Review: Holo May (L2) DAC and the Musetec Audio (LKS Audio) MH-DA005 DAC Compaired




Musetec Audio (LKS Audio) MH-DA005 DAC and the Holo May (L2) DAC Compared

A comparison of these two DACs is something I wanted to do for months given the numerous stellar reviews of the May and the widely unknown, but highly praised, 005. Those of us who own the 005 believe it is an undiscovered gem. I bought the 005 initially because it was cheaper (approximately 3K) and because of the wonderful experience I had with it’s predecessor, the 004. After hearing and greatly enjoying the 005, I found it hard to believe any DAC could be significantly better. Eventually my curiosity got the best of me and I had to find out. There were no comparative reviews. After selling some equipment that I wasn’t using for a few thousand dollars, I coughed up the 5K to buy it, thinking I could always sell it if I didn’t love it more than the 005.

After about approximately 500 hours of break in, as recommended by the manufacturer, the May was ready to compare with the 005.

First, before I begin, the reader should know my perspective and preferences. I started out in my teens and early 20s, during the 60s and early 70s, as mostly a rock and roll fan with some rhythm and blues and folk music thrown in. Around 1971 I found a lack of good new rock music (the Beatles broke up, the Stones became inactive, and Dylan had a motorcycle accident). So I tried some classical. At first I found it boring but very gradually over the years I became addicted. When I moved to Manhattan, I went to classical music concerts frequently and eventually subscribed to the New York Philharmonic. I continued my subscription for over 20 years. In addition to orchestral music I attended chamber concerts and some opera.

My perspective favors live natural acoustic music, though I still love classic rock and oldies. To me the preferred audio sound is one that feels like a real event, a live, in the room, palpable presence. Natural resolution and detail is essential. (In physics lingo, my goal is to hear all the overtones, on top of the fundamental sine wave, which define the timbre of a real world instrument or voice.) I seek a sound that is accurate and clear, but slightly warm, conveying rich but realistic lower mid-range and upper bass much like what you would hear in Carnegie Hall or Symphony Hall in Boston.

Many music lovers are not into classical so the music referred to below may be unfamiliar. Nevertheless, the conclusions I’ve made as to sound should have relevance to all genres.

Preliminaries

I fed both dacs via computers (an Asus mini and an Asus laptop) because I had two. Thus I could do quick comparisons by preamp input switching. I recently bought an Ifi Zen Stream network bridge/streamer which, after some frustration, I hooked up via ethernet cable. Since I only had one I could not use it to do quick comparisons between the two DACs.

For the record, the 005 fed by the Zen Stream via usb did improve the sound by lifting a slight veil of haze, which you might not know was present until it was removed. With the May a slight improvement might have also occurred, but the effect was less clear to me, because I didn’t have time to do much listening with and without the network bridge.

Both DACs were played through a Hegel P30 preamp to a McIntosh MC402 amp, then to Kef Reference 1 speakers and two SVS sb-3000 subwoofers crossed over at 46hz.

Method

I began with critical listening focused on sound quality using a/b switching. Generally, I would listen for about a minute or less to one then switch to the other to hear the same passage.

I will report in the future on longer term impressions after living with these DACs for a few weeks.

I started with the following music tracks. I chose them to facilitate focusing on certain sonic elements listed in parenthesis below:

1. Solo piano: Beethoven Appassionata (transient attack and decay, timbre/overtones, micro detail, clarity)
2. Violin Sonata: No 1 Prokofiev (timbre/overtones)
3. Piano trio: Beethoven “Ghost” (imaging)
4. An aria from an Oratorio by Handel entitled Theodora (imaging, female voice, hall ambiance)
5. Large orchestra, soloists, chorus, and massed strings. Mahler Symphony no. 2, final movement. (congestion, hall ambience and depth, width, and imaging)
6. Light My Fire, Doors (energy, rhythm, male voice)
7. Sunshine of My Love, The Cream (drums, energy, rhythm, male voice)

Round 1
The Solo piano test. I choose Beethoven’s Appassionata played by Arthur Rubinstein. I think a solo piano reveals transient speed, attack (leading edge of the note), and decay like no other instrument.

