T+A DAC 200

[nmcleod]

33 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

So pretty suboptimal, IMO. If you want to run it optimal, run DSD256 or DSD512 from HQPlayer using ASDM7ECv2 and default filters.

 

 

This is suboptimal too. Same settings as above give you optimal results.

 

In addition, sinc-Mx is total opposite of the filter in Mola-Mola, which is super short. So maybe something like poly-sinc-gauss-short would be closer match.

 

 

Remember that Mola-Mola runs always at "DSD", it internally produces 1-bit stream to it's conversion stages. So you would have been much better running T+A and Holo in DSD. Also objectively better.

 

(Mola-Mola has similar D/A conversion section as T+A and Holo DSD D/A conversion sections)

 

 

I guess that's subjective perception.  I have a hard time believing the entire PCM DAC sections of the May and T+A are completely inferior to their DSD.  I have used the dsd section of the May with various hqplayer settings and it's far too soft for my liking.  I know you design hqplayer so I won't even begin to argue on that as I'll lose on any technical front.  Nor am I criticizing hqplayer, I simply preferred the PCM side of the May.

 

I really doubt most people are buying these dacs solely to use hqplayer to upsample then convert to dsd then feed the dac.  That's a niche area and overly complicated for most general users.  The DAC should stand on its own in a normal streaming environment.   Maybe you could argue the T+A = Tambaqui with certain specific dsd settings, but that overcomplicates it for me personally.  They designed their own filters and own OS, so it should be fair to assess the DAC on those alone.  If that's not a fair assessment in someone else's eyes that's fine too.

[Allan F]

2 hours ago, nmcleod said:

I really doubt most people are buying these dacs solely to use hqplayer to upsample then convert to dsd then feed the dac.  That's a niche area and overly complicated for most general users.  The DAC should stand on its own in a normal streaming environment.   Maybe you could argue the T+A = Tambaqui with certain specific dsd settings, but that overcomplicates it for me personally.  They designed their own filters and own OS, so it should be fair to assess the DAC on those alone.  If that's not a fair assessment in someone else's eyes that's fine too.

 

Perhaps "most general users", whomever they may be, might not be buying these DAC to use HQPlayer to upsample, but that certainly does not apply to most members of this forum. T+A's DAC 8 DSD was widely known for the optimized SQ it produced with HQPlayer upsampling to DSD, and was the reason that I and many other members of the AS community bought it. IMO, that applies even more to the DAC 200. However, the DAC 200's PCM output is clearly superior to that of the DAC 8 DSD, and I can see why some might prefer to upsample in the original file's format, although I personally prefer DSD for all.  I must say that I find it somewhat incomprehensible, if not a "travesty", that you did not test the DSD output of these DACs. As it is, according to @Miska, you did not use optimum settings when you upsampled to PCM.

 

People have different priorities in what they value most highly in music playback. For me, "proper tone for key instruments like piano" is at the top of my list. While it may be "fair" to assess these DACs with their own filters, etc., assessing them with HQPlayer  upsampling is certainly not "unfair", and presents a more complete picture of the most these DACs have to offer..

 

 

[nmcleod]

27 minutes ago, Allan F said:

 

Perhaps "most general users", whomever they may be, might not be buying these DAC to use HQPlayer to upsample, but that certainly does not apply to most members of this forum. T+A's DAC 8 DSD was widely known for the optimized SQ it produced with HQPlayer upsampling to DSD, and was the reason that I and many other members of the AS community bought it. IMO, that applies even more to the DAC 200. However, the DAC 200's PCM output is clearly superior to that of the DAC 8 DSD, and I can see why some might prefer to upsample in the original file's format, although I personally prefer DSD for all.  I must say that I find it somewhat incomprehensible, if not a "travesty", that you did not test the DSD output of these DACs. As it is, according to @Miska, you did not use optimum settings when you upsampled to PCM.

 

People have different priorities in what they value most highly in music playback. For me, "proper tone for key instruments like piano" is at the top of my list. While it may be "fair" to assess these DACs with their own filters, etc., assessing them with HQPlayer  upsampling is certainly not "unfair", and presents a more complete picture of the most these DACs have to offer..

