NDX and Chord Hugo

Posted by: Foxman50 on 18 April 2014

I have been contemplating adding a DAC to my NDX/XPS2 to see (or should that be hear) what it can bring to the party. And so thought it about time i made inroads into Having a few home demos. After looking around at products that are within my budget i came across the Chord Hugo DAC.

 

Although it is meant to be a portable headphone unit, it can be used as a full line level fixed DAC.

 

The dealer lent me a TQ black digital coax lead, which have twist grip plugs. This was required as the present batch of Hugo's have a case design fault that wont allow any decent cable to fit, soon to be rectified. Thankfully the TQ just manages to hang on to the coax port.

 

Once all connected and gone through the minimal setup procedure of the Hugo, what does the red LED mean again, i left it to warm up for half an hour.

 

Poured a beer and sat down for an evenings listening.

 

What was that, where did that come from, that's what that instrument is. OMG, as my little'n would say, Where is it getting all this detail from.

 

After spending last night and today with it, all i can say is that it has totally transformed my system from top to bottom. I never considered my NDX to be veiled or shut in, not even sure that's the correct terms. All i can say is its opened up the sound stage and space around instruments. Everything I've put through it has had my toes, feet and legs tapping away to the music.

 

Even putting the toe tapping, the resolution the clarity to one side, what its greatest achievement for me has been in making albums that I've had trouble listening too enjoyable now.

 

One added bonus is that it has made the XPS redundant. I cannot hear any difference with it in or out of the system.

 

While i thought a DAC may make a change in the degree of the jump from ND5 to NDX, i was not prepared for this. Anyone looking at adding a PSU to there NDX may want to check this unit out first.

 

For me this has to be the bargain of the year.

 

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by Aleg
Originally Posted by Jude2012:
When using an upstream device (either  NDS, NDX or  ND5):

A) Does the DAC in these devices have a bearing on the downstream SQ, or

B) Is it the 'pre processing set up' (I.e. What Naim do with the data stream between the Ethernet card and before entering the onboard DAC, as well as the isolation and power supply? (rather than their respective on board DAC themselves),

Have a bearing on the SQ produced/observed ?

I think this is a point worth exploring in the context of this thread that is about the Hugo and the evolution of DACs?

Jude

When using an external DAC the internal DAC of these streeamers will not be used and will not be in the signal path.

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by Foxman50
Originally Posted by Jude2012:
When using an upstream device (either  NDS, NDX or  ND5):

A) Does the DAC in these devices have a bearing on the downstream SQ, or

B) Is it the 'pre processing set up' (I.e. What Naim do with the data stream between the Ethernet card and before entering the onboard DAC, as well as the isolation and power supply? (rather than their respective on board DAC themselves),

Have a bearing on the SQ produced/observed ?

I think this is a point worth exploring in the context of this thread that is about the Hugo and the evolution of DACs?

Jude

Exactly, would be good if someone could try it out

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by KRM

Out of interest, what's the point of two 555s on an NDS + Hugo? I thought the first 555 powers the DAC and other digital gubbins and the second one powers the analogue stuff. Not much call for analogue if you're feeding an external DAC? Or have I misread your post Gary?

 

Keith

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by gary yeowell

Keith, in theory, absolutely nothing. Just that's how the standalone NDS was connected up when we first listened and then did not disconnect it when we tried NDS with Hugo.

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by Aleg
Originally Posted by Char Wallah:
Originally Posted by Jude2012:
When using an upstream device (either  NDS, NDX or  ND5):

A) Does the DAC in these devices have a bearing on the downstream SQ, or

B) Is it the 'pre processing set up' (I.e. What Naim do with the data stream between the Ethernet card and before entering the onboard DAC, as well as the isolation and power supply? (rather than their respective on board DAC themselves),

Have a bearing on the SQ produced/observed ?

I think this is a point worth exploring in the context of this thread that is about the Hugo and the evolution of DACs?

Jude

 

Going by the nature of the posts, it seems that the Hugo is not so much of a game changer, if it does not produce the required alchemy of turning an inferior source, such as iphone,tablet or laptop into something you would plug into your Nac552...erm..in fact it seems that you are just back to square one with finding the hugo sounding better the further up the Naim heirarchy you go with your source.

Strange reasoning, I don't think there is any logic in those words.

