Where has the NDX into Hugo thread gone?
Posted by: Simon-in-Suffolk on 19 June 2014
Any ideas?
There were some heated debates, but no more so than other recent exchanges on the forum, and those threads are still there...
i can only think of negative defensive reasons which I don't associate with Naim at all.. I hope it wasn't to do with that..perhaps the thread can go back into padded cell? It was a fairly useful resource for those wanting to use their Naim equipment with a Hugo source..
+1 last para, my hugo l e ad me to upgrade my amp from a nap100 to a supernait 2 and I'm currently auditioning speakers worthy of its, and the sn2s, capabilities. No doubt I will also buy improved interconnects shortly and I'll be having a listen to a hicap dr at some stage. Its sound is addictive and you can't help but want to listen to more music
I could not believe myself after auditioning the Hugo twice in my system, here I am still stick to my old nDac/xps combo. There is something special about the naim Dac in a naim system, the drive and boogie factor is head & shoulder above the Hugo albeit the delicate vocal is belonged to the Hugo. I even invited my wife for a couple of blind tests, on both count she chooses the nDac/XPS sound. Ok, the Hugo is not a new unit which I loaned from a friend but the cables used is kind of cheap. The Coax is only worth AUS24.00 whereas the interconnect is a DIY phono to Din. On the other hand, my nDac is using best cable for the job, ie DC1 & Hiline. Maybe the cables would not do the Hugo some justice but how large the effect can cables bring to the table, after all it is digital cable.....the Hugo returned to my friend.
If you use crap audio cables what do you expect?
Mikapoh, put a Hiline on the Hugo and the boogie factor takes on a whole new meaning especially with the pace, timing and infectious groove. Give it a go.. as you can read here and elsewhere on the web, the Hugo obviously benefits from cables that let it do its stuff, otherwise its ability is somewhat masked. What I will say however is the Naim DAC does have an extremely strong bass, which perhaps as not defined nor detailed as the NDS or Hugo, it certainly sounds punchier than both, albeit perhaps slightly artificially so - unless that is what you are after.
I could not believe myself after auditioning the Hugo twice in my system, here I am still stick to my old nDac/xps combo. There is something special about the naim Dac in a naim system, the drive and boogie factor is head & shoulder above the Hugo albeit the delicate vocal is belonged to the Hugo. I even invited my wife for a couple of blind tests, on both count she chooses the nDac/XPS sound. Ok, the Hugo is not a new unit which I loaned from a friend but the cables used is kind of cheap. The Coax is only worth AUS24.00 whereas the interconnect is a DIY phono to Din. On the other hand, my nDac is using best cable for the job, ie DC1 & Hiline. Maybe the cables would not do the Hugo some justice but how large the effect can cables bring to the table, after all it is digital cable.....the Hugo returned to my friend.
The analogue section is very different between the two devices and this will likely explain your preference more than some grand deficiency in your cabling as claimed by Hugo owners.
I could not believe myself after auditioning the Hugo twice in my system, here I am still stick to my old nDac/xps combo. There is something special about the naim Dac in a naim system, the drive and boogie factor is head & shoulder above the Hugo albeit the delicate vocal is belonged to the Hugo. I even invited my wife for a couple of blind tests, on both count she chooses the nDac/XPS sound. Ok, the Hugo is not a new unit which I loaned from a friend but the cables used is kind of cheap. The Coax is only worth AUS24.00 whereas the interconnect is a DIY phono to Din. On the other hand, my nDac is using best cable for the job, ie DC1 & Hiline. Maybe the cables would not do the Hugo some justice but how large the effect can cables bring to the table, after all it is digital cable.....the Hugo returned to my friend.
The analogue section is very different between the two devices and this will likely explain your preference more than some grand deficiency in your cabling as claimed by Hugo owners.
Hm, a grand's worth of cabling on the NDac compared to 30 quids worth on the Hugo, how could that possibly make any difference 
The marginal benefit of cabling diminishes rapidly with cost. If it even exists. A completely different analogue section is....completely different.
