Firstly, let me thank Relic and Barra for organizing the Hugo2 tours. It’s been a great opportunity to demo and now – my very first formal – review. I’ve been a huge fan of Chord since receiving my Mojo shortly after launch in October 2015. I didn’t demo it but took a chance based on the head-fi thread and other reviews. I said and continue to think that in all my years of audio, it has been the best investment I have made. This is mostly in “bang for the buck” terms, but also generally speaking, as I haven’t felt the need to upgrade or try many other options, as I have with preamps, amps, speakers and headphones.
In December 2015 I heard Rob Watts speak and demo the Dave (he even signed my Mojo!), and it was a revelation. While the Dave was only played through speakers in a room full of people, a Mozart piano piece was played alternately on Dave and another high-end DAC (forget which). It was amazingly apparent to all how much better the Dave was at resolving the piano and the timing of the notes. Better than Mojo, obviously, even from that brief listening. This is what I am looking for in Hugo2. (I have never heard the original Hugo or any other Chord DAC.)
And so, the focus of my Hugo2 review will be “Do I need to upgrade?” This is the question every Mojo owner is asking themselves. If it helps, I’ve been seriously into audio for over 30 years. I didn’t get seriously into personal audio until about 3 years ago, and quickly went up the learning and equipment curve. Most of my listening is done via Roon (Apple lossless and AIFF or Tidal hifi), Mojo, Cavalli Liquid Carbon and HifiMan HE-6s (highly modified). I find it a most harmonious combination. About half my listening is alternative/indie rock from the 80’s to the present. About 20% is classical and jazz, with the balance a bit of everything else (but not much pop or country).
I’ll skip all the unboxing and how-it-works commentary, as these have been well reported already. Photography is not a strength of mine, but I have some comparison shots so people get a sense of the different dimensions. I will say, the Mojo interface is simple and works well after a brief learning curve, and Hugo2 is similar, but with more functions, a bit more confusing. The remote is a gift in this regard, particularly in a desktop application. I would not see using the Hugo2 in place of a Mojo or similarly sized DAC, given its size, cost, and complexity of operation, particularly the volume, for on-the-go use.
SOUND - Headphones
As mentioned, all listening was done using CD-quality files either streamed or directly connected. Streaming was done primarily through Airport Express and optical or from a Western Digital Wireless Duo to iPhone with USB out. I did all the testing using battery power only on all devices. My initial listening was using the HE-6 headphones (quite inefficient) powered by the Emotiva BasX A-100 speaker amp. Hugo2 has great bass impact, with Mojo sounding slightly muddy in comparison. Up top, Hugo2 sounded “brittle” and not smooth, like Mojo does. This was evident on several tracks from 10,000 Maniacs Unplugged album.
In this first session, I also noticed two additional things that held up throughout the listening time: the timing reproduction is so amazing that you get the sense the Hugo2 is playing more notes than the Mojo on the same tracks. It’s a similar effect to getting Mojo from something non-Chord, but more so. It’s like listening to the 1981 Glenn Gould Goldberg Variations and then switching to the 1955 version, when he is younger, playing faster and more technically, and with more repeats in the arrangement. The other observation was that much of the tonal difference was in the midrange, where both male and female voices were lacking some body and fullness, compared to Mojo. I think this is due to some increased presence in the 250-300 Hz range on Mojo (around middle C on the piano) or decrease in Hugo2 and another increase in Hugo2 in the ~1kHz (maybe as high as 2kHz?) range compared to Mojo. I wish we had more details from Rob Watts on how he “tuned Mojo to be warmer.”
In the treble, the Hugo2 has more detail and air. This contributes to the wider soundstage, which was generally also more focused, than that of Mojo. I think of the difference almost like two different rooms or halls. Hugo2 is a performance in a larger, livelier hall, while Mojo is the same performance in a more intimate venue. Along these lines, several times when Mojo was plugged in, I forgot I was supposed to be listening and just got caught up in the music. (Cliché, but it really surprised me and I wrote it down, because I was supposed to be “working”!)
The bass was also deeper and more detailed, faster and clearer on the Hugo2. This is one area where there was clear superiority with no trade-offs, in my opinion. This was apparent on most tracks, but stood out with I’m So Lonesome I Could Cry and Sweet Jane from the Cowboy Junkies’ Trinity Sessions, as well as Eric Clapton Unplugged.
