Happening: Holo Spring 3 vs. Yiggy vs. Codex vs. 2Qute

[FIndingit]

Did you use the original wallwart for 2qute?

[Maxx134]

On 12/23/2016 at 10:00 AM, barrows said:

In my experience, ..., so level matching via listening is inadequate.

I understand and can relate to this point of view,

but I see it as naive.

 

The observation of a certain criteria, is a narrow view of perception.

 

Volume level is but one of many aspects of music.

 

One can mentally "boxed" & "locked themselves" into a stumbling block,

if believing,  "level matching via listening is inadequate."

 

I respectfully  apologize to have  to state that this "opinion" is naive, 

Because I myself  had this opinion many years ago.

 

Just using "one" useful tool, does not supercede or  invalidate a subjective impression. 

 

I guarantee you will change your opinion in future.

There are so so, so  many aspects goin on, in the presentation of music, than worrying about 1db  of volume match.

 

The final interpretation is all done in the brain, not the ear or a measurement tool.

The brain is your utimate tool.

 

I am fairly certain the group who made and listend in this test,

together as a whole, are seasoned enough to know morr than these concerns,

 And as a whole, are competent enough to give valuable observations and impresions.

 

If your concerned you will be swayed by what you "think" you cannot hear (<1db), 

How much more valid does that make the resulting observations which the test group DID hear?

 

Gathering the General consensus on any given equipment is always the key when researching before actually listening for yourself.

 

 Sonic impressions about a unit, over many members always works best, and is always the most reliable way to gather an opinion.

 

Negating valid   impresions, over some preferred personal  technicallity, will always be a stumbling block.

 

Have you ever been dozed off in front of a TV,

And awoken only when someone you know was calling your name?

Did volume level apply in that cenario?

 

My point is the brain can overcome volume difference.

 

 

[beerandmusic]

On 12/19/2016 at 6:59 PM, RKlein said:

 

I own the Holo, Level 3 DAC. While I applaud your efforts, I will respectfully disagree that I2S is the superior input. I have tried my Holo with the Singxer and I2S and preferred the USB input coupled with the Regen. I have had the 2Qute in my system as well(along with the Hugo). I have not yet heard the Yiggy.

 

The beauty of the Holo is that when using HQPlayer, I can easily try 44.1, 384, DSD 256 or DSD512 on each track. I find it interesting to hear the differences and how I might prefer 44.1 to 384 on a certain track but maybe the opposite on another. I have just started to listen to DSD512 through HQPlayer and am pretty darned impressed.

 

Regards,

 

Randy

+1 ...agree with this.... i wouldn't even consider a dac that didn't support dsd.

They said they tried the best input of what was available, but they didn't even try the best format (grin)....

[Summit]

On 6/4/2018 at 5:00 AM, Maxx134 said:

I understand and can relate to this point of view,

but I see it as naive.

 

The observation of a certain criteria, is a narrow view of perception.

 

Volume level is but one of many aspects of music.

 

One can mentally "boxed" & "locked themselves" into a stumbling block,

if believing,  "level matching via listening is inadequate."

 

I respectfully  apologize to have  to state that this "opinion" is naive, 

Because I myself  had this opinion many years ago.

 

Just using "one" useful tool, does not supercede or  invalidate a subjective impression. 

 

I guarantee you will change your opinion in future.

There are so so, so  many aspects goin on, in the presentation of music, than worrying about 1db  of volume match.

 

The final interpretation is all done in the brain, not the ear or a measurement tool.

The brain is your utimate tool.

 

I am fairly certain the group who made and listend in this test,

together as a whole, are seasoned enough to know morr than these concerns,

 And as a whole, are competent enough to give valuable observations and impresions.

 

If your concerned you will be swayed by what you "think" you cannot hear (<1db), 

How much more valid does that make the resulting observations which the test group DID hear?

 

Gathering the General consensus on any given equipment is always the key when researching before actually listening for yourself.

 

 Sonic impressions about a unit, over many members always works best, and is always the most reliable way to gather an opinion.

 

Negating valid   impresions, over some preferred personal  technicallity, will always be a stumbling block.

 

Have you ever been dozed off in front of a TV,

And awoken only when someone you know was calling your name?

Did volume level apply in that cenario?

 

My point is the brain can overcome volume difference.

 

 

 

We and our brains can of course “overcome” some volume differences, but in a test there one is directly switching gear, most people preserve a 1-3 dB increase as sounding better. Level matching for the same SPL in an A/B or ABX test doesn’t invalidate the subjective impressions. In a direct A/B or ABX test one of the parameters that can affect the outcome is the SPL volume.

[butifull01]

I think....

 

Spring Lv. 3 KTE >> Yggy > Codex >> 2Qute

 

Delta-Sigma DACs are much less than Multibit Ladder DACs, I think.

 

DACs must have NOS.

[Maxx134]

3 hours ago, Summit said:

 

We and our brains can of course “overcome” some volume differences, but in a test there one is directly switching gear, most people preserve a 1-3 dB increase as sounding better. Level matching for the same SPL in an A/B or ABX test doesn’t invalidate the subjective impressions. In a direct A/B or ABX test one of the parameters that can affect the outcome is the SPL volume.

