HoloAudio Owners & Discussion Thread

[rocky500]

26 minutes ago, rmpfyf said:

 

Would wonder how it stacks up against the Klein II.

In this thread "Counch Blowa" preferred his Klein II in his system to the Holo Dac.

I have heard a Klein II in another persons system and it was impressive. (His whole system always blows me away)

Seems to be a great Dac for the money.

Edited October 22, 2016 by rocky500

[CryptiK]

We should fly rocky over to Melbourne with his DAC then all meet up at someone's house and bring our DAC's then have a DAC-off. Write up a proper listening impressions style review pitting it against lower, similar and higher priced DAC's. 

Edited October 22, 2016 by CryptiK

[rocky500]

14 minutes ago, CryptiK said:

We should fly rocky over to Melbourne with his DAC then all meet up at someone's house and bring our DAC's then have a DAC-off. Write up a proper listening impressions style review pitting it against lower, similar and higher priced DAC's. 

 

I am thinking about sending mine to Pixelplay, so he can compare it to his Pure silver transformer one. Then I can find out if I should spend the extra to buy the transformer and install it in mine.

Unless someone in W.A. buys a level 3.

 

I did own a Klein 1 Dac and at the time preferred my 2Qute but again the Klein sounded good. It was the vocals with the 2Qute that won me over.

 

There is something about these R2R dacs that do something impressive for my system. My backup Dac is a Schiit modi multibit and I enjoy that one too.

 

All my listening is all PCM though.

Edited October 22, 2016 by rocky500

[georgehifi]

Quote

24 minutes ago, rocky500 said:

 

There is something about these R2R dacs that do something impressive for my system. My backup Dac is a Schiit modi multibit and I enjoy that one too.

 

All my listening is all PCM though.

 

 

It's called dynamics, a "jump factor" which multibit has all over DS based dacs when converting PCM (Redbook 16/44 24/96/DXD or the old DVD-A) 

 

Cheers George

[rocky500]

4 minutes ago, georgehifi said:

 

It's called dynamics, a "jump factor" which multibit has all over DS based dacs when converting PCM (Redbook 16/44 24/96/DXD or the old DVD-A) 

 

Cheers George

Yes and It is a realism to the vocals and instruments that win me over. So easy to get into my music.

Good vinyl does it as well for me and these type of Dacs seem more to my taste and enjoyment. 

[AccuTidal]

Yes and It is a realism to the vocals and instruments that win me over. So easy to get into my music.
Good vinyl does it as well for me and these type of Dacs seem more to my taste and enjoyment. 

Did you say realism?!
I have found one.

[rocky500]

14 minutes ago, Chanh said:

Did you say realism?!
I have found one. 

 

There is definitely different stages with this and that that looks like you are right up there. 

[Guest rmpfyf]

9 minutes ago, Chanh said:

Did you say realism?!
I have found one.

 

 

If you gave me one for Klein/Holo money I'd not complain  

[georgehifi]

DC37 another DS ( ES9018 ) based one.

 

The best for PCM from them was the DC91(16 x PCM63's) or the DC61 (12 x PCM1702's) or even the DP75 cdp with (16 x PCM1702's)

 

Cheers George

[AccuTidal]

DC37 another DS ( ES9018 ) based one.

 

The best for PCM from them was the DC91(16 x PCM63's) or the DC61 (12 x PCM1702's) or even the DP75 cdp with (16 x PCM1702's)

 

Cheers George

Have you seen a DC-950 in the flesh?

Have you heard a DC-37, with premature inconclusive comments?

Well I owned them both and along with many years of DAC searching, auditioning...! To a point of building my own DAC too....

[georgehifi]

Quote

2 minutes ago, Chanh said:

Have you seen a DC-950 in the flesh?

 

 

Sorry I thought by it's looks it was the DC37. Still the 950 is a DSD unit which is DS based.

 

Quote Mojo Music:

" When a PCM file is played on a DSD or Bit Stream converter, the DAC chip has to convert the PCM to DSD in real time. This is one of the major reasons people claim DSD sounds better than PCM, when in fact, it is just that the chip in most modern single-bit, DS DACs do a poor job of decoding PCM."

 

Cheers George

[Nada]

Why would George possibly want to see yet another DAC with a noise modulating chip pretending to do the DA conversion in 32bits?  Yo might not realize this but George likes R2R conversions  

[georgehifi]

Correct, it's a bit like Class D's noise, pollutes it all only to tried be filtered out down the track.

But Class D one day will come of age when technology can get the switching noise at least 5 x higher to 3-5mhz, then it can be filtered out at it's output, without having any effect on the audio band.

 

Cheers George

Edited October 22, 2016 by georgehifi

[AccuTidal]

Haha.... agreed! Audio is purely subjective and personal's preference. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

Personally, I haven't yet listened to the "Spring DAC". I liked the build and design. Nevertheless - I hadn't came across a musical R2R implementation base as yet, and R2R isn't new. It is a very old design that was failed to take off back in the 80s. May be with this recent implementation from Holo, Spring DAC is a game changer?!

