• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). There are daily reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Chord Hugo 2 Review (Portable DAC & HP Amp)

Rate this DAC & HP Amp

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 75 26.7%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 109 38.8%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther

    Votes: 81 28.8%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 16 5.7%

  • Total voters
    281

maxxevv

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 12, 2018
Messages
1,845
Likes
1,935
Looks like you are making the same mistake twice.



If course it can. Without measuring the device, conclusions based on images are speculative. Being "quite sure" makes no difference. Dimensionally perfect product photos require rigs with fine adjustment, suitable flat plane lenses and so on. I've used these. I'm sure you can try it yourself.

I also analyse photographic images as scientific evidence, professionally so I'm being as precise as possible in this discussion. The images we are discussing may indicate off-centre objects, but they may not. The conditions under which these images are produced are insufficiently controlled.
From what I see, you seem to be shifting the goalposts as the discussion progresses.

I agree with @thewas and the others who aren't so apologetic about a "less than perfect" product manufacture.
 

Axo1989

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 9, 2022
Messages
735
Likes
572
Nope, the image is taken very parallel to the device and again such an large horizontal relative offset cannot happen, a lens deformation cannot just offset the centre of connector and not the few millimetres casing radius around it, especially at such a similar depth.

The device doesn't appear to be parallel to the image sensor plane. Assuming the same object height on left and right sides (can we?) the left height is 355 pixels and the right is 362 (or 363, the top pixel row RHS us somewhat ambiguous and I'm giving you the benefit of any uncertainty).

index.php


So do I and I can see when an offset is possible from due to lens deformation and when not. ...

Disregarding the angle, the lighting is sufficiently different on each side of the socket to prevent accurately establishing the inner edges for a pixel measurement. I agree with you that it looks offset in that image. You are concluding that means it is offset based on speculative analysis. I've confirmed one objective error in that analysis so far, you may have made more.

We can certainly ask others to measure. Are they good at measuring physical objects? Do we trust them? How many examples should they measure, etc. What tolerances indicate quality for the device. What unit-to-unit variation is acceptable? How rigidly should connectors be mounted, etc. I judge you as pretty smart based on your posting. I imagine these things cross your mind also.
 

DonR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Messages
1,220
Likes
2,151
Location
Vancouver(ish)
Any gaps or misalignments that may exist are probably perfectly acceptable for a hand-finished device as long as they are not obviously and grossly out of alignment and as long as the plugs fit without issue it is of little consequence. The jacks being loose, however, is unacceptable even in a sub $100 product.
 

thewas

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
4,757
Likes
10,568
I've confirmed one objective error in that analysis so far, you may have made more.
Which objective error?

We can certainly ask others to measure. Are they good at measuring physical objects? Do we trust them?
Jesus, it is not rocket since, do you think that someone like Amir cannot measure or even see if it is misaligned? We are not talking about μ but something easily visible to the bare eye. Also if we place the question if we can trust Amir or not makes this whole forum and reviews pointless.

How many examples should they measure, etc.
We are not doing statistical analysis here, just discussing if this single $2950 unit has acceptable visible quality, so also questions like

What tolerances indicate quality for the device. What unit-to-unit variation is acceptable? How rigidly should connectors be mounted, etc.
are not the topic here. Also we don't discuss the quality standards and acceptable tolerances of the manufacturing company which we don't know unless they give a statement, just that for me and others such a visible misaligned isn't acceptable at that price level. Other might see it differently, for example a typical buyer of a Morgan has different expectations on panel gap widths than an Audi one, so it is an individual thing.
 
Last edited:

Jimster480

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 26, 2018
Messages
2,187
Likes
1,465
Location
Tampa Bay
Which objective error?


Jesus, it is not rocket since, do you think that someone like Amir cannot measure or even see if it is misaligned? We are not talking about μ but something easily visible to the bare eye. Also if we place the question if we can trust Amir or not makes this whole forum and reviews pointless.