There are a heck of a lot of people on here wasting their money then, and that's before the new Naim cables come out
I did yes, I have doubts about ethernet cables but I have Chord speaker cable on my system and there was a noticeable improvement when I put it in to the extent that my wife, for whom loud = good, noticed a difference. I've seen many presumably intelligent people on here, with great systems affirm that interconnects have improved their sound. At the end of the day I guess if you can hear a difference you buy and if you can't, you don't and you're happy either way. On the Hugo test though I don't see any harm in ruling out other variables by using the same cabling
I could not believe myself after auditioning the Hugo twice in my system, here I am still stick to my old nDac/xps combo. There is something special about the naim Dac in a naim system, the drive and boogie factor is head & shoulder above the Hugo albeit the delicate vocal is belonged to the Hugo. I even invited my wife for a couple of blind tests, on both count she chooses the nDac/XPS sound. Ok, the Hugo is not a new unit which I loaned from a friend but the cables used is kind of cheap. The Coax is only worth AUS24.00 whereas the interconnect is a DIY phono to Din. On the other hand, my nDac is using best cable for the job, ie DC1 & Hiline. Maybe the cables would not do the Hugo some justice but how large the effect can cables bring to the table, after all it is digital cable.....the Hugo returned to my friend.
The analogue section is very different between the two devices and this will likely explain your preference more than some grand deficiency in your cabling as claimed by Hugo owners.
Quite so marky but you will never convince people of that truth. Blimey some even spend a fortune on a Ethernet hookup cables.
What is interesting about the Hugo, and call it a weakness or strength, I don't really give a hoot, is that according to its designer the Hugo analogue I2V and output stage is very simple. This has the advantage of transparency and less intrinsic artefacts/distortion, but also has the disadvantage that there is really no or little buffering. Therefore the interaction of the output interconnects and even the impedance input response of the connected preamp/headphone etc will most likely have more impact than some other devices with more extensive buffering.
Therefore the matching and impedance response of the interconnect would be hard pushed not to affect sonic footprint the Hugo. I am willing to put up with some quirks for a device that brings so much musical enjoyment to my Naim system. In fact you could argue quirkiness has been also a hallmark of Naim over the years.
Also surely we shouldn't confuse better equals costing more with interconnects... given suitable care and design it would be possible to build a very effective interconnect for not much outlay.. its just to my preference my DIY cables don't have the groove and boogie factor of the Hiline - although they sound very good. I am sure if I had built the Hiline as a DIY project I would have been chuffed.
I concede the boogie factor / groove / pace, call it what you will with Hugo and NAC, is possibly some sort of colouration from the Hugo/HiLine interconnect/NAC input interaction... but hey I like it, as it gives me the Naim sound I enjoy.
Simon
What is interesting about the Hugo, and call it a weakness or strength, I don't really give a hoot, is that according to its designer the Hugo analogue I2V and output stage is very simple. This has the advantage of added transparency and less artefacts, but also has the disadvantage that there is really no buffering. Therefore the interaction of the output interconnects and even the impedance input response of the connected preamp/headphone etc will most likely have more impact than some other devices with more extensive buffering.
Simon
Therefore the matching and impedance response of the interconnect would be hard pushed not to affect sonic footprint the Hugo.
Simon
So what is it about the input impedance of NAIM amps that is so challenging?
To say that simplicity in a design will lead to transparency but really no buffering is I am afraid total nonsense, it really is. Do you know what buffering means in this context? Besides you can use a Hugo to drive headphones, do that without current gain.
So we now know that the Hugo designer is so good that (i) he has designed a fabulous DAC, but (ii) he has designed an output stage with a very high output impedance, too high to drive a NAIM amp properly, and (iii) he has provided an output to drive headphones.
I wouldn't spend any money on this guy's designs.
I wouldn't spend any money on this guy's designs.
Not even if they sounded very good?
Bill - why is the Naim NAC input impedance challenging? Was not aware of that..
Yes I can see that buying these guy's design would not suit you.. good job there is a choice out there in ways to enjoy your music.
