[bazelio]

Do all inputs on the DAC200 handle DSD1024 ? Or is DSD1024 limited to specific inputs... Actually, it'd be great to see what is supported for each input interface.

Edit: Nevermind, looks like I answered my own question on the t+a site.

 

[Soundguy123]

My bad, I meant to say the various filters are deactivated with DSD and you only have the various filter options with PCM. You are correct.

 

[DonaldM]

Been considering the T+A and the May. Given that I prioritize natural sound (timber, tone, decays) to hifi technicalities, my read of this thread has me leaning towards the May. Am I interpreting the comparisons correctly?

I listened to both dac200 and holo may kte at two different dealers both with the same pcm and dsd material. Although both installations were not familiar, both a friend of mine and myself preferred the dac200 over the holo may. The dac200 sounded more musical, natural and less digital than the may. My friend designs and builds Aitos tube pre-amplifiers and otl power amplifiers and has very trained ears. I used to work in a hifi shop many years ago and compared many amplifiers, speakers and dacs. This gives some credibility to what we heard, but of course always try to compare at home in your own installation to hear the differences for yourself.

 

[Davidv100]

Been considering the T+A and the May. Given that I prioritize natural sound (timber, tone, decays) to hifi technicalities, my read of this thread has me leaning towards the May. Am I interpreting the comparisons correctly?

Dear Bazelio,
I used to own a PS Audio DL-III Mod Cullen IV (since 2008-ish). Sound is great, very natural and resolving.
The remaining of my set-up is a Plinius M8 Preamp and a Plinius SA-201 Amp, feeding Martin-Login Summit X Speakers.
Globally this is about 20k$ new (even if it now all rather old - about 15 years - but still excellent).
Not that money guarantees a good set-up, but just to confirm that, like you I am very much into "transparent", "natural", "true to sound".
I was very happy and casually enjoying music out of the nerdy-audiophile world.

About a year ago, everything fell appart because I understood that my DL-III Dac was processing the signal in an old fashioned way and could not go above 96khz.
The sound was still as nice as before, but I had identified a weak link in the chain, so it absolutely had to be replaced, obviously .
All of a sudden, I deeply went all-in back into the nerdy-audiophile-rabbit hole again.

It started with looking into the Gustard R26, because it had such raving reviews... The price was no-nonense (I like no-nonsense). I spend hours a week on the head-fi R26 channel.
Then more and more, lots of people were modding their R26 with clocks, all kinds of galvanic isolations, some people even opening the box to mod even further with aluminum wrapping and stuff... I thought this is becoming kinda car-tuning style, when you buy a Subaru but want to make it look like a Porsche, and at the end, it costs more than the Porsche, but without the specs... Bummer... more nerdiness... After months, fatigue gained me again.

Then I thought, let's buy a Porsche instead... I levelled up my game and looked at the Holo Spring KTE, then Holo May KTE... But again, digging deeper I understood it was not perfect neither. Also, I want to keep it simple, feeding with an Ipad playing Apple Music Hi-Res 24/192 thru USB... I wanted to avoid any kind of HQ Player or other computer stuff. I am actually quite tech savvy... but I had decided that my goal was to enjoy music, not doing continuous gear-tuning. Then I also read the May needs hundreds of hours of burn-in to really come to deliver its full marvellous sound (and... I do not believe in that kind of stuff too much - at least not beyond a certain extend). Then I also read you have to leave it on permanently because it needs days to come to temperature, which is again needed for the marvellous sound. But at 60 watts it is like having an average old bulb light always on... Do you like leaving lights on forever at home ? And more and more issues... like, without HQP, do not buy a May... After months, fatigue gained me again.

Then I heard about this new gem, the T+A DAC 200, who received raving reviews, with all the pro's without the con's.
I read about it for a few more months...

One of the reviews that made it for me, was somebody who seemed quite honest and knowledgeable and also into even much higher gear, who said :
- With May KTE, you have 100% real R2R, and at the end you have, say, 70% of the best sound you can reach in the world.
- With T+A DAC200, you can 'fake' 95% R2R, and at the end, you have, say, 90% of the best sound you can reach in the world.
- So, you have to choose between 100% real R2R, but "average" sound or accept a part of fake (inside the box) but "excellent sound"

(Again, "average"... let's all relax... the guy was comparing with out-of-this-world stuff).

