yes, the processing take place on a computer. This is the benefit of the solution, as it can perform calculations and provide options not available in other solutions.
An exploration of Chord DAVE, MScaler, Qutest, and Holo May, HQPlayer
- Thread starter GoldenSound
- Start date
crazyhank
100+ Head-Fier
But doesn't the computer add noise by processing the audio within it?
I'm using Aurender N30sa to Dave/mscaler now.... with Holo May KTE on the way. I wonder how NOS will sound. But in the end...trying Aurender vs PC has blown my mind. The noise even the best NUC and Roon Nucleus etc... can't compare. I promise you...try a good streamer, it was something I avoided and wanted to believe was a waste.
I see you have RED on they way! Exciting to see how that compares to a PC.
Do you like May with NOS? or without HQplayer? Have you ever compared to Dave/Mscaler? Thank you for the help!
I'm using Aurender N30sa to Dave/mscaler now.... with Holo May KTE on the way. I wonder how NOS will sound. But in the end...trying Aurender vs PC has blown my mind. The noise even the best NUC and Roon Nucleus etc... can't compare. I promise you...try a good streamer, it was something I avoided and wanted to believe was a waste.
I see you have RED on they way! Exciting to see how that compares to a PC.
Do you like May with NOS? or without HQplayer? Have you ever compared to Dave/Mscaler? Thank you for the help!
I've never tried the May without HQP. I've compared the May w/HQP to Dave/Mscaler. The Chord items were sold. Too many additional cables, gadgets, batteries, isolation efforts, just to get sound that wasn't as good as May w/HQP. Emphasis FOR MY PREFERENCES.
Last edited:
crazyhank
100+ Head-Fier
Got it, thank you so much! Will be exciting to compare. How do you plan to use HQplayer with the Red?
Red can be used as a NAA (network audio adapter), essentially a bridge between HQP and a DAC. This provides, among various benefits, isolation between the processing computer and the DAC.
1laraz
Head-Fier
GoldenOne rumored that some new hardware upsampler is on the way. Perhaps it will be announced on the High End Munich exhibition?
DarthVaderKamp
New Head-Fier
For anyone on a tight budget, this can also be done with a humble Raspberry Pi 4. I just installed RoPieee XL which provides both NAA and Roon endpoint support. It’s a bit of DIY and you probably need to have a Pi 4 on hand (due to crazy supply constraints) but it’s dirt cheap. To further reduce electrical noise, I power the Pi with a decent LPS. I’m sure it’s not Red level performance but it’s certainly good enough to unlock some HQPlayer magic on my limited budget.
Last edited:
That was not necessarily in reference to Chord specifically. Though I think a Choral line MScaler has been rumored for some time
ClicketEKlack
100+ Head-Fier
Any hints to brand and timeframe?
Very informative and technically challenging thread to say the least. What I do know is that my DENAFRIPS Ares II sounds pretty darn good for its price point. Someday hope to acquire a Holo May but that day is not any time real soon unfortunately. Until then, my Ares II and GSX Mini amp are getting it done rather nicely for a more budget system I think. Finally, it seems like some on here are just about arguing about stuff and it upsets the continuity of the thread.This will be my last response as whilst I'm more than happy to have a discussion or debate about what is quite an interesting topic, your responses seem to be getting somewhat aggressive and I'm not interested in an argument.
You said "because if any compensation methods are used in the digital section, it doesn't affect a physical signal propagation across the ladder.".
Firstly, yes it could. Most R2R designs now have the ladders controlled in a parallel fashion which would allow the FPGA to flip bits as needed and a single clock cycle can be used to change the entire ladder. And there is no reason why this couldn't be done in a sub-sample fashion. Perhaps even correcting or changing the ladder state several times per sample.
Secondly neither denafrips nor holo's compensation methods affect signal propagation across the ladder.
On holo the signal is converted in typical fashion by the ladder, and then after, a small voltage value determined by the second ladder is summed to the main output to correct the result.
On denafrips the signal is converted in typical fashion by the ladders, and then after, they are summed to average out noise and linearity error.
