HOLO Audio MAY DAC

[KenMoreira]

2 hours ago, Miska said:

 

At least technically, DSD side of Spring 3 is at least as good as the PCM side...

 

Waiting for a but.. 

[KenMoreira]

Do any of you ever use nos lol

[ted_b]

4 hours ago, simonklp said:

@ted_b Thank you very much for your above sharing earlier. I have similiar query or uncertainty for long time before reading your message.

 

It is because I have also found that playing music in PCM on May is outstanding probably due to its R2R architecture and extremely low THD+N level. However, I also enjoy very much playing music in DSD on T+A DAC 8 DSD by using HQPlayer. My feeling is that the SQ from the DSD side of May may not be as good as that of T+A DAC 8 DSD. Although playing music in PCM on May is very good, it seems lacking the holographic or 3D feeling of playing music in DSD by HQP. How would you compare it with playing music in DSD on T+A DAC 8 DSD?

 

I would like to seek for kind sharing or comment on this issue. Thanks.

 

BTW, what did you mean by playing 32fs PCM on May? Thanks again. Cheers. 

I have not heard the T+A dac, sorry.  And 32fs simply means 32 times 44.1k (or 48k), which is 1.411Mhz and 1.536Mhz.

[87mpi]

This is the specs of analog output:

MAY: 

48k NOS PCM:

THD+N 0.00017% @1K(-115dB)

DNR 130dB

2.9Vrms (RCA) , 5.8Vrms (XLR)

128X DSD:

THD+N 0.00025% @1K(-112dB)

DNR 115dB

1.45Vrms (RCA), 2.9Vrms (XLR)

 

SPRING 3: 

PCM: THD+N 0.00032% @1K(-110dB)

DNR 127dB

DSD: THD+N 0.00035% @1K(-109dB)

DNR 115dB

Same output voltage 

 

The DNR difference between pcm and dsd is 15dB (or 12dB for S3) 

Could it be for this reason that many prefer PCM on Holo dacs? 

[toddrhodes]

What sort of realistic situation would exist where the difference between 115 and 130 dB DR could be realized? Considering room noise floor - methinks you'd destroy your hearing before that could be "heard."

[firedog]

Don't think there is one. That's why the obsession over Sinad by some is ridiculous.

I think high Sinad is probably a sign of good engineering, but it's not a guarantee of much else. After a certain point it doesn't mean much.

[Miska]

1 hour ago, 87mpi said:

This is the specs of analog output:

MAY: 

48k NOS PCM:

THD+N 0.00017% @1K(-115dB)

DNR 130dB

2.9Vrms (RCA) , 5.8Vrms (XLR)

128X DSD:

THD+N 0.00025% @1K(-112dB)

DNR 115dB

1.45Vrms (RCA), 2.9Vrms (XLR)

 

SPRING 3: 

PCM: THD+N 0.00032% @1K(-110dB)

DNR 127dB

DSD: THD+N 0.00035% @1K(-109dB)

DNR 115dB

Same output voltage 

 

The DNR difference between pcm and dsd is 15dB (or 12dB for S3) 

Could it be for this reason that many prefer PCM on Holo dacs? 

 

However, 48k NOS PCM has imaging distortion in tens of % range... So especially high frequency transients are totally off and incorrect.

 

I don't know how they measure those figures, since I get different results.

 

Here's my Spring 3 THD measurements 16x PCM vs DSD256:

 

And IMD test results, for the same:

 

[firedog]

@Miska

But in both sets of graphs it looks like the noise is mostly 120 db down. Is it audible at all?

[Miska]

55 minutes ago, firedog said:

But in both sets of graphs it looks like the noise is mostly 120 db down. Is it audible at all?

 

Sometimes. It is quite complex topic... So I'd like to avoid sweeping statements about audibility one way or other.

 

These are not the only measurable differences between PCM and DSD sides either. To me, those sides sound different. And I personally prefer DSD side.

 

[Cogito]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

@Miska

But in both sets of graphs it looks like the noise is mostly 120 db down. Is it audible at all?

Sounds at -120dB are not audible by themselves, but Rob Watts of Chord explains that as the noise floor is lowered the depth of sound stage is increased. See video below.

 

[Miska]

5 minutes ago, Cogito said:

Sounds at -120dB are not audible by themselves, but Rob Watts of Chord explains that as the noise floor is lowered the depth of sound stage is increased. See video below.

 

I don't agree with Rob Watts in general with most things. Not on this either.

 

For me, subjectively, DSD side has more authority, weight and kick (as I've explained earlier, with a bit different words). Without becoming congested as easily. But I wouldn't state it is about noise floor level as such.

