[sns109]

Did you find any loss in clarity by using dsp? In theory it seems there should be none. I have experimented with Wavelab over the years and had some good results in doing some amateur remastering of some old recordings. Usually the addition of some reverb and spacial enhancement make the sound more listenable. On the other hand when I have used the Jriver equalizer the music seems to lose a touch of clarity.

 

[sns109]

As I wrote a little further down, I am doing convolution (haven't used the term) with an f-response curve I design to my room and taste. I am not putting my PC back into the chain. My NAS music fileserver is too old and not powerful enough to run something like Roon or JRiver, so I let my convolving software fold the FLAC files on the disc. Time-consuming and not comfortable at all, but I don't want to upgrade anything there, yet.

What I meant to say! I've heard instant and unmistakable loss of transparency when using Roon DSP, makes me wary of any DSP. Up to know I"ve found no need for any DSP, nothing to add or detract, fully immersed in musicians in room capabilities of present setup. My recent issues with image outlines has me rethinking this, may try HQPlayer, see if any impact on this particular issue. I also understand the theoretical advantages of doing all upsampling/oversampling prior to dac.

 

[HermannS]

The Acourate software needs a lot of experimentation. The factor where I experienced a loss of clarity and especially dynamics is the positioning of the target f-curve in relation to the amplitude. When I am too aggressive and cut off -6dB to correct all the troths in the bass region, it sounds dead. I can't do any special effects with it, just the f-curve. It does phase correction, too. -3dB is a kind of sweet spot for me.

 

[sns109]

So last night returned to prior setup. Netgear Nighthawk R7000 AC1900 router powered by Teradak 12v 4A LPS, feeding NAS and server via AQ Vodka ethernet. This versus router in same configuration feeding RenoLabs Ultimate switch which in turn fed NAS and server, all AQ Vodka ethernet.

And so my former wonderful sound is back, the reason I thought 005 so special! I previously thought only images negatively impacted by switch in that they became excessively defined in space, cookie cutter edges, loss of spaciousness, airy sensation. Well, this all true, first thing heard even during warm up, background volume levels, non attentive listening, was increase in this sensation. Settling in for attentive listening session, heard even more losses when switch inserted. Noticeable increase in transparency and micro dynamics, while performers had sensation of being in room with switch, without they became living breathing performers. These losses with switch profound, made the 005 merely sound precise and analytical, without switch 005 became organic, lifelike.

These results are the exact opposite of what I expected coming into this. I was seeking confirmation bias with insertion of switch, I wanted it to succeed, expected it to succeed. I gave it every chance, burn in, different power cords, nothing improved performance. And so these results not only counterintuitive in theoretical sense, but also overcame much bias. And so, I've done some more research into why I experienced this result. Reading through many forums, many wildly diverging experiences with audiophile switches, some agnostic, some extol virtues, even to the point of running in daisy chain, others get results similar to me. Negative reviews in regard to quashing of micro dynamics really caught my attention as this was perhaps the greatest loss with switch. And positive, negative and agnostic reviews of many brands of audiophile switches, I saw this with the English Audio, Silent Angel, Uptone Etheregen, Melco, some others forgetting. I haven't seen any negative reviews of the latest really high cost switches such as Telegartner, Synergistic, Innuos, likely because virtually no reviews at this point. I have seen used Telegartners for sale, is dissatisfaction reason for sale?

I know Amir at ASR and those of the measurement tribe can't uncover any measurement regime that would account for improved sound quality. For these, exact equal measurements switch vs no switch should result in exact same sound quality. Based on my results of lower sound quality, these limited measurements are totally unsatisfactory, the RenoLabs switch is affecting sound quality in my setup. And so I opened up my switch in order to uncover some possible reason for my results. First thing I uncovered is RenoLabs lies in marketing this switch, they claim OXCO, my board has Rakon P5578, this is TXCO. OXCO reportedly superior to TXCO. I also suspect this is generic switch circuit board, only the oscillator board and LPS board proprietary.

As things stand, I highly doubt another attempt at audiophile switch. Up to this point every single network improvement has been positive, this was the last possible network improvement possible barring brand or model changes. I expected the switch would be improvement, and still believe audiophile switch could be theoretical improvement. My continuing belief in possibility of positive results from audiophile switch comes from the one aspect of performance the RenoLabs did improve. It did uncover some extremely low level information formerly partially obscured, this points to lower noise floor with switch. Perhaps there is some switch with positive impact here and with the other aspects this switch negatively impacted. Still, at this point I'm done, at least for the near term. I'm going to enjoy my streaming setup with 005, living, breathing performers in room, what more does one need! My efforts and resources will now flow towards my turntable, vinyl setup, its fallen seriously behind streaming solution since 005.

