So, I could setup I2S pinout on Gaia to made it compatible with Gustard.
New denafrips DDC (Iris and Gaia)
- Thread starter smodtactical
- Start date
I have a AES/EBU digital cable, does anyone here tried to connect denafrips ddc to a dac with aes/ebu cable? I dont know if i2s hdmi is better than aes/ebu or not, I know that i2s hdmi support 192khz+ and dsd, but my audio files doesn't exceed 192khz and I dont use dsd either, so if aes/ebu have the same SQ I will use the cable that I have.
ShaolinGrump
100+ Head-Fier
I use AES from Denafrips IRIS to AudioByte Black Dragon DAC. It sounds a little more open than RCA S/PDIF between those devices. I have a custom i2S HDMI coming that cross-connects the 1, 3, 7 and 9 pins. I hope the Black Dragon can hear the IRIS with the new cable.
How much difference you'll hear with AES depends on your ears and your chain from the source and after your DDC, including sensitivity to power routing and inputs.
How much difference you'll hear with AES depends on your ears and your chain from the source and after your DDC, including sensitivity to power routing and inputs.
@Symbiose - it will depend on your DAC. There may be exceptions, but for all the DAC's I've owned from various manufacturers over the years (perhaps a couple dozen at this point), each input on the DAC will have different sonic characteristics and as a general rule for me personally, I've found that I've preferred AES/EBU, that is, until I started getting DAC's with I2S input.
Now, I2S is my favored input in terms of sonics. Your results may vary. But to answer your question more precisely, I doubt that the sound going from your Denafrips DDC to your DAC via AES/EBU input as compared to I2S will sound the same. I'd get a relatively cheap HDMI cable (buy used for this experiment if you can, that way you can sell it for about the same price you bought it for if you decide to sell it) and compare and see if you can hear any difference and if so, then you can decide what connection method you prefer in terms of your sonic preferences and gear matching.
Now, I2S is my favored input in terms of sonics. Your results may vary. But to answer your question more precisely, I doubt that the sound going from your Denafrips DDC to your DAC via AES/EBU input as compared to I2S will sound the same. I'd get a relatively cheap HDMI cable (buy used for this experiment if you can, that way you can sell it for about the same price you bought it for if you decide to sell it) and compare and see if you can hear any difference and if so, then you can decide what connection method you prefer in terms of your sonic preferences and gear matching.
Last edited:
koso
100+ Head-Fier
Holo Audio Spring 3 KTE DAC review
(& comparison with Denafrips Venus II)
INTRODUCTION
Everything you will find in the following review applies to my own stereo setup in my listening area and pair of my own ears. I have not tested these dacs on any other setup and it is possible that the results of the comparison may be different in another setup or/and in another listening space.
Here is my setup:
4x4m acoustically treated room
Power filter: Shunyata Hydra Triton v1
Source: Aurender N100H streamer via internal HDD library
DAC: Holo Audio Spring 3 KTE, Denafrips Venus II
DDC: Denafrips Gaia, Matrix Audio X-Spdif 2
Amp: Simaudio Moon 600i
Speakers: Diapason Adamantes III 25th
Cabling: Siltech Classic Anniversary
HOLO AUDIO SPRING 3 KTE
I like appearance of Spring 3 a lot. Great build quality, nice, not too big but heavy, all metal chassis. Decent connectors on back panel, nice and responsive front buttons and display nicely readable from my listening position. Remote is also nice. The only thing I would like to change would be dedicated button for each input on remote and dimmable display (there is only on and off option).
Before I start talking about sound quality I must mention that this dac really needs quite a long time to burn in. And the difference before and after burn in is in my opinion a big one. I let it burn for 500 hours with continuous 24/7 signal from the streamer, which consisted of playlist with the same amount of frequencies based on 44.1 and 48KHz. Differences during burn in process were most notable in bass region (from “no bass” to “great bass”). For better understanding of specific burn in progress of Spring 3 I created following graph.
After 500 hours of burn in I began with listening to each input except for optical (I have no decent optical cable). Inputs are definitely not equal in sound quality. Spdif Coaxial is good, same with AES/EBU. I2S is quite better than both Spdif, but for my surprise, in my current setup best sounding input is USB (directly connected with streamer).