It was almost a tie in these sonic qualities. Both were excellent. The 005 to my ear had slightly better definition and decay. The May had a slightly richer bass tone and was solid and very pleasing. The 005 was leaner but had more sparkle, capturing all the natural overtones on higher notes.

Round 2
Violin Sonata: No 1 Prokofiev performed by Vicktoria Mullova.

The results were similar to the piano test. The 005 clearly had better reproduction of the natural overtones of the violin. The May was bassier, with the music emerging from a blacker background.

Round 3
Beethoven’s “Ghost” Trio for piano violin and cello performed by Istomin, Stern, and Rose.

Imaging was about equal with each instrument appearing in space laterally where it should. The 005 placed the instruments more forward as if your were seated closer to the stage. The blacker background of the May made the separation of the instruments clearer, but the warmth made the musicians seem more recessed, as if your seat was well behind the 005 “seat”. The May sounded slightly soft but was solid, beautiful, and addictive, if not completely convincing on vivid violin timbre.

Round 4

Next, I played an aria from Handel’s Theodora, sung by the late and brilliant mezzo soprano Loraine Hunt Lieberson. It consists of the vocalist supported by a cello and harpsichord (basso continuo). I chose this because the recording contains only two instruments and a singer. It thus presents a good opportunity to clearly hear imaging and hall ambiance in addition to providing a well defined lower midrange and bass line, and a beautiful female voice.

Both the May and the 005 sounded completely convincing and beautiful, especially in realistic tonal balance, including rich bass and a clear cello, harpsichord, and voice. The sound field width had the same realism in both. Loraine’s voice image was more natural in space, clearer, with a touch more air on the 005. The May had a bit less clarity, as it sounded further away, but was a tad smoother in texture.

Round 5
Mahler Symphony no. 2, final movement. Bruno Walter, the New York Philharmonic. A large orchestra and chorus with soloists is a good test of dynamics, detail, sound stage/ability to retrieve hall ambiance, clarity, and imaging.

The two DACs were equal in dynamics but the 005 was superior in every other way. The 005 picked up more air in the hall, exhibited no congestion between instruments, produced a deeper more natural sound stage, not by virtue of more bass, but more air or hall ambiance. In this case better hall ambiance produced more vivid imaging. The 005 was vivid and conveyed more emotion. Chorus voices were not as distinct in the May. Vocal soloists were clearer in the Musetec.

Round 6
Light My Fire, Doors (energy, rhythm, male voice)
Very close in all aspects. The 005 seemed to articulate higher frequencies better and thus had appropriate edginess.

Round 7
Sunshine of My love, The Cream (Drums, energy, rhythm, male voice)
Again, very close in all aspects. I can’t tell the difference.

Conclusion
First and foremost these DACs were both excellent in every category. At times during the A/B listening I could not tell them apart. To be sure, they are different, but if a listener familiar with the sound of both walked into a room without knowing which DAC was playing, it would not be surprising if he or she guessed wrong. The take-away is, in my opinion, they are both in the same class. The point of this exercise though is primarily to determine their differences.

As I said earlier, the live realistic character of the sound wave comes, in large part, from capturing all the overtones. This gives accurate timbre and detail. The 005 has more than the May. Another component of realism, in my opinion, is solidity of texture and prominence of the sound emerging from the background (black or zero background noise). The May has more of this.

In fact, the May’s blacker background is like nothing I’ve ever heard. It has an uncanny realism, solidity, and ease. It sounds like the very best vinyl. Smooth always listenable and engaging. Overall it is sweeter and softer than the Musetec. Probably even more so than actual live music. I call this natural texture, for lack of a better term.

In sum: sound texture May wins; Realistic space, detail, micro dynamics, and high frequency energy, the 005 wins. Clearly the Musetec works best if listening to a large orchestra where details, hall ambience, and clarity (lack of congestion) are priorities.