 

[sns109]

 

[DBB1]

"Still, at this point I'm done, at least for the near term. I'm going to enjoy my streaming setup with 005, living, breathing performers in room, what more does one need! My efforts and resources will now flow towards my turntable, vinyl setup, its fallen seriously behind streaming solution since 005."

This is a good thing.

 

[DBB1]

I have been following this thread from the beginning. I don't recall much discussion on the comparative sound quality of the various inputs in the 005. On the 004, the consensus was that the USB sounded best. That's what I found. I'm wondering, presuming a good digital to digital converter, if that's true with the 005. Does anybody have experience with this question?

 

[Lennym]

I just thought I'd share a "switch" experience. I had been running two ordinary ethernet lines from my office MODEM through a wall to where I listen. One went to an SOtM sMS-200ultra Neo used as a DLNA streamer; the other to a laptop running JRiver. A NAS containing my music was attached to the MODEM. This arrangement permitted music file editing on an office desk-top and playing music with the laptop. I started to do some research on switches and decided that if I did nothing else, I could use a cheap switch to get the music out of the ROUTER, at least while it was playing. So an $18 TPLink switch with its cheap wall-wart was put in near the SOtM. One ethernet cable now runs from the NAS to the switch; the other runs from the MODEM to the switch. I made up a very short cable to run from switch to SOtM and another cable runs from switch to the lap-top. Functionally, the switch is invisible.

The surprise for me was not that the system sounds better, but how MUCH better even with this ordinary switch. Wider, deeper, smoother, quieter. Not crazy different, but with improvements we all strive for. If nothing else, the Musetec shows it has a lot more to give, properly fed.

I'm going to sit on this for a while, but a better switch perhaps. I've been doing some looking beginning with Beekhuyzen. He has reviewed 5 switches. His view is that the EtherREGEN beats all comers, including some costing far more. He attributes that to its completely isolated ethernet output port. He also maintains that switch-mode power supplies (often provided with switches) sound better with switches than do LPSs, though he is a big LPS advocate. He also finds that the impact of all the switches, compared to his TPLink, is minimized with streamers of higher quality. Seems to me that relates to an earlier discusssion here on the need, or not, for decrapification. Then there's a 9 page Audiogon thread on switches that I'm plowing through.

Any thoughts?

 

[sns109]

I just thought I'd share a "switch" experience. I had been running two ordinary ethernet lines from my office MODEM through a wall to where I listen. One went to an SOtM sMS-200ultra Neo used as a DLNA streamer; the other to a laptop running JRiver. A NAS containing my music was attached to the MODEM. This arrangement permitted music file editing on an office desk-top and playing music with the laptop. I started to do some research on switches and decided that if I did nothing else, I could use a cheap switch to get the music out of the ROUTER, at least while it was playing. So an $18 TPLink switch with its cheap wall-wart was put in near the SOtM. One ethernet cable now runs from the NAS to the switch; the other runs from the MODEM to the switch. I made up a very short cable to run from switch to SOtM and another cable runs from switch to the lap-top. Functionally, the switch is invisible.

The surprise for me was not that the system sounds better, but how MUCH better even with this ordinary switch. Wider, deeper, smoother, quieter. Not crazy different, but with improvements we all strive for. If nothing else, the Musetec shows it has a lot more to give, properly fed.

I'm going to sit on this for a while, but a better switch perhaps. I've been doing some looking beginning with Beekhuyzen. He has reviewed 5 switches. His view is that the EtherREGEN beats all comers, including some costing far more. He attributes that to its completely isolated ethernet output port. He also maintains that switch-mode power supplies (often provided with switches) sound better with switches than do LPSs, though he is a big LPS advocate. He also finds that the impact of all the switches, compared to his TPLink, is minimized with streamers of higher quality. Seems to me that relates to an earlier discusssion here on the need, or not, for decrapification. Then there's a 9 page Audiogon thread on switches that I'm plowing through.

Any thoughts?