 

 

 

So the argument here is because I didn't listen to DSD according to Miska's settings I have no idea how good these DACs are or aren't.  Ok.

[Allan F]

19 minutes ago, nmcleod said:

 

So the argument here is because I didn't listen to DSD according to Miska's settings I have no idea how good these DACs are or aren't.  Ok.

 

I would not phrase it that way, and that is not my argument. Rather I would say that, notwithstanding how good you know these DACs are, you unfortunately did not avail yourself of the maximum benefit they have to offer. IOW, they are even better than you observed.  

[Miska]

2 hours ago, nmcleod said:

I have used the dsd section of the May with various hqplayer settings and it's far too soft for my liking.

 

If you say it is far too soft, I doubt you used ASDM7ECv2 at DSD256 or DSD512.

 

2 hours ago, nmcleod said:

Maybe you could argue the T+A = Tambaqui with certain specific dsd settings, but that overcomplicates it for me personally.  They designed their own filters and own OS, so it should be fair to assess the DAC on those alone.  If that's not a fair assessment in someone else's eyes that's fine too.

 

Both May and T+A are two DACs in the same box. And seems like you used only one of the two.

 

[Jud]

2 hours ago, nmcleod said:

 

I guess that's subjective perception.  I have a hard time believing the entire PCM DAC sections of the May and T+A are completely inferior to their DSD.  I have used the dsd section of the May with various hqplayer settings and it's far too soft for my liking.  I know you design hqplayer so I won't even begin to argue on that as I'll lose on any technical front.  Nor am I criticizing hqplayer, I simply preferred the PCM side of the May.

 

I really doubt most people are buying these dacs solely to use hqplayer to upsample then convert to dsd then feed the dac.  That's a niche area and overly complicated for most general users.  The DAC should stand on its own in a normal streaming environment.   Maybe you could argue the T+A = Tambaqui with certain specific dsd settings, but that overcomplicates it for me personally.  They designed their own filters and own OS, so it should be fair to assess the DAC on those alone.  If that's not a fair assessment in someone else's eyes that's fine too.

It’s your preference, and that’s fine. I don’t really think it has anything to do with ‘fair,’ it’s just the comparison you preferred to do. That will be informative for anyone who doesn’t intend to use these DACs with HQPlayer.

 

Regarding soft vs. more energetic, there are forms of low level distortion that will make music sound more energetic. Whether anything like that would be in play in your case I can’t know.

[nmcleod]

54 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

If you say it is far too soft, I doubt you used ASDM7ECv2 at DSD256 or DSD512.

 

 

Both May and T+A are two DACs in the same box. And seems like you used only one of the two.

 

 

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

 

I would not phrase it that way, and that is not my argument. Rather I would say that, notwithstanding how good you know these DACs are, you unfortunately did not avail yourself of the maximum benefit they have to offer. IOW, they are even better than you observed.  

 

  If it is true that the T+A and the May both are superior being fed DSD and using their respective DSD dacs  what sense does it make that they would even include PCM?  All that effort on Holo Audio part to create an r2r ladder for pcm should just have been put into a reasonable interior converter to dsd, likewise with T+A.  Why would they waste this development time, money etc.?  The obvious counterargument is that you need the processing power of a larger comp to achieve some of those results. Yet, many DACs accomplish this internally with great success.   I understand what you're both saying about using all the products features, but I just don't buy the argument that one size DSD fits all.

[Allan F]

37 minutes ago, nmcleod said:

 If it is true that the T+A and the May both are superior being fed DSD and using their respective DSD dacs  what sense does it make that they would even include PCM?

 

I understand what you're both saying about using all the products features, but I don't buy the argument.

 

Reducing it to an all or nothing approach as you apparently do above makes no sense to me. Just because one may not get the absolute best these DACs have to offer does not mean that efforts to optimize PCM are wasted. AS members and similar enthusiasts represent a very small niche market for these DACs, and there will be many users who enjoy PCM using the DAC's own settings. And, obviously, the expense of a computer music server with the processing power to take advantage of HQPlayer will be a factor in how these DACs are used.

