Hugo 2

Richard you are right on their website it says "in excess of 7 hours"

I got the battery life from head fi.

In any case USB recharge capability means it can be charged by your laptop or a USB battery pack.

£1800 apparently

tonym posted:

When comparing the Chord DACs, or any other bits of kit for that matter, folk really must not be too swayed by technical specifications. It really must be about the sound, in your own system. My experience with DAVE vs. QBD76HDSD wasn't just down to some strange hearing anomaly on my part - some very distinguished forum members felt the same, having listened to both in my system and without the dubious benefit of my own opinion.

Hi Tony, in your active system, is it possible you have the Snaxo tweaked to suit the QBD76?  Dave might be a bit more "forthright" at the top end compared to QBD76, or put another way, the QBD76 might be a bit warmer sounding, and your system is tuned around this?

Hugo 2 is very interesting and Chord definitely aren't resting on their laurels and seem to be charging ahead DAC wise  . It seems that Hugo 2 is almost twice as powerful as the original which is mightily impressive given its size . I'm not sure I'll swap my original as its still putting a smile on my face but you never know .... Hugo 2 tech in a steamer or streamer/pre would have my attention though .  2017 looks to be starting strongly in DAC terms and I really hope Naim joins in . 

If Chord launch the Hugo TT 2, I hope they would omit the headphone amp and all headphone related features. They already have the Hugo 2 for this purpose. Just make the TT 2 a good standalone DAC preamplifier that will sound noticeably different from the Hugo 2. If differences are marginal, it makes little sense.

It would be interesting to compare the original Hugo to the Hugo 2 to see if the differences are tangible and real. At this level, I suspect it won't be day and night.

Allan Probin posted:

tonym posted:

When comparing the Chord DACs, or any other bits of kit for that matter, folk really must not be too swayed by technical specifications. It really must be about the sound, in your own system. My experience with DAVE vs. QBD76HDSD wasn't just down to some strange hearing anomaly on my part - some very distinguished forum members felt the same, having listened to both in my system and without the dubious benefit of my own opinion.

Hi Tony, in your active system, is it possible you have the Snaxo tweaked to suit the QBD76?  Dave might be a bit more "forthright" at the top end compared to QBD76, or put another way, the QBD76 might be a bit warmer sounding, and your system is tuned around this?

Hi Allan, the SNAXO is set for all sources, and its setting predates the Chord DAC. You wouldn't set up a SNAXO to suit just one source, it'd be impractical. 

The remote control is of interest if connected directly to amplifiers. Doesn't mention on the Chord site if inputs can be switched from the remote.

If this new HUgo had to have a Mojo sound preset I'm happy to be a Mojo owner. 

i'm curious if Hugo 2's USB input is galvanically isolated, as is the case with 2Qute and Hugo TT.

Paulebarrow posted:

Clearly the HUGO 2 is an exciting product and appears to be a significant advance in technology over the original.

The question for me is where does this leave the TT?  Bearing in mind the TT is based on the original HUGO, it now looks somewhat out of date and I can't imagine anyone buying one until the inevitable TT 2 arrives. I'm surprised TT 2 wasn't launched at the same time!

Feel a bit bad. Sold my Hugo TT last night

joe9407 posted:

i'm curious if Hugo 2's USB input is galvanically isolated, as is the case with 2Qute and Hugo TT.

If it does not say, it means no. I suspect Chord leaving some of this better bits for the "TT2".

What is more interesting to me is Chord is entering the upnp streaming game with this mojo partner product Poly and I read in whathifi's report that the hugo2 is designed to with provision to work with a future product which I am guessing it will be a networked streaming module to be attached on the USB side of the Hugo2's casing.

engjoo posted:

Richard Dane posted:

I've just read through the blurb and specs and I notice that the quoted battery running time has dropped rather alarmingly from 12 hours to just 7.  Could this be an error?

I noticed that the headphone output stage is described as "Class A". I am not sure if the Hugo was class A but this could be one of the reason along with higher tap count and consumption coming from illuminating the additional buttons.

