CHORD Hugo TT2 Review (DAC & HP Amp)

[Jimbob54]

Did anyone miss that? I thought it was clear from the get go, but my sarcastic mind is apparently special that way?

John is just advocate of the devil here. He’s merely voicing what other may possibly think about this and what can be done to take these thoughts away.

John has been expressing his concerns about the quality/ reliability of Topping (and other similar lower cost/ performance leading brands) for some time now in his posts. To an extent I share some of his concerns in that regard.

But regardless of intent or possible misinterpretation, that post of his was over the line on many counts and there ain't no getting around that.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

Selling used stuff is a whole other Pandora's Box of issues and weirdo buyers. . . You're probably safer and better off just stock piling all that stuff.

I can offer permanent storage.
for free!

 

[AdamG247]

Have you read what is written about ASR and Amir in particular at other places? The answer is a resounding: Yes!

Many outside Forums are eager to sow distrust and attempt to divide us. Create doubt and stir fighting from within. When you expose snakes in their dens, expect some of them to try to strike back. The truth is cutting into their sales and profits. With every new Headless Panther review we make more enemies. But we also draw new Members who seek out the facts and want to see the performance data. Let’s not allow them to divide our Community and work here. Ask your questions but leave the accusations and hostility behind. Give us the benefit of the doubt as you would ask of us. If you are a member here we are on the same team. Trying to change the industry as best we can. JMHO here as I speak only for myself.

 

[voodooless]

Ask your questions but leave the accusations and hostility behind.

They were literal questions, not accusations. At least I never read them that way.

The rest I can largely agree with for sure.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

. . . With every new Headless Panther review we make more enemies. Ask your questions but leave the accusations and hostility behind.

Amen!
+1

 

[Axo1989]

They were literal questions, not accusations. At least I never read them that way.

The rest I can largely agree with for sure.

I read them this way also. As @restorer-john is also from Australia, we may have a different approach to these issues.

I think it is useful and necessary to separate flagging an issue (like conflict of interest) with asserting the negative consequence (like review bias, etc). The former does not presume the latter. Some of the responses here are conflating these and jumping to defence/counter-attack. There is nothing really out of/over the line in @restorer-john's commentary.*

We've see admission/clarification from @amirm that negative reviews are withheld and that a substantial material interest has accrued (per the photo). To clarify, by admission I simply mean to admit to the scope of discussion, without any presumption that unethical behaviour has occurred. The suggestion that these things be accounted for explicitly and transparently (via a register or other means) is entirely prudent.

I've already noted that the source of review samples is routinely disclosed in each review, as it should be.

*Edit: his view on reliability of certain products may be contentious, however ... I probably agree with him what a real amp looks like, that's neither here nor there but you may take it as a declaration of interest

 

[Axo1989]

... The biggest issue IMO with a site like this proclaiming independence and objectivity is the provision of products supplied as review samples with no expectation of the return of said items. It has been brought up by me (and others) years ago with the suggestion of a live register of 'free/gifted' products so people reading those 'unbiased' reviews can familiarize themselves with any gifts/samples that preceded those reviews.

Anything else is not transparent, and neither does a vague 'it was provided by the company' quote. That does not describe whether the item is on temporary loan, optional return, should be destroyed after review, is essentially a gift, or other possibilities.

What Amir does with the stuff is anyone's guess. He has been opaque in the past and continues to be so. Some brands clearly would like to curry favour one way or another, but I am reasonably confident things are above board. Clarification however is needed.

Better as a new post than n edit: if disclosure of review samples doesn't specify loan or gift, etc. I agree this should be addressed to achieve transparency. My earlier comments were made in ignorance of the scope of sample provision.

Per @amirm's earlier response, merely disavowing personal use value doesn't obviate a material interest. One or more of the measures suggested above would prudently be undertaken (I reckon).

 

[Axo1989]

Another thought: as well as national cultural difference, my background was government (regulatory agencies) while Majidimehr was private sector, which often means a different approach to these issues. I'm not asserting shortcomings, now I am private sector and ASR is (I think) non-profit public interest. Things change and we adjust.

 

[Lupin]

This is till a product review thread...
I believe this discussion should've moved to it's own thread like 10+ pages ago..

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

Did anyone miss that? I thought it was clear from the get go, but my sarcastic mind is apparently special that way?

John is just advocate of the devil here. He’s merely voicing what other may possibly think about this and what can be done to take these thoughts away.

The "thoughts" could be completely "taken away", by Amir stopping what he is doing, and closing the site. Can you guys point me towards a good replacement site, in that event, please?

 

[voodooless]

The "thoughts" could be completely "taken away", by Amir stopping what he is doing, and closing the site. Can you guys point me towards a good replacement site, in that event, please?

What would that solve? Any other site that would be comparable would incur the same wrath.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

The "thoughts" could be completely "taken away", by Amir stopping what he is doing, and closing the site. Can you guys point me towards a good replacement site, in that event, please?

My wife - How was your dinner?
Me - Wonderful, thank you darling.
Wife - but you didn't finish your stew! did you not like it?
Me - it is very good, just a little spicy for me tonight.
Wife - that's it, I am never going to cook again, eat somewhere else from now on!

Does that sound familiar?

 

[JSmith]

There's an ol' saying "It's not what you say, it's the way that you say it"... Head-Fi is imploding, so let's not let any of that seep in here.

This is till a product review thread...
I believe this discussion should've moved to it's own thread like 10+ pages ago..

Agree... these circular discussions become arduous.

