Hugo Upgrade???

Today I collected my new qutest. After setting up and listening to a couple of my favourite tracks, I am really quite surprised, in a good way. First impressions, extra detail, more opened up and spacious sound. I haven't really Run in the unit properly but I would expect things to only get better from here.

If your experience is like mine, it will get a surprising amount better over what seems a ridiculous amount of time.  I had a an extended home demo of a well run-in Qutest, after 8 inches of now fell on Norfolk shortly after I collected.  I got to know it pretty well and loved it, but when I first played tracks on my own brand new one, it was a rather underwhelming experience.  Not that i couldn't hear improvement in detail and separation compared to the DAC-V1 sat next to it, but it did not sound like the demo unit that set my expectations.  It's not like a totally different sound, it just seemed held back initially, lacking a bit of weight and general energy, a bit thin.  Since the run-in though, it's been a great performer, and took my system, that I was already really happy with, a serious notch up.  Enjoy the ride.

Don’t expect burn-in! My Hugo sounded great day 1, and same as far as I could tell every day therafter (within limits of my own ears’ variation from time to time). Ditto Chord Dave.

SongStream posted:

If your experience is like mine, it will get a surprising amount better over what seems a ridiculous amount of time.  I had a an extended home demo of a well run-in Qutest, after 8 inches of now fell on Norfolk shortly after I collected.  I got to know it pretty well and loved it, but when I first played tracks on my own brand new one, it was a rather underwhelming experience.  Not that i couldn't hear improvement in detail and separation compared to the DAC-V1 sat next to it, but it did not sound like the demo unit that set my expectations.  It's not like a totally different sound, it just seemed held back initially, lacking a bit of weight and general energy, a bit thin.  Since the run-in though, it's been a great performer, and took my system, that I was already really happy with, a serious notch up.  Enjoy the ride.

Same experience for me. The sound just got better and better after a month of playing time.

I've heard a few people claim similar run-in experiences, and with Hugo things too.  I never expected it to need running-in, because there's so little in it.  When I look at the inside of the Qutest I find myself wondering what on earth could need running in.  There is an analogue output stage with a variable voltage, but it looks so simple, and even chord boast that signal goes through just five components or something.  I mean, look at the inside of Naim DAC compared to this.  Not sure why, but I find it easier to buy the idea that the Naim would need burn-in time compared to the Qutest.  Unfortunately I don't understand enough about the components inside either to make much of an argument about run-in.  I am sure I heard it change though.

SongStream posted:

I've heard a few people claim similar run-in experiences, and with Hugo things too.  I never expected it to need running-in, because there's so little in it.  When I look at the inside of the Qutest I find myself wondering what on earth could need running in.  There is an analogue output stage with a variable voltage, but it looks so simple, and even chord boast that signal goes through just five components or something.  I mean, look at the inside of Naim DAC compared to this.  Not sure why, but I find it easier to buy the idea that the Naim would need burn-in time compared to the Qutest.  Unfortunately I don't understand enough about the components inside either to make much of an argument about run-in.  I am sure I heard it change though.

Looking at this picture makes me feel I paid for a nice piece of aircraft-grade aluminium. But it does sound good! 

Yeah, it does sound good.  The Qutest is mainly software, that's what you're paying for.  Chord are not alone in doing things this way, PS Audio also use an FPGA in their DACs.  The difference is when PS Audio make a significant code change, it's made available to their existing customers at no cost.  I don't think Chord will be doing that.

SongStream posted:

Yeah, it does sound good.  The Qutest is mainly software, that's what you're paying for.  Chord are not alone in doing things this way, PS Audio also use an FPGA in their DACs.  The difference is when PS Audio make a significant code change, it's made available to their existing customers at no cost.  I don't think Chord will be doing that.

However, if they get it right, with best possible sound quality for the technology available, why would it ever need changing?

Innocent Bystander posted:

SongStream posted:

Yeah, it does sound good.  The Qutest is mainly software, that's what you're paying for.  Chord are not alone in doing things this way, PS Audio also use an FPGA in their DACs.  The difference is when PS Audio make a significant code change, it's made available to their existing customers at no cost.  I don't think Chord will be doing that.

However, if they get it right, with best possible sound quality for the technology available, why would it ever need changing?

It wouldn't.  A pretty big 'IF' though.

BTW what variable line level output setting on the qutest is best with naim amplification. I currently am using the green 2v rms setting, this feels about right with my nait xs2

SongStream posted:

It wouldn't.  A pretty big 'IF' though.

Why? Surely it is possible with development by a company like Chord that they can get the sound as good as is possible, with i mprovements only possible when better hardware is available? I actually find it difficult to understand why Naim firmwhere updates change sound quality, unless it is due to a changing view in Naim HQ as to what they think is best sound, which is in itself rather odd, at least to me coming from the stance of wanting accuracy.

Naim streamers and DACs are typically 2.1v, so you're in line with the norm.  Some suggest that 1v is better and gives a more useable control of pots on pre-amps like 282 and above,  I've never felt the need to change from green with my SN2.

eazyryder posted:

BTW what variable line level output setting on the qutest is best with naim amplification. I currently am using the green 2v rms setting, this feels about right with my nait xs2

I seem to recall that with Hugo the consensus was turquoise, though whether that would be the same for Qutest is unclear - that of course is not far removed from green.

Innocent Bystander posted:

SongStream posted:

It wouldn't.  A pretty big 'IF' though.