After this combo, I tried the Hugo2 directly with the HE-6. Amazingly, it drove them to very satisfying levels with really good results. The most transparent I have been able to hear those phones. I think this is a real strength of the H2. While Mojo can drive almost anything, I would say that the Hugo2 actually can drive anything. It would depend on the type of music, and your listening levels, but for reasonable levels of rock, jazz, and classical music, it was a great experience that you cannot get from Mojo. There may be some brain burn-in by this point, or the Emotiva may be to blame, but HE-6 direct from H2 is a good combo.
Other headphone combinations were HE-6 with Cavalli Liquid Carbon and the H2 directly with the AudioQuest NightHawks, the thinksound ON2s, and the FLC 8S iems. With the LC, the smoothness returned to the top end, removing the brittleness I heard with the Emotiva. But, on some tracks, there was still a bit of glare present. This may be the state of modern recording given the loudness wars, but I was trying to use some of the best-recorded tracks. While the detail was there with the H2, the “I got tubes” feeling with the LC just wasn’t as present when being fed by the Hugo2 compared to the Mojo.
Using the thinksound ON2s, I noted clean sound with no mid bloom, but slightly thin sounding piano on Pink Floyd’s San Tropez (from Meddle), which is a great all-around track for testing out gear. Compared to the Mojo, which exhibited some mid-bass bloom but a more natural sounding piano. Overall, the thinksound’s sounded pretty good on the H2, more clear and detailed than with Mojo, and easier to make out the lyrics in tracks. This is despite the tendency for people to think of these as slightly bright headphones, so go figure.
The AQ NightHawks (I’ve changed the pads to the HM5 sheepskin) are generally full, clean, slightly rolled sounding with the Mojo. With the Hugo2, they sounded faster, with a similar sweet presentation, but with vocals still not quite as full as Mojo. The X-PHD ‘1’ setting (red) seemed to improve this presentation. (More on X-PHD later.) In fact the AQ was the headphone where overall the Hugo2 was preferred to the Mojo.
The FLC 8S (used with red bass filter, grey mid filter, and gunmetal nozzle) were more of a toss-up between Hugo2 and Mojo. In several cases, Mojo could have more balanced and smooth sound, but H2 could also be sweet with more detail and better vocals, if a bit less dynamic sounding. Certainly the Hugo2 was more resolving than the Mojo, even in the bass, but maybe not quite as impactful.
SOUND – Speakers
I got into personal audio because my family – shockingly – didn’t appreciate me hushing them while I blasted speakers throughout the house for hours on end. Now that we’re empty nesters, my wife still doesn’t appreciate it, but I get more opportunities. I generally run the Mojo directly into an Odyssey Stratos Stereo Extreme amplifier feeding Volent Paragon VL-2s. That amp is known as a neutral, powerful SS piece, and the VL-2s (stand-mounted 2-ways with ribbon tweeters) are known for their deep, fast, detailed bass and clean, detailed top end.
The presentation on speakers was similar to the HE-6 presentation with the Emotiva, except lacking much of the noted harshness and brittleness. Where Mojo painted a full sound with intimate soundstage, Hugo2 was larger and more detailed, but a bit leaner. H2 also had more air and treble presence, which seemed slightly lacking on Mojo. For example, on Sweet Jane, through the Mojo you get the wonderful Fender tube amp sound. Through H2, you get more apparent detail but slightly less “warm tubey.” Again, H2 is a bigger room, more detail, but less intimate and less body than Mojo. But in contrast to my primary headphones, it’s a presentation I could live with, trading off the body for the extra detail and air.
FILTERS and CROSSFEED
Others have commented that the filters are not that noticeable. In contrast, I thought they made a big difference (except green), so especially orange and red, the “Mojo” filter. But, while it makes a difference, I did not find that it was anything like the Mojo. It did not restore the body and the balance (increase the lower midrange/decrease the upper midrange, as mentioned above), but rather muddied up the sound and rolled it off, without achieving the same tonality as Mojo. I was not a fan of any filter setting and would not use them.
I tried the X-PHD as much as I could and, as noted above, I did find the lowest setting improved the AudioQuest NightHawks generally. But more often, in other setups, I found that any level of X-PHD sounded harsh or added glare. Just weird to me, with more bass but also added distortion. I may need more time experimenting with different tracks and different levels, but as of this point, I am not a fan.
CONCLUSION
I have no idea if my recollection of the Dave was accurate, or what it sounds like. But, I was looking for Hugo2 to provide me with that kind of experience, virtually making me upgrade my Mojo (you know how it is!). While the H2 has some technically better qualities than the Mojo (soundstage, detail resolution, power), its overall presentation is not as much to my liking, with my music and equipment, as the Mojo. I will definitely try to audition the Dave in home (at some time when spending that amount on equipment is in the realm of reasonable), or the Hugo2 TT. I could even live with the H2 in my home system, but on balance, I think it would only be a slight improvement, and not in all areas.
