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.
Posted on: 25 June 2014 by whsturm
I've noticed that a fair few dealers are offering Hugos with minor cosmetic damage at £1200 (infact even my local dealer offered me one). Worth progressing perhaps if you want one now although I can't imagine Naim offering their products with cosmetic damage to the front fascias at a reduced price! I believe that Naim policy is to reject sub-standard components.
Personally I will await Chord trickling their latest technology both upwards to their reference DAC and downwards to the Qute when it will no doubt have even more 'taps' and improved sound quality (I guess they are finding it difficult to shift their other DACs at present given that the Hugo is better). The 'non portable' DACs will also benefit from not having batteries or requiring a return to base for replacement batteries when this is necessary. They also come in black which will suit synergy with other Naim components. Hopefully by then Naim will also have a new 'nDAC' to compete too!
No 'dig' intended at those buying now...simply replying to an earlier post about whether to switch now or wait a little while...
Posted on: 25 June 2014 by tonym
Originally Posted by whsturm:
Personally I will await Chord trickling their latest technology both upwards to their reference DAC and downwards to the Qute when it will no doubt have even more 'taps' and improved sound quality (I guess they are finding it difficult to shift their other DACs at present given that the Hugo is better).
Not so. I've not compared my Chord QBD76 with the Hugo, but someone whose opinion I trust has done so, and reckons the QBD still has the edge. Maybe it's a better power supply, or that the latter incorporates a buffer that stores three seconds of sound (this can be varied).
Of course this doesn't stop the Hugo from being a great bargain.
Posted on: 25 June 2014 by whsturm
Originally Posted by tonym:
Originally Posted by whsturm:
Personally I will await Chord trickling their latest technology both upwards to their reference DAC and downwards to the Qute when it will no doubt have even more 'taps' and improved sound quality (I guess they are finding it difficult to shift their other DACs at present given that the Hugo is better).
Not so. I've not compared my Chord QBD76 with the Hugo, but someone whose opinion I trust has done so, and reckons the QBD still has the edge. Maybe it's a better power supply, or that the latter incorporates a buffer that stores three seconds of sound (this can be varied).
Of course this doesn't stop the Hugo from being a great bargain.
Apologies I haven't heard both alongside each other but made this assumption based upon the number of 'taps'. Apparently the QBD76 has 17,000 taps whilst the Hugo has improved this to 26,000. In the Hi-fi Choice article Rob stated he is already working on higher designs which I assume will apply to a new QBD76 and, as he also stated, that 'infinite taps' would give the best sound I assumed the higher the number the better. No doubt that you are right and that other factors contribute too.
In the review linked to from the Chord Hugo facebook account the Auralic VEGA DAC outperforms the Hugo according to the reviewer but at twice the price. General acceptance therefore seems to be that the Hugo offers sensational performance at its price point rather than being the best DAC in the world.
Posted on: 25 June 2014 by Marky Mark
Haven't been following this thread of late but am sure it provides some belly laughs.
Like the one about best wait for this technology to trickle upwards.
Or that infinite taps are best. Here is one with 17,000. here ia another with 26,000......etc. We could be here a while. 
Posted on: 25 June 2014 by Foxman50
Originally Posted by Marky Mark:
Originally Posted by Wat:
They did say they could make an even better DAC - 64 rather than 32 bit was mentioned.
Some on here claimed perfect reproduction. Now there might be a better version?
What is the criteria for one item being better than another?
I mean the V1 has a remote i believe, so does this make it better than Hugo. Surely all that can be judged is what suites the individual.
And as for waiting for the next thing to come round the corner. If we all took that stance, our racks would be empty. In fact we wouldnt even have racks.
Graeme
Posted on: 26 June 2014 by tonym
Personally, I think it's great there are so many excellent DACs coming on the market. I use a V1 in my second system and, although I suspect the Hugo will sound better, the convenience of the remote source switching and volume control (I use it as a digital preamp) outweighs the potential slight loss of sound quality.
Given the success of the Hugo, and the cleverness of the Chord and Naim digital people, I'm convinced there will be something even betterer coming out from either one soon. Exciting times indeed.
