Jump to content

Recommended Posts

DCS Bartok and Mola mola are not in the same price range.

and yet people compare them all the time.

 

All I wanted to know what does Tambaqui do that warrants the difference, and what does Bartok do that may warrant the huge difference?

 

I am not saying Holo May is same or better than them.

 

Edited by delphi17
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I have had the Holo May Level 2  in my system now for the last six months or so.   It is the first DAC that I have owned that I am really happy with and the first DAC that comes close to the very

I have recently upgraded from a Spring Level 3 (Wildsim) to a May Level 3 KTE.   Prior to the upgrade, I was very satisfied with the Spring  to the point where I was unsatisfied with anythin

I got my Holo May KTE on Xmas eve.  I tried out some heavy metal tracks from Van Halen and Led Zeppelin.  Both sound superb and accurate.   For instance with Led Zeppelin - Moby Dick with the fast d

Is it true that holo dac is better with cd quality than oversampling Hans Beekhuyzen seems to suggest so?does that mean that mqa doesn't sound as good?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's how I listen to it - no oversampling in hardware nor software. Stunning sound/player. R-2R, NOS, with the lowest distortions in business and great dynamic range ...not to mention the amazing linearity (low signal resolution)... and it manages exceptional sound even with 44.1k material. That's brilliant engineering. I feed its balanced analogue output straight to my Aleph J clone with only 2 gain stages, the second one working in pure class-A single-ended; no capacitors in the signal path (apart from the speakers' crossovers). Bliss. 

Edited by Extreme_Boky
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just took delivery of a Bartok. Pretty impressive, and nice to have a streamer and DAC of such quality in the same box. I too am surprised that they are compared (the Mola Mola and Bartok) when they are not exactly the same thing.. would be better to compare the Mola Mola and chord Dave?

Edited by Mrpseudonym
Link to post
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, 7502dan said:

Is it true that holo dac is better with cd quality than oversampling Hans Beekhuyzen seems to suggest so?does that mean that mqa doesn't sound as good?

The Holo May does not do MQA decoding. So currently when listening to MQA thru Tidal I only get the first unfold with Roon.  Now if I compare it to a non-MQA version I have the non-MQA sounds better.  The MQA version just sounds lossy to me.  So now I just avoid MQA and I am patiently waiting for Qobuz to come in April so I can use that instead.

 

Agree too that 16/44 files (Non-MQA) sound fantastic on the Holo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, 7502dan said:

Is it true that holo dac is better with cd quality than oversampling Hans Beekhuyzen seems to suggest so?does that mean that mqa doesn't sound as good?

In my view the key to great sound from the May is to always use it in NOS mode.  And whilst most CDs sound stellar in 44.1 there are plenty of CDs which are improved by oversampling.  I just do the oversampling in Roon or HQPlayer rather than let the May do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So am i to understand that a good implementation on standard cd resolution 44 trumps one in high res eg dsd, mqa 96,?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My dac gets signal from bluesound node 2i from Tidal first unfold at 96 then the dac processes  the 96 signal inNos to analog (no oversampling)and the equivalent cd 44.1 is still  better? That is very interesting 

Link to post
Share on other sites


2 hours ago, 7502dan said:

My dac gets signal from bluesound node 2i from Tidal first unfold at 96 then the dac processes  the 96 signal inNos to analog (no oversampling)and the equivalent cd 44.1 is still  better?

O

How MqA works is a mystery. In fact after using Tidal for 4 years, I moved to Qobuz. Takes all the Guess work away. At least I can be sure that 24/192 sounds better than 16/44 on Qobuz. Cheers 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 7502dan said:

So am i to understand that a good implementation on standard cd resolution 44 trumps one in high res eg dsd, mqa 96,?

If you think about the way an R2R DAC is designed, it is optimised for processing a 16 or 24 bit PCM signal at a wide range of sample rates from 44.1 to over 1M (in the May's case).  An R2R DAC needs to do no pre-processing of the PCM signal prior to conversion.  Contrast this to a Delta Sigma DAC which must pre-process a PCM input (ie reduce the bit width and increase the rate) prior to feeding the signal into the demodulator.

Conversely, an R2R DAC needs to pre-process a DSD signal prior to presenting it to the R2R stage.  

In other words when you present a DSD signal to and R2R DAC you are asking it to perform extra conversion work.  

