[George Hincapie]

Jeff kind of relies on word of mouth (also including influencers and pro reviewers among actual users) to sell his products - it’s a unique marketing approach for sure. I suspect the reason Holo Audio doesn’t have a website is because it’s not an actual company - not registered at least. I believe he is a one man show which makes me nervous.

For comparison Denafrips is a real company based in Shenzhen China, the company is registered in Guangzhou and Denafrips is a real trademark registered in the US.

Too many red flags with Holo - pass for me from an ownership perspective.

But his products are real, so where is the concern?

 

[chesebert]

I agree.
Objectively a reconstruction filter IS necessary for proper playback of PCM audio, and whilst subjectively NOS can absolutely be enjoyable for some genres and I do listen in NOS sometimes too, proper oversampling is indeed the 'correct' way, and the majority of the time I use HQPlayer for this purpose.

I have never heard May with HQPlayer upsampling. That could solve the issue given you are just aliasing frequencies way above human hearing. Listening is the ultimate test, however.

 

[chesebert]

But his products are real, so where is the concern?

Service, repair, support. I hold my gear for 10yr+ and I want a real company to back up their products. If Jeff dies tomorrow I don’t want to be SOL when it comes time for service.

 

[GoldenSound]

I have never heard May with HQPlayer upsampling. That could solve the issue given you are just aliasing frequencies way above human hearing. Listening is the ultimate test, however.

There's only aliasing if you use a filter that doesn't fully attenuate by the Nyquist frequency.
HQPlayer has filters which with the may are up to 4 million taps, so there's no issue there.

 

[chesebert]

There's only aliasing if you use a filter that doesn't fully attenuate by the Nyquist frequency.
HQPlayer has filters which with the may are up to 4 million taps, so there's no issue there.

Let’s hope someone brings a Holo May with Roon/HQPlayer to AXPONA this year.

 

[sajunky]

Please provide the plots you are referring to here, thank you

Your own plots.

Holo May pulse response at ~200kHz reduced sampling rate and a normal 3GHz for demontrating ringing. Not going to argue with you over and over again.

You are doing good job when taking measurements, it is worth to mention. But I am not going to accept your teaching. Thats all, thank you.

 

[ethr]

Your own plots.

Holo May pulse response at ~200kHz reduced sampling rate and a normal 3GHz for demontrating ringing. Not going to argue with you over and over again.

You are doing good job when taking measurements, it is worth to mention. But I am not going to accept your teaching. Thats all, thank you.

Hold yourself accountable and just say you are sorry and you were wrong and move on.

 

[sajunky]

Hold yourself accountable and just say you are sorry and you were wrong and move on.

There is no purpose of discussion when one side tries to teach others, on textbook matters, imposing that other side wasn't aware of. In the text I wrote about limited bandwith ringing, so why these lectures? Perhaps looking for a public acknowledgement of his briliant knowledge, no other purpose.

The bone of contention is not the issue of ringing, but a source of energy that cause a ringing.

He claimes that pulse test signal cause ringing, while a test made on the same equipment is virtually free of ringing when a device under test is a pure NOS, like in a case of Stereophile tests of Audio Note DACs. I checked two tests, results are the same. Audio Note DACs do not cause ringing, plain and simple. There is a need to look for other source of energy that cause ringing.

He ignores Audio Note case, bringing as example a new BF2/64 which has yet to prove that is a pure NOS. Possibly Schiit does ultrasonic scrambling as well?

He also ignores the fact that Holo Audio cut off frequency do not adhere to the sample&hold theoretical data, it is what John Attkinson pointed out. It doesn't bother him, but it was a big problem when it was needed to prove Denafrips NOS case. Very selective, carpal tunel syndrome.

At least Denafrips doesn't cause ringing. He didn't bother to check, but I am sure it doesn't. It is because Denafrips use ladder compensation, but not randomisation of errors (ultrasonic scrambling). And Ares II unlike Holo Audio sounds good.

I like his measurements, he knows his job, he does it well. It is better if he leaves interpretation to us.

 

[GoldenSound]

Your own plots.

Holo May pulse response at ~200kHz reduced sampling rate and a normal 3GHz for demontrating ringing. Not going to argue with you over and over again.

You are doing good job when taking measurements, it is worth to mention. But I am not going to accept your teaching. Thats all, thank you.

You don't need to take my word for it or believe my 'teaching'. Here's a practical demonstration for you to relieve any doubt:

He claimes that pulse test signal cause ringing, while a test made on the same equipment is virtually free of ringing when a device under test is a pure NOS, like in a case of Stereophile tests of Audio Note DACs. I checked two tests, results are the same. Audio Note DACs do not cause ringing, plain and simple. There is a need to look for other source of energy that cause ringing.

