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?
Lovethatsound, if the QBD76 at 4 times the price of a 2Qute and 3 times the price of a Hugo wasn't better then there is probably something wrong.
I'm using a Wireworld ultraviolet cable. It is good to not have to use a micro USB adapter.
Sorry Simon. What I was trying to say was the output volume of the Hugo at turquoise is so low that I needed to crank up the volume level on the 552 to eleven to hear it at the required listening volume. At this level the 500 would become quite warm. With the 2Qute the output volume is higher and the 552 volume equivalent is around 9 o'clock. I'm currently listening to Pink Floyd loud at between 9 and 10 'o'clock on the 552 through the 2Qute. It's a similar level to what I remember the volume being when I had one of those old silver disc machines. 
Could you have not just increased the output from the Hugo Steve?
I could have but I found, along with others, that the optimum volume level for best SQ on the Hugo was at the turquoise level.
I agree 
Have you tried plugging the Hugo direct into your power amp, foregoing the preamp entirely? If you haven't, I suggest it is worth a try...
(is that Hawkwind's Silver Machine by any chance?)
I have done this, and I do prefer to go via the NAC preamp stage instead, it just sounds more pleasing to me.
Simon
One thing to note is the higher output of the 2Qute isn't a problem. With some files I found I had to crank up the volume to 11 o'clock on the preamp with the Hugo which made the 500 work much harder. The 2Qute listening volume is now around 9 o'clock and the 500 is as cool as a cucumber.
I am struggling to understand this. Assuming it has no adjustable gain controls of its own, or that they are not adjusted, any individual power amp simply applies a fixed amount of gain to the signal fed to it by the preamp. That means that for any given music and any given output level the same power amp has to 'work' exactly the same regardless of whether two different sources have different levels requiring different preamp volume control settings, and will heat up to the same temperature if used for the same material at the same output level for same period in same airflow and ambient temperature conditions.
Other than the ultra/infra sonic idea, I was trying to think what else.. I came up with the possibility that the Hugo at the stated colour setting compared to the 2Qute was exhibiting more effective dynamic range with greater headroom, providing greater transient peaks.. but I largely dismissed this given the pedigree of Steve and his audio equipment, I am sure a less dynamic source would sound worse.
Therefore my best fit idea is that RF noise from the Hugo USB connector was being amplified by the NAC, and given the wide bandwidth and quality of the 552, intermod distortion perhaps was relatively minimal and so didn't meaningfully detract to the performance. However these frequencies were perhaps being previously amplified, hence the heating of the NAP.
Simon
Lovethatsound, I may do. The thing I like of the Hugo is that slightly organic / valve like mid performance coupled with that natural breathable presentation. I hear the 2Qute has a slightly more pronounced top end and a tighter bass than the Hugo... my ideal development for the Hugo would be perhaps a slightly tighter bass but still with that organic mid and natural feel and presentation.. Perhaps the QBD76 has it, but I have yet to hear it bettered overall.. But keeping an open mind I can only truly gauge this on a home demo. But from what I hear on the other forums, if you are a coax user like me, the Hugo is probably one of the best. Optical and certainly USB there are probably better Chord DACs now.
Simon
Although I've not done the comparison, I've had it on good authority that my QBD76 HDSD (which incidentally is different to the "Standard" QBD76) does sound better than a Hugo. However, I doubt if the difference is that great. If you'd like to try mine in your system Simon you'd be very welcome (e-mail in my profile).
I have done this, and I do prefer to go via the NAC preamp stage instead, it just sounds more pleasing to me.
Simon
Of course, it will also depend on both the specific pre and power amps in use - i found I preferred Hugo direct. Anyone with a Hugo can try for themselves - using its volume control for normal level control takes a bit of getting used to, but does work fine. And I was concerned about not coming on at zero when switched on, but in fact hasn't been an issue at all.
Agreed it wasn't an issue, but I do tend to keep my Hugo powered up.
Lovethatmusic, I have spotted you around the web querying related to the QBD76 HDSD, I must admit, although I have yet to hear it, consensus appears to largely say it is a Hugo type performance with the principle added advantage over the Hugo of balanced outputs which can certainly appear to provide a performance lift. . Unfortunately my Naim NAC I use only supports single ended inputs, and so I suspect most of the goodness the 76HDSD will be wasted. Also I use coax between my Naim streamer and DAC which I understand the Hugo is pretty optimum for.
If it wasn't such a premium and I didn't use coax it could be worthwhile, but I suspect i might wait for a later model that significantly changes on the Hugo innards rather than build on it, or Naim bring out a balanced input NAC.