Why? Surely it is possible with development by a company like Chord that they can get the sound as good as is possible, with i mprovements only possible when better hardware is available? I actually find it difficult to understand w hy Naim firmwhere updates change sound quality, unless it is due to a changing view in Naim HQ as to what they think is best sound, which is in itself rather odd, at least to me coming from the stance of wanting accuracy.

You'll never get accuracy with current tech.  Recording is imperfect, the mixing is imperfect, and the reproduction imperfect.  

Yes, you are limited to the quality of the recording, and accuracy may not be perfect with any given DAC, but why the presumption that with the same hardware in the DAC box it can be improved by software tweaking?  Surely as a concept it is possible to get it as good as the hardware allows, however near or far from perfect that may be, and there is no reason why that can’t be achieved before release of the unit.

[@mention:41551091830475636] - I think you've made the point yourself.  The DSP code update for the DAC-V1 and NDac made quite a positive difference for me.  Not everyone liked the change, but few would argue that there was no change.  Did Naim think it was as good as possible in the original release?  Of course they did.  But they learnt something else while on the path to an unrelated goal it seems.  If you listen to Mr Watts talk about the process of designing DAVE, there was a lot of trial and error involved, and a lot of theory involved that does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.  Yes, the tech is a limitation, but it's a learning curve when it comes to getting the best from it.  The latest Naim streamers use some outdated DAC tech, that has been used in other products for over 10 years.  It's just tweaked, and implemented better.  And, as ever, there are some real fans of this reinvented tech.

I am not sure I fully agree, have personally spoken and mused with Rob on the development of the Hugo and DAVE, their developments were all based on recognised principles and engineering design  patterns that he developed over the years of experimenting with different implementations. Yes there has been a significant amount of trial, error and protypes as in most product developments... and measurement of noise and ground plane modulation has been very important in tuning developments... a significant effort expended on DAVE apparently.

There  were somethings that were discovered by accident... and I sure Rob won’t mind me saying there are somethings he can’t quite explain why they behave they do in terms of human perception of some of the results obtained.. i won’t state those, but again not so unusual when you are tuning by ear.

But from the design principles point of view, there is nothing mystical, just ingenious implementation of recognised principles... not much different than Naim here perhaps.. other than with Chord Rob takes it further back to discretely design and build more of the DAC componentry using his honed experiences to provide an innovative way of DAC reconstruction, whereas Naim focus on the optimised  implementation of more  off the shelf functional chipsets and a classic DAC reconstruction approach with a relatively simple low pass DSP filter function that has remained unchanged from the NDAC to the ND555.

Still very happy with the sound quality of the Hugo 1 and no battery problems yet.  I never trusted Chord’s advice to leave it charging all the time.  I always switch off and let it run down completely every few weeks.  

The sound (combined with the microrendu) stands up really well to other streamer dac combos, though my Lp12 is still a much more enveloping and captivating listen.  That said the thing which will lead me to change is the jumble of power supplies and wiring and the fiddliness of using the Hugo.

I agree that the Hugo 1 when combined with the microrendu is superb value for money and sound quality is still pretty much a match for almost anything in its price range. It's no longer on its own though. I find the Mytek Brooklyn+ DAC (at more or less the same price as the Hugo 2) is just a little better, and of course neither combo can match the Linn KLimax DS/1 in my main system or indeed the Naim ND555. But then one wouldn't expect them to given the huge disparity in cost.   

However, differences are relatively subtle and subject to personal preference (certainly in the case of the Mytek) and I would have continued to be very happy with the microRendu/Chord Hugo 1 had I not switched to the Mytek when the Hugo's batteries expired.   

There are hundreds and hundreds of devices on the market with user replaceable batteries. Why on earth isn't the Hugo one of them? 

because its perhaps not used as a regular battery - its an intrinsic part of power supply regulation and primary power supply reservoir capacitor/constant voltage generator design which clearly also doubles up as a battery for mobile use. The design of the power supply around its specific reservoir battery type contributes to the qualities and performance  of the device...

You could if you really wanted perhaps power the Hugo externally via a regular battery block - but the Hugo would still use its reservoir battery internally.

For a device that for some of us still sounds better and more insightful than a ND555 DAC you kind of expect some quirks,

cat345 posted:

There are hundreds and hundreds of devices on the market with user replaceable batteries. Why on earth isn't the Hugo one of them? 

I'm guessing it depends on the user

I've not tried replacing a Hugo battery..but surely it cannot be harder than a mobile phone... And I've done a few of them with no issues 

Well I have been A/B,ing for hours now between the hugo 1 (unplugged) and qutest. The qutest is a definite improvement over the hugo 1.

Its strange for me to say this , but I couldn't go back to my beloved hugo now. 

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

because its perhaps not used as a regular battery - its an intrinsic part of power supply regulation and primary power supply reservoir capacitor/constant voltage generator design which clearly also doubles up as a battery for mobile use. The design of the power supply around its specific reservoir battery type contributes to the qualities and performance  of the device...

You could if you really wanted perhaps power the Hugo externally via a regular battery block - but the Hugo would still use its reservoir battery internally.

For a device that for some of us still sounds better and more insightful than a ND555 DAC you kind of expect some quirks,

I understand your explanation Simon, however I think the Hugo would be a more user friendly device if the two Unix MGL2811 batteries would be easily accessible and replaceable by the user.

Japtimscarlet posted:

cat345 posted:

There are hundreds and hundreds of devices on the market with user replaceable batteries. Why on earth isn't the Hugo one of them? 

I'm guessing it depends on the user

I've not tried replacing a Hugo battery..but surely it cannot be harder than a mobile phone... And I've done a few of them with no issues 

Not quite as easy, unless you are a Wizard (or at least reasonably competent) with a soldering iron.