[Freo-1]

Recently auditioned a Topping DX 9 as a DAC.  To say I was suprised was an understatement.  The sound from this DAC was excellent, to say the least.  Comapring this to a couple of other DACs on hand, level matched, the DX 9 was every bit as good as the other DACs. one of them was over 6K new. 


Started looking into this, and found this link.  I have to admit, there seems to be some truth to this set of observations.


What do you all reckon?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Sg1nYLmLCw&t=16s

[toocool4]

I like watching his channel, he always has a lot of interesting things to say and does not fall for the BS. 

[newzooreview]

Alpha Audio produces some very well-recorded comparisons of components and interconnects, as well as bench measurements.

Here is one comparing three DACs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxamTMgzCWI

With a good pair of headphones, it is not hard to hear the differences, and it's possible that some people won't hear a difference or won't think the differences are meaningful.

I think the Alpha Audio approach is more useful and informative.

[I.Greyhound Fan]

I don't agree with everything he says because I have done so many DAC shootouts in my system with audiophile friends using DACS from $200 to $6000.
These were blind tests and everyone found that the more expensive DAC's sounded much better.  Now DAC technology has advanced in the last few years and cheap DAC's are getting better.  But I still find them grainy in my reference system.  They can sound hard, distorted, bright and fatiguing with the exception of the Modi 3 that I have that is warm, less detailed and can sound muddy in my system.  Their sound stages are not as wide or deep.  Usually there is less texture.  I own 2 Topping E50 DAC's and they sound fabulous in midfi systems.  My bedroom system is an old Marantz receiver, the E50 DAC, Monitor Audio RX2 speakers, music server is a high end laptop using Audirvana.  The DAC sounds great.  However, when placed in my system and my son's it sounds literally like crap.  You can hear all its flaws readily.  I was shocked.

My son has a Chord Qutest DAC and it is a very good DAC for the price but it is lacking compared to my Luxman DAC that is 2013 technology.  My son is auditioning a PSA MKI DAC and it sounds much better than the Qutest.

My conclusion is that if you cannot hear the differences then your system is not up to snuff or you have crap hearing or the recordings are crap, lol.

I have an audiophile friend that replaced his lampizator with a  Holo May DAC.  I thought the May sounded like crap and he didn't like it.  He returned it and bought an Aqua La Scala which sounds fabulous.  DAC's can and do sound different.  There is a lot more that goes into it besides the chip used.

Just my opinions, take it or leave it.

[WGH]

A great video, I paired it with the The "Nyquist theorem" isn't what you were taught (why digital used to suck) video
https://youtu.be/l9oob3RNZpc

It can take me a week to reliably hear differences between DACs. I can easily hear the difference between the same recording at 44.1 kHz and upsampled to DSD256, but that doesn't mean a visitor will hear it. I miss a lot when listening to unfamiliar systems.

An important topic Adam hasn't talked about is digital filters. There are so many combinations and options that subtly change the sound that finding a DAC that has synergy with your electronics is purely by luck. PS Audio regularly updates their FPGA chip with new filters that refine the sound of their DACs.

Why can I hear a change between 44.1 kHz and DSD256? Because I'm moving noise way above 22 kHz by upsampling and changing my filter selection. My choice was to get off the DAC treadmill with their locked-in-place filters and pick what sounds the best to me.

Every DAC uses filters, your favorite DAC may not be the same as mine.

I use HQPlayer Desktop upsampling multichannel audio player. The filter selection is not as daunting as it first appears but you do need a high powered music server and a DAC on the approved list to run it.
Most audiophiles would rather buy a new DAC every couple of years. The lucky ones can't hear a difference.

HQPlayer filter choices:

Resampling filters:
‣ 42 linear phase
‣ 3 intermediate phase
‣ 11 minimum phase
‣ 4 impulse optimal
‣ 3 closed form

Dithers and noise-shapers:
‣ 4 dithers
‣ 5 noise shapers

Delta-Sigma conversion:
‣ 34 modulators
‣ 70 oversampling filters (64x – 2048x)
‣ Direct rate conversions, 3 algorithms

I use the HoloAudio May. When I use JRiver as a player the sound is meh plus the May's built-in upsampling software is nothing to write home about. The Aqua La Scala looks like a wonderful state-of-the-art DAC.

[I.Greyhound Fan]

WGH, I certainly agree about filters but there is still more to better sound.  It is implementation, the power supply, the quality of capacitors, resistors, wiring, rca and XLR terminals and more. 

I love HQ player and use it occasionally.  My issue with it is it user interface and that I use a laptop to remote into my dedicated music computer using windows remote desktop and I have tried others.  The issue is scaling.  On my laptop I need strong magnifying glasses to be able to see the fonts on HQ player.

Most of the time I use Audirvana or for real critical listening, I use Bug Head which is still the best sounding music player that I have heard, but it is slow and a pain to use unless you are listening to whole albums at a time or you have play lists.  I do upsample all my music.  The sweet spot for my Luxman DAC is 352 and 384.  The Luxman does not do DSD well unfortunately.  It is too soft.