If the price were the same then take your pick, they are in the same class. Choose the May if you like two teaspoons of sugar and a little extra cream in your half caf coffee, the 005 if you like your coffee “regular”, as New Yorkers say. But for a $2K difference in price the 005 wins. Even if you lean toward the analog sound of the May you can take the $2,000 saved to tweak the 005 to sound more like the May by adding a nice tube preamp or warmer/smoother sounding cables. If you outright prefer the 005, you have an extra $2,000 in your pocket.
dbb

Showing 27 responses by dbb

@cindyment

"I am slightly worried about the use of two sources, and Windows sources. My first concern is noise from the PCB over USB, and this could be why you noticed a difference changing away from USB on the 005, but not on the May which appears to be a very competent product. " Possibly, but fIn any case this would give the May an advantage when fed by a computer if it is superior at removing noise.

Both computers were running JRiver. Equal burdens on each. I don’t have the resources to maximize each dac separately with a different setup.

The volume was adjusted manually on the preamp as needed.

@cindyment 

 

ASIO was used on both May and 005 for testing. The slight difference between the two dacs in volume via single ended outputs is probably explained by differences in output voltage. The May's output voltage is slightly higher than the 005's.

I don't understand you comment on "volume drop".

Oh. I get it now. I did make a comment that the may volume was low when I tried it with the Zen Stream. I then removed the comment after a couple of minutes because I thought it was irrelevant to the comparison of two dacs using computers setup in the same way with the same software player and a usb feed.

The answer to why the May had a lower volume using the Zen Stream than computer usb input is a good academic question for the Holo May thread. I have since sold the Holo May.

@metaldetektor

Interesting observation on the Weiss. Maybe the takeaway is that on a highly resolving set up, the Weiss could add too much of a good thing. It might be better with a system tailored for it specifically.

Thanks to all for the kind words. It was a lot of work, but also a lot of fun. Nothing like retirement for permitting this kind of project. 

I do not have a high quality d to d converter to give I2S a serious comparison to the usb, though I very briefly tried the I2S with a Singxer su1. The usb was superior.
Sns: You make an interesting point. To me there is something more enduring or less tiresome about the sound made by traditional natural materials put in vibration: brass, wood, strings, animal skins, and human vocal cords. A good question is can electrically produced or processed music become classical years from now. I think the answer is yes. Some may be by virtue of the lyrics mostly, maybe some by the sound. Think of the difference between the words classical and popular. Shakespeare's plays started out as popular but became classic. Maybe the same with Bob Dylan.
@melm
@redlenses03

The 005 was connected via USB  to an Asus mini Windows computer while the Holo Audio May was connected via USB to an Asus laptop. I don't think there is any discernable difference in sound between the two computers. In terms of source I think it is close enough to apples to apples.





@melm This kind of analysis should be helpful to potential buyers who in the first instance assume similar price means similar quality. Holo Audio is not really a factory direct discount operation. You pay for the US distributor who is primarily a sales agent and marketer. You can’t buy directly from the factory. Not so with Mustec, which can be bought factory direct for $2700, with a one year warranty period.

You make a good point. In terms of warranty service you get the same deal from each: send it back to the factory, I assume, at your expense. Return policy is actually worse for Holo Audio/Kitsune. Since they recommend 3 weeks of break in, and the buyer only has 10 days to decide. You would have to return it before you even knew how it sounded. I don’t know if Mustec has a factory direct return policy, but you can get the 30 day return through its Chinese retailer shenzhen audio, as you mentioned, but you will pay a few hundred dollars more.


@ja_kub_su Sorry, the factory direct price I paid in April was $2,800, not $2700.

The Musetec email address is: bleerock@126.com. It is on their website at http://www.mu-sound.com/
I'd love to hear your take on the Musetec compared to higher priced DACs. Where are you in NY?
I only use JRiver with the 005. It can upsample, but it may not be comparable in quality to HQPlayer. I've noticed very little difference as the quality of 44.1 is so good. In fact, I'm not even sure the native DSD files I have sound better than the 44.1 rip of the hybrid layer. With DACs I have owned in the past, I could not say this.
@metaldetektor "(1) The source(s) could be a meaningful limiting factor. A regular laptop --> USB cable --> DAC is not a great digital source. So it’s possible that one of the DACs has a significantly higher ceiling than the other, but it wasn’t heard because the source(s) limited what could be heard."