 

 

[Miska]

26 minutes ago, nmcleod said:

  If it is true that the T+A and the May both are superior being fed DSD and using their respective DSD dacs  what sense does it make that they would even include PCM?  All that effort on Holo Audio part to create an r2r ladder for pcm should just have been put into a reasonable interior converter to dsd, likewise with T+A.  Why would they waste this development time, money etc.?

 

Likewise you could ask about the DSD side. Maybe because they see fairly large market for such devices. And you can still use the PCM side from less powerful devices.

 

26 minutes ago, nmcleod said:

The obvious counterargument is that you need the processing power of a larger comp to achieve some of those results.

 

Yes.

 

26 minutes ago, nmcleod said:

Yet, many DACs accomplish this internally with great success. 

 

They could be ever greater if they wouldn't be cutting so many corners. Tambaqui uses 3 DSP processors inside, one for the digital filters (just one short / slow-roll-off one?) and two for the modulators, one per channel. Bruno Putzeys said he had to "shoehorn" the algorithms a lot to fit them into the three DSP processors.

 

 

And the combination costs more than May or DAC 200 plus a computer that can do more DSP, including digital room correction and such. Computer, which you will likely use for music playback anyway?

 

26 minutes ago, nmcleod said:

I understand what you're both saying about using all the products features, but I just don't buy the argument that one size DSD fits all.

 

That is precisely what you are buying with Mola-Mola. One size fits all digital filters and DSD modulators.

 

[semente]

1 hour ago, nmcleod said:

If it is true that the T+A and the May both are superior being fed DSD and using their respective DSD dacs  what sense does it make that they would even include PCM?

 

Some audiophiles will swear by PCM. Would it make any commercial sense to restrict the taget audience to people upconverting PCM to DSD?

[nmcleod]

13 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Some audiophiles will swear by PCM. 

 

Exactly.

[luisma]

17 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Some audiophiles will swear by PCM. Would it make any commercial sense to restrict the taget audience to people upconverting PCM to DSD?

I used to prefer PCM for a specific DAC (Terminator original) back then when there was no ASDM7EC (or even v2), so I was doing 1.5 PCM with LNS15, (I even had the Amanero interface initially) it is a matter of preference and I totally understand the drawbacks with noise and sampling. After ASDM7EC (and 5EC) were released I have never ever again have done PCM.

But it is a matter of preference and if someone uses it I don't criticize it. I might suggest them to try it if possible but that's the end of it.

Some on this forum were brought to HQPlayer because I suggested them to try it, 90% of these never went back to non-HQP systems.

But this is about the T+A, sorry for the OT

 

[Tihon]

1 hour ago, luisma said:

After ASDM7EC (and 5EC) were released I have never ever again have done PCM.

Before trying the ASDM7EC I didn't like HQPlayer at all, to be honest 🤣 Now I can't imagine my system without it.

[camott]

I have owned both the Holo May and now the DAC 200. It might be that with PCM the May and DAC 200 are closer. I used to enjoy, almost prefer, upsampled PCM with the May. DSD was *different* but not necessarily better from a SQ perspective.

 

I haven’t spent much time with PCM into the DAC 200 but DSD 256/512 into the DAC 200 is immediately and clearly better than the May. No contest. It’s a shame that @nmcleoddidn’t try DSD on either device.  Bonus points for the excellent line stage in the DAC 200 - I am now going direct Balanced XLR to power amps.

 

(Aside - I don’t think the market is large enough to produce pcm only or dsd only devices but if they did a stripped down DSD only T+A DAC would be killer)

[Nkam]

On 4/5/2023 at 7:58 AM, nmcleod said:

 

I guess that's subjective perception.  I have a hard time believing the entire PCM DAC sections of the May and T+A are completely inferior to their DSD.  I have used the dsd section of the May with various hqplayer settings and it's far too soft for my liking.  I know you design hqplayer so I won't even begin to argue on that as I'll lose on any technical front.  Nor am I criticizing hqplayer, I simply preferred the PCM side of the May.

 

I really doubt most people are buying these dacs solely to use hqplayer to upsample then convert to dsd then feed the dac.  That's a niche area and overly complicated for most general users.  The DAC should stand on its own in a normal streaming environment.   Maybe you could argue the T+A = Tambaqui with certain specific dsd settings, but that overcomplicates it for me personally.  They designed their own filters and own OS, so it should be fair to assess the DAC on those alone.  If that's not a fair assessment in someone else's eyes that's fine too.

