Holo Cyan 2

[Escarbille]

If I understood correctly, it is better to go via USB than via I²S, it's strange because for me, listening is more pleasant (less aggressive to my ears) via I²S than via USB.

 

Beautiful installation @dericchan1  👍

[dericchan1]

4 hours ago, Escarbille said:

If I understood correctly, it is better to go via USB than via I²S, it's strange because for me, listening is more pleasant (less aggressive to my ears) via I²S than via USB.

 

Beautiful installation @dericchan1  👍

I2s vs usb, the stats clearly show usb being superior but I will let you be the judge to see which you prefer. 
 

I would just stick with usb connection and never look back.

 

My room is a bit of a weird layout - long and narrow 14’ x 33, and as you can see from the picture the right side of the front of the room is open to another section so it is like a L shape. The main area where I sit and the front speakers are located has a funny Cathedral shaped ceiling as well…

 

Without any room treatment, the room sounded like an echo chamber. But with quite a bit of treatment put in as well as convolution, it’s sounding really nice, a big sound stage and airy!!!

[bogi]

6 hours ago, Escarbille said:

for me, listening is more pleasant (less aggressive to my ears) via I²S than via USB.

Of course choose the input you like more.
Or try some other filter/modulator combinations.
Change of analog interconnect cables could help too.
Too short USB cable with improper impedance match could also make sound more aggressive.

[copy_of_a]

11 hours ago, dericchan1 said:

For the first time compared the Cyan 2 with and without the intona in the chain. I will be lying if I tell you I can hear any differences. Really the first time I did not think I need an intona in the chain out of any other dacs I have used in any of my systems!!!!

Same with my Singxer SDA-6 pro.

However, I absolutely love the Intonas for being "piece of mind" components. If there's something to clean up they do exactly that. And if not they do nothing. You don't have to worry an Intona in the chain degrades the sound.

So I use one also with the Singxer DAC.

[dericchan1]

4 minutes ago, copy_of_a said:

Same with my Singxer SDA-6 pro.

However, I absolutely love the Intonas for being "piece of mind" components. If there's something to clean up they do exactly that. And if not they do nothing. You don't have to worry an Intona in the chain degrades the sound.

So I use one also with the Singxer DAC.

Agreed and I have 3 intonas, 1 for each of my system, but its good to know that at least with the Cyan 2, I don't need an intona and I can sell off that intona with 2 supra excalibur usb cables that would be close to half the price of the Cyan 2!!!

[copy_of_a]

9 minutes ago, dericchan1 said:

Agreed and I have 3 intonas, 1 for each of my system, but its good to know that at least with the Cyan 2, I don't need an intona and I can sell off that intona with 2 supra excalibur usb cables that would be close to half the price of the Cyan 2!!!

😊👍

[dericchan1]

@Miska so I have had the cyan 2 for almost a month and a half now and overall very pleased with it. I have been doing a lot of comparisons between dsd256 7EC super, dsd512 7EC 512fs super and dsd1024 with the experimental modulator - just using the default filters gauss long and hires gauss lp.

 

i wonder if you might have had time to run a set of measurements on whether dsd256 or dsd512 are technically superior?

 

I have long given up on pcm. Anyways, to my ears dsd1024 is out of the competition after the first couple of days as dsd256 and 512 are clearly better.

 

dsd256 and 512 are both very good, they sounded different but very close in terms of which one I prefer. Ultimately dsd256 is the winner for me as it sound just a tiny bit cleaner overall (as if the mids are a bit more forward closer to the stage) compared to dsd512 that sounded a bit more “distant”.

 

cheers

 

Deric

[bogi]

@dericchan1  You can try also 7EC-super 512+ fs at DSD256. It was discussed more times, that it would bring disadvantage only with source content at >= 192k, if it contains real sounds at frequencies > 48k, which is very rare. Few instruments can create such high frequency content, but recordings rarely contain it. fs=192k can encode content up to fs/2=96k.

