there NDX may want to check this unit out first.
For me this has to be the bargain of the year.
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.
An FPGA is a blank canvas. One of its key advantages is the great latitude it provides to the programmer in comparison to a commercial chip such as the ESS devices. Another considerable advantage is the very low power use. The Spartan 6 runs at 0.7 V in the Hugo, so consumes very little power.
The Hugo is a game changer for two reasons: 1/ the high number of filter taps used in the reconstruction filter (no other DAC has as many, according to Rob Watts) 2/ the low power consumption.
The latter blows a considerable hole in the power-supply upgrade strategy for DACs. Whether the low-power approach can be carried over to preamps is another matter, but if it all goes digital, then it seems likely to happen.
Simply because another DAC used an FPGA does not guarantee a performance equivalent to the Hugo, although it does offer the advantage of low-power consumption. The musical performance comes from the programming, and in this case from one man's singular pursuit of the perfect digital reconstruction filter.
There are a number of interesting DAC designs and if money is no object then it is worth exploring those from MSB and Playback Designs. I have not heard these, but i have heard the Antelope and that is a top notch DAC in my opinion, but it is two box and at its best uses an external atomic clock: so make that three boxes (and it looks ugly and doesn't fit on a Fraim). Another interesting design is the NAD M51 which converts PCM to PWM (is that DSD by another name?). So Hugo is not the only game in town ...,
However, i can say that Hugo is exceptional for the money and enables us folk on a budget to enjoy superDAC performance.
Not heard it myself, but this description of the NAD m51
I found this DAC smooths everything out, and really alters the natural presentation of music due to its 'extreme' oversampling.
I was about to buy a dac upgrade (V1) for my supernait 1 dac, as various reviews and opinions suggested this should be my path to go, untill I read this topic. Ever since I got a "headache" and do not know which should I get. Perfect answer lies in testing with my own ears, only problem is that probably I have to choose blindly, because Chord has no dealers here, and not sure when V1 will be at the dealer for a demo. As I enjoy SN1 dac alot, I could only imagine V1 make things only better and therefore even blind buy does not scare me. But then Hugo shows up and all this fever starts about a "game changer - giant slayer", NDX/NDAC beater. Given a small price diference of both dacs I could choose either, hell, I seriously tempted to get Hugo if its THAT good. What I read about it though is its more "lightweight" sound. Because I mostly listen to rock and stuff like that, a "lightweight" sound doesnt seem to be the right way. Could anyone suggest me, should I follow dark side (V1) or light side (Hugo) in this particular situation?
Hugo is certainly NOT lightweight or thin sounding in my system and in my room. Not by any measure.
I have its volume set to 'bypass' into the SN2 and from the lowest 6:30 level to the highest 10:30 level it sounds full and natural.
G
The Hugo is a game changer for two reasons: 1/ the high number of filter taps used in the reconstruction filter (no other DAC has as many, according to Rob Watts) 2/ the low power consumption.
With respect, these are technical specifications more than reasons Jan. Not being facetious here just interested. My question is so what if no other DAC has so many? Maybe another DAC has more of something else. It doesn't follow that having more of something must be better.
Re low power consumption, DACs and pre-amps consume low power anyway. So what exactly is the big advantage?
Finally the FGPA is in favour because of the 'great latitude it offers the programmer'. Why is this latitude needed and how is it exploited to the advantage of the user?
Digital filter - why is this better (perfect even)? What problem has it solved? Etc.
I think it would help to have the problem statements set out clearly, why these cannot be addressed or are not already addressed by other means and then how the specifications address those problems in a unique way.
Not heard it myself, but this description of the NAD m51
I found this DAC smooths everything out, and really alters the natural presentation of music due to its 'extreme' oversampling.
Sounds familiar!
Hugo is certainly NOT lightweight or thin sounding in my system and in my room. Not by any measure.