 

I prefer PCM as well.   It’s all a matter of taste.  And yes I find DSD too soft sounding as well. 
 

you mentioned I think that the May isn’t as weighty and the DS on the T+A?

 

is the May soft sounding compared to DS DACs in PCM?

 

Thank you 

[Jud]

3 hours ago, Nkam said:

 

I prefer PCM as well.   It’s all a matter of taste.  And yes I find DSD too soft sounding as well. 
 

you mentioned I think that the May isn’t as weighty and the DS on the T+A?

 

is the May soft sounding compared to DS DACs in PCM?

 

Thank you 

Is this with volume carefully equalized? DSD is by convention -6dB from PCM, as you probably know. That would certainly account for it sounding softer.

[Nkam]

4 hours ago, Jud said:

Is this with volume carefully equalized? DSD is by convention -6dB from PCM, as you probably know. That would certainly account for it sounding softer.

 

i always volume match yes.   
and more so with DSD which I always put 6 clicks above on my benchmark LA4. 
 

im hardly the only one who thinks DSD is softer. 
 

but it’s not a big deal.    
 

we all have our preferences. 
DSD is a cool sound as well. 

[Miska]

1 hour ago, Nkam said:

im hardly the only one who thinks DSD is softer.

 

Which rate and modulator? And compared to what other rate and modulator in case you compare to some DS DAC?

 

And of course it depends on the used DAC as well, how it is performing the conversion in first place.

 

[Miska]

I was just trying out Genesis' Trick Of The Tail SACD rip in DSD64 and CD layers on HA 200, and I cannot say that the DSD64 layer would be particularly soft compared to the CD layer. On HA 200.

 

[Nkam]

2 hours ago, Miska said:

I was just trying out Genesis' Trick Of The Tail SACD rip in DSD64 and CD layers on HA 200, and I cannot say that the DSD64 layer would be particularly soft compared to the CD layer. On HA 200.

 

yeah fair enough.  I haven’t listened to nearly as many DACs as you have.  
 

maybe I will one day and hear the difference. 

[Nkam]

On 3/21/2023 at 4:08 AM, OE333 said:

 

We have a long experience with the PCM1795 knowing how to make best use of it (including completely a discrete I/V stage). The converter stage of the PCM1995 is a very good design - and that's all we use from this chip. The rest (oversampling/filtering etc.) is completely bypassed.

 

 

 

 

The PCM circuit design of DAC8DSD and DAC200 is similar but not identical.

For example the DAC200 uses newer clock circuits having much lower jitter. Furthermore a new DSP and new improved upsampling algorithms are used.

 

The analog stages are completely different. DAC200 uses fully discrete analog circuits derived from the T+A "HV" series.

An other big difference is the analog volume control. In DAC8DSD the volume control used integrated circuits, in DAC200 the volume control is by hermetically sealed gold-contact relays and audiophile high precision resistors.

 

another question if I may.

 

Does the DAC 200 have extra headroom for intersample overs? 
To avoid clipping internally ?

 

much obliged 

[Allan F]

On 4/9/2023 at 10:55 AM, Nkam said:

im hardly the only one who thinks DSD is softer. 

 

Are you sure that you are not confusing "smoother" with "softer"?

[dericchan1]

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

 

Are you sure that you are not confusing "smoother" with "softer"?

I was listening to Metallica's 72 seasons from Amazon HD in DSD512, 7ECV2, Poly sinc short MP, there was nothing soft about it.

[Nkam]

1 hour ago, dericchan1 said:

I was listening to Metallica's 72 seasons from Amazon HD in DSD512, 7ECV2, Poly sinc short MP, there was nothing soft about it.

 

hahaha 

 

well I wouldn’t think metallica would sound soft on anything. 
 

 

[Nkam]

2 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

Are you sure that you are not confusing "smoother" with "softer"?

As a musician of 40 years?   No 

sorry I didn’t mean to mention that as a snob.  
merely stating that I have trained ears.  Not just a casual listener. 
 

the attack is softer.   
 

the sound isn’t smoother.  You can hear texture fine.  Maybe a bit more than PCM.