[dericchan1]

3 minutes ago, bogi said:

@dericchan1  You can try also 7EC-super 512+ fs at DSD256. It was discussed more times, that it would bring disadvantage only with source content at >= 192k, if it contains real sounds at frequencies > 48k, which is very rare. Few instruments can create such high frequency content, but recordings rarely contain it. fs=192k can encode content up to fs/2=96k.

Thanks @bogi 

 

was hoping to see if Miska might have had a chance to run a sweep of measurements to confirm if 256 vs 512 is technically superior. My ears prefers 256 with a slightly cleaner sound but they are very closed. 
 

with my ifi pro idsd, dsd256 was the clear winner, not so much with the Cyan2

[Miska]

Difference is rather small, but DSD256 is somewhat better than DSD512 in audio band. 

 

Out of band (ultrasonic) left-over noise is 12 dB lower at DSD512 than DSD256.

 

[dericchan1]

27 minutes ago, Miska said:

Difference is rather small, but DSD256 is somewhat better than DSD512 in audio band. 

 

Out of band (ultrasonic) left-over noise is 12 dB lower at DSD512 than DSD256.

 

Thanks Miska. So my ears weren’t lying, dsd256 is indeed cleaner than dsd512.

 

As a comparison, I just went to the Samara Joy concert at the Koerner Hall on Saturday. I was sitting closer to the back at the concert hall. As soon as I got home I listened to her album and compared with my live experience…

 

So I think with dsd256, listening to Samara Joy from Qobuz sounded cleaner and her vocal much closer than when I heard at the Koerner Hall. It’s like I was sitting in the front row closer to the stage.

 

At dsd512, it's still clean but it sounded closer to where I sat closer to the back at the Koerner Hall - her vocal is less forward and the soundstage is a touch bigger

[Escarbille]

It sucks to build a DAC knowing how to do dsd1024 and the sound is better in 256 🤔

[Miska]

9 minutes ago, Escarbille said:

It sucks to build a DAC knowing how to do dsd1024 and the sound is better in 256 🤔

 

You can always try which one you prefer. DSD1024 support is also useful for trying out the new experimental AHM modulators.

 

[dericchan1]

37 minutes ago, Escarbille said:

It sucks to build a DAC knowing how to do dsd1024 and the sound is better in 256 🤔

Not sure if I can agree with this comment, it’s almost like saying it sucks to build a DAC with support for pcm when you really only need dsd …

 

Also this is probably not only applicable to the Cyan 2. Some of my friends with Holo Spring 3 and May also prefer dsd256. Or my ifi pro idsd dac…

[dericchan1]

37 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

You can always try which one you prefer. DSD1024 support is also useful for trying out the new experimental AHM modulators.

 

Hi Miska, in the manual it mentioned the experimental AHM modulator is not good for using the digital volume of hqplayer. Since I am now going direct from cyan 2 to power amp and setting hqplayer volume at -18db, I guess the AHM modulator would not work?

[Miska]

42 minutes ago, dericchan1 said:

Hi Miska, in the manual it mentioned the experimental AHM modulator is not good for using the digital volume of hqplayer. Since I am now going direct from cyan 2 to power amp and setting hqplayer volume at -18db, I guess the AHM modulator would not work?

 

It is not best choice for that case. Rather either regular ASDM7EC-ul/light/super or the 512+fs variant of these.

 

[semente]

On 2/26/2024 at 6:23 PM, Miska said:

 

It is not best choice for that case. Rather either regular ASDM7EC-ul/light/super or the 512+fs variant of these.

 

 

@Miska how does the out-of-band noise shape differ between regular ASDM7 and 512+fs?

Which one would be best for a wide bandwidth transistor amplifier?

[Miska]

1 hour ago, semente said:

@Miska how does the out-of-band noise shape differ between regular ASDM7 and 512+fs?

Which one would be best for a wide bandwidth transistor amplifier?

 

Regular one at DSD512 has usable audio bandwidth of at least 200 kHz. This is more than is necessary for any music recording.

