Holo Audio - Spring DAC - Level 3 - "Kitsune Tuned Edition" - Impressions & Reviews

yup...

 

Actually glad to hear you say that @Hands; switching between Spring / Pavane in our meet - didn't take long for me to hear the Pavane excelled in staging, layering, separation. Even with my aging ears it seemed clear. I walked away wondering how much more I'm missing - your ears have earned our respect.

Of course, the amp / tubes I were very familiar with (mine), and beer is less likely to impair the hearing / perception of someone who's already, well, impaired

One other takeaway; we need to start our meets earlier, so we can get critical listening in before lunch. Somehow I don't see us not enjoying a good brew.

 

Yes.

Short version - I prefer the Spring DAC in raw NOS mode with no oversampling at all.

Using the built-in OS modes on the DAC turns it into something I don't want to listen to at all. Using HQPlayer, regardless of what upsampling/oversampling model I tried, did not improve things much.

The Spring DAC is at its best, in my opinion, with no oversampling and with PCM data.

I would absolutely concur with @Hands that if you want oversampled replay then just go with Yggdrasil (it's what I do). I haven't found anything driven by HQPlayer to beat that yet.

Using the SU-1 has, so far, yielded the best results I've gotten from the Spring DAC. That's using the I2S interface. Can't say for sure if the change in clocks that comes along with that is actually part of the improvement, but I2S connection was very slightly ahead of the AES input (both fed from the SU-1).

If you already have an AES capable transport, just use that as the difference between AES/I2S is more of a "listen for it" thing than it is something that's apparent in "listening for pleasure". If your alternative is USB then the SU-1 will give you a better result and at that point t you may as well use it in I2S mode.

 

Given the excellent prices I'm seeing on used Pavane's ... I might have to make an exception to this being an "analog" year and get around to doing a back-to-back comparison with the Spring DAC. Sadly it won't be at the upcoming Seattle meet, but I shall have to get on that sooner than later.

 

Yep PM for sure.

JJ

 

METRUM PAVANE VS HOLO SPRING DAC LEVEL 3
iMac-->Ethernet-->RedNet3-->AES breakout-->Pavane/Holo-->Cayin iHA6/Trafomatic head 2/Neurochrome HP-1-->650/ Pioneer Rm-07s/Modded Pioneer HRM-7

Like previously mentioned this gear landed after a dumping some more revealing headphones but the differences were heard regardless once I got everything set up right.


By song:


Fleet Foxes - The Shrine/ An Argument 24/96

• 
  
  
  • The stringed instrument starts off and resonates a little harder on the Holo as well as his voice
  • The consonant “I” is stronger on Holo but sounds a little more forced and clipped.
  • “And I wonder” Is more smooth on the Pavane and more laid back. It swells in volume more politely.
  • On the Pavane the instruments are better separated from his voice also the voice is a little further on the Pavane. The instruments sound more crowded on the Holo.
  • On the Holo the echoes resonate richer and more intensely making the individual plucks a little less distinguishable but also more vibrant
  • The Pavane has a little bit better micro dynamics on this song it seems. @0:59 seconds the strumming is more detailed and less blended.
  • The end of the song at about 7:19 sounds a little more messy on the Holo. While the definition region of 6-10 khz sounds more full, the instruments mash together. The tones are enjoyable on the Holo but that segment is purposefully messy. The Pavane sounds like it organizes the mess better and makes it sound sweet while the Holo makes it sound like it is forcing the mess to sound good.
  • The Pavane does make that segment sound a little more compressed though. If I could have the intensity of the Holo and the micro dynamics and separation of the Pavane that would make it ideal. Yet the Pavane overall does better in this segment of the song to me.

Alabama Shakes - Sound and Color 24/44.1

• 
  
  
  • Micro dynamics, details, and separation confirmed in the favor of the Pavane
  • The Snare thwack though is more punchy and vibrant on the Holo
  • The bass kick when the rhythm drops @1:01 seconds is more vigorous on the Holo and more engaging.
  • Bass drop is a bit more forceful and makes me want to level match better. Even so the Holo hits slightly harder it seems. The Pavane still sounds punchy with this song but just a little less snappy on the drum work.
  • The harmonies of the vocals are less blended on the Pavane but more tangible on the Holo. The Pavane makes the voices sound a little more flat and muffled on this song. The Holo makes them cut through the recording. Both are clear but the Pavane doesn’t present the energy of this song as good as the Holo. A song like this sounds better on the Holo to me. This song is all about strong tones, round instruments and snappy drum kicks with hard bass and I give the nod to the Holo here.

