Review and Measurements of Chord Hugo 2 DAC and Headphone Amplifier

[Jimster480]

The takeaway here is that a portable product matches the performance of a full sized desktop component.

I am in for more mobile tests too, to see if there are any other products which match it or come close in terms of performance. If not then the value is surely there if you want the very best in a mobile device.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Yeah, I've been learning a bit here and there on digital filters over the last few months and still feel like I know essentially nothing. Good Times! Truly love learning about this stuff.

I bought HQ Player to learn about filters. Google HQ Player and chord and taps to see what Jussi Laako (Miska) has to say.

 

[ManglerFi]

I bought HQ Player to learn about filters. Google HQ Player and chord and taps to see what Jussi Laako (Miska) has to say.

Thanks, I will definitely do this once I get a chance. Too much to do, not enough time .

 

[highfell]

The devil is in the detail. I suggest you do your homework on the importance of the number of taps - 49,000 btw - , noise shapers , his WTA filter etc., before passing vague comments.

Moreover, the key test of any DAC is what it sounds like. And Hugo2 sounds damn good. It also has coax and optical inputs and will never be a brick as you erroneously suggest.

 

[amirm]

The devil is in the detail. I suggest you do your homework on the importance of the number of taps - 49,000 btw - , noise shapers , his WTA filter etc., before passing vague comments.

I sat through the entire presentation from Rob Watts at RMAF. And I have a background in signal processing having managed the team at Microsoft and prior companies. I have heard Rob's arguments, but they are not following audio science. It is subjectivism wrapped in objective terms.

Here is the talk. My questions start at 56:00 mark:

My advice is to not buy into technical lingo unless you take your own advice and truly understand this domain. And appreciate the points I am making in that talk in how Rob's sighted tests do not provide reliable data.

Moreover, the key test of any DAC is what it sounds like. And Hugo2 sounds damn good. It also has coax and optical inputs and will never be a brick as you erroneously suggest.

Sure. The person who loaned it to me also very much praised the sound. Problem is, I can't get into your ear or his to know if that is right. Nor was there any kind of controlled test to indicate the same. Whereas my measurements can be repeated and objectively demonstrated to be correct or not.

Your job is to vax about the "sound." Mine is to provide data which you cannot. Which manufacturer refuses to provide.

Finally note that I said this is a competently produced product.

 

[highfell]

“I have heard Rob's arguments, but they are not following audio science.”

It must be a coincidence then that from Hugo onwards his DACs are acknowledged to sound so good and win award after award.

Whereas your stats show them to be nothing special.

I wonder who to believe .........

 

[Purité Audio]

You don’t have to believe anyone, compare the Hugo unsighted and level matched to another decent measuring dac, should be easy...
Keith

 

[svart-hvitt]

“I have heard Rob's arguments, but they are not following audio science.”

It must be a coincidence then that from Hugo onwards his DACs are acknowledged to sound so good and win award after award.

Whereas your stats show them to be nothing special.

I wonder who to believe .........

Which awards?

What are the criteria for winning those awards?

I have never heard about an audio engineer using Chord DACs.

This is not to say that Chord is bad or good. But awards are hardly evidence of anything you wish to prove.

 

[stunta]

You don’t have to believe anyone, compare the Hugo unsighted and level matched to another decent measuring dac, should be easy...
Keith

Not so if one blindly follows what Rob Watts said in the RMAF presentation Amir presentation. He goes about claiming DBTs are unreliable because subjects get stressed (I wonder what kind of music he must be playing to stress them out). Lets pass on his infinite wisdom to the pharmaceutical industry and see what happens.

 

[amirm]

“I have heard Rob's arguments, but they are not following audio science.”

It must be a coincidence then that from Hugo onwards his DACs are acknowledged to sound so good and win award after award.

Whereas your stats show them to be nothing special.

I wonder who to believe .........

Let me translate what he is saying in lay terms. He is saying you need to wash your dishes one hundred times for them to be clean. In his presentation he admits that he is talking about differences down some 160 dB. There is no converter in the world that does better than 130 dB or so. Yet he is worrying about filter responses that low. That is on top of our hearing range having a dynamic range of 116 dB.