Then I thought... Mmhh... "fake" ? Don't like that...
But I have a very good cure.
It recommend you to read things about 25k$ DACs... 50k$... 100k$ DACS, gear you will never even consider buying... and stay there for at least one hour or two, till you have successfully tricked your mind into thinking this is the true price you have to pay for anything decent, just for a few minutes.
And when you come back to earth, you understand that "real R2R" means nothing. The May is also faking things with its FPGA chip.
There is no such thing as "pure/real R2R" in the 6k$ price range. And what’s the point actually ? Are you aiming at the best R2R sound (which has its own flaws - like it will never go beyond 20 bits resolving), or are you aiming at the True Sound. However it is produced ?
To stretch a little further, the DAC200 is no more faking anything than everything else.
It is just aiming at producing the best sound it can... isn't this the ultimate goal after all.
And it appears the DAC 200 is out of his class at doing this.

So I bought it, and I am very happy about it. And no more looking back. Relieved. Done. Back to real life.
Build quality is outstanding, every connector, button "clicks" with a satisfactory sound and feeling.
And that little steampunk look of the VU meters is a truly elegant touch. Nicely built.

So, I can not compare with the May KTE.
But I can talk about a few additional perks, that a very science-based person like me find precious.
For example : The VU meters have different modes. One of these modes will show you the quality of the input signal (including jitter and stuff, using a combination of the two VU meters). This allowed me to see that the DAC-200 was actually very happy with my iPad and Apple Music source. This confirms indeed that the USB input of the DAC is very good, that an iPad is also very good and saves me so much money for a snake-oil streamer or cables. This is actually no surprise to me. Let's just imagine how much an iPad would cost if Apple were just producing a few hundreds or thousands units. iPads are wonderful machines, extremely well built, only affordable because they are built in millions. Another mode shows the temperature (for both DAC and analog sections). And indeed, I hear a slight difference in SQ in the first hour, and then it reaches its nominal temperature and the sound is fantastic. Then, there is also the balanced headphone output. Although I am a speaker guy, this is a nice free perk for me.
Indeed, one of the most important parameters in audio quality is the room. I know I have some slight reverb issues in my room that even a 100k$ DAC could not solve (because my room is rather pure and minimalisticly decorated, not symmetric, and I have huge glass panels on one side). At least, the headphones will help me grasp what should be the ultimate holographic sound, taking the room out of the equation. Then I will see if I want to change things in my room to approach that (But I already know I will not go into the crazy room treatment stuff since my listening room is also my living room. I enjoy the light and the view and do not want to live in a bunker).

Way too long story... but I thought it was useful to drive you thru my own journey : the quest for top-notch all in one solution, without the hassle, and with only a reasonable amount of audiophile nerdiness. Because, at the end, what matters is the pleasure of enjoying music, laid-back.

You might also want to consider looking into the www.audiophilestyle.com forum. Lot's of complementary posts there in the dedicated DAC200 thread (about 25 pages).
Also, one of DAC200 architects (OE333) is frequently posting, answering.

I hope this helps,
Good luck with your own quest.

David, Belgium

 

[bazelio]

Thank you @Davidv100 for taking the time to post a thoughtful response. However, the line of discussion around "fake" or not "fake" is meaningless to me. What I care about is what my ears tell me. I had the same Cullen modded DAC for a little while and it was good for the price, I didn't find that it had natural timbre. Treble was a bit sour or glassy. I wouldn't call it bright per se, but I wouldn't call it natural sounding either.

On to the May vs DAC 200. Again I'm not in the least concerned about what's fake and what's not in terms of R2R. I literally do not care. What I do want to be able to do is build a PC with the horsepower to perform PCM to DSD512 (and maybe 1024) and to bypass the hardware DSP (modulators etc) in the DAC. Both May and DAC200 allow for it. I figure that this will be the best way to arrive at a desire sound signature in my system. So what I most want feedback on is the direct comparison of these two "platforms". One drawback with the DAC 200 might be that it seems to only support the 4x and 8x DSD over USB. Generally, I have found that eliminating USB from digital chains is best practice for best sound. Another concern was what someone earlier in the thread describes as dryness from the T+A in direct comparison to the May. Decay can really make a difference in terms of involvement in the music. And decay truncation is a big ticket item when it comes to natural sound. Not the only one, but an important one.

So anyways, of any other May vs DAC 200 comparisons are out there, I'd love to hear them. Thanks!

 

[Soundguy123]

Again I'm not in the least concerned about what's fake and what's not in terms of R2R. I literally do not care.

