HOLO Audio MAY DAC

[Kalpesh]

11 hours ago, semente said:

What speakers are you using?

Maybe that’s the real cause of your brightness.

Only Rob Watts knows, only Rob Watts does things right but, ignoring May's measured performances and supposing that all R2R are plagued with awful measurements, overlooking that a great noise shaper, without upsampling, might be provided by HQP, he indulges (#14.30) that R2R (in the context of the interview that infers NOS) might be a bit better at reproducing small signals more accurately. That's that meaningful granularity I appreciate sometimes vs shining varnish or uniform polish I sometimes regret, in comparison with upsampling. Nothing to do with speakers brightness or being fond of treble roll-off. Context of positive appraisal of NOS vs DSD OS by Atkinson in https://www.stereophile.com/content/holoaudio-may-level-3-da-processor appears to be when small details matter more

 

I explore cf 16M and Sinc Mx (when apodizing is required) as more kosher alternatives to NOS

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

15 minutes ago, Kalpesh said:

Only Rob Watts knows, only Rob Watts does things right

Perhaps this is a joke? Or maybe I missed some context?

[Kalpesh]

20 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Perhaps this is a joke? Or maybe I missed some context?

maybe will you write the same and get the feeling after watching the attached video and the  3 additional parts of the interview

[Quadman]

13 hours ago, sledwards said:

I like the sinc-S and the sinc-M sounds great too.

Yes I like Sinc M as well, Sinc Lm and Ls are also very nice but both are non-apodizing so I tend to use them less.  I cannot do Sinc Mx at 1024 so no experience there.  When I run 512 with EC7v2, I enjoy the sound but then jumping back up to 1024 (ec5v2 or amsdm7EC) I just feel the music is more "real" spatial cues, air and tonality are closer to highest analog sources.

 

My speakers are called flex speakers and I can run various "heads" on my bass cabinets.  I have 2; the Audio Technology D'appolito and open baffle Lowther PM2A's.  I have to run different filters for each for maximum enjoyment.  For the Lowther's I like PS gauss hires-ip and PS gauss XLA.

[Miska]

11 hours ago, Kalpesh said:

overlooking that a great noise shaper, without upsampling

 

You cannot have proper noise shaping without upsampling. Higher the output rate is, better the noise-shaper works.

 

If you are familiar with statistics. Higher your sample set is, better accuracy your statistics also has. Comparing NOS to statistics, is like randomly picking one item from the set and then assuming it to correctly represent the set it is from.

 

11 hours ago, Kalpesh said:

he indulges (#14.30) that R2R (in the context of the interview that infers NOS) might be a bit better at reproducing small signals more accurately.

 

That is wrong, usually that is weak point of R2R, although as I have shown, you can help it with high rate, less bits (using only linear region of the ladder) and suitable noise-shaper.

 

[semente]

14 hours ago, Kalpesh said:

maybe will you write the same and get the feeling after watching the attached video and the  3 additional parts of the interview

I intentionally do not read reviews but I enjoy watching an interview if the interviewee is worthy of my time.

 

15 hours ago, Kalpesh said:

Only Rob Watts knows, only Rob Watts does things right but, ignoring May's measured performances and supposing that all R2R are plagued with awful measurements, overlooking that a great noise shaper, without upsampling, might be provided by HQP, he indulges (#14.30) that R2R (in the context of the interview that infers NOS) might be a bit better at reproducing small signals more accurately. That's that meaningful granularity I appreciate sometimes vs shining varnish or uniform polish I sometimes regret, in comparison with upsampling. Nothing to do with speakers brightness or being fond of treble roll-off. Context of positive appraisal of NOS vs DSD OS by Atkinson in https://www.stereophile.com/content/holoaudio-may-level-3-da-processor appears to be when small details matter more

 

I explore cf 16M and Sinc Mx (when apodizing is required) as more kosher alternatives to NOS

 

In what way does you post reply to my question about your system?

[robi20064]

17 hours ago, Kalpesh said:

Only Rob Watts knows, only Rob Watts does things right but, ignoring May's measured performances and supposing that all R2R are plagued with awful measurements, overlooking that a great noise shaper, without upsampling, might be provided by HQP, he indulges (#14.30) that R2R (in the context of the interview that infers NOS) might be a bit better at reproducing small signals more accurately.

Out of curiosity, if it is really "Rob knows it all" than why are you currently listening to a Holo DAC instead of a Chord one? 

