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?
Mr T i used to run an XPS2 on my NDX, that was until i added Hugo. It not only made the XPS totally superfluous, which was sold which paid for Hugo, but it was such a leap in sound quality it was quite staggering.
all i can say is try hugo first before investing in a PSU.
Graeme
Wat, have you heard an Aurender?
Graeme
Mr T i used to run an XPS2 on my NDX, that was until i added Hugo. It not only made the XPS totally superfluous, which was sold which paid for Hugo, but it was such a leap in sound quality it was quite staggering.
all i can say is try hugo first before investing in a PSU.
Graeme
Thanks Graeme .... Nice to hear from someone who's experience both
+1 for Hugo
Though I prefer to use a Mac running Audirvana to feed it because it does thinks other boxes can't and makes the tea (no made that last bit up, but I like the Mac better than any UPnP streamers).
Which Mac do you use Wat?
+1 for Hugo
Though I prefer to use a Mac running Audirvana to feed it because it does thinks other boxes can't and makes the tea (no made that last bit up, but I like the Mac better than any UPnP streamers).
+1 also. 
Recently I have the Chord Hugo loaned from my friend for home audition. I have invited 2 other friends whom do not own any Naim gears to come to join in the audition so that a better judgement can formed in my domestic room. The Hugo was left powering 24 hours before we started to listen tentatively. The swapping between Hugo and nDAC took only a few seconds and both fed into 282/HCDR/250.2 system. It was a blind test whereby my friends did not know which DAC was playing during the audition. After testing for variety of songs such as solo vocals, classic rock & classical music, both my friends favoured nDAC over Chord Hugo. We concluded that while the Hugo seemed to excel in expanding the soundstage, more refined high, more forward, the nDAC had overall more composed sound, darker tones, more bodied and weights apart from its excellent transient. When switching to more complex music, one can hear clearly nDAC is a more composed machine, the Hugo performance seems slack in comparison but can be perceived as expansive. Nevertheless, we admitted Hugo was excellent when playing classical or young age music which require wide disperse staging to have the illusion of being there. The weighty tone of nDAC was clearly heard when solo piano music was played. The weight of the pitch was more present when the string was struck by the hammer inside the piano as opposed to more light-weight pitch from the Hugo. Other attributes such as airiness or noise floor are quite similar with both able to capture the reverberation from the recordings. My friends who picked nDAC in the blind test praised highly of Hugo consider the price tag. In conclusion, one has to try Hugo in domestic system to know whether it can go along with system matching but it also depends listener's music preference. The Hugo returned and nDAC survived for the second time....
Did you use a Hiline on the Hugo as you do on the nDAC? Did you use the Crossfeed on the Hugo and adjust the volume to the optimal setting? If not you may have sold yourself short.
Did you use a Hiline on the Hugo as you do on the nDAC? Did you use the Crossfeed on the Hugo and adjust the volume to the optimal setting? If not you may have sold yourself short.
HI Steve, what are these optimal settings you speak of 
... In respect of the Crossfeed etc
Did you use a Hiline on the Hugo as you do on the nDAC? Did you use the Crossfeed on the Hugo and adjust the volume to the optimal setting? If not you may have sold yourself short.
My Hiline is 5 pin - 5 pin so not possible for Hugo. We know that cables can play a part too in the outcome but choose to downplay this part for the test since we only have one Hi-line. The Crossfeed was deactivated as we understand this mode is to enhance out-of-the-head experience. Volume was set bypass since its pre-set volume produce almost the same loudness using AUX in and nDAC using CD in.
Hi Mikapoh,
282-hicap DR-250, that is nice amplification! Seems like this whole thread show that the threads topic is not given, and that the ndac is not an old, out of date date dac either, as many has stated on this forum. It has a certain characteristic, heavy, and able to express the emotion of the music very well.
Was it with or without a XPS?