In December 2015 I heard Rob Watts speak and demo the Dave (he even signed my Mojo!), and it was a revelation. While the Dave was only played through speakers in a room full of people, a Mozart piano piece was played alternately on Dave and another high-end DAC (forget which). It was amazingly apparent to all how much better the Dave was at resolving the piano and the timing of the notes. Better than Mojo, obviously, even from that brief listening. This is what I am looking for in Hugo2. (I have never heard the original Hugo or any other Chord DAC.)
And so, the focus of my Hugo2 review will be “Do I need to upgrade?” This is the question every Mojo owner is asking themselves. If it helps, I’ve been seriously into audio for over 30 years. I didn’t get seriously into personal audio until about 3 years ago, and quickly went up the learning and equipment curve. Most of my listening is done via Roon (Apple lossless and AIFF or Tidal hifi), Mojo, Cavalli Liquid Carbon and HifiMan HE-6s (highly modified). I find it a most harmonious combination. About half my listening is alternative/indie rock from the 80’s to the present. About 20% is classical and jazz, with the balance a bit of everything else (but not much pop or country).
I’ll skip all the unboxing and how-it-works commentary, as these have been well reported already. Photography is not a strength of mine, but I have some comparison shots so people get a sense of the different dimensions. I will say, the Mojo interface is simple and works well after a brief learning curve, and Hugo2 is similar, but with more functions, a bit more confusing. The remote is a gift in this regard, particularly in a desktop application. I would not see using the Hugo2 in place of a Mojo or similarly sized DAC, given its size, cost, and complexity of operation, particularly the volume, for on-the-go use.
SOUND - Headphones
As mentioned, all listening was done using CD-quality files either streamed or directly connected. Streaming was done primarily through Airport Express and optical or from a Western Digital Wireless Duo to iPhone with USB out. I did all the testing using battery power only on all devices. My initial listening was using the HE-6 headphones (quite inefficient) powered by the Emotiva BasX A-100 speaker amp. Hugo2 has great bass impact, with Mojo sounding slightly muddy in comparison. Up top, Hugo2 sounded “brittle” and not smooth, like Mojo does. This was evident on several tracks from 10,000 Maniacs Unplugged album.
In this first session, I also noticed two additional things that held up throughout the listening time: the timing reproduction is so amazing that you get the sense the Hugo2 is playing more notes than the Mojo on the same tracks. It’s a similar effect to getting Mojo from something non-Chord, but more so. It’s like listening to the 1981 Glenn Gould Goldberg Variations and then switching to the 1955 version, when he is younger, playing faster and more technically, and with more repeats in the arrangement. The other observation was that much of the tonal difference was in the midrange, where both male and female voices were lacking some body and fullness, compared to Mojo. I think this is due to some increased presence in the 250-300 Hz range on Mojo (around middle C on the piano) or decrease in Hugo2 and another increase in Hugo2 in the ~1kHz (maybe as high as 2kHz?) range compared to Mojo. I wish we had more details from Rob Watts on how he “tuned Mojo to be warmer.”
In the treble, the Hugo2 has more detail and air. This contributes to the wider soundstage, which was generally also more focused, than that of Mojo. I think of the difference almost like two different rooms or halls. Hugo2 is a performance in a larger, livelier hall, while Mojo is the same performance in a more intimate venue. Along these lines, several times when Mojo was plugged in, I forgot I was supposed to be listening and just got caught up in the music. (Cliché, but it really surprised me and I wrote it down, because I was supposed to be “working”!)
The bass was also deeper and more detailed, faster and clearer on the Hugo2. This is one area where there was clear superiority with no trade-offs, in my opinion. This was apparent on most tracks, but stood out with I’m So Lonesome I Could Cry and Sweet Jane from the Cowboy Junkies’ Trinity Sessions, as well as Eric Clapton Unplugged.
After this combo, I tried the Hugo2 directly with the HE-6. Amazingly, it drove them to very satisfying levels with really good results. The most transparent I have been able to hear those phones. I think this is a real strength of the H2. While Mojo can drive almost anything, I would say that the Hugo2 actually can drive anything. It would depend on the type of music, and your listening levels, but for reasonable levels of rock, jazz, and classical music, it was a great experience that you cannot get from Mojo. There may be some brain burn-in by this point, or the Emotiva may be to blame, but HE-6 direct from H2 is a good combo.