Hi - yes the Hugo has a class A output driver. Running a larger filter kernel (more 'taps') will require more processing power for the reconstruction filter - now I am sure the latest Hugo is using the latest and best from Xilinx for the FPGA DSP processor - but even increasing kernel size  is going to consume more power. Traditionally power consumption and its side effects has been one of the  limiting function of the sizes of filter kernels used in DAC  FIR reconstruction  filters

engjoo posted:

joe9407 posted:

i'm curious if Hugo 2's USB input is galvanically isolated, as is the case with 2Qute and Hugo TT.

If it does not say, it means no. I suspect Chord leaving some of this better bits for the "TT2".

If not then I really don't see the point of it as Mojo already does a great job for portable duties. Not having galvanic isolation means it's not really fit for purpose for home\main system duties.

Yes Simon Hugo 1 used a Spartan 6, Hugo 2 uses Artix 7

I still would say Hugo 1 is an outstanding DAC which gave me huge musical enjoyment.

Halloween Man posted:

Not having galvanic isolation means it's not really fit for purpose for home\main system duties.

Sorry, but nothing could be further from the truth. There are just too many people with Hugos in their main systems enjoying excellent digital reproduction for the smallest outlay that they ever thought possible, myself included, be it via coax, Toslink or USB. By all means a good source feeding the Hugo makes a big difference, and if chosen poorly then the lack of galvanic isolation could be an issue. But there are many ways around that, again for not substantial outlay in the context of the achievable SQ.

Indeed Sam. Who cares how the signal gets there? Sound quality is all.

SamS posted:

Halloween Man posted:

Not having galvanic isolation means it's not really fit for purpose for home\main system duties.

Sorry, but nothing could be further from the truth. There are just too many people with Hugos in their main systems enjoying excellent digital reproduction for the smallest outlay that they ever thought possible, myself included, be it via coax, Toslink or USB. By all means a good source feeding the Hugo makes a big difference, and if chosen poorly then the lack of galvanic isolation could be an issue. But there are many ways around that, again for not substantial outlay in the context of the achievable SQ.

Have to agree with Sam on this and have previously reported my findings... having used a galvanically isolated Chord 2Qute via USB, I found a non-galvanically isolated Hugo to outperform the former via USB despite them supposedly being pretty much the same DAC. Hugo may be improved if it had galvanic isolation, I don't know, but I wouldn't rule it out of your main system on that basis.

Mayor West posted

Have to agree with Sam on this and have previously reported my findings... having used a galvanically isolated Chord 2Qute via USB, I found a non-galvanically isolated Hugo to outperform the former via USB despite them supposedly being pretty much the same DAC. Hugo may be improved if it had galvanic isolation, I don't know, but I wouldn't rule it out of your main system on that basis.

Interesting that you find the Hugo to sound better than the 2Qute via USB as most folks on Stereonet(an Australian forum) have found the complete opposite. Must be other factors at play here.

Type "Hugo vs 2Qute" and the Stereonet link will appear.

SamS posted:

Halloween Man posted:

Not having galvanic isolation means it's not really fit for purpose for home\main system duties.

Sorry, but nothing could be further from the truth. There are just too many people with Hugos in their main systems enjoying excellent digital reproduction for the smallest outlay that they ever thought possible, myself included, be it via coax, Toslink or USB. By all means a good source feeding the Hugo makes a big difference, and if chosen poorly then the lack of galvanic isolation could be an issue. But there are many ways around that, again for not substantial outlay in the context of the achievable SQ.

Indeed - galvanic isolation - despite what some people think - is purely about avoiding earth loops and breaking low frequency ground plane noise. A device does need to have galvanic isolation if there is no risk of this.

However one has to be careful with Galvanic isolation - by its nature certain forms of Galvanic isolation such as with magnetic coupling will introduce a degree of phase shift of the digital bit stream though the isolator dependent on the preceding voltage values of the bit stream - simplistically this will produce signal dependent jitter in the receiver - which can couple into processing systems and cause noise.