Magic is a subject of children's book, not hifi.

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by John R.

@Char Wallah: Why do you blame the HUGO for not turning an inferior source into something special? No DAC can do this. Bad signal in --> bad signal out. 

 

To me it is important how a DAC performs when it is connected to a source with a proper digital signal...

 

I just listened to a HUGO connected via USB (HD port) and it sounds great regardless of size and price. Naim should do some R&D regarding FPGA...

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by GraemeH

I'd say now having the option to add either a) A £6k 555PS to your naim streamer of choice to improve the SQ or b) Adding a £1.4K dac to (ime) further improve the SQ over and above the 555PS, a bit of a 'game changer'...

 

As I say, only speaking from experience of course.

 

G

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by KRM

Hi Gary, fair enough 

 

I guess you could disconnect the analogue Burndy on a single 555, but you can switch off the analogue outputs on the NDS, which probably comes to the same thing.

 

Keith

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by nbpf
Originally Posted by Aleg:
Just as an example, different versions of the software did have an effect on clarity and microdetails, on the amount of HF 'hearable', on the length of decays, the control of bass (booming, blooming, micro details, control), forward vs recessed presentation. For some these may be subtle, I find them huge given width of these effects.

 

This program is programmed in assembler and changes were to do (a.o.) with choice of statements, aligning data with buffer sizes, aligning commands to  memory positions, amount of bytes to be transferred in one go with each statement.

Aleg, this is intriguing. I think it would be worth trying to understand the effects of these changes in terms of a few quantifiable properties of the data (time and space contiguity, cache effects, etc.). I know that these factors can have a huge impact, for instance on floating point performance. But here we are talking about read / write operations if I understand correctly. These should not be that difficult to analyze. I am also wandering whether pre-loading the data into RAM and having the player running on a dedicated core could help reducing the effects you mentioned. But this is for another thread, I guess :-). Very interesting stuff, anyway. Thanks.

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by analogmusic
What experience is that?
 
Have you tried a PS555 head to head on the NDX and comapred that with a Chord Hugo on the NDX?
 
 
Originally Posted by GraemeH:

I'd say now having the option to add either a) A £6k 555PS to your naim streamer of choice to improve the SQ or b) Adding a £1.4K dac to (ime) further improve the SQ over and above the 555PS, a bit of a 'game changer'...

 

As I say, only speaking from experience of course.

 

G

 

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by analogmusic
 
 
 I completely agree with Char Wallah.
 
With the New Asynchronous USB protocols, which are supposed to be immune with Jitter it is not unreasonable with all the advanced PFGA and 26000 taps on offer to expect something "game changing"
 
 
 
 
Originally Posted by Aleg:
Originally Posted by Char Wallah:
Originally Posted by Jude2012:
When using an upstream device (either  NDS, NDX or  ND5):

A) Does the DAC in these devices have a bearing on the downstream SQ, or

B) Is it the 'pre processing set up' (I.e. What Naim do with the data stream between the Ethernet card and before entering the onboard DAC, as well as the isolation and power supply? (rather than their respective on board DAC themselves),

Have a bearing on the SQ produced/observed ?

I think this is a point worth exploring in the context of this thread that is about the Hugo and the evolution of DACs?

Jude

 

Going by the nature of the posts, it seems that the Hugo is not so much of a game changer, if it does not produce the required alchemy of turning an inferior source, such as iphone,tablet or laptop into something you would plug into your Nac552...erm..in fact it seems that you are just back to square one with finding the hugo sounding better the further up the Naim heirarchy you go with your source.

Strange reasoning, I don't think there is any logic in those words.

Magic is a subject of children's book, not hifi.

 

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by hungryhalibut

I believe he has, yes.

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by analogmusic
Naim has licensed technology from Audiophilleo
 
Which is one of the better USB--SPDIF converters in the market, and his machine can make most DAC's sound much better
 
If any machine would be a game changer I would say it would be the audiophilleo one in terms of bringing extremely low jitter digital playback to the masses, previously only available on hi end transports. 
 
The real credit goes to Gordon Rankin who made all this possible in the first place
 
 
 
Originally Posted by Foxman50:
Originally Posted by KRM:

Thanks Gary.

 

A helpful reminder that the hardware upstream from the DAC also plays a key role. Perhaps the NDS + Hugo isn't as bonkers as it seems.

