Wisnon - your summary does an injustice the overwhelming number of positive comments on the Head HiFi thread. The "thin" and "like my Qute better" comments are rare, maybe 1 per each of those. Remember, this is a $2,400 DAC. A Lampi L5 with DSD is 3 times that. Is it the best DAC out there? Probably not. But by most accounts it is remarkable at its price and competes well with DACs at 3 times its price.
It does not seem like Chord is going to do a Qute like packaging of the Hugo technology. I believe the next version is going to be a lot higher price. |
The Hugo does both 64 and 128 DSD and by most reports it sounds very good. For those interested, it does convert DSD to PCM. It needs to do that because of how it implements volume and headphone crossfeed. Rob Woods has explained this is detail on the Head HiFi thread. |
Winson - I do not expect the Qute format for quite some time. The next product seems to be a QBD type product, but I am not sure it will have more taps. Depends on the chip maker.
As Ghasley says, the number of people who think Hugo is thin is pretty small, at least on the Head thread. There are undoubtedly a small group obsessed with the power supply, but it is a small group. Given their obsession, I am pretty sure they will announce enormous gains by disabling the battery and connecting a linear power supply. Meanwhile, others with enjoy the Hugo as is.
The Hugo is, by most accounts, significantly better than the EX. You might want to skip the EX and go to Hugo. Making a comparison of the EX and a Lampi does not show how the Hugo will compare. By most accounts, Hugo is a significant upgrade from the HD or EX.
I agree that a QBD should be better than Hugo, but it will do so at a much higher price. I think you are not giving the Hugo the credit it deserves, especially at the price. |
Rgs92 - thanks for the observations. FYI - you can get a micro usb Carbon cable so you do not have to use the adapter. |
Rgs92 - I did not know the 3.0 micro did not fit. I assumed 2.0 and 3.0 were the same size. Thanks for the tip. |
In-show - I would not dismiss the Head HiFi discussion because it is long and the one here because of RGS92's and other's comments.
The large number of posts on Head HiFi are largely about hole sizes, cables, and portable players. The ones about the actual sound are small. It just takes a while to get through all the clutter that happened when people were waiting for their units.
There are a relatively small number of people who actually have them and have commented on their sound. Many of who have them are from the UK or Asia, where is seems the product has been more available than in the US. That is partially why there are not as many comments on this forum.
The whole comparison with Lampi 5 and Lampi 7 is overblown. There is not any real talk on Head about that. There is a comparison to the Direct Stream, but that is also twice the price of a Hugo. And it is only 1 person.
The general belief on Head HiFi and other places is that the Hugo is probably as good as anything in its price range and is better than many at higher prices, but as always it depends on the type of sound you like. Unfortunately, there are very few comparisons to similarly priced units, like PS AUdio, MyTeK, Bryston, the new Sony etc. And, there probably will not be until the Hugo is more generally available.
The comments above about the Hugo being "thin" have generally been refuted. It does have a very clean and detailed sound, which may be thin to people who want a big tubey sound. But on Head, the idea that Hugo is thin has been pretty pretty well refuted.
Wisnon's discussion of the Hugo being limited by its battery may be true. However, to include a high quality power supply will greatly change the form factor and the price. Chord will do that, but probably at a much different price. But the comparisons being made are again to units that cost twice as much. Will a big box, linear power supply, more taps version sound better? Most assuredly so, but at a big price jump. It is pretty clear that the portable form factor was not the design goal for the new chip, but that is what was available, so they went with it.
Personally, I am disappointed that the discussion here went down so many rat holes. But that can happen when people have not actually heard and compared the piece being discussed themselves. I hope the discussion will get better once people actually hear the Hugo.
Don't dismiss the Hugo because of the discussion on Head HiFi or here. But all accounts, it is an excellent DAC at its price point. If you are looking at double the price, then there are other options, although Hugo may compete well with some of them. But, at its price point and with the type of sound it provides, most reports say it is a really fine unit.
If you want some other reading, keep an eye on the thread on Computer Audiophile. It is much shorter, but more reviews are expected soon. The main discussion is at the end of the Qute review. There are also many other reviews of the Hugo that are extremely positive.