Only that all systems and switches not created equally. Theoretically, quality switch, or possibly any switch should be network upgrade. It network upgrades net sound quality changes, result should be better sound quality. In my case, I did hear added low level information which tells you my switch likely lowered noise floor to some extent. At this point I'm thinking perhaps there can be an excess of clocking throughout a particular streaming situation. 005 has top notch clocking, my Sotm has nice clocking, in my case, this amount of clocking may be optimum. The switch clock too much of a good thing?

I've also heard the idea that no lps on switch superior, I don't have the option of testing this as my switch has built in lps. At present, lending out my switch to another audiophile, interested to hear his perspective. I've seen positive and rather negative reviews of EtherRegen, just as I have from any switch with larger quantity of reviews. Switch impact on streamer would likely be most impactful if streamer had ethernet input vs. usb input, usb would use it's own decrapifiers. You'd thing servers with their ethernet inputs would always benefit from network improvements upstream. In last few pages of that audiogon thread mention of these new high cost switches being superior to the lower priced.

Bottom line, my experience is network optimization is critical to getting superior performance from servers, streamers, dacs.

 

[Lennym]

I have been following this thread from the beginning. I don't recall much discussion on the comparative sound quality of the various inputs in the 005. On the 004, the consensus was that the USB sounded best. That's what I found. I'm wondering, presuming a good digital to digital converter, if that's true with the 005. Does anybody have experience with this question?

I think there is no question but that the Musetec is optimized for USB. Three high quality clocks, the Amanero board and the battery-like power supply all contribute. I have looked at a lot of DACs, and I haven't seen any doing a better USB to I2S job. In fact a lot of very high priced computers continue to depend on the 5V from the USB cable, which I believe to be a very poor solution. The movement away from spdif to USB came about because people like you and me are happy running programs like JRiver from a laptop or something similar with a USB output. The problem has been that our computers are noisy. One solution is to substitute devices that use Raspberry Pi mini-computers that are quiet, but IIRC that precludes programs like JRiver as a RPi does not run Windows. RPis use other, simpler, programs. Another is to make sure the music files do not run through the computer on the way to the DAC. The DLNA function in JRiver does that. And finally I have discovered that for best sound you can't even let your music files run through your router, which turns out also to be a significant noise source. Beyond that, it's been my experience through testing that wired, rather than wi-fi connections, yield better sound.

 

[DBB1]

Musetec Audio (LKS Audio) MH-DA005 DAC and the Holo May (L2) DAC Compared

A comparison of these two DACs is something I wanted to do for months given the numerous stellar reviews of the May and the widely unknown, but highly praised, 005. Those of us who own the 005 and participate in this forum believe it is an undiscovered jem. I bought the 005 initially because it was cheaper (approximately 3K) and because of the wonderful experience I had with it’s predecessor, the 004. After hearing and greatly enjoying the 005, I found it hard to believe any DAC could be significantly better. Eventually my curiosity got the best of me and I had to find out. There were no comparative reviews. After selling some equipment that I wasn’t using for a few thousand dollars, I coughed up the 5K to buy it, thinking I could always sell it if I didn’t love it more than the 005.

After about approximately 500 hours of break in, as recommended by the manufacturer, the May was ready to compare with the 005.

First, before I begin, the reader should know my perspective and preferences. I started out in my teens and early 20s, during the 60s and early 70s, as mostly a rock and roll fan with some rhythm and blues and folk music thrown in. Around 1971 I found a lack of good new rock music (the Beatles broke up, the Stones became inactive, and Dylan had a motorcycle accident). So I tried some classical. At first I found it boring but very gradually over the years I became addicted. When I moved to Manhattan, I went to classical music concerts frequently and eventually subscribed to the New York Philharmonic. I continued my subscription for over 20 years. In addition to orchestral music I attended chamber concerts and some opera.

My perspective favors live natural acoustic music, though I still love classic rock and oldies. To me the preferred audio sound is one that feels like a real event, a live, in the room, palpable presence. Natural resolution and detail is essential. (In physics lingo, my goal is to hear all the overtones, on top of the fundamental sine wave, which define the timbre of a real world instrument or voice.) I seek a sound that is accurate and clear, but slightly warm, conveying rich but realistic lower mid-midrange and upper bass much like what you would hear in Carnege Hall or Symphony Hall in Boston.

Preliminaries

I fed both dacs via computers (an Asus mini and an Asus laptop) because I had two. Thus I could do quick comparisons by preamp input switching. I recently bought an Ifi Zen Stream network bridge/streamer which, after some frustration, I hooked up via ethernet cable. Since I only had one I could not use it to do quick comparisons between the two DACs.

