Holo Audio Spring R2R DAC

[Torq]

  I don't own the x20. I'm shopping for a dac.
It just that your comments about the x20 seem over caffeinated. They 're  the by far the most negative. I've read many owner reviews that are very impressed with the stock x20 let alone the upcoming version.

One other thing ...
 
"Owner reviews" are not a good basis for objective evaluation.
 
Sure, they provide lots of hands (or ears) on time ... but they're also heavily subject to confirmation basis.
 
No one wants to buy something and then have to say it's not fantastic - especially where there's no option to return the thing.  Hell, maybe it IS the best they've ever heard.  But then you have to look at what else it's been compared to.  Look carefully at my thoughts on various DACs, over time, and you'll see I'm quite willing to re-state my opinions on things as they evolve ... and that's because I'm not loyal to any manufacturer OR my own past-decisions/purchase choices and don't have an issue manning-up to situations in which I've found I'm wrong.

 

[Luckbad]

I put my Holo plans on hold for now. Unexpected expenses.

It's an outstanding DAC and I still want to get one in the future.

For now my home rig is the MHDT Labs Atlantis+ coming from Lynx E22 and into the ampsandsound Mogwai.

The Atlantis isn't revealing enough to require the Lynx E22 over the Singxer SU-1 so I'll likely be selling the Lynx.

The work rig will be a Starting Point Systems DAC 3 with no transport into Garage1217 Project Sunrise III.

I probably won't be able to get the Holo until mid next year.

 

[gr8soundz]

  Has anybody listened to both the Holo and the Vinshine?

 
+1
 

 

[Torq]

  Has anybody listened to both the Holo and the Vinshine?

 
 

   
+1
 

I've been trying to get "Alvin" to set up a US tour for his DAC.  We'll have to see how that goes.
 
I got my Spring DAC today, so if I can get my hands on the Vinshine unit I'll be able to do a proper back-to-back comparison.

 

[rajacat]

 
One other thing ...
 
"Owner reviews" are not a good basis for objective evaluation.
 
Sure, they provide lots of hands (or ears) on time ... but they're also heavily subject to confirmation basis.
 
No one wants to buy something and then have to say it's not fantastic - especially where there's no option to return the thing.  Hell, maybe it IS the best they've ever heard.  But then you have to look at what else it's been compared to.  Look carefully at my thoughts on various DACs, over time, and you'll see I'm quite willing to re-state my opinions on things as they evolve ... and that's because I'm not loyal to any manufacturer OR my own past-decisions/purchase choices and don't have an issue manning-up to situations in which I've found I'm wrong.

I presently own a MHDT dac, the Constantine. It's certainly an old dac.

 Their only tubeless dac, I believe. Actually I'm still happy with it...but I want more goodness. I noticed that you own the Stockholm .  How do you think the Pagoda would compare to the Level 1 Holo? 

 

[Torq]

  I presently own a MHDT dac, the Constantine. It's certainly an old dac.

 Their only tubeless dac, I believe. Actually I'm still happy with it...but I want more goodness. I noticed that you own the Stockholm .  How do you think the Pagoda would compare to the Level 1 Holo? 

I'd not even heard of that unit!
 
I used to own the Stockholm v2.  I sold it a few months ago, though NOT on sonic grounds - it was in my bed-side rig, along with a Woo Audio WA-6 ... the tubes in both units were, shall we say, less than ideal for that particular environment (we broke three 274Bs ...) ... and the combination was a bit bigger than really made sense there.
 
As PCM1704-based DACS go, the Pagoda is one of my favorites.  My issues are not with the MHDT unit, but with the PCM1704 chip.  If you like your bass a bit on the fast-and-loose side, it's probably ideal, but I like the PCM1702 and PCM56 or PCM63 a little better.  Very much a "personal signature preference".
 
I still haven't heard the "Level 1" version of the Holo Audio Spring DAC, but if it is at all like the Level 3, signature wise, then the PCM1704 issues I have with the MDHT unit are entirely absent and the Holo Audio unit is likely going to be preferable (I imagine the difference between L1 and L3 aren't relative to timbre, but more to detail and dynamics).
 