Therefore it is best to use only the minimum galvanic isolation necessary - and  on a system to system connection ensure  only ONE isolator is in use in that link.

Now with SPDIF, Naim streamers (NDX)  have according to my measurements Galvanic isolation and therefore for optimum performance the DAC it connects should NOT have Galvanic isolation - the Hugo achieves this on SPDIF.

Toslink of course provides Galvanic isolation with none of these drawbacks but has other potential issues.

Regards

Simon

ryder. posted:

Mayor West posted

Have to agree with Sam on this and have previously reported my findings... having used a galvanically isolated Chord 2Qute via USB, I found a non-galvanically isolated Hugo to outperform the former via USB despite them supposedly being pretty much the same DAC. Hugo may be improved if it had galvanic isolation, I don't know, but I wouldn't rule it out of your main system on that basis.

Interesting that you find the Hugo to sound better than the 2Qute via USB as most folks on Stereonet(an Australian forum) have found the complete opposite. Must be other factors at play here.

Type "Hugo vs 2Qute" and the Stereonet link will appear.

Perhaps the DAC behaves differently when they are in the Southern Hemisphere ? ;-)

ryder. posted:

Mayor West posted

Have to agree with Sam on this and have previously reported my findings... having used a galvanically isolated Chord 2Qute via USB, I found a non-galvanically isolated Hugo to outperform the former via USB despite them supposedly being pretty much the same DAC. Hugo may be improved if it had galvanic isolation, I don't know, but I wouldn't rule it out of your main system on that basis.

Interesting that you find the Hugo to sound better than the 2Qute via USB as most folks on Stereonet(an Australian forum) have found the complete opposite. Must be other factors at play here.

Type "Hugo vs 2Qute" and the Stereonet link will appear.

I'm probably in a minority but my favourite input on my Hugo, albeit with a jitterbug, USB regen and linear power supply in the chain, is the USB input.  More natural and with greater dynamic range to my ears.  My Hugo with Audirvana still surprises me with how good it is on an almost daily basis, best value hifi component I've ever bought by a mile

SamS posted:

Halloween Man posted:

Not having galvanic isolation means it's not really fit for purpose for home\main system duties.

Sorry, but nothing could be further from the truth. There are just too many people with Hugos in their main systems enjoying excellent digital reproduction for the smallest outlay that they ever thought possible, myself included, be it via coax, Toslink or USB. By all means a good source feeding the Hugo makes a big difference, and if chosen poorly then the lack of galvanic isolation could be an issue. But there are many ways around that, again for not substantial outlay in the context of the achievable SQ.

Sorry but it is true. Hugo 2 without galvanic isolation does not differentiate itself enough from Mojo, you might as well just buy Mojo. Many people, myself included and the designer of Hugo 2, Rob Watts, use a laptop or computer with an extremely noisy USB only output that just will not get the best out of a DAC such as Hugo. That's a fact.

Yes, there are options such as a high quality source like Simon's NDX, Intona USB, or optical. Personally I do not want to nor should I have to introduce these options into my system.

ryder. posted:

Mayor West posted

Have to agree with Sam on this and have previously reported my findings... having used a galvanically isolated Chord 2Qute via USB, I found a non-galvanically isolated Hugo to outperform the former via USB despite them supposedly being pretty much the same DAC. Hugo may be improved if it had galvanic isolation, I don't know, but I wouldn't rule it out of your main system on that basis.

Interesting that you find the Hugo to sound better than the 2Qute via USB as most folks on Stereonet(an Australian forum) have found the complete opposite. Must be other factors at play here.

Type "Hugo vs 2Qute" and the Stereonet link will appear.

I was surprised myself, and my wallet would have preferred to have stuck with the 2Qute as well!

I'll have a read of the Stereonet threads when I get chance

engjoo posted:

Perhaps the DAC behaves differently when they are in the Southern Hemisphere ? ;-)

That's a possibility. :-)