We are not doing statistical analysis here, just discussing if this single $2950 unit has acceptable visible quality, so also questions like


are not the topic here. Also we don't discuss the quality standards and acceptable tolerances of the manufacturing company which we don't know unless they give a statement, just that for me and others such a visible misaligned isn't acceptable at that price level. Other might see it differently, for example a typical buyer of a Morgan has different expectations on panel gap widths than an Audi one, so it is an individual thing.
I agree, the quality is offputting considering the item is so expensive. My Topping products don't have mis-aligned RCA connectors for 1/100th of the price. Considering we already know the profit margin on these devices is likely around 1000%; they are really pinching pennies to make all the profit they can. Showing their care for quality and attention to detail. When you are making such margins per product; you can afford to send them back.
 

Axo1989

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 9, 2022
Messages
735
Likes
572
Which objective error?

You said parallel. I looked at the image and thought the right side is closer than the left. I realised I'd have to check, and it checked out. Taking that and your response to the original photo I conclude that we discriminate differently when evaluating images.

For the rest, I write in paragraphs because the thoughts are related, If you are going to take single sentences out and argue them, you'll go anywhere you like. That said:

Jesus, it is not rocket since, do you think that someone like Amir cannot measure or even see if it is misaligned? We are not talking about μ but something easily visible to the bare eye. Also if we place the question if we can trust Amir or not makes this whole forum and reviews pointless.

Not at all. ASR has undertaken hundreds of reviews with electronic measurements, we have a feel for how that's working. I can't recall any physical analysis, I've no idea how that would stack up. You've played with vernier callipers perhaps, measuring plastic mouldings and aluminium castings will be a bit rough.

We are not doing statistical analysis here, just discussing if this single $2950 unit has acceptable visible quality, so also questions like ... are not the topic here. Also we don't discuss the quality standards and acceptable tolerances of the manufacturing company which we don't know unless they give a statement, just that for me and others such a visible misaligned isn't acceptable at that price level. Other might see it differently, for example a typical buyer of a Morgan has different expectations on panel gap widths than an Audi one, so it is an individual thing.

You invoked acceptable visible quality. My post was about inferences from images. Photo variability vs unit variability is entirely relevant.

If it's relevant, I personally prefer Apple's fit and finish. I recall Jony Ive's dulcet tones explaining how robots sorted and matched SIM card carriers to chassis slots to overcome CNC machining tolerances. I also recall images of an Apple store fitout aligning expansion joints in the concrete footpath outside to the internals. Not many companies can do that.
 
Last edited:

thewas

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
4,757
Likes
10,568
You said parallel. I looked at the image and thought the right side is closer than the left. I realised I'd have to check, and it checked out. Taking that and your response to the original photo I conclude that we discriminate differently when evaluating images.
Again, even if it is slightly closer that wouldn't explain how only one of the two supposedly identical centres would be shifted like that, especially when they have almost the same depth.

Not at all. ASR has undertaken hundreds of reviews with electronic measurements, we have a feel for how that's working. I can't recall any physical analysis, I've no idea how that would stack up. You've played with vernier callipers perhaps, measuring plastic mouldings and aluminium castings will be a bit rough.
We are going in circles, no need for "physical analysis" when something is obviously visibly off-centred, that could be even measured with a ruler. And yes, as someone with mechanical engineering background I have "played enough with calipers".
 

Ken Tajalli

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 8, 2021
Messages
722
Likes
398
Location
London UK
I wonder:
Look at these.

1660313148012.png
1660313227008.png

1660313268749.png
1660313314453.png


They are all from Hugo2.
The left ones are from a new review of an overpriced USB cable, that frankly does its job but no more.
The ones on the right are from this review!
Same device.
Before I go any further, I accept that Hugo2 is sensitive to ground loop noise. It does not have isolation on USB, and as a portable device the ground loop issue is a non-issue.
Hugo2 can also act as desktop DAC.
But it seems somehow, from somewhere, during this test and measurement, a fair bit of noise got into the system, specially the right channel, and the unit was reviewed and measured under these conditions.
 

Jimster480

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 26, 2018
Messages
2,187
Likes
1,465
Location
Tampa Bay
I wonder:
Look at these.

