• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Measurements & Preview of Holo Audio Spring 3 DAC / wPreamp (Prototype)

So it appears the measurements of this guy are absolutely fantastic but what about the cost to performance ratio? I know there are options like the D90SE you could argue are just as good, if not better, for $900 vs. $3k (for the KTE Holo) but I also have concerns over the quality of the build with Topping products and I like to put my money on reliable tech as well. For the folks that have this or have compared it - worth the cash?
 
SlothRock said:
So it appears the measurements of this guy are absolutely fantastic but what about the cost to performance ratio? I know there are options like the D90SE you could argue are just as good, if not better, for $900 vs. $3k (for the KTE Holo) but I also have concerns over the quality of the build with Topping products and I like to put my money on reliable tech as well. For the folks that have this or have compared it - worth the cash?
Click to expand...
I doubt I'd hear any differences relative to my Topping D30Pro, but damn, this is one sweet looking piece of gear. That alone might justify the extra $2,900.
 
MaxBuck said:
I doubt I'd hear any differences relative to my Topping D30Pro, but damn, this is one sweet looking piece of gear. That alone might justify the extra $2,900.
Click to expand...

Lol yea it does look amazing but def won't be worth that cash just for that. I am willing to pay $$ for proven performance and a reliable, high quality build. Seems like this has that but still not convinced it has enough of it for the $$
 
MaxBuck said:
I doubt I'd hear any differences relative to my Topping D30Pro, but damn, this is one sweet looking piece of gear. That alone might justify the extra $2,900.
Click to expand...
Hi Max, I do not own the Holo Dac, but I own both the D30pro and the Merging Hapi, which costs 10 times more. The D30pro is very good, I agree. But the Merging Hapi is amazing. So the extra money is justified in my case. Probably the same applies to the Holo Audio, which is beautifully engineered :)
 
Just ordered a Spring 3 KTE W preamp. Looking forward to how it will perform compared to my current Bel Canto 2.8 DAC. Wondering if others here have any experience with the latest Bel Canto DACs and how they compared to the HoloAudio DACs?
 
Hello, I have a Spring 3 KTE with the preamp module.

It was meant to be used with a speaker power amplifier, but now I would like to use it with a headphone tube amplifier, will that 11 vrms dac output be a severe issue?

Will lowering the preamp's volume suffice, any ideas which step to lower to match the typical 4 vrms output ? Any help will be appreciated
 
marc412 said:
Hello, I have a Spring 3 KTE with the preamp module.

It was meant to be used with a speaker power amplifier, but now I would like to use it with a headphone tube amplifier, will that 11 vrms dac output be a severe issue?

Will lowering the preamp's volume suffice, any ideas which step to lower to match the typical 4 vrms output ? Any help will be appreciated
Click to expand...
I use Spring 3 KTE with Preamp with my headphone amp and use the preamp volume control to control the volume instead of my headphone/speaker amplifier, which I just leave at just under 50%. It works just fine.
 
Hubbman said:
Just ordered a Spring 3 KTE W preamp. Looking forward to how it will perform compared to my current Bel Canto 2.8 DAC. Wondering if others here have any experience with the latest Bel Canto DACs and how they compared to the HoloAudio DACs?
Click to expand...
Reviving an old thread since I saw you specifically mentioned the Bel Canto 2.8DAC. I have their very first version, and am looking to upgrade for better functionality and higher resolution playback. Was looking at their 2.5-2.8 used, but was also really curious about the Holo Spring 3 for "a bit more". Do you happen to have any thoughts? Impressions of your 2.8? Have you ever heard better? Thanks!
 
Kw6 said:
It's comforting to know you can get same performance from a Topping D90 for less money!
Click to expand...
Even if two DACs measure identically on conventional static metrics (like THD+N, SNR, frequency response, etc.), their sound will often still differ in actual listening.
This is not audiophile "snake oil" or myth. It is simply because standard audio measurement protocols do not 100% cover how human hearing perceives complex musical signals. Here are the core technical reasons why R2R and Delta-Sigma (ΔΣ) architectures sound different even when their specs match perfectly:

1. Steady-State Testing vs. Transient Signals​

The vast majority of current audio metrics (like THD+N, which measures total harmonic distortion plus noise) are tested using steady-state sine waves (e.g., a continuous 1kHz tone).
However, real music is made up of highly complex transient signals (sudden drum strikes, guitar plucks, vocal dynamics). Delta-Sigma architectures rely heavily on complex digital filters and oversampling, whereas the processing path of an R2R architecture (especially in NOS, or Non-Oversampling mode) is much more direct. Even if both yield the exact same distortion rate when processing a continuous sine wave, their reaction speed and waveform-tracking ability differ significantly when handling rapidly changing transient music signals.