I'd love to see a comparison between all the Naim streamers feeding Hugo. 

 

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by Jude2012
Originally Posted by Aleg:
Originally Posted by Jude2012:
When using an upstream device (either  NDS, NDX or  ND5):

A) Does the DAC in these devices have a bearing on the downstream SQ, or

B) Is it the 'pre processing set up' (I.e. What Naim do with the data stream between the Ethernet card and before entering the onboard DAC, as well as the isolation and power supply? (rather than their respective on board DAC themselves),

Have a bearing on the SQ produced/observed ?

I think this is a point worth exploring in the context of this thread that is about the Hugo and the evolution of DACs?

Jude

When using an external DAC the internal DAC of these streeamers will not be used and will not be in the signal path.

Thanks Aleg, as I suspected.

 

I appreciate that many have investments in either an ND5, NDX, or NDS and I do not wish to question that.  

 

However, if someone (like myself), who hasn't made this investment, cannot see the logic of investing in a streaming device with a built-in DAC , as DAC tech is clearly moving on fast (so is streaming tech).

 

Therefore, what I would be interested in a streaming device that that provide digital outs in multiple connection types (SPDIF Optical, SPDIF electrical, and USB) and formats (i.e. PCM and DSD) to allow me to change DAC or streamer and relatively lower cost (for example something like the Aurilac Aries).  

 

Unless of course, my ears tell that the Mac Mini is a sufficient transporter of PCM/DSD into a DAC.

 

So, I wonder whether anyone has this point of view? (in short a modular approach)

 

 

Jude 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by Foxman50

Jude

 

I think your dead right. I think nbpf was asking this exact question.

 

Are there any streamer only devices around, is the Auralic unit one.

 

Graeme

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by Jude2012
Graeme

Not sure whether I am right as such.  It's just a thought based on discussions on this forum over the last two years, research , and observation. Gary's findings seems to have crystallised it for me (well of course I will listen before any purchase decision).

Jude

Jude
Posted on: 06 July 2014 by nbpf
Originally Posted by Foxman50:

I think your dead right. I think nbpf was asking this exact question.

Right, I have been arguing for dedicated, single-purpose, open OS based components (dacless streamer, dacless player) that can be put together to build a streamlined system with minimal redundancies.

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by Aleg
Originally Posted by nbpf:
Originally Posted by Aleg:
Just as an example, different versions of the software did have an effect on clarity and microdetails, on the amount of HF 'hearable', on the length of decays, the control of bass (booming, blooming, micro details, control), forward vs recessed presentation. For some these may be subtle, I find them huge given width of these effects.

 

This program is programmed in assembler and changes were to do (a.o.) with choice of statements, aligning data with buffer sizes, aligning commands to  memory positions, amount of bytes to be transferred in one go with each statement.

Aleg, this is intriguing. I think it would be worth trying to understand the effects of these changes in terms of a few quantifiable properties of the data (time and space contiguity, cache effects, etc.). I know that these factors can have a huge impact, for instance on floating point performance. But here we are talking about read / write operations if I understand correctly. These should not be that difficult to analyze. I am also wandering whether pre-loading the data into RAM and having the player running on a dedicated core could help reducing the effects you mentioned. But this is for another thread, I guess :-). Very interesting stuff, anyway. Thanks.

Nbpf

 

this is already with memory loaded into ram, running player on its own core and moving other processes to other cores, optimising process priority, optimising mmcss registry settings, making sure there are no L1 cache misses when CPU needs data by using proper prefetching, it is already very much an optimised environment whereby CPU load/activity is minimised and CPU behaviour is optimised.

 

but indeed maybe not for this thread.

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by Josipo
Originally Posted by Jude2012:
Originally Posted by Aleg:
Originally Posted by Jude2012:
When using an upstream device (either  NDS, NDX or  ND5):

A) Does the DAC in these devices have a bearing on the downstream SQ, or

B) Is it the 'pre processing set up' (I.e. What Naim do with the data stream between the Ethernet card and before entering the onboard DAC, as well as the isolation and power supply? (rather than their respective on board DAC themselves),

Have a bearing on the SQ produced/observed ?

I think this is a point worth exploring in the context of this thread that is about the Hugo and the evolution of DACs?