I have its volume set to 'bypass' into the SN2 and from the lowest 6:30 level to the highest 10:30 level it sounds full and natural.
G
Same here, after full run-in. I did find some lightness at first, as described earlier in this thread. Now it's as dark or light as the music it's playing.
Mark you might have more luck querying the Hugo design considerations on the Headfi forum rather than here. The designer frequents that site and hopefully would be able to answer your queries. I am not sure whether Rob Watt is Naim forum member - and this Naim forum might not be the best place to discuss the internal intricacies of another manufacturer's product other than at a very high level
Simon
Seconded.
Jan introduced the design considerations if memory serves. Check above. I am not that bothered that I will join another forum to discuss them. However, if they are posted on here as facts I may choose to query them with those who present them as facts. If that is ok with you two that is?
@ Cloth Ears, I have experienced subtle sonic changes in the past with firmware changes with the NDX and noticed it once with a borrowed NDS.
I suspect the sound differences one hears between the current Naim products and the Hugo is more architectural related rather than tweaking changes in the execution timing or sequencing of the DSP code in the Naim digital filter.
I think Naim use an IIR convolution filter as opposed to an FIR which I believe is used in the Hugo, but that in itself is probably of little sonic impact, I suspect however with the current Naim architecture / hardware it's not possible for Naim to increase the accuracy of the filter without running out of processing capacity, or by causing too much power drain and all the associated problems and interference associated with that.
But I am sure Naim are not resting on their laurels and are / will be looking at the innovations in this space and might be experimenting with new low power FPGA/ micro controllers that have only relatively recently become available and have the ability to perform more accurate reconstruction filtering with minimal artefacts using low power.
Simon
Simon, is the Naim forum is the right place to discuss the internals of another manufacturers product?
Andrius - the Hugo is certainly no lightweight - in fact it is slightly the opposite - it has a warmer mid than I was used to and I had to pull my speakers forward.
The bass is very tuneful and weighty BUT it is not as intense as the NDAC/555PS which has a very strong deep bass weight but has a less warm mid than the Hugo (IMO)
The Hugo does Punk, Rock, Electronica, Trance, R&B Drum and Bass, Dub Step etc well.
My deep bass test track for power and timing is 'Sophie needs a ladder' by DeadMau5 - and the Hugo pounds it out impressively and maintains the timing at the timing change part way through the track than can sound a mess on some DACs (and speakers)
Simon
Hi I am using my NDX to feed the Hugo.. And is providing the performance I am truly enjoying from a source. I really think the NDX is a great and versatile network player and SPDIF source, I always have done so , and it's low jitter, clean signal seems to be appreciated by the Hugo and NDAC alike.
Your comment about Naim upgrading the DACs is interesting.. I genuinely feel the Hugo bridges the gap between the NDS and NDAC and seems to combine the strengths of both with great synergy. The clean refinement of the NDS with the tone and rhythmic drive of the NDAC. In doing so one gets a very natural textured layered sound that seems to track the music exquisitely, no matter what style seemingly.
Now if Chord can design with new ultra low power precision devices seemingly thereby reducing the impact of artefacts from increased earth currents, EMI, RFI, powerline modulation, heat dissipation, DSP computational constraints etc I am sure Naim can, and it will only be a matter of time... But until then why miss out?
Simon
Try Head-Fi forum to find out?
Simon, is the Naim forum is the right place to discuss the internals of another manufacturers product?
Only I believe at a high/general level. I was referring to the reconstruction filter which it and the low power DSP/FPGA devices seem to be the main possible differences to the Naim DACs.
But you appeared to be having some rather specific queries on Hugo that you appeared to be not getting answers to hence the suggestion of where might be more fruitful. I'll look out for your questions over there.
I am happy to discuss here what I know and what I can hear - additional design details and justifications surely need to come from the designer himself - and my point was is he going to do that on another manufacture's user forum.
Mark have you heard a Hugo yet - would be interested to hear your views and comments?