Regards
Fred
Recently I have the Chord Hugo loaned from my friend for home audition. I have invited 2 other friends whom do not own any Naim gears to come to join in the audition so that a better judgement can formed in my domestic room. The Hugo was left powering 24 hours before we started to listen tentatively. The swapping between Hugo and nDAC took only a few seconds and both fed into 282/HCDR/250.2 system. It was a blind test whereby my friends did not know which DAC was playing during the audition. After testing for variety of songs such as solo vocals, classic rock & classical music, both my friends favoured nDAC over Chord Hugo. We concluded that while the Hugo seemed to excel in expanding the soundstage, more refined high, more forward, the nDAC had overall more composed sound, darker tones, more bodied and weights apart from its excellent transient. When switching to more complex music, one can hear clearly nDAC is a more composed machine, the Hugo performance seems slack in comparison but can be perceived as expansive. Nevertheless, we admitted Hugo was excellent when playing classical or young age music which require wide disperse staging to have the illusion of being there. The weighty tone of nDAC was clearly heard when solo piano music was played. The weight of the pitch was more present when the string was struck by the hammer inside the piano as opposed to more light-weight pitch from the Hugo. Other attributes such as airiness or noise floor are quite similar with both able to capture the reverberation from the recordings. My friends who picked nDAC in the blind test praised highly of Hugo consider the price tag. In conclusion, one has to try Hugo in domestic system to know whether it can go along with system matching but it also depends listener's music preference. The Hugo returned and nDAC survived for the second time....
Horses for courses. I had ndac/555PS before replacing it with a Hugo on grounds of noticeably better replay across every major genre.
G
Hi Mikapoh,
282-hicap DR-250, that is nice amplification! Seems like this whole thread show that the threads topic is not given, and that the ndac is not an old, out of date date dac either, as many has stated on this forum. It has a certain characteristic, heavy, and able to express the emotion of the music very well.
Was it with or without a XPS?
Regards
Fred
Fred, thanks for the kind words. It was with XPS during the test.
Mikapoh, please do listen again with a Hiline .. I use a DIN to Phono Hiline. Also do not use the so called bypass mode for Naim NACs. (Actually nothing is bypassed at all). This level is too high for Naim NACs, drop the volume level to a turquoise like colour (for 282/252/552)... and you should start to hear the magic and inspiring composure on even the most nasty and compressed tracks. True you might not like the magic but magic none the less. For me on a 500 series system because the magic becomes even more compelling.... so I try and avoid when I can
Yes the NDAC has a dominant bass and an attractive rough organic feel to it and I enjoyed it for a few years.. But nearly everyone so far I have personally met along with myself prefers the uncoloured and transparency of the non Naim device on 282 and higher but minus so far the Statement. But please do set those levels right for Naim NACs and you must use a quality interconnect.. Otherwise you are throwing the benefit away. It just got me closer to the emotion, PRaT and the music and I could stop analysing my music SQ and simply enjoy it instead... but it goes without saying we are all different and there are no absolutes.
Simon
Mikapoh I have the chance to test Hugo extensively against such a fine machine like Linn KDS/1.
It depends what you want out of your music, but I find that the Hugo is able to play music very naturally, and sounds much closer to what real live music sounds like.
I also realized that Linn and Naim sources are actually emphasizing certain rhythmic aspects of the music which is very attractive, but the Hugo once my brain is adjusted to the natural presentation is much more foot tapping, entertaining., fun to listen and does the whole PRAT thing even better !
It may lack some of the pace and drive of the NDAC, (initially on direct comparison) but for me, the musical message is more convincing to me on the Hugo.
Timbres are more real on the Hugo and there is something that no one has mentioned yet. When I go to live concerts, the music flows in a easy and natural way, and it is easy to follow the emotions of the music. The Hugo has the same easy flow and completely non fatiguing aspect of live music. I never feel listening fatigue when listening to Hugo and also my wife never complains and ask me to turn the music off or turn the volume down.
I still have my DAC V1 for movies and TV shows (I am slowly coming to a conclusion that I need to sell it) and for me, there is no way I would listen to music without Hugo anymore.
testing NDAC against Hugo in direct A/B is not ideal way to do it.
Play a few tracks on the Hugo, and then play a few tracks on the NDAC.
I find the Hugo most musical, natural, and easy to listen to digital source I have ever heard
I have read up extensively on the technology behind the Hugo, and it is not as simple as putting a PFGA into a DAC.
The programming of the filter itself took years to develop as well as the pulse array DAC.