Hope that helps!

 

[Peaceofmind]

Torq, I'm still waiting on my Holo Spring DAC level 3 from Kitsune HiFi. Did your Spring DAC just arrive unannounced on your doorstep or did kitsune HiFi provide a shipping tracking number when the DAC was ready to ship?

 

[Torq]

I got a couple of days notice that my DAC had shipped.  That was directly from Kitsune HiFi.
 
I'm local to them, however, so it was shipped to them and I just picked it up locally.

 

[mtoc]

little tip: ES9018 should be avoided since the new 28/38 lands. But shoulda choose 28/38-design which ASRC is off. Anything using ASRC should be avoided.

 

[mtoc]

tip2: [if you wanna know, pme. it's too foxmulder.]

 

[T Bone]

little tip: ES9018 should be avoided since the new 28/38 lands. But shoulda choose 28/38-design which ASRC is off. Anything using ASRC should be avoided.

huh?  I am not entirely certain I understood that post.  ARSC is Async Sample Rate Conversion.  Why should it be avoided?

I think you're referring to the new Sabre 9028PRO and 9038 chipsets.  
 
** Benchmark has just released the DAC3 based on the 9028PRO chip
** Oppo's Sonnica DAC is based on the 9038PRO chip

 

[Torq]

  huh?  I am not entirely certain I understood that post.  ARSC is Async Sample Rate Conversion.  Why should it be avoided?

I think you're referring to the new Sabre 9028PRO and 9038 chipsets.  
 
** Benchmark has just released the DAC3 based on the 9028PRO chip
** Oppo's Sonnica DAC is based on the 9038PRO chip

You won't be the only one for whom that post doesn't make a lot of sense, but that's that posters' particular style.
 
ASRC, like everything in engineering, has pros and cons.  Blanket statements about avoiding it aren't very useful, nor it is some universal panacea that always makes a positive difference.
 
As for the new ESS chipsets, it'll be interesting to see what, if any, audible differences they, or the implementations around them, bring (particularly where the 902X chips are pin-compatible with the  current 901X line.  Going by the initial spec-sheets the changes seem to be more concerned with lower-power operation, integration of additional functionality and ease of implementation than any particular focus on improved accuracy.  They offer very slightly better SNR and THD numbers, but those are already at a level where that, alone, isn't likely to result in any immediately audible change.
 
Fundamentally they're still using the same DAC architecture as the 901X chips.

 

[greenkiwi]

I'm curious, isn't ARSC what all the USB cleaning/reclocking devices do?

 

[greenkiwi]

Also, there haven't been any reviews comparing level 1 with 2 or 3?

 

[Torq]

  I'm curious, isn't ARSC what all the USB cleaning/reclocking devices do?

No.
 
Most of the "cleaners" either filter the USB power lines, or supply an entirely different, low-noise, supply in their place.  The "re-clockers" take in the USB data from the host, and then send it back out using a supposedly higher-quality implementation.  And then some units do both.
 
"Re-clocking" USB Audio 2.0 outputs only to then send it back out via USB doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  Assuming an asynchronous receiver on the DAC, it has to do it's own clocking out of the receiver's buffer anyway, so as long as the data arrives fast enough to keep the buffer full, the possible effects of upstream "re-clocking" are minimal (and have pretty much nothing to do with clock-accuracy at the DAC).  At most they might put less less "stress" on the receiver implementation, and if they're done well they might be less electrically noisy than the standard outputs coming from, say, a typical PC.
 
ASRC is concerned with converting one sample rate (e.g. 44.1 KHz) to another (say 48 KHz) where the ratios are non-integer (e.g. 44.1 KHz to 88.2 KHz is a simple multiple of 2, where as 44.1 KHz to 48 KHz is a ratio of 160/147)  there are potentially multiple clocks/rates to re-sample between, and the clocks are allowed to drift some.