I am very much looking forward to getting my hands on one. Unfortunately, I buy from a brick and mortar store and most of those types of stores have had a very hard time getting their hands on them. Chord underestimated that number of units for the US and has also had distribution problems here.
The full Hugo story is yet to be told and I think in the end it will be very positive. |
Winson - I am sorry you feel I was too critical, but I do think you should have been more straightforward about the price. People can look up the prices but since you knew them why not supply them. Comparing the Hugo to units that are 4 to 12 times its price is interesting, but why not make the prices clear up front. Interesting, you quote the DirectStream upgrade price rather than the full price. The regular price is more relevant. You pretty much dismiss the idea of using the Hugo as a desktop device, but then compare it to a unit that is probably a year away and at several times the cost. Sorry, it is an excellent desktop device at its price.
By the way, what false statement did I make? |
In shore - One of the common comments on the Hugo is that 16/44 sounds extremely good. Rob Watts, the designer, has said that as his algorithms evolve the difference between 16/44 and higher rez gets less and less. With Hugo he thinks 16/44 and 24/96 are often very close. He believes that the need for high rez has been largely driven by less than optimal designs for 16/44. Since most people have a lot more 16/44 than high rez, its 16/44 quality can be a significant advantage for the Hugo.
If you are at all interested in the technical aspects of Hugo, Watts' comments on the long Head thread are very interesting. |
Wisnon - agreed - I would love a Qute version of the Hugo, but from their comments it seems like they are going to do the QBD version first, which means a Qute version may be quite a way off. One would think a Qute version would be pretty easy to do, but they are a small company. If you know any more about their schedule, I would love to hear it. |
Steve - the Hugo requires the USB +5V signal to turn on the HD circuits. As I understand it, that means your filter should not be used with the Hugo, since the filter stops the +5V signal from getting to the Hugo. Correct me if I am wrong. |
In_shore - For testing, I would start with standard redbook tracks, ones you know well. For most people, redbook is the vast majority of their music. One of the advantages of the Hugo is its ability to play 16/44. Since you have a SACD player, try some SACDs that also have redbook versions on them, assuming your player plays that hybrid format. They are not always the same mastering, so you have to be a little careful, but it is a place to start for comparison.
Downloading hi rez is always a bit of a crap shoot, depending on the mastering. Some of it is remastered from the original tapes with real care and it can be very good. Other is hardly better than the redbook. I would start with music you already have and know well and look for a high rez version of that.
If you are at all technical, I would also suggest using a program to display the frequency spectrum above 20 KHz. You can use Audacity or, I use a little free program call Spek. That will show you if there is really any content in the higher frequencies. If not, it may be the original source did not have any high end content or it may be the high rez is really just an up-sampled redbook.
JRiver Media Center has the capability of converting PCM to DSD and vice versa. It can be a good way to compare PCM and DSD since you know the source is the same. It will even do the conversion on the fly, although going PCM to DSD does take a pretty hefty CPU. Otherwise, you can just use it to convert to a new file.
It is pretty easy to get started with PC audio if you want to go that route. All you need is a PC with a USB out and a software player like JRiver. Connect the PC to a USB DAC and you should be good to go. JRiver takes a little time to set up. You can start with a Schit Modi for PCM or a Schit Loki for DSD for not much money. The Schit Bifrost with USB is more money, but goes up to 24/192, versus 24/96 for the Modi. I would take it slow rather than jumping in with the "ultimate" system.
If you are not used to dealing with computer programs it can be a little daunting. Dedicated systems like the Sony HAP-z1es are a good option for people who do not want to deal with the computer aspects.
Good luck. |
Wisnon - Please, add the prices of the units you listened to. It is relevant to the discussion. The idea that a next generation unit at a much higher price may sound better is hardly a revelation. Look, I know you are annoyed by the earlier passing comment comparing the Hugo to your beloved Lampi, but how about being a little more straightforward about price here. It is part of the equation for most people.
Interestingly, the $2,400 Hugo was only "shaded" by the $6,000 DirectStream. That seems like a significant conclusion, unless cost is not relevant.
My experience is that DSD is not poor compared to PCM on the Hugo. In fact, I prefer it in many cases. |