He is performing sighted tests so he has convinced himself that more is better. Which man doesn't think that way. All he has to do is perform one blind test and all of those differences he thinks he is hearing vanish in the air. That is what audio science, signal processing and psychoacoustics tell us. If you want to know what one man thinks based on faulty listening tests, go by what he says.

 

[Thomas savage]

“I have heard Rob's arguments, but they are not following audio science.”

It must be a coincidence then that from Hugo onwards his DACs are acknowledged to sound so good and win award after award.

Whereas your stats show them to be nothing special.

I wonder who to believe .........

It’s a portable DAC, so small case with all the challenges that might bring that by our measurements tests just about as good as anything we’ve had on the bench..

Amir has a thing about the drivers , that’s his own opinion the measurements turned out very well. Amir has a thing about the taps, again that a opinion and he’s right in that chord are likely chasing a USP rather than doing something that’s going to have audible benefits , they’ve certainly not presented any evidence ( not that Iv seen ) to prove the gazillion taps bring audible benefits.

But non of that detracts from the fact the Hugo 2 preforms excellently.

 

[March Audio]

Now you wont often see me make subjective comments on sound quality. I do own a Chord Mojo and FWIW to my ears it does sound different to most DACs. Note I didnt necessarily say better. I dont hear "more" with this dac than others, but I think it does have a different tonality (which I like). I find most DACs quite boringly similar. Where this difference comes from is a difficult question to answer, more taps, the discrete FPGA output stage I dont know. Is this difference actually an indication of better or more accurate performance - not necessarily, the fact that it is different and sticks out from most dacs could indicate quite the opposite. What I dont like is Rob Watts claims. When he talks about noise floor modulation at -200 dB being audible and so on or that he doesnt blind test, the credibility goes down the toilet at that point.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Now you wont often see me make subjective comments on sound quality. I do own a Chord Mojo and FWIW to my ears it does sound different to most DACs. Note I didnt necessarily say better. I dont hear "more" with this dac than others, but I think it does have a different tonality (which I like). I find most DACs quite boringly similar. Where this difference comes from is a difficult question to answer, more taps, the discrete FPGA output stage I dont know. Is this difference actually an indication of better or more accurate performance - not necessarily, the fact that it is different and sticks out from most dacs could indicate quite the opposite. What I dont like is Rob Watts claims. When he talks about noise floor modulation at -200 dB being audible and so on or that he doesnt blind test, the credibility goes down the toilet at that point.

@BE718 , I don’t doubt your perception at all.



So I wanted to ask you and other ASRers: Have you ever played with filters in HQ Player (with a transparent no-nonsense DAC like Benchmark, Lynx Hilo etc.) to arrive at the same conclusion; i.e. that digital filter matters?

To me, it seems backwards to pay for a special filter in the HW when the same or better filter can be done in SW.

 

[March Audio]

I have played with hq player. Any differences I thought I heard were too small to be of any significant consequence. I have found the same with any dac I have used with variable filters. You can go round in circles finding a particular filter sounds better only to find on a different track something else is better.

Dont forget that HQ player isnt free, quite expensive in fact from memory.

To me this is all dicking around at the wrong end of the chain. The difference dsp active crossovers / speakers and room treatment makes in comparison is massive.

 

[highfell]

Which awards?

What are the criteria for winning those awards?

I have never heard about an audio engineer using Chord DACs.

This is not to say that Chord is bad or good. But awards are hardly evidence of anything you wish to prove.

For example and for details of the various awards , click on the link below:

“HUGO 2 NAMED ‘BEST DAC’ IN EVERY BRITISH HI-FI PRINT MAGAZINE”


https://chordelectronics.co.uk/chord-life/

 

[highfell]

Let me translate what he is saying in lay terms. He is saying you need to wash your dishes one hundred times for them to be clean. In his presentation he admits that he is talking about differences down some 160 dB. There is no converter in the world that does better than 130 dB or so. Yet he is worrying about filter responses that low. That is on top of our hearing range having a dynamic range of 116 dB.