The test on the Audio Note DAC 2.1X done by John Atkinson was made with a high bandwidth oscilloscope, not on the AP analyzer. Hence why the graph format is entirely different.
An oscilloscope with a sufficient bandwidth will not show ringing because as described above (AND demonstrated in the above video), the ringing is not 'caused by the DAC', it is caused by insufficient bandwidth on the ADC to describe a square wave with minimal ringing.

Possibly Schiit does ultrasonic scrambling as well?

PLEASE explain what you are referring to when you say 'ultrasonic scrambling'.
Seriously, none of these devices show any unexpected ultrasonic content whatsoever.....
There's less than 13uV RMS up to 1Mhz, and less than 1.7mV RMS upto 100Mhz, most of which is probably just RF noise being picked up by the cable itself.
'Ultrasonic scrambling' isn't a thing....
If there was high frequency alteration, be it oversampling, noise shaping etc, it would be very visible.

He also ignores the fact that Holo Audio cut off frequency do not adhere to the sample&hold theoretical data, it is what John Attkinson pointed out. It doesn't bother him, but it was a big problem when it was needed to prove Denafrips NOS case. Very selective, carpal tunel syndrome.

Yes it does. And no I'm not ignoring it, I've talked about this when discussing the denafrips stuff previously (from my ares 2 vid for example):

At least Denafrips doesn't cause ringing

ANY signal from ANY DAC with content above nyquist will cause ringing. Again, this is NOT an issue of what's coming out of the DAC. You are mistaking a limitation of the measurement setup for behaviour being shown by the device under test.
John Atkinson in the article was very clear about this too.

 

[801evan]

I have never heard May with HQPlayer upsampling. That could solve the issue given you are just aliasing frequencies way above human hearing. Listening is the ultimate test, however.

HQplayer is horrible. Still the same issue of poorer blacks and timbre is affected with the May NOS as with other DACs. The irony of needing HQplayer in such a setup is just a show of marketing brilliance.

 

[chesebert]

HQplayer is horrible. Still the same issue of poorer blacks and timbre is affected with the May NOS as with other DACs. The irony of needing HQplayer in such a setup is just a show of marketing brilliance.

That’s fair. If a dac needs an external upsampling machine (4 million taps would likely require something like a zen 3 or 12th gen to work properly) to work properly is by definition broken. I am still willing to try because theory needs to be backed up by actual listening

 

[801evan]

That’s fair. If a dac needs an external upsampling machine (4 million taps would likely require something like a zen 3 or 12th gen to work properly) to work properly is by definition broken. I am still willing to try because theory needs to be backed up by actual listening

Only took a year to find out myself. HQplayer 1.5mhz to May is a mess of a sound. No filtering still sounds better on the May in comparison but I still get a better sound with my zen one signature dac with regular pcm and even better with mqa. All the computational power won't save HQplayer or the May due to how noisy the PC is as a transport. How can HQplayer bring any benefit if it lifts blacks and affect timbre.

Sajunky has said the best thing here that makes sense for me. The micros and timing of the May at 1.5mhz (or any setting) is still more similar to a Topping and this may be due to its 'dithering' (or whatever) to achieve high SINAD.

 

[Ragnar-BY]

Jeff kind of relies on word of mouth (also including influencers and pro reviewers among actual users) to sell his products - it’s a unique marketing approach for sure. I suspect the reason Holo Audio doesn’t have a website is because it’s not an actual company - not registered at least. I believe he is a one man show which makes me nervous.

Holo products are sold in EU with CE certificate issued in the name of Holo Technology Co. Ltd. I can’t confirm company registration because PRC commercial register is in Chinese language, but certificate is issued by a well known service, so everything should be legit.

I don’t know how things are in USA, but in Europe the seller is obliged to provide a guarantee. The user is not required to interact with the manufacturer at all.

 

[Ragnar-BY]

If a dac needs an external upsampling machine (4 million taps would likely require something like a zen 3 or 12th gen to work properly) to work properly is by definition broken.

It does not “need” upsampling. All these HQplayer games are just another trendy feature that is fun to play with.

Digital stores like NativeDSD often sell music recorded in hi-res both in the original and in a lower bitrate (for those with old DACs). Anyone can buy an album in a few bitrates and compare the difference in sound to what a HQplayer do to a lower bitrate with it’s upsampling.

The result of upsampling sounds interesting, but has nothing in common with a sound of a real high-res recording. HQplayer changes the sound, some may like it, but to say that upsampling is supposedly the "correct" way to listen to music is simply not true.

 

[Ragnar-BY]

Chord Hugo TT2: Not just because it's a natural upgrade from a Qutest, which I use and like, but because due to special circumstances I can get it new for $4500.

If you like your Qutest, you’ll love TT2 sound. I did that upgrade (Qutest -> TT2) right after TT2 release and was super happy with it for two years until my friend brought a DAVE to my apartment Sometimes I even regret that I didn’t stop then, but started listening to other more expensive DACs, amplifiers, and so on.

Just don’t read about other DACs, as people here will easily convince you that you are missing something