As far as buffering being nonsense - it certainly wasn't when I was electronics and computer engineering undergraduate - so I cant see why it is now.. and (as I have just done) if I consult my Horowtiz & Hill, The Art of Electronics - my then Bible - I see it still is not nonsense - interested in your perspective of why you think it is and why I have got the wrong end of the stick - which is totally possible of course?
S
I have this fleeting thought that I might want to get a secondhand Hugo to try out if I can find one. However, I remember reading that the current 'version' of the Hugo has resolved some physical connection issues (with the RCA connectors?), but I cant find that article on the net anymore.
Given that I am going the 'used' way, can someone point me to somewhere which helps me differentiate the old from the current?
Hi yes, the later Hugos ( from about Jan 2014) had more space around the RCA connectors on the casing to allow larger or possibly more prevalently available quality RCA plugs to be used.
Simon
Bill - why is the Naim NAC input impedance challenging? Was not aware of that..
Yes I can see that buying these guy's design would not suit you.. good job there is a choice out there in ways to enjoy your music.
But you say that the Hugo output stage is not able to drive a NAIM power amp, therefore:
(i) The Hugo output stage cannot drive most power amps and is thus a rubbish output stage, or
(ii) There is something out of the ordinary about the input impedance of NAIM power amps.
What is the answer?
My statement about not buying this guy's designs was really a sort of rhetorical question. I happen to believe that he is an excellent designer, his track record proves it. And if one of his products come within range of my requirements then I might possibly buy one of his products. I just do not understand how a very good designer would design an output stage that can drive headphones but not a NAIM power amp and I do not believe he has.
He himself has stated that you don't need to connect a pre-amp between Hugo and Power Amp, that it can adequately drive a power amp. So how has he got it so wrong?
As far as buffering being nonsense - it certainly wasn't when I was electronics and computer engineering undergraduate - so I cant see why it is now.. and (as I have just done) if I consult my Horowtiz & Hill, The Art of Electronics - my then Bible - I see it still is not nonsense - interested in your perspective of why you think it is and why I have got the wrong end of the stick - which is totally possible of course?
S
Where did I say that buffering was nonsense? What is the point of having a discussion with you if you are going to invent things I am supposed to have said?
What is interesting about the Hugo, and call it a weakness or strength, I don't really give a hoot, is that according to its designer the Hugo analogue I2V and output stage is very simple. This has the advantage of added transparency and less artefacts, but also has the disadvantage that there is really no buffering. Therefore the interaction of the output interconnects and even the impedance input response of the connected preamp/headphone etc will most likely have more impact than some other devices with more extensive buffering.
Simon
Therefore the matching and impedance response of the interconnect would be hard pushed not to affect sonic footprint the Hugo.
Simon
So what is it about the input impedance of NAIM amps that is so challenging?
To say that simplicity in a design will lead to transparency but really no buffering is I am afraid total nonsense, it really is. Do you know what buffering means in this context? Besides you can use a Hugo to drive headphones, do that without current gain.
So we now know that the Hugo designer is so good that (i) he has designed a fabulous DAC, but (ii) he has designed an output stage with a very high output impedance, too high to drive a NAIM amp properly, and (iii) he has provided an output to drive headphones.
I wouldn't spend any money on this guy's designs.
I drove my little NAP100 and I've driven my SN2 in AV mode with my Hugo to extremely good effect, I really don't care what it looks like when it sounds this good and I'm very happy indeed to have spent my money on his designs (not that I dislike the look btw).
Bill where did I say the Hugo cant drive a Naim power amp??
I believe several have run a Hugo into a power amp quite successfully. I don't, I run mine into my NAC.
As far as buffering - I thought you were challenging my view that the simple class A out stage would not be susceptible to load impedance, and being simple was less likely to have other imperfections, but if that is not what you were saying I apologise, but if so what were you saying that doesn't make sense?
But I think the merits or otherwise of Class A stage buffer over Common Collector or Common Base could be interesting - which I was trying to tempt you to expand on.
Simon
Bill where did I say the Hugo cant drive a Naim power amp??