So, to my ears, the May is at its very best processing PCM signals at any sample rate that is presented to it.  It also does a great job with DSD - but then so do good Delta Sigma DACs 🙂

If we are comparing the same recording in 44.1/16 PCM vs 96/24 PCM vs DSD (with a suitably high bit rate) the comparison is still going to be difficult unless you know how the recording was originally mastered.  If it was originally recorded at 96/24 then it will sound better in this format than the same recording in 44.1/16 format.  I'm not going to stick my neck out on DSD though!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So,forget the dsd as I'm not doing that, mqa stands for master q authentication. I thught that mqa uses original fomat of the recording then it gives it to my node 2i in two manageable chunks for example 192 in to 2×96 and the 2i then spits out according to the dac first unfolding 96 or the whole thing 192 if the dac permits this.Sorry for my noob suppositions, it's all voodoo to me.At the end of the day as Hans Beekhuysen said, (whatever you do,enjoy the music)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 7502dan said:

So,forget the dsd as I'm not doing that, mqa stands for master q authentication. I thught that mqa uses original fomat of the recording then it gives it to my node 2i in two manageable chunks for example 192 in to 2×96 and the 2i then spits out according to the dac first unfolding 96 or the whole thing 192 if the dac permits this.Sorry for my noob suppositions, it's all voodoo to me.At the end of the day as Hans Beekhuysen said, (whatever you do,enjoy the music)

You are correct.  MQA is a licensed proprietary encoding standard, so only licensed products can decode it.  So, in the context of the Holo May the unfolding must be done upstream - in your case by node 2i, in my case by Roon.   

So, back to the question of whether playing back a native 96/24 version of a given recording versus a MQA version of the same recording.  I suspect they would be very hard to distinguish.  But they should both be an improvement over a 44.1/16 version.

I think what other posters have been highlighting is what a huge improvement the May gives to playback of 44.1/16.  I don't think anyone is saying it lifts 44.1 to the level of a good 96/24 recording (or MQA for that matter)

Chris. 

Link to post
Share on other sites


On 06/02/2021 at 12:19 AM, delphi17 said:

DCS Bartok and Mola mola are not in the same price range.

and yet people compare them all the time.

 

All I wanted to know what does Tambaqui do that warrants the difference, and what does Bartok do that may warrant the huge difference?

 

I am not saying Holo May is same or better than them.

 

 

 

Its been a while so you may have already read the review on Twittering machines on the May DAC. some healthy and cautious comparisons are given to the Tambaqui.  It might be subjective on individual systems and ears. 

My wallet suffers all of the impacts of my subjective impulses,  so its either empty or full ( its a small wallet). 

So impressed was I by a Tambaqui review that I tried to buy one second hand at one stage.  It had already sold and the owner suggested to me new speakers and room treatment 1st.

The terrific reviews on the May are getting me a little excited however and I will temper my enthusiasm with the words of Hans B "enjoy the music" while I explore room treatment.  Dreams kept for another May, maybe?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/02/2021 at 9:43 PM, Artnet said:

 

 

Its been a while so you may have already read the review on Twittering machines on the May DAC. some healthy and cautious comparisons are given to the Tambaqui.  It might be subjective on individual systems and ears. 

My wallet suffers all of the impacts of my subjective impulses,  so its either empty or full ( its a small wallet). 

So impressed was I by a Tambaqui review that I tried to buy one second hand at one stage.  It had already sold and the owner suggested to me new speakers and room treatment 1st.

The terrific reviews on the May are getting me a little excited however and I will temper my enthusiasm with the words of Hans B "enjoy the music" while I explore room treatment.  Dreams kept for another May, maybe?


Personally I would say the advice given to do room treatment first was very good advice, most people in HiFi overlook it and yet it is the single most important part in having a great sounding HiFi system. Regarding The Holo Dac I am looking forward to hearing one in the next couple of weeks when I visit a mate who has one, equally so I’m very much looking forward to receiving a Tambaqui next week and settling it into in my evolving system.

 

cheers,

Terry

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TerryO said:


Personally I would say the advice given to do room treatment first was very good advice, most people in HiFi overlook it and yet it is the single most important part in having a great sounding HiFi system. Regarding The Holo Dac I am looking forward to hearing one in the next couple of weeks when I visit a mate who has one, equally so I’m very much looking forward to receiving a Tambaqui next week and settling it into in my evolving system.

 

cheers,

Terry

Ooh Tambaqui...very nice DAC

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Terry,

6 hours ago, TerryO said:


Personally I would say the advice given to do room treatment first was very good advice, most people in HiFi overlook it and yet it is the single most important part in having a great sounding HiFi system. Regarding The Holo Dac I am looking forward to hearing one in the next couple of weeks when I visit a mate who has one, equally so I’m very much looking forward to receiving a Tambaqui next week and settling it into in my evolving system.

 

cheers,

Terry

 

Thinking that any component or combination of is going to be the solution without considering the room that the sound will be reproduced in, has to be flawed.

So I am taking stock of the research and acquasition department for the moment.

All of the DAC'S mentined are going to be amazing and hope to hear back on your experience.

Stephen

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...