Jude

When using an external DAC the internal DAC of these streeamers will not be used and will not be in the signal path.

Thanks Aleg, as I suspected.

 

I appreciate that many have investments in either an ND5, NDX, or NDS and I do not wish to question that.  

 

However, if someone (like myself), who hasn't made this investment, cannot see the logic of investing in a streaming device with a built-in DAC , as DAC tech is clearly moving on fast (so is streaming tech).

 

Therefore, what I would be interested in a streaming device that that provide digital outs in multiple connection types (SPDIF Optical, SPDIF electrical, and USB) and formats (i.e. PCM and DSD) to allow me to change DAC or streamer and relatively lower cost (for example something like the Aurilac Aries).  

 

Unless of course, my ears tell that the Mac Mini is a sufficient transporter of PCM/DSD into a DAC.

 

So, I wonder whether anyone has this point of view? (in short a modular approach)

 

 

Jude 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was thinking about the same thing and did comparisons on what I have on hand: PC via USB to Hugo and PC via spdif converter (coaxial) to Hugo. First impressions suggest that the coaxial route is more dynamic and detailed, but as I have a very modest M2 Tech Hiface converter,  I plan to investigate this route further. 

 

So I did a little research and guys at computeraudiophile forum tested several USB transports (Audiophilleo 1, Berkley, and Bel Canto). the result was that it was system dependant with BEL Canto coming least in all cases. However, a chinese made Gustard (found on ebay) turned out to be superior to them all. Probably (and this is just an assumption) due to XMOS chip and powersupply respectable for devices of this size. Btw, the cost is 180 USD including shipping, worth a try!

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by GraemeH
Originally Posted by analogmusic:
What experience is that?
 
Have you tried a PS555 head to head on the NDX and comapred that with a Chord Hugo on the NDX?
 
 
Originally Posted by GraemeH:

I'd say now having the option to add either a) A £6k 555PS to your naim streamer of choice to improve the SQ or b) Adding a £1.4K dac to (ime) further improve the SQ over and above the 555PS, a bit of a 'game changer'...

 

As I say, only speaking from experience of course.

 

G

 

Umm...yes. Otherwise why would I say such unless I couldn't help speculating on unlived experiences and/or I were a complete fool?

 

G

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by likesmusic
Originally Posted by Josipo:
Originally Posted by Jude2012:
 

I was thinking about the same thing and did comparisons on what I have on hand: PC via USB to Hugo and PC via spdif converter (coaxial) to Hugo. First impressions suggest that the coaxial route is more dynamic and detailed, but as I have a very modest M2 Tech Hiface converter,  I plan to investigate this route further. 

 

So I did a little research and guys at computeraudiophile forum tested several USB transports (Audiophilleo 1, Berkley, and Bel Canto). the result was that it was system dependant with BEL Canto coming least in all cases. However, a chinese made Gustard (found on ebay) turned out to be superior to them all. Probably (and this is just an assumption) due to XMOS chip and powersupply respectable for devices of this size. Btw, the cost is 180 USD including shipping, worth a try!

You may want to bear in mind that Rob Watts has said:

 

"Yes I have said many times that I prefer optical.

 

I have not done this listening test for many years - I just use optical always and that's that - I thought I would re-do the listening test. In this case, whilst listening between optical and coaxial, I disconnected the input as well as switched the sourcebutton.

 

Optical was indeed as I listened before - it is noticeably warmer, smoother, with better timbre variations on individual instruments and better instrument separation. Now it also sounds softer, as it is less hard and on a superficial basis is less impressive - the hardness can easily be confused with more detail resolution and impact. But it's a lot more natural."

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by cat345
Originally Posted by Foxman50:

Jude

 

I think your dead right. I think nbpf was asking this exact question.

 

Are there any streamer only devices around, is the Auralic unit one.

 

Graeme

The Bryston BDP-2 digital player has many inputs/outputs but no dac.

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by Josipo
Originally Posted by likesmusic:
Originally Posted by Josipo:
Originally Posted by Jude2012:
 

I was thinking about the same thing and did comparisons on what I have on hand: PC via USB to Hugo and PC via spdif converter (coaxial) to Hugo. First impressions suggest that the coaxial route is more dynamic and detailed, but as I have a very modest M2 Tech Hiface converter,  I plan to investigate this route further. 

