Chord Hugo 2 + 2go vs Naim ND5 XS2?

The music normally is in front of me, three dimensional (though with exceptions, like Bill Hubbard’s spoken voice coming from right next to me on Amused to death), and with great clarity. I’d say its like being in tge best sounding position, not too close and not too far…

1 Like

I appreciate the cable management going on here.

Off-topic question but is that recess built into an old fireplace space? Considering doing the same thing.

1 Like

No it’s part of a feature wall we had built as part of a new extension…

3 Likes

I believe this is often said regarding the voicing of Naim amplification generally speaking.

probably a great pairing for their DACs that the forum members acknowledge as having large sound fields and depth- the depth aspect makes me believe the total system sound would likely balance out nicely.

I attempted to like a Topping DAC, but found the house tuning was for spec sheet warfare rather than musicality; typically requires staging and a sense of depth amoungst tonal and timbral characteristics etc.

If I wanted to monitor sounds, the Topping would be fine, but for music- robbing familiar recordings of their depth was too hard to push past for me …

Given DAC sound tuning used to be for musicality, and in the last ten years seems to have leaned heavily on spec sheets only, and ‘internet sales’ and enthusiasts who champion specifications of zero merit to actual listening pleasure…

Whilst my experience of a Chord DAC (Hugo) revealed great staging (size) prowess, an aspect of their high count tap filter processing seems yield fantastic echo/decay but also homogenising said details, a little, in such a way that ABSOLUTE positioning is slightly affected…
compared to equivalent price point parts, other DACs may render a more honest to the recording rendition of stage spacing.

As I do not play an instrument, and do not have tonal/timbral qualities as ‘top of my list’ when comparing DACs; soundstage and dimensionality DO rank very high on my DAC criteria…

Hence why I’d place an iFi Diablo as greater than Chord Hugo, whose rendition of the audio can be slightly altered via subtle positioning cues (echo/decay).
The Topping D90 was so subpar to the aforemention DACs due to its design ideal of ‘best spec sheet’… it renders ruler flat through the stage space robbing recordings of the depth that ‘musically tuned’ DACs have always seemed to focus on.

The subtle differences between an iFi Diablo and a Chord Hugo would require much A/B testing and only teveal itself in key parts of some recordings.
The Topping would also reveal itself, ‘at random moments’, to have none of the stage detail as the ten+ DACs I had on hand or nicer DACs I had experienced going back to the nineties.

Altering a sound electrical circuit to have qualities like live sound is a ‘detuning step’ that DAC development has always required.

Until science based audio webpages started to manipulate the overt truth regarding subjective audio enjoyment…
none of us can prove or deny any of this, our experiences with said kit being subjective opinions…
but the objective facts seem to omit the lionshare of actual work being done to ‘tune for music’.

DAC designers (amp designers etc)have said during interviews that the first build of a circuit might be electrically better (measure better),… but ‘lacks soul’ or musicality.

I’d take any boutique audio brands attempt at a musically focused part over something built cheap and measuring perfectly.

Of course many keyboard warriors in audio forums who believe their whole stack of bargain basement kit (all ‘five star rated’) is ‘the best’. They can even show the spec sheets to PROVE it.

When I was sixteen I bought audio by spec sheet.
By the time I was eighteen I had learned to buy based on weight of kit and original pricepoint (what tier of kit the equipment was built to be sold as).

By pricepoint pretty well dictates audio quality to me, in a way that has been consistant for many many decades…

sure outliers exist where hyper expensive stuff is objectively awful…
but- you get wht you pay for is generally true, and a mid tier or basic DAC chip, built into a ‘better’ circuit- be in layout/power regulation/clock chips/output stages etc… a DAC is so much more that the chips it uses.
Eg filters matter

it can be source dependant though, and my opinion is less useful to some on the basis that I listen mostly to redbook audio (16bit 44khz) mostly.
I have zero need for Sabre DAC chips doing sample rate conversion early in their pipeline as marketing "compatible with ‘all formats’ "sells more…
ESS may dominate the market and offer impressive numbers, but the companys’ design goals have never yielded parts that interest me… (lie: interest, ‘yes’, but seldom deliver, so ‘not interested’)
I’ve been buying ESS chip based sound card solutions for decades (implementation always being key).

ESS, for me, are lower than Cirrus, in the pecking order, with Wolfson and BurrBrown more ‘up the top’.
but there is a tonne of chip options and any given DAC design can yield very different numbers to what the parts are spec’d to deliver.

An expensive DAC (component) using a basic/‘budget’ DAC chip and having a design that yields great music is what most would really want, if we cpuld avoid getting caught up in ‘the numbers game’.