 

So the 512+fs one uses this fact to use a more relaxed noise-shaping curve to still retain at least 100 kHz worth of audio bandwidth. In addition, it also has higher theoretical SNR in audio band.

 

However, either one will have at least 60 dB higher SNR than what can be achieved in analog domain due to laws of physics (Johnson-Nyquist noise). So the limiting factor is always analog world.

 

Either one is fine for such amplifier. The resulting remaining ultrasonic noise (if any) depends on combination of modulator and D/A conversion filters of the DAC.

 

[semente]

6 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

Regular one at DSD512 has usable audio bandwidth of at least 200 kHz. This is more than is necessary for any music recording.

 

So the 512+fs one uses this fact to use a more relaxed noise-shaping curve to still retain at least 100 kHz worth of audio bandwidth. In addition, it also has higher theoretical SNR in audio band.

 

However, either one will have at least 60 dB higher SNR than what can be achieved in analog domain due to laws of physics (Johnson-Nyquist noise). So the limiting factor is always analog world.

 

Either one is fine for such amplifier. The resulting remaining ultrasonic noise (if any) depends on combination of modulator and D/A conversion filters of the DAC.

 

Thanks, I am using DSD256 into a RME ADI2 DAC with the analogue DSD filter set to 50Hz

[Miska]

23 minutes ago, semente said:

Thanks, I am using DSD256 into a RME ADI2 DAC with the analogue DSD filter set to 50Hz

 

Since that device can do max DSD256, it is recommended to use the regular ones. Using 512+fs modulator is also possible, but drops the optimal audio bandwidth to 50+ kHz (half the rate, half the bandwidth) while regular modulator gives you 100+ kHz.

 

[skipspence]

On 2/26/2024 at 8:00 PM, Miska said:

DSD1024 support is also useful for trying out the new experimental AHM modulators.

Everytime I hear this mentioned, I wonder why my i5 5600 could do DSD1024 / AHM on 5.4.0, but even i9 13900h on all the later versions couldn't? Really why?)) ... 

 

Guess reason was adding the ecore offload option...

[Miska]

4 hours ago, skipspence said:

Everytime I hear this mentioned, I wonder why my i5 5600 could do DSD1024 / AHM on 5.4.0, but even i9 13900h on all the later versions couldn't? Really why?)) ... 

 

I don't know about the specific CPU models, but i9 can do AHM as well. There are certainly some math operations where AMD is clearly better than Intel.

 

So overall, Intel can reach higher peak performance. But AMD can usually give more consistent, but lower, results across the board. So on average, AMD wins while median on Intel is higher.

 

[skipspence]

11 hours ago, Miska said:

 

I don't know about the specific CPU models, but i9 can do AHM as well. There are certainly some math operations where AMD is clearly better than Intel.

 

So overall, Intel can reach higher peak performance. But AMD can usually give more consistent, but lower, results across the board. So on average, AMD wins while median on Intel is higher.

 

Sorry for misleading you with AMD...) 

I mentioned i5 in conjunction with my Intel 10600 model, which clearly can do DSD1024/AHM on HQP 5.4.0 version, 

so I compare Intel vs Intel with my question above, with no AMD in mind. 

[skipspence]

35 minutes ago, skipspence said:

Sorry for misleading you with AMD...) 

I mentioned i5 in conjunction with my Intel 10600 model, which clearly can do DSD1024/AHM on HQP 5.4.0 version, 

so I compare Intel vs Intel with my question above, with no AMD in mind. 

IOW my i5 10600 which can play DSD1024 with AHM modulators on HQP 5.4.0  (I didn't check later vers) appears more powerful than i9 13900h which can't do the same on later HQP versions, but plays very well DSD512 with EC modulators, which 10600 cannot)) 

I'm asking now whether it's maybe because of new ecores offload option, which demands more power then 5.4.0 version? I was very happy with the new AHM modulators, now I'd like to have them working on my 13900h with later HQP versions...) 

[stefano_mbp]

5 minutes ago, skipspence said:

now I'd like to have them working on my 13900h

Did you set ecores=filter and multicore=1 ?