Yes it’s possible. I don’t have two network bridges to make that comparison, as I said in the review. You point is a theoretical possibility.

"(2) In my experience, living with a product for at least a month is more meaningful than quick A/B comparisons on the fly. Exit "reviewer comparison" mode and let a product speak on its own terms. Settle into the music. How happy does the new product make you, considered on its own terms? It appears that this was just quick A/B comparisons on the fly. Not nothing, but not the whole story."

Yes. I said in the review I would report back after a few weeks. I hesitated to do that because the more I listened the more it confirmed my initial impressions stated in the review. I would not change my basic conclusions. I have very little to add. I would add this. Over time I felt I was missing musical information when I listened to the May. At times the May seemed to allow more space between instruments or musicians which at first I believed to be a good thing. I came to realize that this was because the May was omitting sound to get this effect. Much like an artist using charcoal shade to create a 3d effect. I decided to sell the May. Not because it is objectively inferior, but it does not satisfy my preference for realism which comes from concert going experience. Different strokes for different folks.

You last point on pro-Mustec bias is well taken. Who doesn’t like to root for the underdog? Yes, I have been happy with their "objective" house sound. In my case, at least, there was a countervailing bias, which was to get my money’s worth on a $5,000 purchase. Since I spent the money on the May, I truly was hoping I would obtain $2,000 worth of improvement. I would have gladly sold the Mustec. Didn’t happen. Now I’m likely to take a financial loss on the purchase of the May.

@wharfy. I agree with sns as he stated in the 005 thread.. I find the 005 to have no glare or high frequency irritation. You will hear the truth. No sugar coated gloss.

That being said, listening is highly personal. Sometimes a violin, for example, can sound harsh in real life to some. I think the answer could be high quality tone controls, but the dilemma is that you might lose resolution.

Epilogue 

I mention in my original review that I would report back after listening to music from the May for a few days. This time the listening was in a normal manner without labored A/B comparisons. My original conclusions did not change. 

Since, in my case, the sound of a live concert is a priority, I preferred the realistic detail of the Mustec. The May still had a more natural texture with a black background which is a huge achievement. Nevertheless, I couldn’t help feeling I was missing some of the life of the music when I was listening to the May.

I also felt that the May was manipulating the sound in a generally pleasant way, but not in a way that enhanced the illusion of live music. 

I will explain. One of observations I made in my original review was that, on some tracks, the May was providing more separation between instruments and voices in chamber and small ensembles, but yet gave the illusion that the seat was further back because it captured less detail. This is the opposite of reality where moving closer to the performers increases detail and separation. Also the May seemed to create a 3-d effect to some degree, by putting black silence between the instruments and thus blotting out some detail, much as an artist would use charcoal to create depth in a drawing.

@jimmy2615

Goldensound in his YouTube review of the May commented that the input/receiver hardware was of such high quality that it didn’t matter what source was used, even a gaming computer. He aparently did not formally test this.

I found the Musetec improved with my Ifi Zen streamer/network bridge, but couldn’t tell with the May. I’ve since sold the May so I can’t explore it further.

Nice to hear you are happy with the 005. From what I have heard, the Spring sounds like the May. Odds are since you prefer the 005 to the Spring, you would prefer it to the May too. The 005 at around 3k, is beginning to look like a giant killer, especially for the price.

@genjamon 

I purchased the L2 version instead of the KTE because Goldensound in his YouTube review compared them and, in substance, said there was not a significant difference.  

 

If he said there was a big difference, I would have bought the KTE version for comparison purposes.

@lordmelton

I have a few dozen native DSD (dsf) files. I feel that the Musetec does a beautiful job with them. I believed from the beginning that DSD sounded better than PCM but given the advances in dacs over the last 5 to 10 years, I’m no longer sure I still believe that. I don’t know if I could tell the difference between the PCM layer and the DSD layer of a hybrid recording in a blind test with the Musetec. I didn’t think I could make useful comments on the DSD sound.

