Why is a Chord Hugo better than a Naim DAC
Posted by: AussieSteve on 25 June 2015
Most people use a Chord Hugo instead of a Naim DAC. Why is this so? The Hugo is smaller yet requires battery power and eventual battery replacement. Is it THAT much better than the Naim?
Agree with Wat. Having had both 2Qute and Hugo on NDX I have gone back to Hugo.
G
i agree the preference is subjectIve, but there are very real differences.. Not all Naim DACs sound the same, although have similar traits, perhaps because of the common chipset used and similarities in the analogue stages. However a DAC like the Hugo does sound quite different from Naim DACs.. and to me on some material gives an inner completeness to the sound that I found mouth watering.. However as I noted on another thread at the moment the chipset in the CDX2 can give a very enjoyable, infectious sound even though compared to the Hugo and NDS it is quite coloured.
Simon
DUPREE, are you saying that, with DACs, it is a little bit like with speakers? Some like Naim speakers, some do not? It seems natural that, as DACs (and speakers) improve, what is "better" becomes more and more subjective. At the same time, I would expect that the "differences" between different DACs can be described quite objectively and independently of whatever (subjective) ranking. Best, nbpf
Originally Posted by DUPREE:
... as DACs (and speakers) improve,
As an aside, what's the evidence for speakers improving? I'm not suggesting there's no improvement, but in general improvements are slow and minor, often it seems to me more a matter of tweaking the different compromises.
Speakers are a very mature technology, albeit far from perfect. Against that, DACs are still a young technology, still developing in relative leaps and bounds.
engineered top rate DAC's
The key thing with a DAC is than is provides an approximation of the analogue signal encoded with the digital samples.. A perfect encoding and decoding is literally impossible or finitely unachievable.. Therefore better and more powerful DACs provide more and more accurate reconstruction filters. In addition the perfect system needs to match the ADC construction filter with the DAC reconstruction filter and this is very rarely achieved, although the new Meridian encoding format starts to address this..
So in short the DAC is always an approximation, there is always therefore scope to improve, as perfection can never be achieved, but effective perfection can be obtained when people can't distinguish the reconstructed signal from reality. The ADC and DAC is a wonderful piece of complex electronic digital engineering, encompassing a fascinating mathematical area. Mass production has made the technology unbiquotous, but also quite approximate.
I have a Metrum Hex connected to NDX. It was a satori moment hearing my favorite music via this non oversampling DAC.
Also, any harshness I heard with the 2Qute/NDX combo is completely gone. So the harshness isn't coming from the bare NDX as a transport.
Vince - From your earlier posts, it semed that you worked thru some minor issues with the 2Qute and were pleased with the dac. Now you mention being pleased with the Metrum Hex, a non over sampling dac. There is not much discussion on the forum about the Hex, but the reviews suggest it might work nice with Naim gear, especially if one prefers music qualities over vivid details. I'm considering a NOS dac like the Metrum Hex or Aqua La Voce dac, and would like to know more about your experience with the Hex.
My only NOS dac experience was the MHDT Stockholm, which lacked any sense of involvement or PRAT. While I wouldn't recommend paring that dac with Naim, not all NOS dacs sound alike. Some of the more current products from Metrum, Aqua, Red Wine, Wavelength, and Total Dac, for example, are well regarded and seem to avoid the tradeoffs of older designs. Or so I have read, anyway. One day, I'll home demo and see what all the fuss is about.
The key thing with a DAC is than is provides an approximation of the analogue signal encoded with the digital samples.. A perfect encoding and decoding is literally impossible or finitely unachievable.. Therefore better and more powerful DACs provide more and more accurate reconstruction filters. In addition the perfect system needs to match the ADC construction filter with the DAC reconstruction filter and this is very rarely achieved, although the new Meridian encoding format starts to address this..
So in short the DAC is always an approximation, there is always therefore scope to improve, as perfection can never be achieved, but effective perfection can be obtained when people can't distinguish the reconstructed signal from reality. The ADC and DAC is a wonderful piece of complex electronic digital engineering, encompassing a fascinating mathematical area. Mass production has made the technology unbiquotous, but also quite approximate.
Every replay system is an approximation - whether it be digital or analogue.
Jon, absolutely.. I guess my point is digital to analogue conversion is an approximation, so to your point there are two levels of apprioximation..
Simon
Kendrick, an update for you. The Metrum Hex is absolutely sulime with the NDX. Incredibly musical and organic with finesse and a delicate touch. If you get to audition a good NOS DAC, go for it. It will take you sometime to wrap your head around it because it's so different than other digital. But it really should be how digital is done.
There is much talk about Dave but nobody has seen or heard him yet?
Hi Wat, I fail to see how a PS can't be as important as the aspects you merntion. Both Naim and Chord pay close attention to internal decoupled power supplies each independently powering different parts of the DAC system.
Simon
Recently compared Hugo with 2Qute using USB from Mac Mini & preferred Hugo's more analogue sound. Replacingstock USB with iFI cabling system on 2Qute minimised difference. Found it strange as expected to hear no differences. Hugo's fairly independent of mains because of its battery and iFI does its best to eliminate electrical noise reaching DAC. How does a 2Qute power its USB interface?
Naively, my thoughts were sonic differences between 2Qute & Hugo were down to their different PSUs. I've read opinions that battery powered DACs have an advantage. So wondering if Dave will lose out to Hugo in this respect. Perhaps not, because as you say the top companies like Naim, Linn & Chord pay serious attention to PSUs.
I think 2Qute is a superb DAC, I just prefer Hugo. I also think Naim streaming has closed the gap with the newer firmware. Assuming the goal is more analogue (LP12 as reference) sound. Is the convergence of the way digital products from Naim, Linn & Chord sound a good thing? I guess if they're all getting right then yes. Of course, there are still sufficient differences for us to choose one over the others.