It is hard not to have everything sound fake to some extent, after all stereo is an illusion and the recording process itself is full of tricks. The important thing is do you enjoy it! I agree 100%. For me digital sounded wonderful for the last 30 years but no matter what DAC it always had a certain glare to it (compared to vinyl) that until I got the T&A DAC200, I had begun to accept as one of the downsides of digital.

 

[Davidv100]

Thank you @Davidv100 for taking the time to post a thoughtful response. However, the line of discussion around "fake" or not "fake" is meaningless to me. What I care about is what my ears tell me. I had the same Cullen modded DAC for a little while and it was good for the price, I didn't find that it had natural timbre. Treble was a bit sour or glassy. I wouldn't call it bright per se, but I wouldn't call it natural sounding either.

On to the May vs DAC 200. Again I'm not in the least concerned about what's fake and what's not in terms of R2R. I literally do not care. What I do want to be able to do is build a PC with the horsepower to perform PCM to DSD512 (and maybe 1024) and to bypass the hardware DSP (modulators etc) in the DAC. Both May and DAC200 allow for it. I figure that this will be the best way to arrive at a desire sound signature in my system. So what I most want feedback on is the direct comparison of these two "platforms". One drawback with the DAC 200 might be that it seems to only support the 4x and 8x DSD over USB. Generally, I have found that eliminating USB from digital chains is best practice for best sound. Another concern was what someone earlier in the thread describes as dryness from the T+A in direct comparison to the May. Decay can really make a difference in terms of involvement in the music. And decay truncation is a big ticket item when it comes to natural sound. Not the only one, but an important one.

So anyways, of any other May vs DAC 200 comparisons are out there, I'd love to hear them. Thanks!

Hi Bazelio,
Thank you for sharing that my post built with the intention to help you is a waste of 1 hour of my time. I like honesty, and most importantly, I have nothing to sell.
I understand you are in the quest of the best sound, whatever the means, which seems the right approach to me indeed.
As you have decided to go the DSD road, my personal take is that any R2R Dac is pointless since R2R is structurally made for PCM.
This is actually one of the reasons I discarded the R26 option. Most people were using heavy HQP to DSD (like you intend to do), then using a rather crappy 1$ chip on the R26, without using anything R2R. Same for the May, although DSD is using a different R2R ladder on the May, but it is still a kind of "add-on" to the main PCM structure.

i wish you the best, as I cannot offer you any May/DAC200 comparison, and no DSD experience (besides some tremendous DSD listenings by "Blue Coast Recording".

Just one thought, if you are purely into DSD, it might be interesting for you to compare T+A Dac200 VS Chord Dave / Upscaler.
As my understanding is that DSD is a "side use" of the May (R2R) - not what it is primarily built for.
And your pre-processing intentions are the opposite of mine - so we really have different approaches.

Again, good luck - I will not interfere anymore - sorry about that - Maybe I overshared.

 

[Patu]

One drawback with the DAC 200 might be that it seems to only support the 4x and 8x DSD over USB. Generally, I have found that eliminating USB from digital chains is best practice for best sound. Another concern was what someone earlier in the thread describes as dryness from the T+A in direct comparison to the May. Decay can really make a difference in terms of involvement in the music. And decay truncation is a big ticket item when it comes to natural sound. Not the only one, but an important one.

I was also facing the decision of DAC200 or Holo about a year ago. I ended up with Holo since Magna hifi offered easy trial period with no-risk return possibility. I auditioned the likes of Mola Mola Tambaqui and Auralic Vega G2.1 and owned Linn Akurate DSM/3 back then. Tambaqui was great also but I just couldn't justify the price difference to Spring 3. And there were some things I found even better on Spring 3. I kept it and haven't looked back. There's just something very natural and right sounding to it. All the detail and resolution without any harshness or fatigue. I've only read reviews and heard impressions that DAC200 should be drier and slightly brighter sounding. That's something I wouldn't want any more in my setup. My ATC's are very revealing already. And Holo May should be even better than Spring 3. I use HQP + Roon for playback and upsample mainly to DSD256 but high rate PCM isn't bad either.

May has probably one of the best USB-implementations out there. Then again, it doesn't mean that you wouldn't need a proper USB cable. I own Spring 3 and was surprised how big a difference USB cables made. I ended up with Intona Premium, which was available second hand in Finland. It's crazy money as new (IMO). I have thrown probably almost ten USB cables against it and none of them come even close. Latest one I tried was Cardas Clear. I guess there's something about the Intona's impedance continuity theory. I also tried the I2S connection between the Holo Red and Spring 3 and USB was way better in my setup (with Ricable HDMi/I2S cable). There were also some strange clicks and pops with I2S. I2S is not standardized so the implementations vary. But I see no reason to use it with Holo products. HQP developer Jussi Laako also recommends using USB with Holo products.

