HOLO Audio - Official Thread

[Pharmaboy]

FWIW, I love “BoardmanGetsPaid” as a screen name.

We owe a debt to the great & enigmatic Kawhi Leonard for this saying…

[hifiDJ]

@BoardmanGetsPaid

I disagree with your assessment that silver should be consider a feature if it does not provide any benefits beside being a more expensive material

@bpcarb

I agree with you.

Just to be clear, I don’t think it as a feature either. I meant it as a joking example…lol

@Wenbinbin2010

I have a feeling that the Cyan is still incredibly competitive despite these frequent updates to the Holo DACs, despite being multiple price brackets lower.

You shouldn’t be surprised. A lot of DACs out there that are “old” are still competitive even today. The major differences that I’ve seen are mainly in features and measurements, such as an upgraded USB module or I2S input.

[bpcarb]

@hifiDJ

I meant it as a joking example…lol

Your delivery is stupendous!

@hifiDJ

A lot of DACs out there that are “old” are still competitive even today.

True. I’m aware of some people recently getting ears on this older Sonic Frontiers tube DAC and being impressed, even alongside an Yggy and TT2/HMS.

Sonic Frontiers SFD-2 D/A processor RH on the SFD-2 Mk.II

[eric75]

I use the Cyan as my main dac, as well as a quick solid state amp when needed. I love the Cyan sound. I keep mine on nos and find it so engaging. I have no desire to upgrade.

[BoardmanGetsPaid]

@hifiDJ

Just to be clear, I don’t think it as a feature either. I meant it as a joking example…lol

You got me there for a moment.

@Pharmaboy

FWIW, I love “BoardmanGetsPaid” as a screen name.

We owe a debt to the great & enigmatic Kawhi Leonard for this saying…

Great player and fun guy lol

@bpcarb

A possible approach is to evaluate whether one wants his/her DAC to have certain upgrades/internals without regard to audible sonics, where such upgrades/internals can offer additional/worthwhile value/utility/desirability without regard to audible sonics.

Good luck and looking forward to learning of your eventual/ultimate systems and pairings.

I hear what you’re saying on features that do not affect sonic performances and do agree with you on that. But it is hard to justify having upgraded caps/transformer/fuse etc without bringing in any sonic performance upgrade. Having no experiences with fuses etc perhaps it’s indication that this may not be the product for me. I am still interested in hearing it someday but having this much variation does make the hurdle of blind buying even more daunting for me.

[cpp]

@hifiDJ

A lot of DACs out there that are “old” are still competitive even today.

So very true. Like the Orchid DAC Philips uses a old 1985 design TDA1541 R-2-R , and the Border Control DAC uses the TDA1543 .

[bpcarb]

@BoardmanGetsPaid

features that do not affect sonic performances

I should indicate that I distinguish between features versus design aspects/methodologies/implementations.

@BoardmanGetsPaid

it is hard to justify having upgraded caps/transformer/fuse etc without bringing in any sonic performance upgrade.

For audio, I understand that sonic performance is paramount. However, sometimes the value/utility/performance are related to reliability/durability/longevity and sound signature.

@BoardmanGetsPaid

Having no experiences with fuses etc perhaps it’s indication that this may not be the product for me. I am still interested in hearing it someday but having this much variation does make the hurdle of blind buying even more daunting for me.

Understandable and Holo/Kitsune could do more to inform prospective consumers.

[bpcarb]

@cpp

So very true. Like the Orchid DAC Philips uses a old 1985 design TDA1541 R-2-R , and the Border Control DAC uses the TDA1543 .

While innovation and technology do march on, sometimes good is good and does not cease to be good with the passage of time.

[cpp]

@bpcarb

While innovation and technology do march on, sometimes good is good and does not cease to be good with the passage of time.

Very true. My old 1971 Marantz 2270 Receiver still sounds good today, could use a tuneup and some speaker terminal changes, but it still works. Plus, I would rather have a good implementation of all the components than a whole bunch of components just thrown into a case and claimed to be the next great thing. Sometimes, simple can be better if you enjoy a certain sound signature and you don’t need all the wiz bang stuff. .

[Pharmaboy]

Couldn’t agree more. A recent non-DAC event illustrates this: the last in a series of powered studio monitors, then passive studio monitors I’ve tried in this home office/desktop system is a pair of 35 year old KEF 2-ways (103.2s) that were recapped but otherwise pure vintage. They’re easily the best speakers I’ve heard in this system…I only wish I had a trad 2-channel setup elsewhere in the house so I could really let them loose in space.

[bpcarb]

@cpp

1971 Marantz 2270 Receiver

Beautiful receiver. I’m trying to determine whether to go Marantz, Sansui, or Pioneer to pair with my Zu Omen Dirty Weekend speakers.

@cpp

I would rather have a good implementation of all the components than a whole bunch of components just thrown into a case and claimed to be the next great thing. Sometimes, simple can be better if you enjoy a certain sound signature and you don’t need all the wiz bang stuff.

Absolutely. Sometimes (often?) technology has more to do with bells and whistles, cheaper/faster production, smaller footprint, less weight – which human ears don’t really value.

@Pharmaboy

35 year old KEF 2-ways (103.2s) that were recapped but otherwise pure vintage. They’re easily the best speakers I’ve heard in this system

Awesome, and another classic piece of gear. I personally prefer the aesthetic of older KEF and Naim compared to present day.

@cpp

wiz bang stuff

Is that a technical term?

[mfadio]

@bpcarb

Beautiful receiver. I’m trying to determine whether to go Marantz, Sansui, or Pioneer to pair with my Zu Omen Dirty Weekend speakers.

marantz 2245 am/fm stereo receiver | eBay

helping!

[bpcarb]

Thanks. Helping or enabling!?

[mfadio]

[cpp]

@bpcarb

Is that a technical term?

Oh for sure, …

[hifiDJ]

Just an FYI for those interested in the Spring 3 w/ preamp…

There is no bypass option, but I was told that setting it to 94 will do the same thing.

[Torq]

@cpp

Border Control DAC uses the TDA1543

The TDA 1543 is a really poor place to start when building a DAC (wasn’t great when it launched, even). It was a budget part when it was introduced, and it performs like one. Barely manages 14 bits of dynamic range, roll-off starting at 6 kHz, significant aliasing issues, harmonic/distortion issues at audible levels, lousy jitter performance, and poor noise performance.

I’ve heard more DACs that use the 1543 than I care to think about. Most of them seem to be low-volume boutique stuff. All of them were clearly colored and lacked transparency (objectively and subjectively). Even the ones that took heroic, and expensive, measures to try and work around the chips limitations.

Now the TDA 1541, in double-crown form, is a somewhat different matter.

[cpp]

@Torq

Now the TDA 1541, in double-crown form, is a somewhat different matter.

The 41 is whats in the Orchid I have in the den. Never heard the 1543.

[Pharmaboy]

I love that Orchid sound–which only got better when I rolled better tubes in the output buffer circuit.

I’m not worried about an antique DAC chip. Hell, I’m an antique myself…

[Torq]

I enjoyed the MHDT DACs, including the Orchid.

Owned a couple … really enjoyed the Stockholm V2 feeding a WA6.

Like I said, the TDA 1541 is a different proposition to its budget stablemate (1543).