You are 100% correct about that one aspect of sound that "naive" listeners do correlate as being better...

 

But they abosolutely  does not take into account US...

We as matured listeners dont count on volume.

We look for soundStage cues, and micro/macro detailing, and tonality, and resolve, and dynamics, holography, depth, height, image placement, instrument separation, etc etc etc..

 

We are not fooled by volume differences.

That is why those blind tests are irrelevant because they are not using you and me.. And others who would know the effects & changes of volume.

I get it when you say volume will affect the differences making it more noticable.

That's why as listeners we can adjust the volume to make sure it's not skewing the results.

Those test do not allow you to a adjust the volume.

Just random ppl full of doubt..

 

The issue of setting volume is not even simple.

You have choices to set volume at same bass level, or same level at a certain frequency (like 1k) or set volume according to dynamics (peaks) , or "VU" meter setting (RMS) etc.

Thats another can of worms...

 

 

[barrows]

1 hour ago, Maxx134 said:

The issue of setting volume is not even simple.

You have choices to set volume at same bass level, or same level at a certain frequency (like 1k) or set volume according to dynamics (peaks) , or "VU" meter setting (RMS) etc.

Thats another can of worms...

Nonsense.  A level matched comparison is not hard to accomplish, and it is the very first variable any good listen test accounts for.  It is the "naive" listening test which does not make sure to level match the DUTs.

DACs have flat frequency responses, at least within the audible bandwidth.  To set levels, one sets the DACs to a reference level using a test tone and a good voltmeter on the output (or take the output voltage from the preamp if using one and write down the volume level for each DAC).  Simple as that, the levels are matched, one leaves the volume controls alone and gets on with the listening.

[granosalis]

On ‎12‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 4:00 PM, barrows said:

In my experience, volume matching is very important. I could not determine much about differences between DACs which were close in performance without precise volume matching. You need a decent voltmeter, and a test track from one of the Stereophile test discs for this. Once you match volumes precisely, then it is possible to determine differences reliably.

Listeners have been shown to "prefer" the sound of even a 1dB gain, so level matching via listening is inadequate.

So if you want to upgrade the quality od the dac, just push the level up? I think that timber, and general quality do not required level matching. 

[Maxx134]

On 6/7/2018 at 9:02 AM, butifull01 said:

I think....

 

Spring Lv. 3 KTE >> Yggy > Codex >> 2Qute

 

Delta-Sigma DACs are much less than Multibit Ladder DACs, I think.

 

DACs must have NOS.

 

I'm going to buck the tide once again with my observations, (and awareness of volume matching, ha)...

 

I have the Spring Lvl 1 and I still prefer it to side-by-side listening with yggy (A-board)...

 

So I am of doubting opinion that a Spring Lvl-3 is adding much beninfits to the sound over a Lvl-1...

 

In fact there were detailing that were noticed with the Spring that were more subdued on the yggy...

 

The yggy image was a bit further away and narrower,

While the Spring was a bit closer, wider, and more immersive or involving.

It was as if the yggy was also a tiny bit more relaxed as well..

Tonaly, they were both strikingly similar and also both were very high in palpable realism.

 

Also,

I have heard all the Chord stuff and the only dac they have that was at this level was the Dave.

I did compare a Hugo2 against the yggy and it was really nice but wasn't at that yggy level of overall performance.

 

Anyways, my point being you can get a Holo Spring Dac Lvl-1 and still be easily neck-and-neck with a yggy for almost a thousand dollars less....

 

I have not tried the Gumby but not going to bother when it is already lower than a yggy...

 

Also, remember these observations were done with an ollder yggy with the "A" board, which is stated to be slightly less better than the updated "B" board.

Basically they updated the output stage to have "blacker blacks"...

 

[Maxx134]

Double post...

 

[davide256]

36 minutes ago, Maxx134 said:

 

I'm going to buck the tide once again with my observations, (and awareness of volume matching, ha)...

 

I have the Spring Lvl 1 and I still prefer it to side-by-side listening with yggy (A-board)...

 

So I am of doubting opinion that a Spring Lvl-3 is adding much beninfits to the sound over a Lvl-1...

 

In fact there were detailing that were noticed with the Spring that were more subdued on the yggy...

 

The yggy image was a bit further away and narrower,

While the Spring was a bit closer, wider, and more immersive or involving.

It was as if the yggy was also a tiny bit more relaxed as well..

Tonaly, they were both strikingly similar and also both were very high in palpable realism.

 

Also,

I have heard all the Chord stuff and the only dac they have that was at this level was the Dave.

I did compare a Hugo2 against the yggy and it was really nice but wasn't at that yggy level of overall performance.

 

Anyways, my point being you can get a Holo Spring Dac Lvl-1 and still be easily neck-and-neck with a yggy for almost a thousand dollars less....

 

I have not tried the Gumby but not going to bother when it is already lower than a yggy...

 

Also, remember these observations were done with an ollder yggy with the "A" board, which is stated to be slightly less better than the updated "B" board.

Basically they updated the output stage to have "blacker blacks"...

 

reminds me of the old maps that said "here be dragons" for unexplored territory... your comparisons fall into that mold since no source solution is identified to establish the level of competency and biases of the source chain