NDX and Chord Hugo

there was a post here earlier, now removed talking about how the programmable FGA chip of the Hugo was much superior to the bog standard DAC's that Naim use.

In that case. Why does it not sound better?

what does it only equal the off the shelf DAC's?

simple question.

lot of hot air and hype around the hugo.

The last portable kit which was good enough for my main rig was the Sony Walkman Professional cassette player.

Analogmusic, can you explain what you mean by 'bog standard DACs that Naim use'.

The Naim high precession DACs with deliberately separate high precision programmable DSP using programmable micro controller architecture seems quite bespoke and optimised to me. Perhaps you are referring to something else?

Simon

Hi Simon,

I suspect Analogmusic is referring to the chip itself.  I understand Chord make their own (happy to be corrected on this) rather than using the usual industry standard brands such as Burr-Brown etc.  Perhaps there are advantages to this approach if one is prepared to make the investment.  On the other hand there seems to be a general consensus that the implementation counts for way more than the specific chip used.  Indeed, exactly the same chip can sound far better in one DAC than another, which supports this argument.....

I mean the DAC chip itself it one made by Burr Brown, which apparently (not my words) is not as good as a Programmable Field Gate array.

As with everything the proof is in the listening.

Ok I see, well I guess it's a choice of compromises of whether to buy in a high precision component and disable aspects  and bespoke around this like Naim, versus create a low volume high precision component with the bespoking contained within. Both have pros and conns.

As far PFGA it is (or was when I was involved with them) a cost effective way of creating custom VLSI circuitry.

The area of on chip regulation, precision, accuracy and noise will be common to both techniques - and I suspect this is the largest contributor to audible differences.

Now the area that is interesting with the Chord device is that's its very low power. Power equals noise in this world, so having very low power can offer theoretical advantages that could well be audible... 

Simon

I haven't heard the Hugo, but bought the Qute EX DAC about 2 months ago having demmed the Ex and the QB76 HD DSD.  The latter was better but the EX has since been improved a lot by the purchase of a Paul Hynes PS.  I didn't want to spend the extra at the moment as DAC technology is moving so fast it didn't seem prudent to tie up 5k UKP while the technology is in a state of flux.  

When the Hugo technology gets built into a "proper" DAC with meatier output stages and better output options (balanced) then I shall definitely be in the game. 

I generally agree with you Colin. I went for the QBD76 HDSD because it sounded better than my 555 & I was fed up with multiple boxes. Now, I'd probably have plumped for a Hugo I guess (although I've never heard one) because it's based on similar technology.

Not so long ago, before it got wet (don't ask) I had an elderly Orelle DAC. Only handled 16/44, yet sounded remarkably good. Considering it must have been some 25 years old, I think it illustrates that, despite all the marketing hype, DACs really haven't progressed that much over the years. I'm now of the age when I tend to get stuff now, rather than wait for something cheaper and/or better to trundle past.

The comparison source was the CDX.

Friday : Using the U\S into the Hugo via optical cable, Leonard Cohen's Old Ideas was proclaimed by my wife to be the best version she has ever heard of this record. Well, it was certainly different. Leonard sounded 10 years younger, and there was hope in his singing. Was this his intent or was it the Chord? Moving on to Beyond The Missouri Sky, it was the first time I've heard Pat Metheny's playing without the initial emphasis on the pluck of the strings. I'd always found this album strangely recorded, in that the overemphasis on the beginning of the notes (almost percussive) detracted from the flow of the music. Through the Chord, I could focus on the playing. Was this the truth or was it the Chord? 

Saturday : Background listening at low level to a mix of baroque music. Through the Chord, the sound was thin, and not as engaging as the CDX at low volume, but when cranked up, we were treated to some moments of pure beauty. The Hugo's clarity seems to come at the expense of involvement when listening at low levels, but this may have been system dependant. 

I don't know if it's the FPGA technology, or the very low power use, or both, but the Hugo is capable of showing some very enticing and very different views of music that I thought I knew. It's not Naim, but it's equally fascinating (at high volume).

Jan

The Hugo is better than anything I have heard before. First time I prefer digital to analog with other than AAA recordings. Give it a month of continuous playing before making an opinion. I would advise to stop speculating on technicalities, size/price and just go hear it.