2. Time Domain Performance and Ringing​

Conventional metrics mostly focus on the frequency domain (frequency response, noise floor) while completely ignoring the time domain.
  • Delta-Sigma: Typically features powerful built-in digital interpolation filters. These filters are virtually perfect in the frequency domain (extremely low high-frequency aliasing) but often introduce "ringing" in the time domain—microscopic oscillations just before and after a transient sound bursts (pre-ringing and post-ringing). This time-domain "smearing" can affect imaging and the crisp impact of transients.
  • R2R: Pure R2R designs, in particular, often have weaker digital filters or bypass them entirely (NOS). They exhibit almost zero ringing in the time domain, making the rise and fall of sounds feel more direct and natural (often described as having an "analog vibe" or "liveliness"). The trade-off, however, is more high-frequency aliasing in the frequency domain.
Even if the bandwidth and signal-to-noise ratio are identical, microscopic differences in the time domain will lead to a vastly different listening experience.

3. Different "Structural Distribution" of Harmonic Distortion​

Suppose the THD (Total Harmonic Distortion) of both DACs is suppressed to an extremely impressive level (e.g., 0.0001%). This number is merely a "sum total." However, the human ear's sensitivity to different harmonic frequencies varies completely:
  • Even-order harmonics (2nd, 4th) generally sound warm, full, and smooth.
  • Odd-order harmonics (3rd, 5th) tend to sound harsh, glaring, and cold.
Because R2R architectures rely on physical resistors, microscopic tolerance errors in their matching mean their distortion often carries a specific, predictable harmonic distribution profile. Meanwhile, Delta-Sigma uses incredibly complex mathematical algorithms (noise shaping) to push quantization noise into ultra-high frequencies. The microscopic distortion structure that remains in the audible range is entirely different from that of an R2R DAC. The total numerical value is exactly the same, but the "ingredient ratio" of the distortion is different, resulting in a different timbre.

4. Linearity at Very Low Volumes (Micro-dynamics)​

  • Delta-Sigma's core advantage lies in its high linearity at extremely low signal levels. It performs with pinpoint accuracy when handling the faintest details in music (such as the "air" of a recording room or the microscopic decay of acoustic overtones).
  • R2R architectures rely on hundreds of physical resistors switching on and off. At very low volumes (near the zero-crossing point), the microscopic resistance errors are magnified, causing low-level linearity to fall slightly short of high-spec Delta-Sigma designs.
Even if both DACs share identical Dynamic Range test data at full load, the way they resolve and express linearity in the micro-signal (micro-dynamic) region will cause your brain to perceive differences in "soundstage depth" and how subtly details emerge from the background.
 
gvl said:
^^^ What LLM wrote this? Need to know so I can avoid it.
Click to expand...
Google AI suggests;
The text was almost certainly written by ChatGPT (specifically using a model like GPT-4 or GPT-4o). The use of bolded inline terms followed by colons (e.g., Delta-Sigma: and R2R: ) to break down a concept, combined with structured em-dashes (—), is the exact default formatting blueprint of OpenAI's models. ## Other Clues Pointing to a ChatGPT Variant * The "Synthetic Empathy" Tone: Starting a technical counter-argument with "This is not audiophile 'snake oil' or myth..." is a classic ChatGPT trait designed to make the user feel validated before dropping a wall of data. * Numbered List with Title Headers: The layout of 1. Title / Paragraph / Sub-bullets is the standard generation template ChatGPT uses when asked to "comprehensively explain" a technical debate. * The "Summary-Capping" Habit: Every single point ends with a neat, pseudo-intellectual summary sentence (like "resulting in a different timbre"). Other LLMs like Claude tend to write in a more flowing, academic, essay-like prose, whereas Google's Gemini leans heavily into shorter, more aggressive bullet points.
Click to expand...
:D


JSmith
 
s1monHwa said:
Google Gemini

being honest, I'm not sure if the above argument holds water, but it seems like the test has its limitations?
Click to expand...

So you posted a bunch of AI garbage with no understanding of what it means or whether or not it's correct?

Why?
 
Beave said:
So you posted a bunch of AI garbage with no understanding of what it means or whether or not it's correct?