[barrows]

On the topic of professional reviewers and their comments regarding NOS vs. OS with Holo Audio DACs, it is important to understand they are not using HQPlayer to form their opinion on OS!  In fact, I am not aware of many (any?) mainstream professional reviewers who have considerable experience using HQPlayer.  There is a huge difference between the OS available onboard the Holo Audio DACs and what HQPlayer can do-this is not a comparison which is even in the same ballpark, and is entirely irrelevant to considering HQPlayer OS vs. NOS.

[Jud]

45 minutes ago, barrows said:

it is important to understand they are not using HQPlayer to form their opinion on OS!  In fact, I am not aware of many (any?) mainstream professional reviewers who have considerable experience using HQPlayer.  There is a huge difference between the OS available onboard the Holo Audio DACs and what HQPlayer can do-this is not a comparison which is even in the same ballpark,

 

The same is I would think applicable to other competently done software upsampling. This isn't meant in any way to diminish the accomplishments of HQP, which I own and like.

[sdolezalek]

Jud: I agree, there are others who have also done a good job with upsampling — if I remember correctly you are also a fan of Audirvana.  But I also think the important point in this thread is that the upstream computing part (that underlies much of why this site exists) can have dramatic (and positive effects) on the downstream equipment (DACs in particular), yet most reviewers seems to have a religious view that they can only review equipment on a standalone basis without the advantages that upsampling can provide.  This is a really silly attitude (as they also tend to publish their other associated hardware, often including cables and power supplies but treat software as an alien thing.  Too bad for them, but also too bad for many readers here, as the results is almost as bad as trying to enjoy (or review) a state of the art Intel computer without Internet access — senseless!

[Miska]

I just redid my measurements today, and I have to say that at DSD256/DSD512 the performance is just so much better than at any of the PCM rates that I will stick to DSD mode also in future... (earlier measurements were made with older modulators)

 

[sworksone]

27 minutes ago, Miska said:

I just redid my measurements today, and I have to say that at DSD256/DSD512 the performance is just so much better than at any of the PCM rates that I will stick to DSD mode also in future... (earlier measurements were made with older modulators)

 

Could you please share 1.4/1.5 MHz PCM measurements versus DSD256 to show how different they are?  I run both but with different hardware configurations and I’m constantly flipping between the two as to which I prefer.  

[Jud]

@sdolezalek, very nicely said. Many reviewers have for a very long time not been versed in electronics, resulting in manufacturers’ claims simply being repeated in reviews with no critical evaluation at all. And now on top of that as you point out, many reviewers lack the knowledge of software that might allow readers greater enjoyment of individual components or entire systems, or on the other hand the knowledge to evaluate spurious claims about certain types of DSP.

 

There’s a reason I gave up reading equipment reviews in these magazines a long time ago.

[Allan F]

4 hours ago, sdolezalek said:

Jud: I agree, there are others who have also done a good job with upsampling — if I remember correctly you are also a fan of Audirvana.  But I also think the important point in this thread is that the upstream computing part (that underlies much of why this site exists) can have dramatic (and positive effects) on the downstream equipment (DACs in particular), yet most reviewers seems to have a religious view that they can only review equipment on a standalone basis without the advantages that upsampling can provide.  This is a really silly attitude (as they also tend to publish their other associated hardware, often including cables and power supplies but treat software as an alien thing.  Too bad for them, but also too bad for many readers here, as the results is almost as bad as trying to enjoy (or review) a state of the art Intel computer without Internet access — senseless!

 

I have read more than one review of the T+A DAC 8 DSD that mentioned people reporting that HQ Player upsampling to DSD512 produced the best sound from this DAC. However, none actually did any listening using HQ Player for the review. For example, the following is an excerpt from Jon Iverson's review of the T+A DAC 8 DSD in Stereophle:

 

Several DAC 8 DSD users have reported that the way to go for the best sound, assuming you have a PC with the computing power, is to use Signalyst's HQPlayer upsampling multichannel audio player, by itself or with Roon, to upsample everything to DSD512 and then output that to the T+A. Since I kept my focus on using the T+A as is, without the additional variable of external software and its possible effects on the sound, I'll leave that for others to sort out. But with a DAC as endowed as this one is, it might be worth looking into.

[sdolezalek]

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

For example, the following is an excerpt from Jon Iverson's review of the T+A DAC 8 DSD in Stereophle:

 

Several DAC 8 DSD users have reported that the way to go for the best sound, assuming you have a PC with the computing power, is to use Signalyst's HQPlayer upsampling multichannel audio player, by itself or with Roon, to upsample everything to DSD512 and then output that to the T+A. Since I kept my focus on using the T+A as is, without the additional variable of external software and its possible effects on the sound, I'll leave that for others to sort out. But with a DAC as endowed as this one is, it might be worth looking into.