I can say the May, as I recall, did sound a little different when playing DSD compared to it’s PCM playback. Again, not so to my ear with the 005. My recollection was that the difference was discernable but not particularly better or noteworthy with the May. I can’t describe it now and I’m not sure I could when I heard it. I just didn’t spend enough time trying to figure it out.

I had the most trouble distinguishing the difference with the rock tracks I compared in PCM (Musetec versus May) 0so if your hearing is similar it probably won’t be an issue with DSD either. All bets are off if you can hear a significant difference with DSD on the 005.

I hope this helps.

The May verses the 005 seems to be discussed on a few threads here. I just posted this on one of those threads:

@Technorob said: “I currently have both 005 and May. The May just edges it in most areas by a small margin, with the exception of layer separation, stage width and depth where the May is significantly better.”

I will throw in my thoughts. I can definitely see Technorob’s point of view on “layer separation, stage width and depth” being different on the May, but not better. (To my old ear, the other aspects were not “just edged[s]” out by the May but  too close to call.)

It is a matter of perspective, double entendre intended. Many, if not most audiophiles, highly value layer separation, stage width and depth. The underlying frame of reference for most is probably amplified non-acoustic electronically produced music that exists only in recordings, not in real space. Big clear layering and sound stage sounds great with a lot of non-accoustic recorded music and will be preferred by many.

In my opinion, the May does, compared to the 005,  provide an unreal feel of spacial separation and distance at the same time. This is like seeing an image get bigger as you walk further away. As a real concert goer, this is a distortion, even though many will love the effect. It also gains separation by missing natural sound between instruments

I will explain. My perspective is what I hear at a live unamplified concert. If you want maximum separation of instruments and voices, you would have to be very close to the stage if not actually on it. Even then the sound would only be sharply separated and layered if you were listening with your head physically in between instruments. 

Realistic perspective is similar in both sight and sound. When you walk closer to a destination the visual details in you visual field naturally become more visible and separate. It’s the same with sound. When you walk closer to the stage, the sound field gets bigger and instruments sound further apart in space. There is some layering partly depending on your elevation, but nothing in the realm of “audiophile” layering. Sound naturally blends together in the real world. Yes, 3-d palpability exists in the real world, but not in the way many audiophiles love or imagine. 

I said this in my review:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/review-holo-may-l2-dac-and-the-musetec-audio-lks-audio-mh-da005-da/post?highlight=dbb%2Bcharcoal&postid=2272784#2272784


. . . I said in the review I would report back after a few weeks. I hesitated to do that because the more I listened the more it confirmed my initial impressions stated in the review. I would not change my basic conclusions. I have very little to add. I would add this. Over time I felt I was missing musical information when I listened to the May. At times the May seemed to allow more space between instruments or musicians which at first I believed to be a good thing. I came to realize that this was because the May was omitting sound to get this effect. Much like an artist using charcoal shade to create a 3d effect. I decided to sell the May. Not because it is objectively inferior, but it does not satisfy my preference for realism which comes from concert going experience. Different strokes for different folks.
 

@Chaos333

Thank you for your kind words.

@Batvac2

Scientifically explaining how the a dac with excellent S/N misses subtle detail is beyond my pay grade. I listened through speakers, but I would speculate that speakers or headphones would be the same. To my ear, the 005 just had better resolution. This was evident only with  music that contained fine subtlies. Not all music does.

 

.

@Willywonka

I agree. My review is the most useful if we share similar musical tastes.

@sagur80 Thank you for your kind words on my review. For the record, it was posted before the Audioscience review and therefore couldn't be a rebuttal. 

As @melm has said volumes have been written on this dac. I suggest, if you have the stamina, you read through them. I cannot comment on aural fatigue because I have never experienced it with this dac. I wrote my review because I thought it was, at the time, an unknown gem that deserved consideration.

 

I listened to the Timothy video. I just don’t think you can judge sound quality very effectively through youtube.

 

@stuartk Your welcome.  It was a fun project and gratifying to get so many positive responses. I don't think I'm likely to do another soon given the expense involved in acquiring equipment for review.