Bob Moses - Nothing At All

• 
  
  
  • More vibrant on the Holo and more flat sounding and lifeless on the Pavane.
  • More peakiness on the Holo
  • I use this song to test the bass and both sound full and deep but the Holo is ever slightly more engaging.

Angelique Kidio - Fifa 24/88.2

• 
  
  
  • Her voice is more bold and assertive on the Holo but also a little more in your face. I love the tone of her voice on the Holo. It is strong and realistic. The strings around her voice really swell up with good energy on the holo when she sings louder. The intent of the recording is very well captured because the holo makes the energy of the song a little more tangible than the Pavane.
  • The Pavane is a little softer but still does really well. However her voice is pushed back slightly and the background vocals are better separated from her. The softs are softer on the Pavane and even further back but when the song gets loud it offers more contrast of intensity as the Holo kind of squelches the change of volume and keeps everything a little more intense when compared to the Pavane. That's not to say that the holo doesn’t reveal the contrasts but I personally feel like I am hearing the differences of intensities better on the Pavane.
  • The timbre of her voice has a consistent focus on from 1-4 khz that can become a little bit too persistent now that I know it's there. It does add make the emotion of the song more convincing but it keeps sounding forced as I continue listening to her album.
  • The Pavane draws less attention to any specific part of the frequency range but again is a little soft sometimes.

Kailin Ellis - Chow Mein 16/44.1 flac

• 
  
  
  • There is a little bit of ouch from the Holo on the treble. It's a little much on this song with the Holo (my amp is definitely not helping here) but I blame the recording because I know the Holo isn't bright.
  • The Pavane seems a lot more spacious on this song. If you go to listen to it you may not consider it a good test song but that’s fine. I'm a hip hop head. What I grew up around sounds a lot more grungy and low fi than this and I play lot's of it.
  • The Pavane is more holographic for sure though just a little softer as is consistently mentioned throughout these notes.
  • Bass sounds equal as far as tone and texture goes as well as control. Even when I try my best at level matching though the Pavane is slightly less punchy but is as controlled with these headphones. Maybe a higher tier can show differences better. My 650 is modded and the bass sounds a lot tighter than stock so it hits harder now but even so they sound the same as far as quality goes.

By Aspect:
a lot of repetition from above but laid out easier by aspect.

BASS:

The bass slams a little bit harder on the Holo DAC. The Pavane is just as tight and controlled so the basically have identical quality, just slightly less quantity on the Pavane. Both have very good focus, texture and balance but the Holo is more engaging by a little bit.


LOWER MIDRANGE:

The lower mids of the Holo sound balanced as well as the Pavane. They are not thick on either. Actually the Pavanes balance makes it seem as if its a little more warm here but that is only when isolating this range and honing in on it.


MIDRANGE PROPER:

The Holo is more rich and in your face from here up but here you can tell that the Holo is more physical. It is more pronounced and emboldened than the Pavane.


UPPER MIDRANGE:

The Pavane is a lot more even handed and serene in comparison to the Holo. It is not with drawn but I feel that the Pavane actually is relatively flat and neutral instead of withdrawn. The Holo is more assertive and aggressive in the upper midrange. It kind of sounds a little unnaturally forceful here to me, yet and still the Pavane is a little soft to me as well. Reality lies in between the two but closer to the Pavane to me. The Pavane was more expressive in energy it would sound more realistic than the Holo to my ears. As pointed out in the above, the Holo places a magnifying glass on this section.


TREBLE:

The treble is a little more snappy sounding to me on the Holo. Body and density seem very similar here. They both have good focus but the Pavane is more nimble in how it handles snares and high hats. And the Holo is slightly more lit and animated. The Pavane makes cymbals sound more graceful but the Holo sounds a little more casual and frantic. Neither are Dark or glaring and both sound natural to me so do not apply the words slightly to most aspects in this comparison, especially here of all places.