As my streamer is USB output only, other inputs were tested using Gaia or X-Spdif 2 DDC. Unfortunately I am still not able to test I2S input via I2S output from Gaia, because, as I already mentioned in previous post, none of four Springs I2S pinouts are compatible with Gaia. There is I2S pinout function on Gaia with newest firmware, but I am still unable to flash this firmware to my unit and still resolving this issue with Vinshine Audio. So for testing of I2S input I used X-Spdif 2 DDC, which is pity, because Gaia is far better sounding DDC.
From the moment I realized USB is best sounding input (for now) I have further tested and compared Spring 3 using only this input.
EDIT: PLL function on Spring 3 was enabled all the time during test.
Spring 3 KTE sounds really good. Very good dynamics with great details and nice soundstage. No region is emphasized. Separation of individual instruments and voices is exceptional. Voices are very real and very tightly focused. Sound character is right in the middle between analytic and euphonic. But in my opinion this focus on neutral sound character goes sometimes little bit against overall fluidity of sound as whole. There is no apparent flaw in sound quality, yet in my setup I still feel like I'm missing a little bit of smoothness. Which allegedly was not the case with previous model Spring 2. But I have not compared the two in my setup, so this is just a guess. See more detailed explanation of this in following comparison.
COMPARISON WITH DENAFRIPS VENUS II
Denafrips Venus II is exactly in the same price and quality range as Spring 3 KTE. You can consider these two as direct competitors. And indeed, in many areas these two DACs are surprisingly close in sound quality. All comparison was made in NOS mode on both devices (I have to mention I don’t care if Venus II is “true” NOS or not).
Firstly I will name the areas and characteristics which are almost the same on both:
-great dynamics and punch
-rich harmonics
-very good and similar sized soundstage (little bit wider on Venus II)
-great timing (Spring 3 little bit quicker)
-very good detail retrieval
-VERY realistic rendering of human voices
-no sign of brightness or dryness on highs
And now I'll try to explain the differences. Venus II is definitely smoother and overall sound is more fluid. At first I thought it was caused by over emphasize lower midrange and mid-bass region on Venus side. But after long listening session (and dozen switching between Spring 3 to Venus II with the same music material) I realized that it is not the case here. The amount of bass, mid-bass and low midrange is the same on both DACs, but bodies of acoustic instruments (double bass, violin, Spanish guitar) and human voices are bigger and fuller on Venus II. On the other hand same instruments and voices on Spring 3 are in better focus. So maybe more focused individual instruments (may be even too focused) and voices lead to lack of overall smoothness. On more complex recordings this is not apparent after first listening, but on recordings where there is only one or two acoustic instrument (solo double bass for example) Venus II sounds full bodied, filling all listening place, while Spring 3 sound little bit thin, but with better pinpoint location of instruments.
So this effect gives Venus II noticeable more amount of sweetness, but at the same time little bit less of transparency.
CONCLUSION
There is no clear winner between Spring 3 and Venus II. Both are excellent DACs. Venus II is more full bodied and sweet sounding, but never too sweet (as for example my previous DAC Simaudio Moon 380D was). On the other hand Spring 3 is bit more transparent, which is very useful quality for future changes of any gear in your setup. Another advantage of Spring 3 is fabulous USB input, so there is no need to use DDC. Both DACs share many great sound characteristic and differences are not big enough to name the winner.
All this of course, as I wrote at the beginning, could be system dependent, because amplification, speakers and not least - listening room plays a big role in final quality and character of sound.
(& comparison with Denafrips Venus II)
INTRODUCTION
Everything you will find in the following review applies to my own stereo setup in my listening area and pair of my own ears. I have not tested these dacs on any other setup and it is possible that the results of the comparison may be different in another setup or/and in another listening space.
Here is my setup:
4x4m acoustically treated room
Power filter: Shunyata Hydra Triton v1
Source: Aurender N100H streamer via internal HDD library
DAC: Holo Audio Spring 3 KTE, Denafrips Venus II
DDC: Denafrips Gaia, Matrix Audio X-Spdif 2
Amp: Simaudio Moon 600i
Speakers: Diapason Adamantes III 25th
Cabling: Siltech Classic Anniversary
HOLO AUDIO SPRING 3 KTE
I like appearance of Spring 3 a lot. Great build quality, nice, not too big but heavy, all metal chassis. Decent connectors on back panel, nice and responsive front buttons and display nicely readable from my listening position. Remote is also nice. The only thing I would like to change would be dedicated button for each input on remote and dimmable display (there is only on and off option).