I'd love to auditon DAC200 in my setup but it's just too much of a risk to buy blind.

 

[medon]

...
About a year ago, everything fell appart because I understood that my DL-III Dac was processing the signal in an old fashioned way and could not go above 96khz.
...

Oh yeah... that moment we all know - sound was great until recently, but we found out we were WRONG. Plain and utterly WRONG. And we need to DO something about it! New toy, NOW!!

BTW, I also fed the DAC 200 some USB Audio via a 13 year old DELL Laptop. The "signal quality meters" were not off...
... I am not sure if the DAC 200's reclocking-scheme is almost bullet-proof (I could believe that), or if it would be hard to find a bad USB source at all.
Didn't dig too deep into this though, and did not do any extended sound evaluation trials on the DAC 200 with my stone-age DELL laptop vs. other options.

 

[Davidv100]

Oh yeah... that moment we all know - sound was great until recently, but we found out we were WRONG. Plain and utterly WRONG. And we need to DO something about it! New toy, NOW!!

BTW, I also fed the DAC 200 some USB Audio via a 13 year old DELL Laptop. The "signal quality meters" were not off...
... I am not sure if the DAC 200's reclocking-scheme is almost bullet-proof (I could believe that), or if it would be hard to find a bad USB source at all.
Didn't dig too deep into this though, and did not do any extended sound evaluation trials on the DAC 200 with my stone-age DELL laptop vs. other options.

Well, this actually makes sense to me...
My understanding is that via USB, the clock of the DAC is the master clock.
As opposed to I2S where the source (the streamer) provides the master clock signal - Hence the "PLL" solution on the May aiming to take over the streamer source with the DAC clock.
Then, indeed, in a no-nonsense approach, I think any laptop as streamer, even old, is a clever solution compared to multi-k$ streamer with over engineered design to isolate and rebuild the native current. In a laptop, the battery "as a power buffer" solution seems like a proven and efficient solution to me.

Some things are / and should remain simple.
For example, in this snake-oil world, some streamer manufacturers will also explain that their unit needs "what-ever-burn-in-time > warranty period".
A streamer is really just a basic computer, with some galvanic isolation at best... It receives digital input, and outputs digital...
But as the USB input of DAC 200 has already galvanic isolation, it is not even necessary to isolate twice (= overkill).
And with a battery (laptop) - all power noise is isolated by design. As for jitter, it is been taken care of by the DAC200 clock.

I always wonder... do some people really believe their new Macbook needs some burn-in time before providing accurate solutions in Excel ? Of course not.

So, yes, an old, stable laptop, with a good internet stream will do...
It is not that the DAC200 is not regarding... It is just that it is not sensitive to snake-oil. Which is very good.

 

[bazelio]

It is hard not to have everything sound fake to some extent, after all stereo is an illusion and the recording process itself is full of tricks. The important thing is do you enjoy it! I agree 100%. For me digital sounded wonderful for the last 30 years but no matter what DAC it always had a certain glare to it (compared to vinyl) that until I got the T&A DAC200, I had begun to accept as one of the downsides of digital.

Hi Bazelio,
Thank you for sharing that my post built with the intention to help you is a waste of 1 hour of my time. I like honesty, and most importantly, I have nothing to sell.
I understand you are in the quest of the best sound, whatever the means, which seems the right approach to me indeed.
As you have decided to go the DSD road, my personal take is that any R2R Dac is pointless since R2R is structurally made for PCM.
This is actually one of the reasons I discarded the R26 option. Most people were using heavy HQP to DSD (like you intend to do), then using a rather crappy 1$ chip on the R26, without using anything R2R. Same for the May, although DSD is using a different R2R ladder on the May, but it is still a kind of "add-on" to the main PCM structure.

i wish you the best, as I cannot offer you any May/DAC200 comparison, and no DSD experience (besides some tremendous DSD listenings by "Blue Coast Recording".

Just one thought, if you are purely into DSD, it might be interesting for you to compare T+A Dac200 VS Chord Dave / Upscaler.
As my understanding is that DSD is a "side use" of the May (R2R) - not what it is primarily built for.
And your pre-processing intentions are the opposite of mine - so we really have different approaches.

Again, good luck - I will not interfere anymore - sorry about that - Maybe I overshared.