SOUNDSTAGE:

At first take I thought the Holo had more dimension because the way it would make instruments pop out better than the Pavane does but here is the no contest area. The Pavane is deeper and wider than the Holo DAC. The Pavane places the center image a little further away and with better precision than the Holo does


IMAGING/SEPARATION:

Placements are better on the Pavane but seem a little taller on the Level 3 DAC. The separation and placement of those images though are easier to hone in on with the PAVANE. The Holo sounds more congealed and blended in comparison. I find it the Holo to have adequate soundstage and separation but the Pavane is better here.

TRANSPARENCY:
Tie

BLACKNESS OF BACKGROUND:
Really tough to tell with the gear I have now because I do not consider the Cayin iHA6, The Trafomatic, or 650 super clean. The modded 650 I don't think hinders anything but the amps do. What I can say is that sounds seem to come out from the background with better individuality on the Pavane.

RESOLUTION OF TEXTURES:

The Holo is good with textures. The Pavane is more soft and while I hear the textures just as well, the energy of the Holo seems to make those textures more readily available. Both of them sound a little smoother than what I imagine the information of the recording really has inside of it.


MACRODYNAMICS:

This is a tough one. Yeah the Holo has more energy and makes the instruments hit harder. I had to keep turning the Pavane up to double check the differences but even so, while the Pavane didn’t have as strong of a Macro Peak, it had a deeper trough than the Holo. So the soft to loud contrasts seemed more apparent on the on the Pavane. I think that may call for a diagram. Also this area is one of a little uncertainty but that is just the impression I have of them.






MICRODYNAMICS

This is an area of certainty. The Pavane has more micro dynamics. Not only can I hear the micro dynamics better on the Pavane, there is less blending of details so it’s easier to hear the softs in a multitude of strokes on a background guitar. The little hand percussions and background clicks sound not only less crowded on the Pavane but are also more traceable with better nuance.



Overall I would love to own both DACs but for the things the HOLO does better than the PAVANE I would just skip NOS all together and pick up a Yggdrasil or something so I can have a totally different set of aspects to counter the Pavane. I like my Pavane though and I know that the areas the Holo focuses on will only make certain gear sound worse and for that the Pavane is the better all arounder to me. For example If I had the ifi Pro it would help its upper midrange sound more balanced but the soundstage would close in more than it already did with my Pavane.

The Pavane is a little soft though. After comparing both DACs I had a the feeling that I wanted the transients to have better edge to them on both dacs. The Pavanes softness makes me want this a little more than if I were to have the Holo. I think the Pavane would work well with some edgy planars. If I had the Ether Flow, the Holo, and my Cayin I believe that would be too much shoutiness going on there.

Which is the better DAC? I think the Pavane is but being technically better doesn't tell the whole story. The holo being more lively but just as clear can offer more fun. Fun is worth paying for. I think they are both built very well but I like the more modern aesthetics of the Holo. Would I sell the Pavane and get a Holo so I can pocket the change and get more gear? NOPE. I feel like the Pavane is better balanced as well.

YMMV

- Lee

 

Great info! Thanks for sharing. Cheers

 

Dear Audiophiles:


I am very much curious to see if there are any objective evidences as to the audible differences in presentation Spring and Pavane, no doubt, both excellent DACs, deliver.


If somebody with technical knowledge could please run a set of measurements similar to what were made for Schiit Yggdrasil (especially for high-resolution jitter spectrum of analog output signal where Yggdrasil exhibits some problems), it would be great, and, hopefully, present some basis for understanding of the situation.


Is anybody using Thunderbolt 3 (USB-C) port to send data to the DAC? Are there any “intermediary” boxes, like, for example, Singxer SU-1, necessary in this case?


Please chime in!

 

Thank you very kindly, @zerodeefex!


Do I understand you correctly, you are referring to something like Echo Express SEL - Thunderbolt 3 Edition + AES16e from Lynx Studio Technology? At about $1100 it is quite an expensive proposition, especially for us, Canucks…


Would it be more cost-effective (with comparable results, that is!) to just employ the aforementioned Singxer SU-1 at $400, if it is possible?