Why?
Click to expand...
Okay, clearly I wasn’t familiar with ASR forum.
AI’s answer did point out the potential limitations of the tests—think this is valid, so why isn’t it allowed to be discussed? also I personaly can tell differences between my gears so I was kinda disagree with the guy.
 
s1monHwa said:
Okay, clearly I wasn’t familiar with ASR forum.
AI’s answer did point out the potential limitations of the tests—think this is valid, so why isn’t it allowed to be discussed? also I personaly can tell differences between my gears so I was kinda disagree with the guy.
Click to expand...

Threads discussing DAC "sound" here:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ignature-if-they-measure-as-transparent.9245/

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ible-difference-between-different-dacs.10092/

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/do-all-dacs-sound-the-same.14136/

And here is the ASR policy on the use of AI:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/official-policy-on-use-of-ai.66323/

And here is a thread discussing proper ways to compare "gears" properly by doing controlled testing:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...d-testing-you-are-doing-it-wrong-video.26809/
 
s1monHwa said:
Even if two DACs measure identically on conventional static metrics (like THD+N, SNR, frequency response, etc.), their sound will often still differ in actual listening.
This is not audiophile "snake oil" or myth. It is simply because standard audio measurement protocols do not 100% cover how human hearing perceives complex musical signals. Here are the core technical reasons why R2R and Delta-Sigma (ΔΣ) architectures sound different even when their specs match perfectly:

1. Steady-State Testing vs. Transient Signals​

The vast majority of current audio metrics (like THD+N, which measures total harmonic distortion plus noise) are tested using steady-state sine waves (e.g., a continuous 1kHz tone).
However, real music is made up of highly complex transient signals (sudden drum strikes, guitar plucks, vocal dynamics). Delta-Sigma architectures rely heavily on complex digital filters and oversampling, whereas the processing path of an R2R architecture (especially in NOS, or Non-Oversampling mode) is much more direct. Even if both yield the exact same distortion rate when processing a continuous sine wave, their reaction speed and waveform-tracking ability differ significantly when handling rapidly changing transient music signals.

2. Time Domain Performance and Ringing​

Conventional metrics mostly focus on the frequency domain (frequency response, noise floor) while completely ignoring the time domain.
  • Delta-Sigma: Typically features powerful built-in digital interpolation filters. These filters are virtually perfect in the frequency domain (extremely low high-frequency aliasing) but often introduce "ringing" in the time domain—microscopic oscillations just before and after a transient sound bursts (pre-ringing and post-ringing). This time-domain "smearing" can affect imaging and the crisp impact of transients.
  • R2R: Pure R2R designs, in particular, often have weaker digital filters or bypass them entirely (NOS). They exhibit almost zero ringing in the time domain, making the rise and fall of sounds feel more direct and natural (often described as having an "analog vibe" or "liveliness"). The trade-off, however, is more high-frequency aliasing in the frequency domain.
Even if the bandwidth and signal-to-noise ratio are identical, microscopic differences in the time domain will lead to a vastly different listening experience.

3. Different "Structural Distribution" of Harmonic Distortion​

Suppose the THD (Total Harmonic Distortion) of both DACs is suppressed to an extremely impressive level (e.g., 0.0001%). This number is merely a "sum total." However, the human ear's sensitivity to different harmonic frequencies varies completely:
  • Even-order harmonics (2nd, 4th) generally sound warm, full, and smooth.
  • Odd-order harmonics (3rd, 5th) tend to sound harsh, glaring, and cold.
Because R2R architectures rely on physical resistors, microscopic tolerance errors in their matching mean their distortion often carries a specific, predictable harmonic distribution profile. Meanwhile, Delta-Sigma uses incredibly complex mathematical algorithms (noise shaping) to push quantization noise into ultra-high frequencies. The microscopic distortion structure that remains in the audible range is entirely different from that of an R2R DAC. The total numerical value is exactly the same, but the "ingredient ratio" of the distortion is different, resulting in a different timbre.

4. Linearity at Very Low Volumes (Micro-dynamics)​

  • Delta-Sigma's core advantage lies in its high linearity at extremely low signal levels. It performs with pinpoint accuracy when handling the faintest details in music (such as the "air" of a recording room or the microscopic decay of acoustic overtones).
  • R2R architectures rely on hundreds of physical resistors switching on and off. At very low volumes (near the zero-crossing point), the microscopic resistance errors are magnified, causing low-level linearity to fall slightly short of high-spec Delta-Sigma designs.
Even if both DACs share identical Dynamic Range test data at full load, the way they resolve and express linearity in the micro-signal (micro-dynamic) region will cause your brain to perceive differences in "soundstage depth" and how subtly details emerge from the background.
Click to expand...
You are supposed to have a driving test before being let loose in charge of something dangerous like a car.