He is performing sighted tests so he has convinced himself that more is better. Which man doesn't think that way. All he has to do is perform one blind test and all of those differences he thinks he is hearing vanish in the air. That is what audio science, signal processing and psychoacoustics tell us. If you want to know what one man thinks based on faulty listening tests, go by what he says.

His theory is laid out here - high level. Clearly, everyone is free to decide whether there is substance to his subsequent design work and those who decide to listen rather than just reply on a test seem to like what they hear. There is a well known saying that applies well here : the proof of the pudding is in the eating


http://www.the-ear.net/how-to/rob-watts-chord-mojo-tech

 

[Purité Audio]

The way magazines work is this, the more you pay, in terms of advertising the better review you get, it really is that simple.
Keith

 

[blackmetalboon]

“I have heard Rob's arguments, but they are not following audio science.”

It must be a coincidence then that from Hugo onwards his DACs are acknowledged to sound so good and win award after award.

Whereas your stats show them to be nothing special.

I wonder who to believe .........

I think you’ll find it was from the DAC64 onwards.

This isn’t the first forum to question methods, claims, measurements and listening tests from Rob Watts.

For example and for details of the various awards , click on the link below:

“HUGO 2 NAMED ‘BEST DAC’ IN EVERY BRITISH HI-FI PRINT MAGAZINE”


https://chordelectronics.co.uk/chord-life/

One of these publications also gave an award to a set of £1,800 speaker cables.

His theory is laid out here - high level. Clearly, everyone is free to decide whether there is substance to his subsequent design work and those who decide to listen rather than just reply on a test seem to like what they hear. There is a well known saying that applies well here : the proof of the pudding is in the eating


http://www.the-ear.net/how-to/rob-watts-chord-mojo-tech

This DAC has positive reviews, both subjectively and objectively. I’m not sure what your problem with this is?

 

[highfell]

I think you’ll find it was from the DAC64 onwards.

This isn’t the first forum to question methods, claims, measurements and listening tests from Rob Watts.



One of these publications also gave an award to a set of £1,800 speaker cables.



This DAC has positive reviews, both subjectively and objectively. I’m not sure what your problem with this is?

I guess I find it strange that a DAC can be judged without listening to it. I would love to review different DACs but how dull if you don’t listen to them.

BTW - you are confusing two different companies Chord (cables) with Chord Electronics(Mojo, Hugo, Dave)

 

[svart-hvitt]

I have played with hq player. Any differences I thought I heard were too small to be of any significant consequence. I have found the same with any dac I have used with variable filters. You can go round in circles finding a particular filter sounds better only to find on a different track something else is better.

Dont forget that HQ player isnt free, quite expensive in fact from memory.

To me this is all dicking around at the wrong end of the chain. The difference dsp active crossovers / speakers and room treatment makes in comparison is massive.

@BE718 , I am in agreement with you. The main reason I use HQ Player is its nice integration with Roon, my speakers are active DSP Genelec 8351 that ideally take 24/96 in. The change of filtering is just an added bonus. I think the poly-sinc is the most natural in lack of a better word. But I am not sure (at all!) I would notice if blinded... Maybe one of the «analog» sounding filters with bigger artefacts are easier to identify blinded?

My point is: Would you be able to make a Chord DAC using a Benchmark with HQ Player? This reminds us of older tests when designers copied special amps, right?

Besides, Jussi Laako of HQP has criticized Chord of bullshit marketing of the tap thing. That is interesting. So either Jussi is bullshitting, or Chord is.

PS: Just one more thing: To have a better understanding of HW and SW also makes better, more intelligent designs. It doesn’t makes sense to have different HW, HW protocols (like HDMI etc.) if changes could be made in SW. It’s really waste to have too much special computing in hardware. Just think about waste management from an environmental point of view if producers insist on doing things in HW instead of SW. More focus on SW could prolong the life of electronic equipment, from DACs to TVs.