Before I start talking about sound quality I must mention that this dac really needs quite a long time to burn in. And the difference before and after burn in is in my opinion a big one. I let it burn for 500 hours with continuous 24/7 signal from the streamer, which consisted of playlist with the same amount of frequencies based on 44.1 and 48KHz. Differences during burn in process were most notable in bass region (from “no bass” to “great bass”). For better understanding of specific burn in progress of Spring 3 I created following graph.
After 500 hours of burn in I began with listening to each input except for optical (I have no decent optical cable). Inputs are definitely not equal in sound quality. Spdif Coaxial is good, same with AES/EBU. I2S is quite better than both Spdif, but for my surprise, in my current setup best sounding input is USB (directly connected with streamer).
As my streamer is USB output only, other inputs were tested using Gaia or X-Spdif 2 DDC. Unfortunately I am still not able to test I2S input via I2S output from Gaia, because, as I already mentioned in previous post, none of four Springs I2S pinouts are compatible with Gaia. There is I2S pinout function on Gaia with newest firmware, but I am still unable to flash this firmware to my unit and still resolving this issue with Vinshine Audio. So for testing of I2S input I used X-Spdif 2 DDC, which is pity, because Gaia is far better sounding DDC.
From the moment I realized USB is best sounding input (for now) I have further tested and compared Spring 3 using only this input.
EDIT: PLL function on Spring 3 was enabled all the time during test.
Spring 3 KTE sounds really good. Very good dynamics with great details and nice soundstage. No region is emphasized. Separation of individual instruments and voices is exceptional. Voices are very real and very tightly focused. Sound character is right in the middle between analytic and euphonic. But in my opinion this focus on neutral sound character goes sometimes little bit against overall fluidity of sound as whole. There is no apparent flaw in sound quality, yet in my setup I still feel like I'm missing a little bit of smoothness. Which allegedly was not the case with previous model Spring 2. But I have not compared the two in my setup, so this is just a guess. See more detailed explanation of this in following comparison.
COMPARISON WITH DENAFRIPS VENUS II
Denafrips Venus II is exactly in the same price and quality range as Spring 3 KTE. You can consider these two as direct competitors. And indeed, in many areas these two DACs are surprisingly close in sound quality. All comparison was made in NOS mode on both devices (I have to mention I don’t care if Venus II is “true” NOS or not).
Firstly I will name the areas and characteristics which are almost the same on both:
-great dynamics and punch
-rich harmonics
-very good and similar sized soundstage (little bit wider on Venus II)
-great timing (Spring 3 little bit quicker)
-very good detail retrieval
-VERY realistic rendering of human voices
-no sign of brightness or dryness on highs
And now I'll try to explain the differences. Venus II is definitely smoother and overall sound is more fluid. At first I thought it was caused by over emphasize lower midrange and mid-bass region on Venus side. But after long listening session (and dozen switching between Spring 3 to Venus II with the same music material) I realized that it is not the case here. The amount of bass, mid-bass and low midrange is the same on both DACs, but bodies of acoustic instruments (double bass, violin, Spanish guitar) and human voices are bigger and fuller on Venus II. On the other hand same instruments and voices on Spring 3 are in better focus. So maybe more focused individual instruments (may be even too focused) and voices lead to lack of overall smoothness. On more complex recordings this is not apparent after first listening, but on recordings where there is only one or two acoustic instrument (solo double bass for example) Venus II sounds full bodied, filling all listening place, while Spring 3 sound little bit thin, but with better pinpoint location of instruments.
So this effect gives Venus II noticeable more amount of sweetness, but at the same time little bit less of transparency.
CONCLUSION
There is no clear winner between Spring 3 and Venus II. Both are excellent DACs. Venus II is more full bodied and sweet sounding, but never too sweet (as for example my previous DAC Simaudio Moon 380D was). On the other hand Spring 3 is bit more transparent, which is very useful quality for future changes of any gear in your setup. Another advantage of Spring 3 is fabulous USB input, so there is no need to use DDC. Both DACs share many great sound characteristic and differences are not big enough to name the winner.
All this of course, as I wrote at the beginning, could be system dependent, because amplification, speakers and not least - listening room plays a big role in final quality and character of sound.