Most DACs perform beat when not pushing the bleeding edge of their capabilities (ie one sampling rate lower than max),… and some designs will sound better when fed certain media…

ie I use Onkyo HF Player (android software) to do on-the-fly PCM to DSD conversion when feeding any ESS based DAC.
ESS chips often chosen for spec sheet bragging rights, yellow belt consumers see a box that is compatible with everything and touts great numbers (happy), but the implementers often blow their budget on the chip (consumer interest) and then skimp of other aspects.
ESS chips using their inbuilt filters, are subpar typically with PCM (certainly vs the same chip processing DSD), and any chip that makes 44khz sound identical at 48khz output (it shouldnt, unless the sample rate conversion is top tier, bot a feature of consumer class crap generally)… makes ESS options, for me, of little to no interest.

DACs have very subtle sound differences and 95% of even the dedicated hobbyists couldn’t care for flavour differences that the market offers. (but MQA and format compatibility seems to be legit concerns for hobbyists).

I like nice transports and Non OverSampling, and hearing analogue sound that is actually natural.

(but I’m a kook who thinks HDCD should have proliferated and that humans need nothing more than 20bit sound we had in the mid to late nineties).

I have three DACs that use (well implemented) ESS chips. It is the other aspects of those DACs that have made them keepers…
Burson Conductor V2+ uses an eight channel Sabre DAC chip in two channel mode because auditioning revealed more musical. (most DAC implementers would rather pair the channels in a dual differential array and quote the better electrical numbers; but Burson engineered for music and not ‘spec sheet warfare’)…
an Astell&Kern SP2000t has a tube output stage and when using the tubes, the DAP is ‘quite listenable’; great ‘mini bedside setup’.

The 4x ESS DAC chips can output in opamp mode and for electronic genres, might offer some bass improvements and fast transients that might make a more engaging listen for some music genres…
and this is where my several notions tie together; *Music genre can dictate DAC preferences
*Music file formats can benefit certain DAC topologies (ie DSD wrapper for ESS DAC chips) through to older DAC chips that make redbook sound fantastic, if only due to using an offchip filter such as the PMD100)
*DACs are about the design of the whole circuit and not just the DAC chip alone

An (older) expensive DAC by an audio brand I’d take over many many modern DACs that ‘measure well’ and read like they are better parts.

By pricepoint, DACs DO improve massively,… but often will want matching kit.

eg my DACs’ Non Oversampling mode has a tolerance control for the digital feed that alters perceivable sound quality.

Default setting is ‘compatible’ (ie loose tolerances and heavy guesswork), and when I set it to tight tolerances some of my sources are NOT GOOD ENOUGH to feed a stream that works/‘sounds good’.

If I had a great DAC and an average or subpar transport, then I am limiting what the DAC can do…

some say transports don’t matter (much)… and for some equipment that is very likely true.
modern budget kit will be compatible with everything and work with everything fed to it. (it may not sound the best or scale upwards with better feeds, or even -it may require hi res streams to sound equivalent to redbook, 16bit 44khz on ‘better DACs’)

our experience with these products is the limit of our understanding typically, and most will not get past the wall of noise that is armchair experts stipulating that only spec sheets matter and that digital is zeros and ones and hence cables don’t matter etc
I’ve toyed with DACs, and digital cables since the early nineties; when I believed that fibre optic would be better than coax for digital tranmission.
By the year 2000 I learned that 50$ COAX cable often equalled $150 of Toslink cables for sound quality.

most rules I lived by are guidelines, at best, generally speaking…
ie the old rule for DACs was seven years = one tier… such that buying a seven year dated DAC probably meant you would find similar sound quality in the price tier lower.

hence why Hugo are still a great buy, but a Mojo2 is probably on many peoples shortlist.

DAC requirements for those not listening to orchestral and choirs exclusively does become a lot easier to buy something ‘good enough’…

4 Likes

Can you make a summary in 15/20 words, please ?
:joy:

1 Like

sure I write in a FORUM. some jere enjoy a distration and enjoy reading.
I understand my FREELY given words and thoughts do not suit everyone, or even ‘many’/‘the majority’.

The smiley face, whilst no doubt will net some ‘likes’, says a lot to me.

oh dear-already more than twenty words stuck in formalities. (Oh No!)

I write in a method that aids some to understand.
(back up concepts with example, personal observation regarding the theme and topic, and without typical hobby abbreviations, or, explained nonmenclature where possible)
I agree my writing style isnt for everyone, and, due to my persistence to use a phone (and hence a 1" diagonal box to type this in); HARD to edit and maintain…

I do acknowledge TIME is a precious resource for ALL of us, and it is rude for me to assume anyone should need invest time in interpreting me.

but not paid to be here, I will interpret a loving tone of voice in the above text… (and treat the wry smile as that of a nervous child)

1 Like

I for one enjoyed the detail in that essay! Glad I’m not the only one with that experience in my teens/early twenties, though I now understand the look on the face of the HiFi shopkeeper when I asked for something with a frequency response down to 50hz and a power of 200W RMS - it makes me cringe thinking about it now haha.

