Why is a Chord Hugo better than a Naim DAC

Yes. Imminent visits to China for work require a portable solution so I repurchased a Hugo.  Off next Saturday for the first visit so let's see how that goes...

G

I've had the Hugo back in my system now for about two weeks and it's far more enjoyable than the 2Qute. Like Mayor West I thought from the reports that it would give a similar, if not slightly better, performance to the Hugo but in my system this simply wasn't true. Listening is now far more enjoyable. I'm pretty convinced the battery PS in the Hugo is responsible for the difference. I'm looking forward to hearing DAVE in my system but it has to be significantly better than the Hugo given it's five times the price. If that doesn't work out I'll try the Hugo TT. The Super Lumina IC makes a huge impact on SQ, as it should.

Just to say that I've had a TT for a few weeks and it is mighty fine. Music is just enjoyable beyond anything I've ever had. A much bigger improvement on the Hugo than I was expecting. imo you could do a lot worse than give one a try.

I will but with the imminent release of DAVE I feel I must give it a tryout in my system. Even if I like it I'll listen to the TT before buying though. Thanks for your input.

This should work. Quite a few people are using optical or coax in on the Mojo from their portable players.

It also sounds really good, quite a bargain in my opinion. It works well with both my Sennheiser HD650s and Fostex TH900s.

I do not know. But the Hugo was released about five years later than the Naim DAC. This is a significant time interval in digital to analog conversion technology and, given its price level, I would be a bit surprised if the Hugo was not better than the Naim DAC. Best, nbpf

And I believe the PCM1704 DAC, which is used in the naim DAC, was released around the year 2000 so there's actually a decade and a half between the DACs themselves.. 

However the now Texas Instruments PCM 1704K is still in production, and is still regarded by many as one of the finest multi bit physical converter chips out there.. One of the reasons it's still in production and also attracts the production of far eastern fakes. However according to TI's web site not recommended for new designs.

This is the converter that is used in most of the Naim digital equipment components, CD555, NDS, DAC, NDX, N 272 etc. There is of course far more to the overall performance of the DAC than the converter chip itself.. Just as we see from Naim with the Ti 1704K and Chord with their own Pulse Array converter device.

PS I found no real difference between Chord TT and Hugo with SPDIF, so stayed with Hugo...might have been different if I used USB.

I'm pretty sure that only the CD555, Naim DAC, and NDS use the 1704.  The others units have either the 1791 or 1792 variants.

Jude, well spotted, indeed the NDX uses the TI PCM 1791A. i don't know on reflection if the 1791A is also used in the N272.

But yes it would appear the PCM 1704K is just used for the top of the crop within Naim (CD555, NDS, DAC)

Simon

Didn't Naim use the TDA1541A  S2 double crown chip in its earlier players .

Simon, According to Hifi News, the 272 has a 1792A.....

Yep, I recall reading somewhere that sone Naim CDPs used the Ti chipsyou mention @Tobyjug.

jude 

Is there any possibility that with the end result (the music output) from a Naim DAC, that it artificially adds speed to the sound, which is not true to the actual recording?  After fairly extensive listening comparisons by swapping Naim DAC for 2Qute, it feels like the Naim DAC adds more speed to the music, which might not be authentic to the music itself.

It's only because the 2Qute (or Hugo in limited trial) unearths many more layers to a piece of music, that was simply brushed over when using the Naim DAC.  I don't think that the Chord DACs are totally lagging behind, or being pedestrian, since if the music is high tempo they will still pump it out but can occasionally sound not so bombastic.  So if a Chord DAC is more representative of the recording and music, the Naim DAC is giving a false sense of pace and adding speed to the end musical output?

Hi 'Disposable hero', whether there is added 'speed' or not I don't know.. but the analogue stages of the DAC output stage - as well as the output impedance interacting with the pre etc will provide a specific sonic characteristic. Certainly if I compare the CDX2, NDX, DAC and NDS they all sound quite different - and no doubt a function of the converter, I2V and analogue stage and noise from the digital components.

The Hugo to me sounds most like the NDS out of the above devices, and  digs out the timing, groove as well as musicality not dissimilar to the Naim NDS  - albeit I am fond of the added spacing and naturalness of sound from the Hugo - which of course could yet be a colouration in its own right??. To my ears the CDX2 and the DAC do have a subtlety larger than life bass sound - which can be quite enjoyable. I do keep my CDX2 for those discs that seem to benefit from that sort of colouration.

Simon

If the NDAC is somehow interfering with the regularity of the beat, or altering the tempo itself, it is doing something false - the beat in real music is set by human players and can vary: and indeed generally does slightly (ignoring synthesised Rhythm generators).

I'm not familiar with the NDAC, however my ND5XS sounded essentially very similar to my Shearne Audio Phase 7 CD player, which sounded very similar to my earlier Cambridge Audio CD2. With adequate quality recordings in my system these have certainly achieves a sound that is very realistic and believable, which I have taken as being pretty neutral and accurate (and that was what I was seeking when auditioning).  I don't know how the NDAC differs?

The Hugo was just a step up compared to the ND5XS's DAC, but nothing different in terms of timing... 

For those that preferred the Hugo to the 2Qute - what input was being used?  Coax or USB?

I do not know. But it should not be terribly difficult for a testing lab to plug different DACs into a 

analog input -> ADC -> file1 -> DAC -> ADC -> file2

chain and compare the differences between file1 and file2 for different DACs and different analog inputs.

For a "reference" ADC,  these differences should provide some measure of the capability of a DAC to reconstruct a given analog signal. I would expect DACs that tend to be perceived as "natural" to have -- in suitable measures -- different fingerprints from DACs that are known to massively add (or subtract) features to (from) the sound.

Coax. I also found the 2Qute had significant treble glare when fed via SPDIF, which became quickly fatiguing, so sold it and bought a second hand Hugo. I then traded in the Hugo for a TT, which was a huge mistake as in my system it sounded as if the treble and the bass were overblown in comparison with the Hugo. Again via SPDIF.

I've since returned the TT, and am auditioning some other DACS.

In hindsight I should have stopped at the NDX --> Hugo combination, as I think there is some real synergy there, and was in a very happy place. 

Currently I have the Exogal Comet, and the Invicta Mirus at home for audition purposes, in addition to an Aurender N100H to take the NDX out of the equation. 

The Mirus really is very very good indeed, although I'm going to put it up against a Hugo one more time I think, to see if the massive price difference can be justified in any way. 

Burr Brown is no more, and is now Texas Instruments.

The Mirus really is very very good indeed, although I'm going to put it up against a Hugo one more time I think, to see if the massive price difference can be justified in any way.