It is proprietary to Chord, and it is not something that can be easily implemented, if at all, by other companies.
Anyway Naim may feel it is not worth it. Mikapoh prefers the NDAC.
The Hugo also offers me top sound quality on the go. sounds like a cliche, but enjoying the Hugo in my car on my commute to work (1 hour each way)
can't do that with NDAC now, can you?
That is where the hugo is rather special, even compared to the Chord 2qute, TT and DAVE (when it comes out)
To the Hugo-owners I respect Your experience of the Hugo, but I think you should respect Mikapoohs and friends views in his personal showdown. With all respect Its like you want to persuade him to think like yourselves, and "see the light"; "there should only be one holy grail". We are talking high-end dacs With different flavours and strengths, other People has other references for what sounds natural or better to their ears. This has probably been pointet out a thousand times earlier on this forum, but we keep slipping in to the Idea that we have gotten our hands on that one Object of our desires, once and for all.
Thanks
Fred
My comment was with respect Fred. I feel it important to point out that when comparing two sources, like the nDAC and Hugo, that the playing field should be as equal as possible. Comparing a fully optimised nDAC with Hiline and XPS2 with the Hugo not properly set up and with a lesser interconnect is hardly a fair comparison and is misleading to others who may be considering a Hugo in the future.
Steve
Nothing is a fair comparison and everything is misleading compared to auditioning yourself. To use someone else s ears is folly. Even if you can't do your own audition, what difference does a stranger's opinion make? Past that we're just chatting.
My comment was with respect Fred. I feel it important to point out that when comparing two sources, like the nDAC and Hugo, that the playing field should be as equal as possible. Comparing a fully optimised nDAC with Hiline and XPS2 with the Hugo not properly set up and with a lesser interconnect is hardly a fair comparison and is misleading to others who may be considering a Hugo in the future.
Steve
I agree With you on that, Steve J, its a legitimit point. But like the thread states it has almost been a consensus that objectively the Hugo is "better" than the Ndac, and to nuance these experiences and personal preference is important,and should be respected.
Would be interesting to know what cabling etc Mikapooh has been using of course, but it might also be possible that he and his friends like the signature for Ndac, as som other in this thread has statet, Jan-Erik, for instance.
Regards
Fred
Why not? If Chord's approach gives better results (which I have not tested but I certainly hope is the case) Naim will have to catch up. The fact that Naim has been focusing on streaming does not imply that they can afford ignoring developments on digital to analog conversion technologies, on the contrary. Maybe a nDAC successor will come sooner than expected!
We don’t know what Naim are focusing on. Many things I expect. We seem to have lost sight of the development that went into the DAC and its zero/very low jitter clocking buffer which Naim were and probably still are very proud of, and which is superbly implemented in the NDS. Why would they flush all this because another product sounds different and that difference is (inevitably and rightly) perceived by some as being better? So what?
The pecking order can be debated but the fact remains that the DAC with a 555PS is mighty, and when situated inside the NDS with a 555PS handling digital and another the analogue, it is among the best you can buy anywhere. If the presentation does not appeal, then buy something else. If it costs significantly less, all the better. I don’t see how this can form the basis of a complaint.
I've heard the Hugo at home but my NDS is much better, thanks. Naim sound signature FTW.
I find it defies logic for someone to say they prefer the neutrality, transparency and clarity of Hugo yet still use Naim amplification. If those are the preferred aural traits, surely there are other amps out there that give better neutrality and transparency. Naim is anything but neutral. I buy Naim because its unique sound signature appeals to me and there is nothing else in the market like it. Don't ask me to polute it with Hugo.
Naim chose to go the route of network players and not DACs / computer audio. This is good because computers with their noisy motherboards will never be high end music makers. So don't expect a new DAC to be released any time soon. The next network player in the pipeline will be 555 series or statement level.
Read this gem written by the developers of Roon app:
@brian What are your thought about improving sound?
I'm going to start with some background, and my philosophy on this stuff, then get to your point.
In terms of EM/RF noise, computers are noisy things, and in general, not a great thing to have near audio devices. From our perspective, the first class solution will always be to create some separation between the media server and the endpoint. USB is not a great choice for this. Ethernet is much better.