I think most of us are confusing the differences between DAC's technology vs DAC implementation. A good DAC technology that is poorly implemented will sound good? And vice versa. There are much into a DAC as overall unit, other than conceived simply DAC's logic/design. We often disregard the implementing factor(s) and prompt to prematurely judged or preconceived as a poor DAC unit prior hand on audition experienced ourselves!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[zenelectro]

21 hours ago, eltech said:

 

I used to think that, but recently had somewhat an epiphany, and what I learned was that op-amps actually sound fantastic, and way better to my ears than any valve or NFB circuit.

So what was the epiphany, or should I say what caused the epiphany?

 

Of course opamps can sound fantastic, it obviously depends very much on the surrounding circuit. They've also come a long way and some of the latest generation are very good.

(Worth reading about opamp measurements:  www.nanovolt.ch/resources/ic_opamps/pdf/opamp_distortion.pdf )

I use whatever is available to do the job (opamps/ discrete SS - closed loop / OL / tubes - They're all good for something. 

 

Still, a VG ZFB circuit has it's place IMO. I-V for a DAC is one example. But it has to be designed to have a/ Low distortion b/ Low thermal distortion c/ Low V modulated C distortion. If you get these all right, ZFB is hard to beat and it's also possible to get VG measured performance of such I-V,  -120dB or better. But that's not something most EE's will necessarily be able to do. 

 

21 hours ago, eltech said:

 

I think in this case you are referring to vintage mixing consoles which are today used as an effect to get a certain sort of sound, or replicate the sort of sound found on a 1970's recording. I know a studio engineer and he agrees with me about this. Even surely you have to agree that when it comes to studio audio engineering it is all about the sound the engineer gets in the mix? They do aim to get a certain sort of sound! Just because a certain bit of transformer coupled studio gear is respected doesnt mean it is "best" it just means it has a cult following for some particular reason. Sometimes its just because a certain classic 70's album was recorded on that sort of console, it gets this cult following. There are plenty of modern expensive consoles that are also "highly regarded".

You stated, (quote) "Electronics engineering involves no black magic". I was presenting examples of 'Black Magic' in electronic audio design. I said and I quote "a little bit of black magic".

I didn't say all electronic design is black magic - which seems to be what you are implying.

 

I don't think it matters whether the net effect is euphonic or not, the bottom line is there are many many examples of audio electronics where the end result is a subtle combination of things and it's very difficult to exactly quantify those effects with measurements. Really, you just have to listen. This is where experience comes in as opposed to just textbook theory.

 

One more example - and I'm hoping that you won't misinterpret this as per previous examples:

PS Audio Directstream DAC. V high performance product. Very cutting edge theory based design. However in the OP stage, a transformer is used as part of the LPF to attenuate the DSD HF energy.

A typical 'textbook design' would most likely use a very high speed opamp based LPF topology. They chose to use a transformer and in fact a transformer with slightly degraded performance (in one area - LF THD) to allow improved performance in another area (limited BW and hence better HF filtering). This is what I would call a little bit of BM. It's not typical textbook theory based approach, but a somewhat inventive

approach to get desired results in a simple way. There are many people (here I believe) that feel this is among the best DAC's out there.

 

 

21 hours ago, eltech said:

 

Why do you even raise this issue about a vintage quality mic and then compare it to a modern cheap mic?

It was another example of 'a little bit of BM' in these old products. The comparison to newer mics was pointing out that the modern circuitry whilst theoretically better from a distortion

perspective doesn't necessarily sound better. You can call it euphonic - or not but I think my point is pretty clear, these subtle combinations of subjective effects are what I file under the 'little bit of black magic'.

 

21 hours ago, eltech said:

 

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. Im also an electronics engineer and I dont think its that hard. I think some unscrupulous electronics engineers like to make out like they are some sort of "guru" who has some "magical herbs and spices" in order to charge more for something containing only a few relatively inexpensive parts. A bit like a rort performed on an uneducated public. The saying goes " a fool and his money are soon parted"

Yes - there's a bit of 'guru' labeling going around and I really like to stay away from this sort of thing.

But IME I think you will find that most designers just want to get on with their job and do the best they can within their skill set and preferred methodology.

It's mostly their non technical clients that praise and build up their favorite tech / designer / brand to guru status. IME the intentions are well meant but not always well received by others.

That's life!

 

21 hours ago, eltech said:

 

Lets just imagine if bridge engineers behaved the same way. Would you feel comfortable driving on a bridge that the engineer said involved black magic to build it?

No way! You want solid engineering and modeling / simulations to make sure that bridge holds up when you drive on it!

Well - a bridge is not a piece of audio gear. Subjectively aesthetics are important but far and away the one most important function is..... not to fall down!   