 

[Ozan Bolat]

4 hours ago, Miska said:

 

I don't agree with Rob Watts in general with most things. Not on this either.

 

For me, subjectively, DSD side has more authority, weight and kick (as I've explained earlier, with a bit different words). Without becoming congested as easily. But I wouldn't state it is about noise floor level as such.

 

I might have a track to suggest to illustrate and for everybody to try : Fever on Elvis Presley's Elvis is back.  If I play PCM (from the DCC CD) I can follow good ol' Michael Fremer who hears finger snaps, more or less fleshy depending on he used a 450 000 or 560 000 $ turntable. If I go 256 7EC (and even more so if I source from the AP SACD), Fever's rhythmic sounds like the 2 parts of castanets are hit one against the other : distinctively sharp, quite dry and woody to my ears and unmistakably (or am I mistaken ! wonder what you guys will report !) so and not finger snaps. Now I confess I had not tried PCM 1536 for weeks and I can understand how it might be judged more palatable and rewarding, especially if one's system does not involve convolution : felt like lowering volume when going from PCM to SDM, as if adding 6 dB to SDM was too much. BTW, I love Closed Form 16 M, a new favorite provided apodizing counter does not go berserk.

[Ozan Bolat]

On 9/27/2021 at 1:40 PM, Extreme_Boky said:

Well, according to Jeff Zhu, PCM and DSD DAC sections are separate paths (both discrete). So... you can draw your own conclusion from that statement.

hMM, think the things you listed for potential burn in benefit appear pretty common to both paths, don't they? However reassessing PCM 1536 vs DSD 256 on the Spring 3, I feel like now writing : it depends ; while I was 100% pro SDM before burn in. Most comfortable claim would be change of mind or special mindset this morning but can we rule out that by nature the R2R path is more susceptible to burn in while that burn in has not been R2R specific? 

[Miska]

I have not noticed any burn-in stuff, the Spring's I've had for years haven't changed at all over time. Always sounded the same...

 

Which I consider a good thing, I'd hate gear that keeps drifting around...

 

[Ozan Bolat]

4 minutes ago, Miska said:

I have not noticed any burn-in stuff, the Spring's I've had for years haven't changed at all over time. Always sounded the same...

 

Which I consider a good thing, I'd hate gear that keeps drifting around...

 

Then I have to consider PCM just as another option, one I might like if and when desiring a more palatable sound for whatever reason, including the shape I'm in. However I appreciated it with closed form, not the filter with the best reputation for palatable (with tracks without apodizing issues). I like the idea there that if the idea is to keep PCM PCM then the chosen filter should be as neutral as possible : is that a correct assumption regarding Closed Form M vs often preferred/quoted M and L? 

[firedog]

7 hours ago, Ozan Bolat said:

I might have a track to suggest to illustrate and for everybody to try : Fever on Elvis Presley's Elvis is back.  If I play PCM (from the DCC CD) I can follow good ol' Michael Fremer who hears finger snaps, more or less fleshy depending on he used a 450 000 or 560 000 $ turntable. If I go 256 7EC (and even more so if I source from the AP SACD), Fever's rhythmic sounds like the 2 parts of castanets are hit one against the other : distinctively sharp, quite dry and woody to my ears and unmistakably (or am I mistaken ! wonder what you guys will report !) so and not finger snaps. Now I confess I had not tried PCM 1536 for weeks and I can understand how it might be judged more palatable and rewarding, especially if one's system does not involve convolution : felt like lowering volume when going from PCM to SDM, as if adding 6 dB to SDM was too much. BTW, I love Closed Form 16 M, a new favorite provided apodizing counter does not go berserk.

I just listened to a 24/96 version of that track and it sounds like finger snaps to me. Acc'd to the Wikipedia album page, it's finger snaps. Interestingly, when I use HQP to play it back in DSD 256 7EC, I'd say it sounds less like finger snaps (less fleshy, more hard/sharp), but I'd still  identify it as finger snaps if you asked me. 

[Miska]

41 minutes ago, Ozan Bolat said:

I like the idea there that if the idea is to keep PCM PCM then the chosen filter should be as neutral as possible : is that a correct assumption regarding Closed Form M vs often preferred/quoted M and L? 

 

No, it is not correct assumption. Apodizing filter is needed to correct issues in PCM source content, filter choice generally doesn't differ whether you output PCM or SDM.

 

I personally don't prefer the filters you mention. I mostly stick to poly-sinc family. Sometimes sinc-S or sinc-Mx may be useful though.

 

56 minutes ago, Ozan Bolat said:

(with tracks without apodizing issues)

 

Unfortunately not many of such exist in RedBook format...