I have a nice DAC here that I use as a headphone amp and sits on my desk ~3ft away from 2 computers. Not going to name names, but it's in the $1-2k range, and it's very highly regarded at that price point. It's plugged into computer A. If I play silence to the DAC from computer A, and scroll my web browser up and down on computer B, I can hear it in my headphones. They aren't even directly connected.
This is what computer audiophiles are battling and, frankly, no matter what Roon does on computer A, it's not going to stop that sort of interference from having an effect on SQ.
Computers are also complex, and don't always emit a constant amount of EM/RF noise. So the idea behind a lot of what Audirvana does is: the more subsystems of the computer that can be disabled, moderated, or avoided, the less potential noise will be emitted. So it helps you turn off spotlight indexing (sysoptimizer), preload tracks into memory so we can stop dealing with the disk/ssd (at least most of the time, when pre-loading isn't happening), and so forth.
This seems sound to me, and there's no reason why Roon can't provide some similar functionality in the future. It's a nice thing to do, and not a huge effort, and it will make things better for people who drive their playback from a computer.
We come from a background in networked media servers, and we began actively moving away from playing audio from computers in the Sooloos hardware in 2009, because there were huge SQ benefits to be had by moving that way. We needed the benefits of a heavyweight media server, but we also needed the benefits of a lightweight audio renderer. The most elegant and complete solution is to put some separation in between them.
As for memory play specifically. I can see how it might help, since once you've pre-loaded, there's less work going on in the computer (CPU can scale back down if there was DSP being pre-cached, and disk activity reduces significantly).
As an engineer, this feels like an unsatisfying solution. We can impact the noisiness of our computers by tiptoeing around their limitations and applying band-aids like sysoptimizer or memory play, or by hunting for system services to turn off. In the end, even with everything done "right", there's still a giant noisy motherboard, cpu, power supply, and gigabytes of RAM sitting there doing something. Almost no matter what, that is going to be noisier than a well-engineered embedded system built by people who understand and care deeply about sound quality.
This is where we are going with RoonSpeakers and why we are working with manufacturers to make networked endpoints a viable option for as many people as possible. This is where we see high-quality computer audio going--server on the computer, and endpoints driven over ethernet. It's better for SQ, and takes pressure off of server software to be lightweight to the point where browsing functionality and metadata capabilities are sacrificed (a la Audirvana).
Back to the original question as to why some feel that the Hugo is better than the Ndac .
- could be related to diminishing sensitivity of high frequencies in the ears of ageing listeners !
it seems that those who prefer Hugo say it offers better resolution of upper midband up through to highs, while those who prefer the Ndac say that the Hugo can be clinical and cerebral as opposed to dark and earthy with the Naim !
We don’t know what Naim are focusing on. Many things I expect. We seem to have lost sight of the development that went into the DAC and its zero/very low jitter clocking buffer which Naim were and probably still are very proud of, and which is superbly implemented in the NDS. Why would they flush all this because another product sounds different and that difference is (inevitably and rightly) perceived by some as being better? So what?
The pecking order can be debated but the fact remains that the DAC with a 555PS is mighty, and when situated inside the NDS with a 555PS handling digital and another the analogue, it is among the best you can buy anywhere. If the presentation does not appeal, then buy something else. If it costs significantly less, all the better. I don’t see how this can form the basis of a complaint.
No complaints whatsoever. I am a very satisfied nDAC user and, as I mentioned, I have not heard the Hugo. And, at this point, I am not particularly interested in testing it. But I sincerely hope that the Hugo and the newer Chord devices represent an improvement over Naim's nDAC. If this was not the case, it would be a bit sad if you consider how much research, computing power and newer technologies have flown into these products. And I certainly hope that (current or future) improvements in digital to analog conversion technologies from Naim's competitors will pressure Naim to develop even better DACs. And the other way round, of course.
Zeny, a network player is a DAC with a UPnP client upstream. I do not know whether Naim will come out with new network players or pure DACs any soon.
But it would be a bit sad (and, frankly, quite unlikely) if they had decided to stick with the same digital to analog conversion technology no matter what the competition does, wouldn't it?