These are the kind of facts mixed with fiction we should be addressing and calling out;

It is also obvious to me that if you had a small tap length filter, then the errors would present themselves as an error in the timing of transients. Now a transient is when the signal suddenly changes, and from my physiology of hearing studies transients are a vital perception cue, being involved in lateral sound-stage positioning, timbre, pitch perception and clearly with the perception of the starting and stopping of notes. So how are we to evaluate the changes in perception with tap length? Only by carefully structured listening tests.

So Mr R Watts (yeah, we know you're reading ASR posts now)... you say blind tests are stressful, yet say back in 2016 that tap length can only be heard by "carefully structured listening tests". Please explain to your followers which current DAC's have a "small tap length", how same is insufficient and audible during or outside of whatever you define as a "structured listening test".

Over the many years I have developed listening tests that tries to objectively and accurately assess sound quality.

This comment really needs some clarification in 2022;

So it is possible that small errors - for which the ears can't resolve on its own - become much more important when they interfere with the brains processing of the ear data. This is my explanation for why I have often reliably heard errors that are well below the threshold of hearing but nonetheless become audibly significant - because these errors interfere with the brains processing of ear data - a process of which science is ignorant off.

Wow... I thought they were stressful?

Do blind listening tests. If you are either unsure about your assessment, or want confirmation then do a single blind listening test where the other listener is told to listen to A or B. Don't leak expectation, or ask for value judgements - just ask them to describe the sound without them knowing what is A or B.

Yet... no one has ever seen repeatable results from your blind tests. I can only gather a bind test is different to your "structured listening test"?

...more than 4 hours of structured AB listening tests means I lose the desire to live.

Well, I suppose that certainly sounds stressful.

Don't be afraid of hearing no reliable difference at all. Indeed, my listening tests are at their best when I can hear no change when adjusting a variable - it means I have hit the bottom of the barrel in terms of perception of a particular distortion or error, and this is actually what I want to accomplish.

Where are the results of those?

... the actual listening tests

Are these blind... or?

Don't listen to your wallet. Many people expect a more expensive product to be naturally better - ignore it - the correlation between price and performance is tenuous.

Don't listen to the brand. Just because it is a brand with a cult following means nothing. Ignore what it looks like too.

Does this reasoning apply to Chord DAC's... ol' Dave or Hugo TT2? It really seems the tune has changed since 2016...


JSmith

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

My wife - How was your dinner?
Me - Wonderful, thank you darling.
Wife - but you didn't finish your stew! did you not like it?
Me - it is very good, just a little spicy for me tonight.
Wife - that's it, I am never going to cook again, eat somewhere else from now on!

Does that sound familiar?

I've never had the pleasure of meeting your wife, so, no!

 

[amirm]

My wife - How was your dinner?
Me - Wonderful, thank you darling.
Wife - but you didn't finish your stew! did you not like it?
Me - it is very good, just a little spicy for me tonight.
Wife - that's it, I am never going to cook again, eat somewhere else from now on!

Does that sound familiar?

Only after you tell her that every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Seems people don't know how to apply their everyday sensibilities to conduct here. Think what you are accomplishing before hitting reply. I am not your wife and can leave you with much less friction.

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

What would that solve? Any other site that would be comparable would incur the same wrath.

It would solve the problem of where to find the enormous value which Amir gives everyone here.
I'm pretty sure there isn't such a site, but I saw no harm in asking the question.

 

[AdamG247]

Did I 'directly mention' you specifically? No. I'll take that as an apology...

I posed a rhetorical question. Esoteric concept perhaps. So, unless you are feeling particularly guilty in some way, please relax and just chill out.

Amir is the one with the massive pile of cheap Asian boxed gear cluttering his garage (see his pics), not me. He is the one championing so called 'engineering excellence' with products from manufactuers that are failing, left, right and centre. It's not my credibility that is being trashed, thank goodness.

I call for accountability and honesty. Not much to ask for a so-called objective site is it?

As we grow older and hopefully wiser. We are more attuned to recognizing and attempting to repairing our mistakes and errors. Realizing that communication using only typed words can and is easily misunderstood. My response to John did not give him the benefit of the doubt, was shortsighted and unhelpful. I reached out to John privately to apologize and John has graciously accepted. Thank you John.

 

[Robbo99999]

As we grow older and hopefully wiser. We are more attuned to recognizing and attempting to repairing our mistakes and errors. Realizing that communication using only typed words can and is easily misunderstood. My response to John did not give him the benefit of the doubt, was shortsighted and unhelpful. I reached out to John privately to apologize and John has graciously accepted. Thank you John.

(I've been tracking these conversations.....for what it's worth, I don't think you needed to apologise to him at all.)

 

[AdamG247]

(I've been tracking these conversations.....for what it's worth, I don't think you needed to apologise to him at all.)

It’s not needing to, it’s more about wanting to and getting beyond this to reach a better understanding of the underlying issues. Ending the conversation here does not help us achieve mutual understanding of the issues and problems. My methods are how I would want to be treated. At the end of the day you might be right and I’m wrong. But my Job is to Moderate and I don’t think I did that well in this case. Appreciate your input though.

 

[Robbo99999]

It’s not needing to, it’s more about wanting to and getting beyond this to reach a better understanding of the underlying issues. Ending the conversation here does not help us achieve mutual understanding of the issues and problems. My methods are how I would want to be treated. At the end of the day you might be right and I’m wrong. But my Job is to Moderate and I don’t think I did that well in this case. Appreciate your input though.

Yes, I understand, and it's certainly your call, just I wanted to offer my support & view to what I thought was right. (By the way I think restorer-john is a good guy with quite some knowledge....just I think he had an aberration that day.)