Last edited:
@koso - excellent review! Thanks for taking the time to write this and for all the details of the sonic characteristics.
sajunky
Headphoneus Supremus
I like this review too. Just adding a note that Holo DACs are also not NOS, there is heavy on-board processing with use FIR filtering and scrambling (randomising ladder linearity errors). It is why Springs sounds more thin with artificial transparency like in Delta-Sigma DACs. It can be good for some type of music where details of dominant tones are more important to anything that happens in the background, i.e. EDM.
As both DACs are not true NOS, I suggest another series of tests with upsampling on the PC using HQPlayer to a frequency 705.6/768kHz (depending on the source based on 44.1 or 48kHz). This is a frequency Denafrips is upsampling a source material in both official OS and so called NOS mode. It allows to bypass most of internal processing on Venus, not sure about Springs. Tests would show.
As both DACs are not true NOS, I suggest another series of tests with upsampling on the PC using HQPlayer to a frequency 705.6/768kHz (depending on the source based on 44.1 or 48kHz). This is a frequency Denafrips is upsampling a source material in both official OS and so called NOS mode. It allows to bypass most of internal processing on Venus, not sure about Springs. Tests would show.
Last edited:
dcguy73
Formerly known as dc_guy
I switched out the Gaia from my system and in its place I put the Euphony Audio Summus Endpoint with a galvanically-isolated I2S output.
So instead of my chain being Euphony Summus Server (via USB) —> Gaia (via I2S) —> Terminator Plus, it’s
Euphony Summus Server (via Ethernet) —> Summus Endpoint (via I2S) —> Terminator Plus.
This setup removes a USB connection and the Gaia reclocking and the Terminator Plus clock output from the equation.
It’s not as intense or as quick or as focused of a sound but it is a little richer in timbre and more analogue-sounding. Easier on the ear, especially with my HE-1000SE.
I also took the upgraded power cable I was using on the Gaia and moved it to the Terminator Plus, so that may also have had an effect.
More observations to come.
So instead of my chain being Euphony Summus Server (via USB) —> Gaia (via I2S) —> Terminator Plus, it’s
Euphony Summus Server (via Ethernet) —> Summus Endpoint (via I2S) —> Terminator Plus.
This setup removes a USB connection and the Gaia reclocking and the Terminator Plus clock output from the equation.
It’s not as intense or as quick or as focused of a sound but it is a little richer in timbre and more analogue-sounding. Easier on the ear, especially with my HE-1000SE.
I also took the upgraded power cable I was using on the Gaia and moved it to the Terminator Plus, so that may also have had an effect.
More observations to come.
Last edited:
S Crowther
500+ Head-Fier
Is this upsampling in NOS mode the same for Terminator/Terminator Plus?
sajunky
Headphoneus Supremus
Yip. It is a linear interpolation 16 times OS maximum. It was reported on this forum about Ares II (which I opposed initially) and found later a similar investigation for Terminator on the other forum.
dcguy73
Formerly known as dc_guy
Lots more details about this on the Audiophile Style (formerly Computer Audiophile) forum. Regardless of what’s going on behind the scenes, I love the sound of my Terminator Plus DAC.
I do not hear “thinness with artificial transparency” with the Terminator Plus, as per your comment and the review above on the Holo Audio Spring v3. I haven’t heard the Spring v3, but I own v1 of that DAC.
Certainly if “thinness” is inherent to the sound of the source or the DAC, adding the Gaia to the chain is not going to help in that regard. It’s just going to magnify that aspect. The Gaia is not a forgiving DDC.
The Rockna Wavelight I previously owned comes in a close second place to the Terminator in my mind.
Last edited:
sajunky
Headphoneus Supremus
Of course, Terminator sound cannot be characterised by a 'thinness', it was refered to a Springs and I also hear it from other sources. Holo DACs are different kind of things, focusing on best measurements. Of course, DDC is not able to change such sound characteristic. Denafrips design philosophy is different and sound is more like a typical R2R DAC. Little bit to smooth when comparing with other R2R designs, however differences are subtle. Very good Denafrips sound analysis is given in this review when comparing with Venus.
Anyone using iris or hermes.ddc with schiit yggdrasil. I got my yggy last night and Hooked it up to my Hermes ddc using aes but the yggy amp won't stop clicking (relay) once everything is turned off (my PC connected to Hermes via USB). Can anyone plz help me ?
Thanks
Thanks
S Crowther
500+ Head-Fier
Suggest you email Alvin at Vinshine Audio. He can help you.
Users who are viewing this thread