[Freo-1]

A great video, I paired it with the The "Nyquist theorem" isn't what you were taught (why digital used to suck) video
https://youtu.be/l9oob3RNZpc

It can take me a week to reliably hear differences between DACs. I can easily hear the difference between the same recording at 44.1 kHz and upsampled to DSD256, but that doesn't mean a visitor will hear it. I miss a lot when listening to unfamiliar systems.

An important topic Adam hasn't talked about is digital filters. There are so many combinations and options that subtly change the sound that finding a DAC that has synergy with your electronics is purely by luck. PS Audio regularly updates their FPGA chip with new filters that refine the sound of their DACs.

Why can I hear a change between 44.1 kHz and DSD256? Because I'm moving noise way above 22 kHz by upsampling and changing my filter selection. My choice was to get off the DAC treadmill with their locked-in-place filters and pick what sounds the best to me.

Every DAC uses filters, your favorite DAC may not be the same as mine.

I use HQPlayer Desktop upsampling multichannel audio player. The filter selection is not as daunting as it first appears but you do need a high powered music server and a DAC on the approved list to run it.
Most audiophiles would rather buy a new DAC every couple of years. The lucky ones can't hear a difference.

HQPlayer filter choices:

Resampling filters:
‣ 42 linear phase
‣ 3 intermediate phase
‣ 11 minimum phase
‣ 4 impulse optimal
‣ 3 closed form

Dithers and noise-shapers:
‣ 4 dithers
‣ 5 noise shapers

Delta-Sigma conversion:
‣ 34 modulators
‣ 70 oversampling filters (64x – 2048x)
‣ Direct rate conversions, 3 algorithms

I use the HoloAudio May. When I use JRiver as a player the sound is meh plus the May's built-in upsampling software is nothing to write home about. The Aqua La Scala looks like a wonderful state-of-the-art DAC.

The video listed here is excellent.  Makes a lot of good points.
 
As time goes on, I think that his arguments about DACs is more right than not.  The amp/speaker pairing has FAR more impact than the DAC itself.  I've tried a number of DACs with a high-end headphone setup, and the difference between a Chord Hugo TT, Chord Hugo TT2, and the Topping DX 9 were too hard to discern to matter.  The headphone and associated amp have FAR MORE impact than the DAC itself. 
 
The one DAC that seem to sound a bit different was the PS Audio DSD MK 1.  Whilst it has wonderful detail and clarity, it seems to lack just enough of dynamic impact to be noticeable. Maybe it is because it converts everything to DSD?  Funny, the DSD recordings aren't lacking with any of the other DACs.
 
I'm personally biased against R2R DAC's.  It’s both challenging and expensive to get one that can match the detail and clarity of a top line Delta/Sigma DAC. 
 
Horses for Courses.
 

[WGH]

I'm personally biased against R2R DAC's.  It’s both challenging and expensive to get one that can match the detail and clarity of a top line Delta/Sigma DAC. 

I don't think I have ever listened to a current top of the line Delta/Sigma DAC. I probably heard one at RMAF but that was years ago and under show conditions. I picked the HoloAudio May because it will play any resolution and has separate PCM and DSD ladder DACs.

R2R DACs are an interesting solution to digital noise, done right the highs are gently rolled off producing an analog sound. Larry wrote that "audiophile friend that replaced his lampizator with a  Holo May DAC.  I thought the May sounded like crap and he didn't like it.  He returned it and bought an Aqua La Scala which sounds fabulous". I don't know what music Larry's friend was listening to but if it was 44.1 kHz (or even 96 kHz) the May probably sounded muted and lacked sparkle.


Stereophile's John Atkinson measured the HoloAudio May's frequency response which shows a noticeable roll off with a 44.1 kHz signal:

Fig.7 shows the May's frequency response in NOS mode (Green) with data sampled at 44.1, 96, and 192kHz. All three responses start rolling off in the top two audio octaves. With 44.1kHz data (green and gray data), the rolloff reaches –1.5dB at the top of the audioband, but the measured level is adulterated with aliased image energy. The actual rolloff is probably closer to –3dB at 20kHz (see fig.16). The response at the higher sample rates is down by 1dB at 19kHz (96kHz data, cyan and magenta traces) and 22kHz (192kHz data, blue and red traces)




Upsampling to 384 kHz or DSD256 changes the character of the HoloAudio May, extends the highs, adds sparkle and removes all digital nastiness while keeping the NOS naturalness. I had always planned to use HQPlayer with the May after watching the GoldenSound reviews:

GoldenSound HoloAudio May KTE review part 1
https://youtu.be/Wa3sOSRa-U0

Golden Sound HoloAudio May KTE review part 2 - HQPlayer with the May is at 15:36 in the video
https://youtu.be/mHcfgQtlnP8


The Aqua La Scala is doing something interesting, it has a FPGA chip like the PS Audio PerfectWave DirectStream, a resistor ladder like the HoloAudio, and two tubes like an Audio Note DAC. I haven't found any frequency graphs like John Atkinson made, it would be interesting to see if the highs extend higher than a typical NOS DAC.