 

So I did a little research and guys at computeraudiophile forum tested several USB transports (Audiophilleo 1, Berkley, and Bel Canto). the result was that it was system dependant with BEL Canto coming least in all cases. However, a chinese made Gustard (found on ebay) turned out to be superior to them all. Probably (and this is just an assumption) due to XMOS chip and powersupply respectable for devices of this size. Btw, the cost is 180 USD including shipping, worth a try!

You may want to bear in mind that Rob Watts has said:

 

"Yes I have said many times that I prefer optical.

 

I have not done this listening test for many years - I just use optical always and that's that - I thought I would re-do the listening test. In this case, whilst listening between optical and coaxial, I disconnected the input as well as switched the sourcebutton.

 

Optical was indeed as I listened before - it is noticeably warmer, smoother, with better timbre variations on individual instruments and better instrument separation. Now it also sounds softer, as it is less hard and on a superficial basis is less impressive - the hardness can easily be confused with more detail resolution and impact. But it's a lot more natural."

I remember one forum member that prefered coaxial over toslink. This is my initiall impression too, at least in my system. 

by now I have learned to try first and not assume anything

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by Steve J
Originally Posted by Jude2012:
Originally Posted by Aleg:
Originally Posted by Jude2012:
When using an upstream device (either  NDS, NDX or  ND5):

A) Does the DAC in these devices have a bearing on the downstream SQ, or

B) Is it the 'pre processing set up' (I.e. What Naim do with the data stream between the Ethernet card and before entering the onboard DAC, as well as the isolation and power supply? (rather than their respective on board DAC themselves),

Have a bearing on the SQ produced/observed ?

I think this is a point worth exploring in the context of this thread that is about the Hugo and the evolution of DACs?

Jude

When using an external DAC the internal DAC of these streeamers will not be used and will not be in the signal path.

Thanks Aleg, as I suspected.

 

I appreciate that many have investments in either an ND5, NDX, or NDS and I do not wish to question that.  

 

However, if someone (like myself), who hasn't made this investment, cannot see the logic of investing in a streaming device with a built-in DAC , as DAC tech is clearly moving on fast (so is streaming tech).

 

Therefore, what I would be interested in a streaming device that that provide digital outs in multiple connection types (SPDIF Optical, SPDIF electrical, and USB) and formats (i.e. PCM and DSD) to allow me to change DAC or streamer and relatively lower cost (for example something like the Aurilac Aries).  

 

Unless of course, my ears tell that the Mac Mini is a sufficient transporter of PCM/DSD into a DAC.

 

So, I wonder whether anyone has this point of view? (in short a modular approach)

 

 

Jude 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My position as well Jude. What I heard with the MacMini, USB, Hugo was much better than I could have expected. This is such a simple setup that even if the NDS with the Hugo is slightly better I don't think the massive increase in cost would justify this for me as I want it as a secondary source to my LP12. Before there are any comments about this being a non Naim source I would like to say that I use it with a Naim Superline, SupercapDR and Naim Powerline.  Used with the Apple remote app and screen sharing I can control the iTunes/Audirvana with my MacBook Pro and iPad. Who needs the complication of a NAS/Streamer? The number of threads concerning problems with streamers put me off a long time ago.

If I do buy a Hugo then I will try the different input options. I didn't have an optical or coaxial cable at the time of my home demo. Interestingly the users of the PS Audio DAC generally prefer the USB over optical or coaxial. I guess it's down to what sounds best to the user.

 

ATB

 

Steve

Posted on: 06 July 2014 by Simon-in-Suffolk

My goodness, lots added to this thread this pm.

Streamers and PSU into Hugo:

I certainly agree witH Gary the source quality affects the end product with the Hugo.. Though I have a sneaky suspicion its more to do with spurious RF currents on the interconnects than anything else.

 

I use the NDX into the Hugo, I did try my 555PS into the NDX, there might have been a slight change, but not much and certainly I couldn't say one was better than the other. I also tried the Powerline into the NDX and again marginal shift in sound, but not one being preferable.

 

However I have found a large ferrite choke on the DC1 from the NDX to the Hugo did make a worthwhile change for the better... Richer tones and deeper silences.. Subtle but worthwhile.

 

I find the NDX choked SPDIF presentation preferable to the asynchronous USB from my mac. Although the later is very good indeed.

 

Simon