An LLM-training course should be mandatory before anyone is allowed to use an LLM! Like cars LLMs can be very useful, but dangerous if you don't understand the risks.
 
s1monHwa said:
Google Gemini

being honest, I'm not sure if the above argument holds water, but it seems like the test has its limitations?
Click to expand...

When using AI you need to be damn sure to ask the right questions otherwise it'll spit out garbage. Work on your prompt.


-------
Can a human reliably detect audible differences when listening to digital music through 2 audio DAC devices that produce industry-standard DAC measurements that are largely identical to -100dB level?


No, a human cannot reliably detect audible differences under these conditions.

When two DACs (Digital-to-Analog Converters) measure identically down to -100dB, any differences between them reside below the threshold of human hearing. [1]

## The Limits of Human Hearing

* Dynamic Range: The absolute limit of human hearing is roughly 120dB, but only in laboratory conditions.
* Real-World Limit: In normal room listening, human hearing dynamic range drops to about 70dB to 90dB.
* The Noise Floor: A noise floor of -100dB is effectively silent to the human ear.
* Masking Effect: Loud sounds in music naturally mask quieter artifacts, making tiny distortions impossible to hear. [2, 3, 4, 5]

## Why People Claim to Hear Differences

* The Placebo Effect: Sighted listening tests cause the brain to perceive differences based on price, brand, or looks.
* Volume Mismatch: A tiny volume difference of just 0.1dB is perceived as higher quality rather than higher volume.
* Filter Differences: Some DACs use different reconstruction filters that alter ultra-high frequencies, though rarely audibly.
* Output Impedance: Variances in output impedance can slightly alter the frequency response of certain headphones. [6, 7, 8, 9]

## How to Prove It

* Blind Testing: ABX double-blind testing consistently shows people cannot tell transparent DACs apart.
* Objectively Proven: Once a DAC reaches a state of transparency (around -90dB to -100dB THD+N), it is audibly perfect.
 
Last edited:
gvl said:
When using AI you need to be damn sure to ask the right questions otherwise it'll spit out garbage. Work on your prompt.


-------
Can a human reliably detect audible differences when listening to digital music through 2 audio DAC devices that produce industry-standard DAC measurements that are largely identical to -100dB level?


No, a human cannot reliably detect audible differences under these conditions.

When two DACs (Digital-to-Analog Converters) measure identically down to -100dB, any differences between them reside below the threshold of human hearing. [1]

## The Limits of Human Hearing

* Dynamic Range: The absolute limit of human hearing is roughly 120dB, but only in laboratory conditions.
* Real-World Limit: In normal room listening, human hearing dynamic range drops to about 70dB to 90dB.
* The Noise Floor: A noise floor of -100dB is effectively silent to the human ear.
* Masking Effect: Loud sounds in music naturally mask quieter artifacts, making tiny distortions impossible to hear. [2, 3, 4, 5]

## Why People Claim to Hear Differences

* The Placebo Effect: Sighted listening tests cause the brain to perceive differences based on price, brand, or looks.
* Volume Mismatch: A tiny volume difference of just 0.1dB is perceived as higher quality rather than higher volume.
* Filter Differences: Some DACs use different reconstruction filters that alter ultra-high frequencies, though rarely audibly.
* Output Impedance: Variances in output impedance can slightly alter the frequency response of certain headphones. [6, 7, 8, 9]

## How to Prove It

* Blind Testing: ABX double-blind testing consistently shows people cannot tell transparent DACs apart.
* Objectively Proven: Once a DAC reaches a state of transparency (around -90dB to -100dB THD+N), it is audibly perfect.
Click to expand...
If two DACs designed with different architectures—R-2R and delta-sigma—but their output measurements are identical, then they sound exactly the same?

Above is the prompt I gave to Gemini, intentionally avoiding any guidance that reflects my personal preferences. also in a brand new chat.

maybe 'exactly the same' is too tight of a description?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Big Booty Roundover 3 way build.
Replies
13
Views
2K
hollis
hollis
Scytales
Pioneer DV-868AVi (aka DV-59AVi) Review (Multichannel DVD-V/A, SACD & CD Player)
Replies
14
Views
5K
NTTY
NTTY
Back
Top Bottom