1 Like

There has been a bit of an unfortunately development since creating this thread, I’m renovating my home and it now transpires the roof needs replacing which has put a sudden five-figure dent in the finances… The Chord Hugo 2 + 2go or ND5 XS2 with a Supernait 3 or XS3 and things in that price bracket will have to wait for now. However, this discussion has been super helpful because after @Xanthe and @frenchrooster mentioned the NAC-N 272 I’ve done a bit more homework on it and decided for now to pick up a pre-owned one with the latest software on it from a Naim authorised HiFi dealer as a compromise and experiment with UPnP using the headphone output for a bit to test out the setup then pick up a NAP 250 DR unless there is some major issue that causes me to return the 272.

@whitedragem @Rafael Et al. thanks for your insights into the DACs, Streamers, Network Transports. I need to look into the source components a bit more but for now I’ve got the UPnP option and the Bluesound Node 2 (and also the DAC in the AVR850) to experiment with before upgrading further. I like the idea of just adding a transport for convenience if the DAC and the pre-amplifier in the 272 is still considered half decent by current standards then ultimately going for something better when I can justify it.

5 Likes

Don’t worry. Your analysis and personal experience with dacs was interesting to read.
I was joking because it may be the longest post on the forum I could read.
Don’t believe I was laughing from you. Just kidding.

1 Like

Sorry to hear that - and yes, real world things can wreak havoc with plans!

1 Like

Well, thanks for all the advice, the 272 turned up this week, I’ve had to move out temporarily due to the building works and have it setup as a ‘portable’ headphone amplifier in the spare room I’m in, probably not quite how Naim intended… I have to say as the first item of Naim equipment I’ve bought, although it wasn’t what I was originally after at the start of this thread, I am very happy with the build quality and capability, it’s a lovely thing, sounds really good to me even just using it with my old Sennheiser headphones sat on the probably the least HiFi furniture there is. Can’t wait to get it up and running with a NAP250 and my B&W 706 S3s / DB4S (and off a chest of draws onto the Atacama rack!).

Last question - standalone streamer vs UPnP?

The 272 seems to work fine with Qobuz via Bubblesoft UPnP, on a wired connection it can handle 192Hz 24bit content. I’ve ordered a Primare NP5 MkII streamer but now I am wondering is there actually much advantage to using the dedicated streamer versus UPnP or am I basically spending more money to be able to use the Qobuz GUI instead of the Bubblesoft GUI? I did a bit of reading and the best I could find was a piece written by Roon on timing issues with UPnP meaning a dedicated streamer can theoretically yield better sound quality.

Have a great weekend all!

2 Likes

What exactly do you mean by Bubblesoft UPnP? People often don’t distinguish between the Bubble app on Android and BubbleUPnP Server. I haven’t used the former, but the latter, run on a NAS or computer, consistently sounds better than the internal streamer on the Naim streamers I’ve used it with.

If, as an alternative, you use a third party streamer and bypass the one in the 272 the benefits are going to depend on the quality of the hardware you choose, so I guess you’ll just have to try it out.

Sorry I meant BubbleUPnP, as in the BubbleUPnP application that is installed on the Android phone. I don’t have NAS I just launch the BubbleUPnP app on my phone, select Qobuz for example and then play tracks. On the 272 I just pick UPnP as the input. Apart from being unable to seek using the app on the phone it seems to be streaming fine. What I am wondering is whether it is worth using the Primare NP5 MkII instead of BubbleUPnP or cancelling the order if there shouldn’t technically be a difference as one solution is a hundred times more expensive than the other.

Also note that the Primare NP5 MkII benefits greatly from the use of a better, lower noise power supply (doesn’t have to be a linear, the better SMPS also work well).

And.

The paperwork that comes with the NP5 advises it take time to burn in. :blush:

1 Like

“timing advantages”; is this simply the notion of a wrapper or “re-encode” adds milliseconds to the audio feed?

if so
for audio only feeds isn’t an issue.

a video feed with an audio delay is a problem (sometimes)…
but if the audio timing difference between two bits of kit doesn’t actually affect you, any advantage there is theorhetical mostly and not to even worry about or give consideration towards…

I haven’t read the source materials and therefore am not sure if it is 'time domain of some frequencies or something else…, but the so called ‘timing advantages’ might need aome clarity.

DO keep on burning kit in.
(headphone socket on a new piece of Naim kit got noticeably better with initial use, a.k.a. ‘break-in’/electrical and peoduct settling’.

as long as the building doesn’t shake, not sure advantages of rack/surface control for the equipment WHEN USING HEADPHONES: Speakers; ‘sure thing’, they vibrate everything in the room with their audio output.

If your headphones vibrate equipment f om their audio output, erm, not sure which joke to run with…
(“buy earplugs to save hearing damage” mayhaps?)

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.