Neither of these methods affect how the initial conversion on the ladder is done and whether the signal propagates through the ladder in "True" r2r fasion or not. It only affects what happens AFTER. And if there is concern about what happens after the ladder making things "True" r2r or not then we'd have to discuss everything all the way through to the output stage. Does the analog reconstruction/lowpass filter need to be done a specific way too?
Though whether either of them are doing further compensation using the FPGA or not we can't know for sure unless either of them disclosed it.
Audio GD DOES disclose this though and quite openly says they do use the FPGA to correct the ladders.
Denafrips is most likely doing DSP based correction as well as evidenced by the customised transfer function interfering with the linearity test done by John Atkinson in a fairly deterministic way. (And the fact that even in "NOS" mode their DACs are actually still oversampling just with fully linear interpolation. AND the fact that their DSP boards have been revised several times and users of the terminator for example can upgrade the DSP board itself to get a change/improvement to the DAC without even touching the ladder.)
You didn't, Audio GD did as shown above.
Also DSP just means digital signal processing. It can involve anything that would alter the signal passed to the converter. Including on-the-fly ladder correction handled by the FPGA.
I'm aware, hence I said they are using analog domain compensation. The use of multiple converters and summing the result is analog domain compensation.
In a perfect world each time you double the number of converters (be it R2R ladders or 1-bit converters) you should get 6dB better performance. Though of course in the real world other factors will be limiting so we can't endlessly stack converters. I did see a TDA1541 DIY project with about 20 stacked chips once though which looked both crazy and interesting.
I am not a self-professed audio-electronics expert (far from it LOL) but I do know my Ares II sounds pretty darn good. Especially since I didn't break the bank to get it. So there's that. Hopefully someday a Holo May will grace my desk (and ears) but that day is not today.
RustyGates
100+ Head-Fier
Not sure what this means
There isn't any evidence for this. And 'analog' sounding is a term that is used in all sorts of different ways. Its a very vague description.
Some r2r dacs do yes. So do some delta-sigma dacs, hell I've got one here that has an effective number of bits of 3.4 (22dB SINAD). There are good and bad implementations of most dac types.
I think you're misunderstanding the definition of "Dynamics". Dynamics and resolution are not the same thing.
Holo May has >140dB true dynamic range.
( https://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/kte-may-technical-measurements.8933/ )
Many TOTL delta sigma dacs like the mola mola tambaqui don't even break 130dB.
Does that then mean that by your argument that you should choose the May instead?
I'm not sure why you're specifically so against R2R dacs. But I would recommend looking into the differences between THD/SINAD, SNR, Dynamic Range, Slew and other factors. As well as how various products in both categories perform. You're positioning it as if it is clear cut which it certainly isn't
You kinda cherry picked measurements here. The May's noise floor measured by L7AudioLab (also an APx555) is -130dB.
As Amir stated in the test, you manually remove the analyzer noise from the Tambaqui's measurement (about ~4.5dB lower) and yeah, you get -130dB. So the May would be lower at -135dB
Stereophiles test method is accurate, they measure the noise floor of the Tambaqui as being -130dB and the May as being 5dB lower at -135dB.
The noise floor at this point is not even an issue, what's really an issue is the May has significantly more distortion / intermodulation problems and simply did not sound all that great without any up-sampling, somewhere up the chain.
Last edited:
This is because of how the stock settings for the dynamic range test in the AP software is set up. If you see a result of just under -130dB for any device then you ccan be pretty sure the tests own configuration is the limiting factor. It's impossible to get a result lower than that with any device unless you change the test parameters as by default it's set to use a very short recorded sample
If you either configure the dynamic range test to use a longer settling time and set of averages, or just do the test manually, you get a result closer to the real result. Hence atomic Bob (and my own) results showing about - 140dB
https://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/kte-may-technical-measurements.8933/
(worth noting that for some devices the AP is also actually outright the limiting factor in terms of its own self noise. Though not sure that applies in this particular instance. That's more on the turbo feedback stuff but still a point of interest)
RustyGates
100+ Head-Fier
Right, so that's how Atomic Bob got -140dB.
I am not entirely sure how the ASR guys do their testing because in one example they measure -127dB for the Topping DM7 (8 channel version of the D90L/SE), yet when Stereophile measures it, it is FAR worse (vs. Tambaqui).
Users who are viewing this thread