For the record, the 005 fed by the Zen Stream via usb did improve the sound by lifting a slight veil of haze, which you might not know was present until it was removed. With the May a slight improvement might have also occurred, but the effect was less clear to me, because I didn’t have time to do much listening with and without the network bridge.

Both DACs were played through a Hegel P30 preamp to a McIntosh MC402 amp, then to Kef Reference 1 speakers and two SVS sb-3000 subwoofers crossed over at 46hz.

Method

I began with critical listening focused on sound quality using a/b switching. Generally, I would listen to about a minute or less to one then switch to the other to hear the same passege.

I will report in the future on longer term impressions after living with these DACs for a few weeks.

I started with the following music tracks. I chose them to facilitate focusing on certain sonic elements listed in parenthesis below:

1. Solo piano: Beethoven Apassionata (transient attack and decay, timbre/overtones, micro detail, clarity)
2. Violin Sonata: No 1 Prokofiev (timbre/overtones)
3. Piano trio: Beethoven “Ghost” (imaging)
4. An aria from an Oratorio by Handel entitled Theodora(imaging, female voice, hall ambiance)
5. Large orchestra, soloists, chorus, and massed strings. Mahler Symphony no. 2, final movement. (congestion, hall ambience and depth, width, and imaging)
6. Light My Fire Doors (engery, rhythm, male voice)
7. Sunshine of My love, The Cream (Drums, energy, rhythm, male voice)

Round 1
The Solo piano test. I choose Beethoven’s Appassionata played by Arthur Rubinstein. I think a solo piano reveals transient speed, attack (leading edge of the note), and decay like no other instrument.

It was almost a tie in these sonic qualities. Both were excellent. The 005 to my ear had slightly better definition and decay. The May had a slightly richer bass tone and was solid and very pleasing. The 005 was leaner but had more sparkle, capturing all the natural overtones on higher notes.

Round 2
Violin Sonata: No 1 Prokofiev performed by Vicktoria Mullova.

The results were similar to the piano test. The 005 clearly had better reproduction of the natural overtones of the violin. The May was bassier, with the music emerging from a blacker background.

Round 3
Beethoven’s “Ghost” Trio for piano violin and cello performed by Istomin, Stern, and Rose.

Imaging was about equal with each instrument appearing in space laterally where it should. The 005 placed the instruments more forward as if your were seated closer to the stage. The blacker background of the May made the separation of the instruments clearer, but the warmth made the musicians seem more recessed, as if your seat was well behind the 005 “seat”. The May sounded slightly soft but was solid, beautiful, and addictive, if not completely convincing on vivid violin timbre.

Round 4

Next, I played an aria from Handel’s Theodora, sung by the late and brilliant mezzo soprano Loraine Hunt Lieberson. It consists of the vocalist supported by a cello and harpsichord (basso continuo). I chose this because the recording contains only two instruments and a singer. It thus presents a good opportunity to clearly hear imaging and hall ambiance in addition to providing a well defined lower midrange and bass line, and a beautiful female voice.

Both the May and the 005 sounded completely convincing and beautiful, especially in realistic tonal balance, including rich bass and a clearcello, harpsichord, and voice. The sound field width had the same realism in both. Loraine's voice image was more natural in space, clearer, with a touch more air on the 005. The May had a bit less clarity, as it sounded further away, but was a tad smoother in texture.

Round 5
Mahler Symphony no. 2, final movement. Bruno Walter, the New York Philharmonic. A large orchestra and chorus with soloists is a good test of dynamics, detail, sound stage/ability to retrieve hall ambiance, clarity, and imaging.

The two DACs were equal in dynamics but the 005 was superior in every other way. The 005 picked up more air in the hall, exhibited no congestion between instruments, produced a deeper more natural soundstage, not by virtue of more bass, but more air or hall ambiance. In this case better hall ambiance produced more vivid imaging. The 005 was vivid and conveyed more emotion. Chorus voices were not as distinct in the May. Vocal soloists were clearer in the Musetec.

Round 6
Light My Fire. Doors (energy, rhythm, male voice)
Very close in all aspects. The 005 seemed to articulate higher frequencies better and thus had appropriate edgyness.

Round 7
Sunshine of My love, The Cream (Drums, enegry, rhythm, male voice)
Again, very close in all aspects. I can’t tell the difference.