 

21 hours ago, eltech said:

 

Where I do somewhat agree with you is that it does take experience to know that certain electronics parts are more appropriate for audio than other parts. However that topic is well covered on every audio forum on the planet. parts are usually quite cheap and the audio electronics engineer is entitled to use a certain combination of parts to create a certain sound (voicing) the equipment. But its not black magic. Its really just doing your job properly.

Well you can call it doing your job properly.... I always do my job properly, to the best of my ability. 

But not everything I design and make sounds consistently great - sometimes it takes a lot of extra futzing around to get something sounding just right.

You obviously must be pretty damn good if you nail it every time.

I take my hat off to you.

T

[zenelectro]

31 minutes ago, Chanh said:

Haha.... agreed! Audio is purely subjective and personal's preference. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

I think most of us are confusing the differences between DAC's technology vs DAC implementation. A good DAC technology that is poorly implemented will sound good? And vice versa. There are much into a DAC as overall unit, other than conceived simply DAC's logic/design. We often disregard the implementing factor(s) and prompt to prematurely judged or preconceived as a poor DAC unit prior hand on audition experienced ourselves!
 

Very true IMO. I think the DAC chip technologies now are getting very advanced and capable of incredible performance.

 

[zenelectro]

1 hour ago, Chanh said:

Have you seen a DC-950 in the flesh?

Have you heard a DC-37, with premature inconclusive comments?

Well I owned them both and along with many years of DAC searching, auditioning...! To a point of building my own DAC too....

Is this the stacked PCM1794 based DAC?

I believe these are very good - especially with transformer OP.

It's interesting that people constantly find better ways to implement (fairly old) chips like 1794. 

 

 

[zenelectro]

2 hours ago, georgehifi said:

 

It's called dynamics, a "jump factor" which multibit has all over DS based dacs when converting PCM (Redbook 16/44 24/96/DXD or the old DVD-A) 

 

Cheers George

So I guess our challenge is to convert George to be a DS enthusiast. 

There will be a prize for anyone who can build a DS DAC that George likes.

Maybe I have to do it - haha!

 

[AccuTidal]

Is this the stacked PCM1794 based DAC?
I believe these are very good - especially with transformer OP.
It's interesting that people constantly find better ways to implement (fairly old) chips like 1794. 

Correct! I used Sowter OTs. No digital filtering and completely NOS implemented.

[Nada]

Quote

So I guess our challenge is to convert George to be a DS enthusiast. 

There will be a prize for anyone who can build a DS DAC that George likes.

Maybe I have to do it - haha!

 

Easily done.  Just hide the AK4497 chips  under an unplugged  Soekris R2R board then follow with the fabulous light speed volume control and finally use AD844 to lower the output impedance. He will love it.

[rocky500]

10 minutes ago, Chanh said:

Correct! I used Sowter OTs. No digital filtering and completely NOS implemented.

 

This always reminds me of something famous. Just needs a little lean to it and it could be a big seller. 

[Nada]

3 minutes ago, Chanh said:

Correct! I used Sowter OTs. No digital filtering and completely NOS implemented.

 

What? The idea of running a DS process NOS is somewhat bizarre. Suppose its one way to evict pests?

[firedog]

I think this whole "religious" argument about which chip and which format are always "better" is ridiculous.

 

Recording and mastering count much more than any format difference in how a recording sounds. An extremely good recording will sound extremely good in either DSD or PCM. And it will still sound pretty much just as good when properly converted to the "other" format, or even downsampled to 16/44.1 from some hii-res original.

 

As far as DACs and DS being inherently inferior, and the claim that DSD lovers prefer it only it b/c their DS DACs are internally converting PCM to DSD: a serious hole in this argument is that virtually every PCM recording is made with ADCs and DACs that are DS based. So your PCM recording is itself an analog to DSD to PCM recording that has been converted at least once, if not several times, from DSD to PCM and back. 

 

Claiming that your R2R DAC is then somehow giving you "pure" DA conversion of your digital file is just silly. 

 

In addition, does anyone seriously claim that DAC engineering and implementation doesn't trump whatever chip (or lack thereof) is inside the DAC? 

 

If you generally prefer R2R DACs, I have no argument with you.  But claiming that R2R is somehow inherently superior and will always sound better is an argument not based in serious logic or evidence. It may be based on personal taste or sighted listening, but it isn't based on much else.

Edited October 22, 2016 by firedog

[georgehifi]

Quote: From "REAL" HD Audio

" Conversion from multi-bit PCM to 1-bit DSD is always a lossy process. The loss is due to the 1-bit truncation. This truncation introduces a very large ultrasonic error signal that makes the ultrasonic region unusable for audio."

 

Cheers George

[sir sanders zingmore]

The ultrasonic region is unusable for audio. 

Is that saying that stuff you can't hear can't be used for hearing ?