Hugo woe

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? 

the hugo with ndx was stunning good.   all enclosed rechargeable batteries have a flaw   look what happened with the samsung phone being withdrawn.  charge/recharge cycles have issues. hugos must have sold by the bucket load.

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? 

Well, you seem to be the one who's most "Exercised" here. 

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