Conclusion
First and foremost these DACs were both excellent in every category. At times during the A/B listening I could not tell them apart. To be sure, they are different, but if a listener familiar with the sound of both walked into a room without knowing which DAC was playing, it would not be surprising if he or she guessed wrong. The take-away is, in my opinion, they are in the same class. The point of this exercise though is primarily to determine their differences.

As I said earlier, the live realistic character of the sound wave comes, in large part, from capturing all the overtones. This gives accurate timbre and detail. The 005 has more than the May. Another component of realism, in my opinion, is solidity of texture and prominence of the sound emerging from the background (black or zero background noise). The May has more of this.

In fact, the May’s blacker background is like nothing I've ever heard. It has an uncanny realism, solidity, and ease. It sounds like the very best vinyl. Smooth always listenable and engaging. Overall it is sweeter and softer that the Musetec. Probably even more so than actual live music. I call this natural texture, for lack of a better term.

In sum: sound texture May wins; Realistic space, detail, micro dynamics, and high frequency energy, the 005 wins. Clearly the Mustec works best if listening to a large orchestra where details, hall ambience, and clarity (lack of congestion) are priorities.

If the price were the same then take your pick, they are in the same class. Choose the May if you like two teaspoons of sugar and a little extra cream in your half caf coffee, the 005 if you like your coffee “regular”, as New Yorkers say. But for a $2K difference in price the 005 wins. Even if you lean toward the analog sound of the May you can take the $2,000 saved to tweak the 005 to sound more like the May by adding a nice tube preamp or warmer/smoother sounding cables. If you outright prefer the 005, you have an extra $2,000 in your pocket.

 

[Lennym]

Wow! What a thorough job.

I must admit that the results please me. But I was prepared for much less. You appeared NOT to go for audiophile favorites, rather you went by your musical taste and I respect that. About as good a write-up as I have ever seen. Thank you.

 

[DBB1]

Wow! What a thorough job.

I must admit that the results please me. But I was prepared for much less. You appeared NOT to go for audiophile favorites, rather you went by your musical taste and I respect that. About as good a write-up as I have ever seen. Thank you.

Thanks. I appreciate the compliment. It was a lot of work. I realize that many won't be familiar with the music, but the conclusions on sound should apply to all genres of music. It was a fun project.

 

[sns109]

DBB1, excellent descriptions of what you heard! You're results are pretty much in alignment with my presumptions of how the two would compare. I am a bit mystified by your estimation of Holo having blacker background, yet with the Mahler cut it seems your describing superior resolution with 005. Could you elaborate a bit more on this aspect?

Finally, we have an initial comparative review of 005 vs. well known and well regarded dac. Looking forward to your longer term evaluation, suspect 005 will continue to impress. I'd say nearly total lack of recognition of 005 continues to elude me, obviously not anti Chinese sentiment. Lack of highly visible professional reviews for this dac. and those reviewers disinterest in just another sabre chip dac ensure 005 remains anonymous. DBB1, please post your comparative review over on Dave vs. Holo thread, should raise some interest for 005, and I'd imagine a total trashing by some for Sabre chip or any chip dac.

 

[DBB1]

DBB1, excellent descriptions of what you heard! You're results are pretty much in alignment with my presumptions of how the two would compare. I am a bit mystified by your estimation of Holo having blacker background, yet with the Mahler cut it seems your describing superior resolution with 005. Could you elaborate a bit more on this aspect?

Finally, we have an initial comparative review of 005 vs. well known and well regarded dac. Looking forward to your longer term evaluation, suspect 005 will continue to impress. I'd say nearly total lack of recognition of 005 continues to elude me, obviously not anti Chinese sentiment. Lack of highly visible professional reviews for this dac. and those reviewers disinterest in just another sabre chip dac ensure 005 remains anonymous. DBB1, please post your comparative review over on Dave vs. Holo thread, should raise some interest for 005, and I'd imagine a total trashing by some for Sabre chip or any chip dac.

It seems paradoxical because we presume a blacker background and lower noise floor guarantees better resolution thus you would think the May would do better with the Mahler. I was surprised how decisively better, to my ear, the 005 did on the Mahler in terms of resolution. This was because the 005 better reproduced details, especially in the higher frequencies, above the noise floor. The May just didn't have it. Incidentally, your setup up would probably do better than mine on the black background since you have worked so hard on getting rid of electrical noise.

Once I correct some spelling and typo errors, I'll post it on the May forum. Is this the forum your referring to:
An exploration of Chord DAVE, MScaler, Qutest, and Holo May, HQPlayer

Then I'll make some popcorn.