Simon
Or wait a little for the QBD 76 replacement, the Dave (stupid name). Pricey, but should be impressive...
Edit: missed Simon's post
Personally I think Dave is an excellent name! Regards, David
When I called Chord last year asking about the QBD76 replacement the guy I spoke to felt the Hugo was a better DAC due to the better chip set. Whether it is or isn't better is irrelevant ATM as it would be crazy to pay five grand for the HDSD when the Dave is coming out in the autumn making the HDSD somewhat redundant.
Or the obvious upgrade of a Hugo TT. By all accounts apart from the similarity in the FPGA and tap lengths the TT is a very different beast to the Hugo. Early reports on the 'head banger' forum describe clear improvements over the Hugo, and according to RW the changes to the circuit board and reference circuit (?) significantly lower THD and noise floor modulation and the increase in SQ is not small.
Other early comparators seem to agree, although one chap prefers the current QBD 76 based mostly on its ability to retrieve and portray more micro detail, but found the TT more fun to listen to. So it looks like the TT is a clear upgrade from the Hugo.
DAVE, however, will likely be amazing.
I've owned the nDAC, QBD76, and Hugo.
I currently run an NDX.
I've found that an nDAC/NDX without an external power supply doesn't have the refinement, dynamics, scale, and musical immersion required to bring about those magical listening sessions.
I use the systematic approach and have an Entreq silver minimus connected to the NDX. Everything including the NDX is sitting on a Stillpoints ESS rack.
I noticed this approach brings out the best in the NDX, and it becomes a matter of trying different DAC flavors.
I have tried Entreq silver minimus on my NDX and found that it took the life out of the sound. Bland is not the right word but it took the sparkle away, it was a curious effect, but one i did not like.
I also tried still points under it and found that the soundstage reduced to a letterbox slot. Wide but with no height.
It is so strange how the same kit can have vastly different outcomes for people.
What a hobby.
I have tried Entreq silver minimus on my NDX and found that it took the life out of the sound. Bland is not the right word but it took the sparkle away, it was a curious effect, but one i did not like.
I also tried still points under it and found that the soundstage reduced to a letterbox slot. Wide but with no height.
It is so strange how the same kit can have vastly different outcomes for people.
What a hobby.
Maybe not so strange, given the discussions on thread 'systems for older people'... Maybe we should declare our ages when citing subjective SQ judgements!
I have tried Entreq silver minimus on my NDX and found that it took the life out of the sound. Bland is not the right word but it took the sparkle away, it was a curious effect, but one i did not like.
I also tried still points under it and found that the soundstage reduced to a letterbox slot. Wide but with no height.
It is so strange how the same kit can have vastly different outcomes for people.
What a hobby.
The Entreq box takes some time to settle in. But once I heard it remove the hard etching from digital, there was no going back.
Interestingly with the rack, I went from a Playback Designs to an NDX and I realized there wasn't as a big of a difference as I thought. The ESS rack seems to level the playing field, as I could happily live with both, but I prefer the tonality and analogue sound of the NDX.
Just thought I'd share.. in reading SteveJ's comment recently of the NAP500 reduced heating when the volume on the NAC is reduced with same overall loudness with his 2Qute, I got thinking that perhaps there was an underlying RF issue arising because of the impedance mismatch between the Hugo output and the NAC input affecting the sound performance.
Therefore I swapped my Hiline for DNM High Frequency Network terminated interconnect that I had in my kit box and wired it between the Hugo and NAC...
And I am glad I did, the sonic balance is different - but after your ears adjust and it 'beds' in it sounds even more natural than before, the timing jumps out of you when you didn't think it was there before. There is an increased level of subtly - that sheen I sometimes heard which I thought was the master has gone - and it all sounds very natural and transparent. Bass definition is better - and microphone technique and vocal emotion is far more obvious on live recordings and some studio recordings - and I like that - it make it sound more real. Also poor recordings, old recordings and compressed recordings sound so much better than before - in fact what I thought was poor actually sound rather good..
So if anyone is curious give it a go, but in my setup my Hugo /252/SCDR has just been transformed - looking forward to yet more listening sessions this evening.
DNM HFN terminated lead - Eichamann Bullets to DIN - I have just upgraded my Hugo/NAC system!!
Simon
Interesting observations Simon. So is it down to the impedance mismatch between Hugo and Pre or is the Hugo chucking out a bit of HF noise via its analogue outputs ?
James