Yes, I specifically remember reading that review (as I was already using HQPlayer but was interested in the T&A DAC) thinking "Why on earth wouldn't you want to review the DAC under the circumstances where its best sound was being reported?"  Had he listed to it that way, the review wouldn't have ended with "it might be worth looking into..." but more likely with "enhanced through the HQ Player upsampling, this DAC sounded just amazing..."  you might want to figure out which HQ Player settings work best for your system if you are interested in this DAC.

[Powerman]

Fantastic thread on HQ player and up sampling. Too bad I couldn't get any useful info on the May DAC. I'm going a different direction. Back to it....

[The Computer Audiophile]

15 minutes ago, Powerman said:

I'm going a different direction.

What direction is that?

[The Computer Audiophile]

16 minutes ago, Powerman said:

Too bad I couldn't get any useful info on the May DAC

 

You must know all there is to know about it then? Just scanning through it I see tons of info about the May. In addition, I used the thread search to find many specific items. 

[musicjunkie917]

2 hours ago, Powerman said:

Fantastic thread on HQ player and up sampling. Too bad I couldn't get any useful info on the May DAC. I'm going a different direction. Back to it....

 

115 pages of information and you could not find any useful information??? I don't think the problem is with the thread.....

[Powerman]

22 minutes ago, musicjunkie917 said:

 

115 pages of information and you could not find any useful information??? I don't think the problem is with the thread.....

Ya, and this isn't my first rodeo. The first 20 pages is when something is new. You of course try search for relavent terms. You then jump to the middle and see what is later. You usually try to skip the 10 pages of pissing matches kicked off... But then, you jump to the last pages and go back for more up to date relavent info.... 20 pages of HQPlayer and upsampling. Then you ask specific questions... And nothing. Maybe they all left.

 

Just because users of the May up sample or use HQPlayer, doesn't mean this should turn into a clearly dedicated thread on upsampling and HQPlayer... And the HQPlayer person should know that and keep relative information in their dedicated thread on the subject... Which is what they usually do... To stay respectful for those wanting to discuss the Holo May.

 

But hey, thanks for your addition of a useless personal attack. It's complete now.

[Powerman]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

What direction is that?

I decided to go Lampizator. Hope I'm right...

[Powerman]

3 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

You must know all there is to know about it then? Just scanning through it I see tons of info about the May. In addition, I used the thread search to find many specific items. 

Yes, and usually Google does a better job at searching threads and ends you up at various forums. Read plenty of threads. Have not seen any that moved from Pontus, a few moved to Lampizator, but very few comparisons. I didn't just sit here... But there are a lot of folks here that have had all kinds of good gear, so I asked the question. Like everything on the net, you have to wade through mountains of garbage to find the kernels of good...

[The Computer Audiophile]

13 minutes ago, Powerman said:

Ya, and this isn't my first rodeo.

Oh boy. I've seen this movie before. You may want to adjust your expectations and level of confidence. Based on your contributions to this thread, perhaps you need to step up your game.

[Powerman]

5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Oh boy. I've seen this movie before. You may want to adjust your expectations and level of confidence. Based on your contributions to this thread, perhaps you need to step up your game.

My expectations are fine... I know I will have to wade through a lot of BS to find what I want anywhere on the web. I've been doing for a week on this subject.... 15 pages or so back another member asked to get it back to Holo May and was told May users up sample so it's all good. So don't let me derail the thread, let's get back to upsampling with HQPlayer and I'll go away.

[sdolezalek]

15 minutes ago, Powerman said:

My expectations are fine... I know I will have to wade through a lot of BS to find what I want anywhere on the web. I've been doing for a week on this subject.... 15 pages or so back another member asked to get it back to Holo May and was told May users up sample so it's all good. So don't let me derail the thread, let's get back to upsampling with HQPlayer and I'll go away.

I assume you also saw that those who love your new Lampizator were the ones who actually started most of the HQPlayer upsampling discussions before the May DAC was even a thing?  In fairness, the one thing there may not be a lot of data on is when using both the Holo Audio May KTE and the Lampizator with the same level of HQ Player upsampling (i.e. to DSD512) whether there are strong reasons to prefer one DAC over the other.  There is a fair amount of chatter on that type of comparison between the May and the Denafrips Terminator.