Earthing, Naim pay particular attention to earthing and give earthing options on, for example, the V1. So, I was wondering whether there is an issue or not with using the Hugo with a Naim pre or Power amp?

Jude 

Jan-Erik

I agree with your comment about making Leonard sounding younger. I hadn't thought of it in those terms, for me I'd noticed that certain vocals on the NDX sound darker, if that's the correct term, as though part of the vocal range had been cut off. An exaggerated version is on pop music where it seems they have cut both the low and upper frequencies from the voice to make them appear as though they can sing.

Not sure if that makes any sense, but the Hugo has some how put whats missing back in. I'm not totally convinced that i prefer this change on every artist as it is such a difference, i think some adjustment is required, but this is the only minor gripe i have of the Hugo.

After spending a long weekend with it the best analogy i can come up with, is saying its like my speakers were behind curtains before, where everything was subdued, and with the Hugo the curtains have been torn down. And i have to say i love it.

Graeme

Was you using the volume on the Hugo or amp. Cant say i really noticed this but to be honest i was listening at normal levels to better hear the detail changes. Also wanted to make sure it didn't get fatiguing, which i was expecting it too.

This is a very odd experience for me as previously detailed systems Ive heard ultimately become fatiguing. The Hugo Didn't

Or maybe im just getting older and my hearings gone

Graeme

I said I’d make a few more comments when I had time, so here it is for anyone who’s interested…

In short, I think the Hugo is fantastic. Having earlier commented that I wasn't sure whether I preferred it to an Ndac/555, I'm pretty sure now that I do. I have to say that I'm rather surprised and frankly somewhat confused by this, not least because I like the Naim sound so much and have done for so long. The idea that such good sound could come from such a tiny little thing is rather difficult to get your head round when you're used most reasonably high-end kit, never mind Naim with its power supplies and chunky cables.

Being analytical about the sound, the only area in which I think the Ndac shades it is in terms of ultimate bass extension. The Hugo produces plenty, but the naim combo ultimately it has just shade more heft and weight.

Overall however, my impression has not been that there is anything particularly striking about particular aspects of the Hugo sound, but that I have simply found myself thinking "just one more track" in a way that I have not really done with digital since moving my CDS3 on. As other people have commented, there is something about the sound that is very non-digital in the way that it sounds unforced, natural and fluid. The best way I could describe it would be as being akin to a KDS with some added, more Naim-like drive and solidity. It really is that good.

The other very pleasing aspect for me is that it means everything I need for digital listening (i.e. my HDX and the Hugo) fits on one fraim shelf rather than on three. As far as I can tell, the Hugo is completely support agnostic and does not to my ears sound any different whether sat on various bits of Naim, on its own shelf, on the floor or held in my hand. This being so, I can't really see the point of having it sat on a separate shelf. That said, if you are going to use it as more of a digital preamp and therefore would need to use and access the controls, the situation might then be different.

It appears similarly indifferent to the input used and source. I've tried it with various combinations of spdif, optical and usb from a Macbook and Mac Mini, NDX and HDX. Although i won't pretend my "testing" was in any way scientific, I could not hear any difference between the various options. No idea whether it would be different with hi res music, as I've not got any! 

Thanks oscarskeeper for the update. Very interesting and very encouraging that you find it non dependent of source as computer audio via mac mini is something I'm hoping to get to try with it. Will have to wait till my Hugo arrives as the loan unit is going back today.

Graeme

Hi Graeme,

I was using the volume on the preamp ; the Hugo was set to volume bypass. 

Testing again this morning into the SuperNait2, and absolutely no issues with low volume listening. So, it's system dependant.

Back to Jakob Lindberg and his interpretations of Dowland's Complete Lute music. Mmmm sublime.

Jan

Interesting comments. You've mentioned your sources into the Hugo, but what are you using for preamp and amp ?

Thanks

Jan

Well my order is in but there is a two week wait . This will be a long two weeks me thinks

Great to hear that there is no issues when using it with Naim equipment.  

Great to hear that the volume can be controlled by a Naim pre 

Great to hear that the transport or server does not affect the SQ, in your experience