Cheers
Simon
Simon, I am going to listen to a Hugo but will admit it has fallen further down in my priorities after this thread.
A quick read of Chord's own marketing suggests a major benefit is in its high-res files capabilities and ability to serve up studio master quality. "Hugo brings the renowned digital audio expertise of Rob Watts and Chord Electronics to serious headphone listening, enabling music lovers to experience a world of super-high-resolution music via their headphones or suitable loudspeakers."
As I don't have good access to studio masters this is of limited use to me although I accept it will be great news for those who do. I am also not that bothered by high-res in general at this moment.
The most appealing features from my perspective are the form factor and application as a head-phone amp.
The other stuff which Jan and others have been espousing sounds like a load of twaddle to me. At least it does as they relay it. A set of non-sequiturs supported by random specifications.
I will come back with comments as and when I listen to it but as I say it is just not a great priority now. Glad you're enjoying yours nonetheless. Do you get out and about with it much?
The Hugo is a game changer for two reasons: 1/ the high number of filter taps used in the reconstruction filter (no other DAC has as many, according to Rob Watts) 2/ the low power consumption.
With respect, these are technical specifications more than reasons Jan. Not being facetious here just interested. My question is so what if no other DAC has so many? Maybe another DAC has more of something else. It doesn't follow that having more of something must be better.
I'm not trying to spout specifications for effect, rather for their pertinence to the musical performance. The large number of taps on the digital filter accounts for much of the Hugo's naturalness (my conclusion, confirmed by the designer).
Re low power consumption, DACs and pre-amps consume low power anyway. So what exactly is the big advantage?
As I understand it, the big advantages are a very low level of electrical noise (think noise floor) and very little heat (think thermal stability).
Also, because the Xilinx chip consumes so little power, the lion's share can be dedicated to the ampliication section of the Hugo.
Finally the FGPA is in favour because of the 'great latitude it offers the programmer'. Why is this latitude needed and how is it exploited to the advantage of the user?
Again, as I understand it, all the functions fo a modern DAC can be programmed on one chip : S / PDIF decoding, the timing of the isochronous USB signal, the digital PLL circuit (Phase Locked Loop), the WTA interpolation filtering (Watts Time Aligned), support of DSD over USB and finally the Pulse Array DAC.
Digital filter - why is this better (perfect even)? What problem has it solved? Etc.
Better reconstruction of the original signal's waveform.
I think it would help to have the problem statements set out clearly, why these cannot be addressed or are not already addressed by other means and then how the specifications address those problems in a unique way.
Mark,
Since you've insisted, I've replied according to my understanding of how the technology benefits the music. This is as far as I will go, because it is not my job to sell or defend the Hugo, nor the designer or his design decisions. My interest lies in identifying those aspects of a given technology that truly contribute to moving the reproduction of music closer to the real thing, and attempting to relay that.
Jan
Moderated Post: Jan, I've had to edit this post to ensure it complies with forum rules. You'll know why, I'm sure. Thanks.
Simon, I am going to listen to a Hugo but will admit it has fallen further down in my priorities after this thread.
A quick read of Chord's own marketing suggests a major benefit is in its high-res files capabilities and ability to serve up studio master quality. "Hugo brings the renowned digital audio expertise of Rob Watts and Chord Electronics to serious headphone listening, enabling music lovers to experience a world of super-high-resolution music via their headphones or suitable loudspeakers."
As I don't have good access to studio masters this is of limited use to me although I accept it will be great news for those who do. I am also not that bothered by high-res in general at this moment.
Incorrect conclusion. The Hugo brings regular CD replay essentially to the level of hi-res. That was one of the design goals, if you take the time to read up on the Head-Fi forum.
I can't hear any difference between CD an hi-res on this device.
Mark
> Do you get out and about with it much?