Don't be offended. I appreciate your input. I am just suggesting that we use common descriptive language. I have no way of knowing what "fake" means, much less specific percentages of fakeness. It could mean any number of different things in different areas. This is why I pointed to specific aspects of sound such as timbre and tone, etc. Because those are specific and they help triangulate on the sound signature, based on user feedback. But to be clear, you have not interfered in any way.

 

[medon]

My understanding is that via USB, the clock of the DAC is the master clock.
...

In a very abstract way this is true (IMHO).
But... the USB sending device (computer / streamer / iPad / ...) still DO have an influence on what the output device (DAC) delivers.
Otherwise there would be some magic "100% OK / not OK" threshold that prevents bad sound.

It might be that the DAC200 is quite resilient against "bad" (jittery / noisy) USB signals. But I don't believe input signal quality does not to a certain degree influence how the DAC200 sounds.

With other DACs (e.g. my very own Denafrips DAC) there is in fact a quite distinct SQ impact, even when feeding it via USB. Same is true for a friend's Holo Audio Spring DAC.

On the other hand, my RME Adi2 fs DAC seems quite resilient against incoming noise/jitter...

 

[bazelio]

I was also facing the decision of DAC200 or Holo about a year ago. I ended up with Holo since Magna hifi offered easy trial period with no-risk return possibility. I auditioned the likes of Mola Mola Tambaqui and Auralic Vega G2.1 and owned Linn Akurate DSM/3 back then. Tambaqui was great also but I just couldn't justify the price difference to Spring 3. And there were some things I found even better on Spring 3. I kept it and haven't looked back. There's just something very natural and right sounding to it. All the detail and resolution without any harshness or fatigue. I've only read reviews and heard impressions that DAC200 should be drier and slightly brighter sounding. That's something I wouldn't want any more in my setup. My ATC's are very revealing already. And Holo May should be even better than Spring 3. I use HQP + Roon for playback and upsample mainly to DSD256 but high rate PCM isn't bad either.

May has probably one of the best USB-implementations out there. Then again, it doesn't mean that you wouldn't need a proper USB cable. I own Spring 3 and was surprised how big a difference USB cables made. I ended up with Intona Premium, which was available second hand in Finland. It's crazy money as new (IMO). I have thrown probably almost ten USB cables against it and none of them come even close. Latest one I tried was Cardas Clear. I guess there's something about the Intona's impedance continuity theory. I also tried the I2S connection between the Holo Red and Spring 3 and USB was way better in my setup (with Ricable HDMi/I2S cable). There were also some strange clicks and pops with I2S. I2S is not standardized so the implementations vary. But I see no reason to use it with Holo products. HQP developer Jussi Laako also recommends using USB with Holo products.

I'd love to auditon DAC200 in my setup but it's just too much of a risk to buy blind.

I'm also using the Holo Red. Really nice device! Thanks for the input.

 

[Soundguy123]

Several on this thread use ATC. Interesting. Very interesting.

 

[littlej0e]

Don't be offended. I appreciate your input. I am just suggesting that we use common descriptive language. I have no way of knowing what "fake" means, much less specific percentages of fakeness. It could mean any number of different things in different areas. This is why I pointed to specific aspects of sound such as timbre and tone, etc. Because those are specific and they help triangulate on the sound signature, based on user feedback. But to be clear, you have not interfered in any way.

Fake, hazy, transcendent, beloved, lackadaisical, ethereal, electrifying, etc. - these words can mean different things depending on who you ask. The same is absolutely true of tone, timbre, bass, mids. shrill, etc., and these words are largely just as meaningless. You also have no conceivable way of knowing what tone actually means to some rando on the internet (or how they interpret it). Audio nerds are probably better off dispensing with these terms and using the simplest descriptions imaginable to account for the lowest common denominator. For example, "my new Holo May KTE sounds like a miniature pony!" or "these Susvaras sound like yellow!". Or perhaps a more direct example of difficult to decipher language; "think of live unamplified music as the reference." Now, what in the blue f%(k does that mean?!?

My point is, at best, this is all argumentative conjecture.

So what would you like to know about the tone, timbre, etc. between the May KTE and the T+A 200? I'd be glad to answer any questions you have, but I may need to put it in my own words. For example, the May KTE sounds like the chocolate fountain at a Golden Corral - thick, liquidy goodness, but guaranteed some 3rd-grader lost his retainer in it. Meanwhile, the T+A sounds like a fancy Crème Brûlée - made with 23 herbs and spices churched-up to the 9's, but ultimately it's still just custard.