Posted on: 26 June 2014 by Simon-in-Suffolk
Mark I don't deny there has been hyperbole mentioned on this thread, but mathematically a reconstruction windowed filter with an infinite number kernel samples or taps is the theoretical ideal for when the sampled material is infinitely long..... but we are listening to music with a start and finish, so mathematically the reconstruction filter ideally would have (trying to remember here) one or two samples less than the source sampled material... again not that useful for us..
In practice one uses a fixed finite number of kernel samples or 'taps' very much smaller than the length of the sampled material. This sinc based reconstruction filter kernel size or 'tap' size can be effectively reduced to a practical size for a given precision by trading it's filter effectiveness and adding some artefacts by using the Hamming or Blackman window functions. These are great compromises at dealing with current physical processing constraints of signal processors.
Ultimately however in real world implementations I believe one is bound by the precision of the kernel samples that ultimately llimits the number of relevant kernel samples / taps with or without the Hamming or Blackman functions.
Therefore I suggest in the practical world more kernel samples/taps are better but only up to,a point above which no further improvement can be made as one has run out of precision within the chosen implantation.
Hopefully I have been able to add a bit of practical context to a theoretically correct statement..
Simon
Posted on: 26 June 2014 by Hmack
Marky Mark posted:
They did say they could make an even better DAC - 64 rather than 32 bit was mentioned.
"Some on here claimed perfect reproduction. Now there might be a better version?"
I don't recall anyone on this thread claiming that the Hugo (or any other DAC for that matter) is 'perfect'.
By the way, has anyone claimed that their ears are perfect? Because, unless we rely on measurements only (not the done thing these days), then any opinion has to be subjective, and purely a personal choice. Also only relevant if you happen to have heard the two items that are being compared.
My only claim is that my Hugo (bought 2nd hand) is a phenominal bargain, and sounds to me to be significantly better than the DAC in my ND5XS and better (in most ways) than the DAC in my Linn Klimax Renew. Others have made similar claims about DACs they have owned such as the nDAC and those in their own NDX or NDS. Very much personal opinions, but no less valid for that.
I have no doubt that 'better' products will emerge, and if they turn out to be relatively affordable, then I will consider purchasing them.
Posted on: 26 June 2014 by Hmack
Incidentally, the Hugo is the first product I have owned that has forced me to re-consider my view on 'burn-in'. I have never really bought into the concept of burn-in, believing that any perceived change in sound quality was more likely to be down to the 'bedding-in' of the sound with the listener and the listener's perception of that sound, rather than to any burn-in effect on the hi-fi component itself.
My Hugo was purchased 2nd hand, but had not had much use. the original owner swapped for a newer model with the larger case cut-outs for cabling. The Hugo sounded very good when I first connected it to my system, but it definitely sounds (to me) to be quite a bit better now after a significant period of use. Changing back temporarily to my original system set-up confirms that my perception of the difference in sound quality between the two has increased.
I'm not sure what to make of this. intuitively, I still can't accept the concept of 'burn-in' having any effect on sound quality.
Posted on: 26 June 2014 by Big Bill
Originally Posted by Hmack:
Incidentally, the Hugo is the first product I have owned that has forced me to re-consider my view on 'burn-in'. I have never really bought into the concept of burn-in, believing that any perceived change in sound quality was more likely to be down to the 'bedding-in' of the sound with the listener and the listener's perception of that sound, rather than to any burn-in effect on the hi-fi component itself.
My Hugo was purchased 2nd hand, but had not had much use. the original owner swapped for a newer model with the larger case cut-outs for cabling. The Hugo sounded very good when I first connected it to my system, but it definitely sounds (to me) to be quite a bit better now after a significant period of use. Changing back temporarily to my original system set-up confirms that my perception of the difference in sound quality between the two has increased.
I'm not sure what to make of this. intuitively, I still can't accept the concept of 'burn-in' having any effect on sound quality.
To be honest does it matter? I think the answer is a resounding NO.
Like you I have never bought in to the 'burning-in' process and also like you I have always thought it has been down to how I have reacted to the new components. Let's face NO component is 100% perfect at its job and will, therefore, have foibles. We then get used to those foibles.
So as long as you carry on enjoying your new component then that's all that matters.