The Hugo is now back on my rack. The 2Qute sounded more detailed and analytical but there was an annoying high end frequency that grated on my ears, reminiscent of the CDX2. The Hugo is so much easier to listen to. I, like you, hope the Dave won't be hindered by it's PS.
Talking to Tony Miller the other day, he informed me the Dave will be a few weeks away. He's waiting for Signals to receive their demo unit so he can have a home demo.
Hi Wat, I fail to see how a PS can't be as important as the aspects you merntion. Both Naim and Chord pay close attention to internal decoupled power supplies each independently powering different parts of the DAC system.
Simon
Recently compared Hugo with 2Qute using USB from Mac Mini & preferred Hugo's more analogue sound. Replacingstock USB with iFI cabling system on 2Qute minimised difference. Found it strange as expected to hear no differences. Hugo's fairly independent of mains because of its battery and iFI does its best to eliminate electrical noise reaching DAC. How does a 2Qute power its USB interface?
Naively, my thoughts were sonic differences between 2Qute & Hugo were down to their different PSUs. I've read opinions that battery powered DACs have an advantage. So wondering if Dave will lose out to Hugo in this respect. Perhaps not, because as you say the top companies like Naim, Linn & Chord pay serious attention to PSUs.
I think 2Qute is a superb DAC, I just prefer Hugo. I also think Naim streaming has closed the gap with the newer firmware. Assuming the goal is more analogue (LP12 as reference) sound. Is the convergence of the way digital products from Naim, Linn & Chord sound a good thing? I guess if they're all getting right then yes. Of course, there are still sufficient differences for us to choose one over the others.
The Hugo is now back on my rack. The 2Qute sounded more detailed and analytical but there was an annoying high end frequency that grated on my ears, reminiscent of the CDX2. The Hugo is so much easier to listen to. I, like you, hope the Dave won't be hindered by it's PS.
Talking to Tony Miller the other day, he informed me the Dave will be a few weeks away. He's waiting for Signals to receive their demo unit so he can have a home demo.
Mirrors my findings exactly Steve. Happy Hugonauts once more!
I also just experimented with an impulse buy DNM Reson Eichmann plugged interconnect picked up for £20. The plugs fit the Hugo beautifully and the sound...
G
I don't think I'll be changing the SL IC Graeme. 
The Hugo is so much more organic compared with the 2Qute. Happy bunny again now.
The Hugo is now back on my rack. The 2Qute sounded more detailed and analytical but there was an annoying high end frequency that grated on my ears, reminiscent of the CDX2. The Hugo is so much easier to listen to. I, like you, hope the Dave won't be hindered by it's PS.
Talking to Tony Miller the other day, he informed me the Dave will be a few weeks away. He's waiting for Signals to receive their demo unit so he can have a home demo.
In a setup that I'm currently running, the 2Qute is more suitable ahead of the Hugo. The 'high end frequency' problem is not noticeable to my hearing, perhaps I've lost that upper end sensitivity. I've found the 2Qute to be as close as I could get (for now) to an 'all rounder' for playing a range of music genres. With the Hugo it isn't as edgy or forceful enough to cope with full pelt rock 'n' roll, as Hugo is more mellow, restrained albeit very organic sounding. 2Qute only occasionally feels restrained and can play back full pelt rock with some more vigour and clout. Although the Naim DAC excels even more in right-on bombastic rocking, it compromises so much on clarity or resolution, that it gives up on delivering the individualities of the music as a whole and ends up sounding lossy or compressed.
This has so much to do with personal listening preferences too and for my listening anyway, Chord 2Qute is the right balance and I'd only wished that it was the DAC that Naim had invented.
I don't think I'll be changing the SL IC Graeme.
The Hugo is so much more organic compared with the 2Qute. Happy bunny again now.
I'm actually a bit shocked at how well the DNM Reson/Eichmann is working with the Hugo:SN2/HCDR..RCA-RCA too!
The best £20 I've spent in a long time.
G
The Hugo is now back on my rack. The 2Qute sounded more detailed and analytical but there was an annoying high end frequency that grated on my ears, reminiscent of the CDX2. The Hugo is so much easier to listen to. I, like you, hope the Dave won't be hindered by it's PS.
Talking to Tony Miller the other day, he informed me the Dave will be a few weeks away. He's waiting for Signals to receive their demo unit so he can have a home demo.
In a setup that I'm currently running, the 2Qute is more suitable ahead of the Hugo. The 'high end frequency' problem is not noticeable to my hearing, perhaps I've lost that upper end sensitivity. I've found the 2Qute to be as close as I could get (for now) to an 'all rounder' for playing a range of music genres. With the Hugo it isn't as edgy or forceful enough to cope with full pelt rock 'n' roll, as Hugo is more mellow, restrained albeit very organic sounding. 2Qute only occasionally feels restrained and can play back full pelt rock with some more vigour and clout. Although the Naim DAC excels even more in right-on bombastic rocking, it compromises so much on clarity or resolution, that it gives up on delivering the individualities of the music as a whole and ends up sounding lossy or compressed.
This has so much to do with personal listening preferences too and for my listening anyway, Chord 2Qute is the right balance and I'd only wished that it was the DAC that Naim had invented.
Horses for courses I guess. In fact I listen to a lot of rock music and find the Hugo better in all respects. There's plenty of boogie factor that I found lost with the 2Qute. The set up of the volume with the Hugo is critical though, if left at the default high (white) level I would tend to agree with your findings, but at the turquoise level the sound is just sublime with balance and rhythm aplenty.
+1
+1
+2
+3
No issues here with Hugo boogie factor or PRAT, seems to work best at turquoise volume.