 

Using an apodizing filter on tracks without apodizing issues is equivalent of using non-apodizing version of the same filter.

 

It is good to remember that at least 90% of content recorded in 1990 - 2000 is result of SDM -> PCM conversion. And practically 100% of content recorded since 2000 is result of SDM -> PCM conversion. So you won't find much "pure" PCM content anyway. There's a lot of "PCM" recording gear using for example TI/BB PCM4202/PCM4204 ADC chip, meaning that the recording started it's life as DSD128 and got converted to PCM using the on-chip DSD-to-PCM conversion. Many of praised "PCM" recordings are made with such converters. These on-chip conversions (or software rate down-conversions later in mastering) leave their fingerprint on the data, that you can deal with using apodizing filters.

 

[Miska]

13 minutes ago, firedog said:

I just listened to a 24/96 version of that track and it sounds like finger snaps to me. Acc'd to the Wikipedia album page, it's finger snaps. Interestingly, when I use HQP to play it back in DSD 256 7EC, I'd say it sounds less like finger snaps (less fleshy, more hard/sharp), but I'd still  identify it as finger snaps if you asked me. 

 

Same upsampling filter in both cases? Do you notice a difference for example between poly-sinc-short-mp(-2s) and poly-sinc-gauss-long?

 

[Miska]

If you don't use same upsampling filter for both PCM and SDM cases, you are not actually comparing PCM vs SDM, or the modulator, but something else.

 

[Miska]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

I just listened to a 24/96 version of that track and it sounds like finger snaps to me. Acc'd to the Wikipedia album page, it's finger snaps. Interestingly, when I use HQP to play it back in DSD 256 7EC, I'd say it sounds less like finger snaps (less fleshy, more hard/sharp), but I'd still  identify it as finger snaps if you asked me. 

 

I tried this track too, from Qobuz, with following settings:

 

1) PCM: poly-sinc-gauss-long + LNS15 at 20-bit, 1.536M output rate, HQPlayer volume set to -9 dBFS (to compensate Holo's 6 dB gain difference between PCM and DSD)

2) DSD: poly-sinc-gauss-long + ASDM7EC at 12.288M output rate, HQPlayer volume set to -3 dBFS

 

Holo Spring 3 + Ferrum Oor headphone amplifier.

 

I have to say that it is hard to tell these two cases different with this track. The snap is not particularly hard sounding. Biggest difference I notice is that with DSD output there's more "air" in the sound. The space and depth is better with DSD. With PCM it is more closed-in, "on your face", the snap is little bit drier.

 

Try listening to echo of the snap and other sounds, how the echo fades off. And how well the direct sound separates from the echo.

 

Kind of interesting and analog-sounding result is with poly-sinc-xtr-short-mp. Space becomes notably more condensed, also the snap sounds different and more like finger snap.

 

But I'd say (2), to me, subjectively gives best insight to what is on the recording.

 

[Ozan Bolat]

2 hours ago, firedog said:

I just listened to a 24/96 version of that track and it sounds like finger snaps to me. Acc'd to the Wikipedia album page, it's finger snaps. Interestingly, when I use HQP to play it back in DSD 256 7EC, I'd say it sounds less like finger snaps (less fleshy, more hard/sharp), but I'd still  identify it as finger snaps if you asked me. 

Wikipedia's source is hardly hard proof ; interesting that you confirm the track as revealing of PCM/DSD differences. when done right I could mistake my finger actual snaps with castanets but then on Fever there is not he slightest hint of fingers' friction prior to the snap

[mikel]

2 hours ago, Miska said:

But I'd say (2), to me, subjectively gives best insight to what is on the recording.

 

So far, I predominanly use the RME ADI 2 FS for Headphone listening.

I know it is subjective... but for you....does the Spring 3 offer more "inisight" of whats on the recording vs the RME?

Thanks, Michael

[Zauurx]

On 9/30/2021 at 5:53 PM, Miska said:

...

 

 

When you play DSD256, "bits settings" for dac (20 bits for PCM) have no impact ? Or, you change settings to 32 or default ?

[Miska]

1 hour ago, Zauurx said:

When you play DSD256, "bits settings" for dac (20 bits for PCM) have no impact ? Or, you change settings to 32 or default ?

 

They don't have any effect. It only applies to PCM output.

 

[Miska]

3 hours ago, mikel said:

So far, I predominanly use the RME ADI 2 FS for Headphone listening.

I know it is subjective... but for you....does the Spring 3 offer more "inisight" of whats on the recording vs the RME?

 

No, I think both are very similar in this respect. Important thing to note about ADI-2 is that it has been around with three different DAC chips! My ADI-2 Pro and ADI-2 Pro AE are the first generation.