Other headphone combinations were HE-6 with Cavalli Liquid Carbon and the H2 directly with the AudioQuest NightHawks, the thinksound ON2s, and the FLC 8S iems. With the LC, the smoothness returned to the top end, removing the brittleness I heard with the Emotiva. But, on some tracks, there was still a bit of glare present. This may be the state of modern recording given the loudness wars, but I was trying to use some of the best-recorded tracks. While the detail was there with the H2, the “I got tubes” feeling with the LC just wasn’t as present when being fed by the Hugo2 compared to the Mojo.
Using the thinksound ON2s, I noted clean sound with no mid bloom, but slightly thin sounding piano on Pink Floyd’s San Tropez (from Meddle), which is a great all-around track for testing out gear. Compared to the Mojo, which exhibited some mid-bass bloom but a more natural sounding piano. Overall, the thinksound’s sounded pretty good on the H2, more clear and detailed than with Mojo, and easier to make out the lyrics in tracks. This is despite the tendency for people to think of these as slightly bright headphones, so go figure.
The AQ NightHawks (I’ve changed the pads to the HM5 sheepskin) are generally full, clean, slightly rolled sounding with the Mojo. With the Hugo2, they sounded faster, with a similar sweet presentation, but with vocals still not quite as full as Mojo. The X-PHD ‘1’ setting (red) seemed to improve this presentation. (More on X-PHD later.) In fact the AQ was the headphone where overall the Hugo2 was preferred to the Mojo.
The FLC 8S (used with red bass filter, grey mid filter, and gunmetal nozzle) were more of a toss-up between Hugo2 and Mojo. In several cases, Mojo could have more balanced and smooth sound, but H2 could also be sweet with more detail and better vocals, if a bit less dynamic sounding. Certainly the Hugo2 was more resolving than the Mojo, even in the bass, but maybe not quite as impactful.
SOUND – Speakers
I got into personal audio because my family – shockingly – didn’t appreciate me hushing them while I blasted speakers throughout the house for hours on end. Now that we’re empty nesters, my wife still doesn’t appreciate it, but I get more opportunities. I generally run the Mojo directly into an Odyssey Stratos Stereo Extreme amplifier feeding Volent Paragon VL-2s. That amp is known as a neutral, powerful SS piece, and the VL-2s (stand-mounted 2-ways with ribbon tweeters) are known for their deep, fast, detailed bass and clean, detailed top end.
The presentation on speakers was similar to the HE-6 presentation with the Emotiva, except lacking much of the noted harshness and brittleness. Where Mojo painted a full sound with intimate soundstage, Hugo2 was larger and more detailed, but a bit leaner. H2 also had more air and treble presence, which seemed slightly lacking on Mojo. For example, on Sweet Jane, through the Mojo you get the wonderful Fender tube amp sound. Through H2, you get more apparent detail but slightly less “warm tubey.” Again, H2 is a bigger room, more detail, but less intimate and less body than Mojo. But in contrast to my primary headphones, it’s a presentation I could live with, trading off the body for the extra detail and air.
FILTERS and CROSSFEED
Others have commented that the filters are not that noticeable. In contrast, I thought they made a big difference (except green), so especially orange and red, the “Mojo” filter. But, while it makes a difference, I did not find that it was anything like the Mojo. It did not restore the body and the balance (increase the lower midrange/decrease the upper midrange, as mentioned above), but rather muddied up the sound and rolled it off, without achieving the same tonality as Mojo. I was not a fan of any filter setting and would not use them.
I tried the X-PHD as much as I could and, as noted above, I did find the lowest setting improved the AudioQuest NightHawks generally. But more often, in other setups, I found that any level of X-PHD sounded harsh or added glare. Just weird to me, with more bass but also added distortion. I may need more time experimenting with different tracks and different levels, but as of this point, I am not a fan.
CONCLUSION
I have no idea if my recollection of the Dave was accurate, or what it sounds like. But, I was looking for Hugo2 to provide me with that kind of experience, virtually making me upgrade my Mojo (you know how it is!). While the H2 has some technically better qualities than the Mojo (soundstage, detail resolution, power), its overall presentation is not as much to my liking, with my music and equipment, as the Mojo. I will definitely try to audition the Dave in home (at some time when spending that amount on equipment is in the realm of reasonable), or the Hugo2 TT. I could even live with the H2 in my home system, but on balance, I think it would only be a slight improvement, and not in all areas.