I believe several have run a Hugo into a power amp quite successfully. I don't, I run mine into my NAC.
As far as buffering - I thought you were challenging my view that the simple class A out stage would not be susceptible to load impedance, and being simple was less likely to have other imperfections, but if that is not what you were saying I apologise, but if so what were you saying that doesn't make sense?
But I think the merits or otherwise of Class A stage buffer over Common Collector or Common Base could be interesting - which I was trying to tempt you to expand on.
Simon
Sorry Simon but trying to compare Class A and Common Collector is nonsense, do you have any idea what you are talking about? A Common Collector stage is a topology that can configured to be Class A, Class AB or Class B. Class A is not a type of circuit topology it describes the operation of an amplifier stage.
Class A simply means the amplifier stage while provide and output for bot +ve and -ve going voltages - ie the whole of sine wave and you generally do it by biasing the input signal. Other classes don't conduct for the whole cycle of a sine wave!
In my earlier post I never mentioned Class A, B, etc at all so I do not know why you thought I was.
Of course an amplifier will need to be able to drive the cable connected to its output and anything that the cable is connected to. It is quite wrong to say that an amp can drive this cable or that cable, rather we should say it can drive this amp connected by this cable.
You may not have said it can't drive a NAIM power amp but you did say:
"This has the advantage of transparency and less intrinsic artefacts/distortion, but also has the disadvantage that there is really no or little buffering."
With little or no buffering it would have trouble driving any power amp.
I agree, I could have been clearer, a Class A stage in my notes is usually a Common Emitter configuration, where as Class B or Class AB is usually a pair of Common Collector configurations..
According to Chord and I believe its mentioned on this thread that the Hugo uses a Class A output stage.
Now this little Hugo is successfully using its simple Class A, most likely Common Emitter stage to successfully drive NAC inputs, power amps and headphones - but I have experienced and I read elsewhere that others have experienced interconnect interaction/tuning.
So if I was wanting to design a buffer stage - perhaps with no current amplification, but had maximum isolation from the load impedance (load matching and potential cable interaction) would there be a better buffer or output stage to use? Or is the interconnect impedance/properties going to interact with stage output load irrespective of the stage configuration I use - and is not overly specific to the Hugo?
Simon
I agree, I could have been clearer, a Class A stage in my notes is usually a Common Emitter configuration, where as Class B or Class AB is usually a Common Collector configuration..
According to Chord and I believe its mentioned on this thread that the Hugo uses a Class A output stage.
Now this little Hugo is successfully using its simple Class A, most likely Common Emitter stage to successfully drive NAC inputs, power amps and headphones - but I have experienced and I read elsewhere that others have experienced interconnect interaction/tuning.
But if I was wanting to design a buffer stage - perhaps with no current amplification, but had maximum isolation from the load impedance (load matching and potential cable interaction) would there be a better buffer or output stage to use? Or is the interconnect impedance/properties going to interact with stage output load irrespective of the stage configuration I use - and is not overly specific to the Hugo?
Simon
Sorry Simon it was not a matter of being clearer! It is just a lack of understanding!
Low level amplification in audio equipment will almost always be Class A, Class B or AB only rears its ugly head in power amp output stages. Those where we want loads of voltage an current amplification and an output impedance close to that of the speakers we want drive.
You also said "But if I was wanting to design a buffer stage - perhaps with no current amplification". Words fail me, they really do. A buffer stage with no current amplification??? Yeah right.
If you want to avoid loading problems on the output stage then you need current, that's what a buffer stage is.
I've got work to do!
You also said "But if I was wanting to design a buffer stage - perhaps with no current amplification". Words fail me, they really do. A buffer stage with no current amplification??? Yeah right.
Sorry Bill I think you might be confusing current amplification with current buffering. A unity gain current buffer or current follower buffer would have a current gain of 1 (βi=1), and I would use it to buffer a low impedance into a high impedance - possibly could be quite useful for driving NAC inputs for example.. but not drive a low impedance such as headphones. Current followers are usually Common Base.
Perhaps speak later..