I did find a couple of reviews that compare the Aqua La Scala to a couple different PS Audio DACs:

TMR Exclusive Review: Aqua La Scala Mk II Optologic DAC
https://tmraudio.com/blog/tmr-exclusive-review-aqua-la-scala-mk-ii-optologic-dac-part-1/

Step up! Aqua Hifi’s La Scala MKII Optologic DAC
https://darko.audio/2017/02/step-up-aqua-hifis-la-scala-mkii-optologic-dac/

[I.Greyhound Fan]

The Holo May can't hold a candle next to the La Scala in sound.  The La Scala is smooth, detailed, and analog sounding.  I found the May to have a thinner, brighter sound with some digital edge. 

[ksbruce]

WGH, I certainly agree about filters but there is still more to better sound.  It is implementation, the power supply, the quality of capacitors, resistors, wiring, rca and XLR terminals and more. 

I love HQ player and use it occasionally.  My issue with it is it user interface and that I use a laptop to remote into my dedicated music computer using windows remote desktop and I have tried others.  The issue is scaling.  On my laptop I need strong magnifying glasses to be able to see the fonts on HQ player.

Most of the time I use Audirvana or for real critical listening, I use Bug Head which is still the best sounding music player that I have heard, but it is slow and a pain to use unless you are listening to whole albums at a time or you have play lists.  I do upsample all my music.  The sweet spot for my Luxman DAC is 352 and 384.  The Luxman does not do DSD well unfortunately.  It is too soft.

I used to have Bug Head and loved it. Can't seem to find a working version now.

[I.Greyhound Fan]

I used to have Bug Head and loved it. Can't seem to find a working version now.

My son and I both have several versions.  The versions I have are good not great.  Unfortunately I accidentally deleted my personal favorites. We can send you all the versions if you would like.  Do you have drop box?

Larry

[ksbruce]

My son and I both have several versions.  The versions I have are good not great.  Unfortunately I accidentally deleted my personal favorites. We can send you all the versions if you would like.  Do you have drop box?

Larry

No I don't. I'll look into it. I do love uLilith though!

https://codecpack.co/download/Lilith-Player-English.html

[WGH]

Do you have drop box?

No I don't. I'll look into it.

The free GoogleDrive is easy to use. I set the file permissions to public so anyone with the link can download otherwise the download link is tied to a single email address, which works for security but half the time the person receiving the file link tries to download from a different email address and it fails making more work for everyone. The person downloading doesn't need to install GoogleDrive or any other program.

[WGH]

I found the May to have a thinner, brighter sound with some digital edge.

Me too... if the wrong filters in HQPlayer are used. The filters and upsampling GoldenSound used in his review video did not work for me at all, they were horrible. I think digital edge is part and parcel of digital recordings, some DACs eliminate it better than others. Converting to DSD removes the digital edge although some may find the resulting sound too smooth without the bite of live music. And with some DACs the volume won't go high enough.


Jussi Laako, HQPlayer's developer wrote:

"6 dB difference [between PCM and DSD] is completely normal. This is because DSD 0 dB level is defined to be 50% of the theoretical maximum. And the specification allow temporary peaks up to max +3.15 dB DSD level. While PCM has hard ceiling at 0 dBFS.

"Some DAC chips like ESS Sabre attempt to normalize the output volume by applying 6 dB gain on DSD. Then PCM and DSD have same 0 dB reference level. But that has a risk when some material actually exceeds 0 dB DSD level and goes to +3 dB or so. Then it may hit maximum voltage span of the analog section (for example if it's running from 5V supply)...

"TI chips have varying DSD output level depending on selected DSD analog filter. But typically have about -3 dB level compared to PCM 0 dBFS level. AKM chips Direct DSD output level is -3.5 dB compared to 0 dBFS PCM so they have enough headroom to accommodate the allowed DSD peaks.

"Because of uncertainty of behavior above 0 dB DSD level, for example HQPlayer is trying to enforce output to stay within 0 dB and don't allow output to exceed the +3.15 dB level."

[I.Greyhound Fan]

No I don't. I'll look into it. I do love uLilith though!

https://codecpack.co/download/Lilith-Player-English.html

I was asking about Drop Box so we can send you several versions of Bug Head.  We have some 7.0 and 10.0 versions that sound great.  The processing time is long on some of the versions.  I usually kept Stardust turned off unless it made a nice difference.  I also upsampled with it.  I used the green filter.

Let me know if you want Bug Head and give me your email address.  You can send me a personal message to keep it private.

Larry

[ksbruce]

Thanks that would be great! ksb643@gmail.com

[I.Greyhound Fan]

Thanks that would be great! ksb643@gmail.com

Great, we will get them to you sometime this week and possibly tonight.

[ksbruce]

Thank you