No! I was thinking about this today whilst stuck in a traffic jam on the A12 of all places - I was imagining taking my Hugo on my travels - but would I really want to do that if using it as my main DAC? So I thought about buying two - but then went .. nahhh
Simon
The Hugo is a game changer for two reasons: 1/ the high number of filter taps used in the reconstruction filter (no other DAC has as many, according to Rob Watts) 2/ the low power consumption.
With respect, these are technical specifications more than reasons Jan. Not being facetious here just interested. My question is so what if no other DAC has so many? Maybe another DAC has more of something else. It doesn't follow that having more of something must be better.
I'm not trying to spout specifications for effect, rather for their pertinence to the musical performance. The large number of taps on the digital filter accounts for much of the Hugo's naturalness (my conclusion, confirmed by the designer).
This again mentions a specification (large number of taps on the digital filter) and automatically links it to some benefit without anything other than an anecdotal link.
Re low power consumption, DACs and pre-amps consume low power anyway. So what exactly is the big advantage?
As I understand it, the big advantages are a very low level of electrical noise (think noise floor) and very little heat (think thermal stability).
Presumably these advantages are less big or even non-existent if you already have a low noise floor and little heat?
Also, because the Xilinx chip consumes so little power, the lion's share can be dedicated to the ampliication section of the Hugo.
Pre-amps don't use much power so not sure why this would be an advantage in this implementation?
Finally the FGPA is in favour because of the 'great latitude it offers the programmer'. Why is this latitude needed and how is it exploited to the advantage of the user?
Again, as I understand it, all the functions fo a modern DAC can be programmed on one chip : S / PDIF decoding, the timing of the isochronous USB signal, the digital PLL circuit (Phase Locked Loop), the WTA interpolation filtering (Watts Time Aligned), support of DSD over USB and finally the Pulse Array DAC.
Why is it better if they are on one chip?
Digital filter - why is this better (perfect even)? What problem has it solved? Etc.
Better reconstruction of the original signal's waveform.
Better than what and how much better? The original signal from a CD say was not as good as analogue in the first place.
I think it would help to have the problem statements set out clearly, why these cannot be addressed or are not already addressed by other means and then how the specifications address those problems in a unique way.
Mark,
Since you've insisted, I've replied according to my understanding of how the technology benefits the music. This is as far as I will go, because it is not my job to sell or defend the Hugo, nor the designer or his design decisions. My interest lies in identifying those aspects of a given technology that truly contribute to moving the reproduction of music closer to the real thing, and attempting to relay that to the readers of our magazine.
Good. Lets hear no more of it then. Stop mass quoting from other websites etc.
Now it's my turn to insist. Sign up for the Head-Fi forum and direct any further questions directly to the designer. He usually responds quickly and his responses are uniformly illuminating.
No.
Jan
The other stuff which Jan and others have been espousing sounds like a load of twaddle to me. At least it does as they relay it. A set of non-sequiturs supported by random specifications.?
On a traffic light green means 'go' and yellow means 'yield', but on a banana it's just the opposite. Green means 'hold on,' yellow means 'go ahead'.
The Hugo's use of colour to indicate source might be confusing for you. I would not recommend it in your case.
Mark
> Do you get out and about with it much?
No! I was thinking about this today whilst stuck in a traffic jam on the A12 of all places - I was imagining taking my Hugo on my travels - but would I really want to do that if using it as my main DAC? So I thought about buying two - but then went .. nahhh
Simon
If you enjoy headphones on the move then it seems a shame not to. No-one will know on the bus! To me the portability seems a big selling point. Top music anytime and anywhere. Have you found the use with headphones as rewarding as via the pre-amp btw?
I applaud Naim for allowing this thread to flourish.
+1
+2. Naim is seeing this thread as Opportunity rather than a Thread !
Opportunity for what?
Naims engineering dept are taking apart a Hugo to see what all the fuss is about 
Opportunity for what?
this whole forum could be used as one big free marketing research opportunity.
Not an unbiased one, but still a lot of free information on views of Naim users.