Sorry about my silly questions, but I am just a newbie, as you can see clearly…


On December 8, 2016 @Torq mentioned the possibility of a comparative test between Yggdrasil and the three levels of Spring DAC in January.


Will it be possible to share some results with the forum members at this time, please? Taking into consideration the price differences between the three levels, they should demonstrate audibly different results in listening tests…


Or, perhaps, not: capacitors are capacitors, and transformers are just transformers, regardless of their physical implementation. Would very much appreciate any comments on the matter from the engineers, forum contributers, please...


Thank you all!

 

That Thunderbolt/PCIe enclosure won't work as the AES16e card is a full-height design. You'll need something like this instead.

Other options exist, depending on exactly what you're trying to achieve (e.g. specifically having an AES output from a Mac vs. just getting an AES input into a suitably equipped DAC). These include Dante based solutions like RedNet and unDAES, and other devices like the Auralic Aries.

The results will differ. Depending on your precise setup, in particular your DAC, one may be better than the other (e.g. a DAC that re-clocks it's AES input will likely fair better with the Lynx approach over the SU-1).

That mini-meet didn't occur and, consequently, neither did the back to back comparison of the three Spring DAC variants.

 

I spent some time searching and I see quite a few articles on Windows 10 will support Thunderbolt. I haven't found anything on Windows 10 does support Thunderbolt.

Anyone know, off the top of their head, if that ever came to be a reality?

Edit: I probably posted in the wrong thread.

 

Thank you very kindly, @Torq!

Another question, if I may…

Will Singxer SU-1 be suitable to communicate between DAC (AES/EBU XLR in case of Yggdrasil, and I2S in case of Holo Audio - Spring DAC) and Apple MacBook Pro Thunderbolt 3 (USB-C) port?

Quite frankly, I am still undecided between Yggdrasil and Spring, especially considering the three levels of the latter…

Anybody with any listening impressions on Spring Level 1 vs. 2 vs. 3, please, please chime in! I am sure many forum members will benefit from such info.

Thank you all in advance, dear friends!

 

Yep, that'll work fine - no drivers or anything required. Just plug it in and go. You can either use the Apple USB-C to USB-A adapter dongle, or just get a USB-C to USB-B cable.

I don't think you're going to be able to sort this out just based on reading impressions. NOS and OS DACs sound different - sufficiently so that you really need to hear examples of both to get a feel for whether a NOS DAC is going to work for you. And while you can turn the Spring DAC into an OS DAC (either with it's internal oversampling, which kills the sound for me and is best avoided, or via HQPlayer, which has other ramifications and I still don't care for), it's strengths are in native NOS mode.

I would not buy the Spring DAC to use in OS form (software or hardware).

As time has gone on, while I still thoroughly enjoy the Spring DAC I own, I have found my listening time has become biased towards my Yggdrasil. That's about a 60/40 bias at the moment, and is somewhat affected by what I'm in the mood to listen to (somethings fit better on one unit than the other, and the few DSD albums I have obviously go through the Spring as it does a better job then than doing DSD->PCM conversion in software to feed Yggdrasil), but still the bias is towards Yggdrasil.

It's taken hundreds of hours of listening for that bias to become apparent, but it's definitely there.

I've heard the Level 3 and the Level 1. It was not in a back-to-back comparison, but I'm familiar enough with the Level 3 to be able to say that there were audible differences between the two (I didn't know I was listening to the Level 1 at the time). My first thought in that situation was that the unit wasn't properly warmed up, but otherwise, while audibly different, the fundamental character of the DACs was the same. Whether the differences are audible in a given system will depend on a number of factors and I expect would not be apparent unless listening very critically (as in, you were specifically looking for differences).

 

Something like this USB C to USB B should be even easier.

 

Typos are such a PITA.

Yes, C -> B

 

Thank you very kindly, @Torq!

I cannot thank you and other forum members enough for the most valuable information this forum provides. In my situation, living in the sticks, and having limited mobility, you provide the info I will have to base my purchasing decision upon.

Another question, if I may…

I understand the signal from Apple MacBook Pro can be forwarded to SU-1 to Holo Spring or Yggdrasil DAC successfully. But what about downstream? Should the preamplifier be also discussed?

Here is my question: will my Primare PRE30 preamplifier work nicely with either of these DACs, please?