View attachment 223792 View attachment 223794
View attachment 223795 View attachment 223796

They are all from Hugo2.
The left ones are from a new review of an overpriced USB cable, that frankly does its job but no more.
The ones on the right are from this review!
Same device.
Before I go any further, I accept that Hugo2 is sensitive to ground loop noise. It does not have isolation on USB, and as a portable device the ground loop issue is a non-issue.
Hugo2 can also act as desktop DAC.
But it seems somehow, from somewhere, during this test and measurement, a fair bit of noise got into the system, specially the right channel, and the unit was reviewed and measured under these conditions.
Where do you see that from these graphs?
 

Ken Tajalli

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 8, 2021
Messages
722
Likes
398
Location
London UK
Were you unable to read the question? Looking at the graphs I don't see specifically that there is more noise in one channel in only one review that isn't present in the other review.
So, on left graph and right graph you see no increased noise? both are same to you ?
The one with "variable usb noise", both channels are equal?
No need to get confrontational, I could read the question fine, just didn't get your meaning.
Peace.
 

Jimster480

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 26, 2018
Messages
2,187
Likes
1,465
Location
Tampa Bay
So, on left graph and right graph you see no increased noise? both are same to you ?
The one with "variable usb noise", both channels are equal?
No need to get confrontational, I could read the question fine, just didn't get your meaning.
Peace.
Those aren't channels dude. One is with one input and the other is with another input.
Also there are no left and right graphs. They are in a row.
 

KMO

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Aug 9, 2021
Messages
570
Likes
768
Jimster480, you seem to be seriously grasping the wrong end of a few sticks here.

Possibly because you're not seeing the post with the same formatting Ken and I are, which is a 2x2 set of images. I'd imagine you still want to be comparing leftmost versus rightmost of the same type of graph. (Or maybe you're not seeing the right graphs altogether?)

Ken's point is that the USB tests in the Hugo 2 review show significantly more noise than was shown when the Hugo 2 was later used for testing the Audioquest USB cable. Something needs to be explained there.

Red and blue are left and right channels on the FFT noise graphs.

Aside from the graphs, the numbers were 102-106dB SINAD in the Hugo 2 review, and 111-112dB SINAD in the USB cable review.

So in the USB cable review, the Hugo 2's USB performance matched what we saw from its TOSLink in its own review. The Hugo 2 review concluded that its USB wasn't as good as its TOSLink, and did all further tests using the TOSLink...

Either there's something causing inconsistent USB performance in the Hugo 2, or Amir just had a test fault that day.
 
Last edited:

KMO

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Aug 9, 2021
Messages
570
Likes
768
@TabCam has just pointed out the discrepancy over on the other review thread, possibly more clearly:

 

Jimster480

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 26, 2018
Messages
2,187
Likes
1,465
Location
Tampa Bay
Jimster480, you seem to be seriously grasping the wrong end of a few sticks here.

Possibly because you're not seeing the post with the same formatting Ken and I are, which is a 2x2 set of images. I'd imagine you still want to be comparing leftmost versus rightmost of the same type of graph. (Or maybe you're not seeing the right graphs altogether?)

Ken's point is that the USB tests in the Hugo 2 review show significantly more noise than was shown when the Hugo 2 was later used for testing the Audioquest USB cable. Something needs to be explained there.

Red and blue are left and right channels on the FFT noise graphs.

Aside from the graphs, the numbers were 102-106dB SINAD in the Hugo 2 review, and 111-112dB SINAD in the USB cable review.

So in the USB cable review, the Hugo 2's USB performance matched what we saw from its TOSLink in its own review. The Hugo 2 review concluded that its USB wasn't as good as its TOSLink, and did all further tests using the TOSLink...

Either there's something causing inconsistent USB performance in the Hugo 2, or Amir just had a test fault that day.
I understand now what is being said.
The graphs showing top to bottom and comparing channels is what was throwing me off.
I thought one was from another forum entirely.
However mentioning that the performance was better in the other review while using the audio quest cable does indeed raise a question. Maybe a re-review or correction is in order.
However maybe there were other changes.
 

KMO

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Aug 9, 2021
Messages
570
Likes
768
Maybe the Audio Quest cable actually does boost SINAD by 6dB+, compared to whatever cable Amir was using for the original test!
 
Top Bottom