T+A D200 vs Holo Audio May KTE: Double audio test! 

T+A D200 is the obvious winner by far. The May lacks dynamics and clarity with its thick lower mid range. It is true that the May is polite and does lack digital glare but this is at the expense of clarity and truthfulness. T+A D200 is really incredible - so resolving and so dynamic and so lifelike but without even a hint of digital glare. Is T+A D200 the goldilocks DAC - not too harsh, not too soft but just right - it certainly seems so. Guido called it! The T&A D200 is going to be popular for years to come.

I’m loving this. This is one of my favorite Audio Gearhead channels on RU-vid. So much joy and passion. I love it…More please!

Grazie mille Guido per tutta la passione che ci metti!

I think the May is closer to vinyl sound, and packs a lot of resolution too. Although the d200 is a little more dynamic, this doesn’t mean that the May isn’t. As always it’s a matter of system synergy so the brighter sounding system would prefer the May. Good job there mate this is a good way for someone to choose with greater confidence.

For me on my Tube SET system the May gives me a much better sense of tonal colour and a less artificial sound. This when listening to the environment reproductions (using youtube). Now listening to the files directly into the DAC the experience is quite different. The D200 is more open and the May softens the transients a bit. The D200 is more exciting and is more energetic.

Awesome video! I could definitely hear a difference on the first track, but found it much harder on the second. I felt the May was a bit crisper, but I quite liked the way it presented the track, so would probably say that was my favourite based on the tests (although it’s mega close - and absolutely agree there is going to be a much bigger difference ‘in room’)

Hi Guido, For me, the Holo May KTE is the winner. Even listening through RU-vid. And now I'll clarify why I think this is the case. 1st of all, congratulations on the capture Guido. I could really hear your room In the environment capture. But what really confirmed my original thoughts was the direct capture clips. This was where you changed the order, and I clearly picked the May as my preference here. The May just seem to have more resolution on the brush strikes on the drums in track 1. The since I was getting with the May was just a more organic presentation more believable. Vocals just seemed more defined and separate with harmonies. The breath through the flute sounded more organic, sweeter if you like on track 2. As I've said in a previous video of yours, I've owned the May KTE, and I'm very familiar with its presentation. It's still an outstanding Dac, in my opinion. I do agree these differences are small, but what I heard puts the May ahead.

For me , the HOLO AUDIO - MAY is the winner .. by far ... ( in the environmental capture , which I care about .. )

Interesting comparison and also thnx for that japanese fusion secret gem (didn't know it). T+A DAC 200 sounds more dynamic and lively, tonality is more dense. Holo May is more polite and smooth, almost veiled. It is very suprising that diferences are clearly audible, because I am listening only on my secondary desktop system and, like you said, AD conversion of that USB interface is reducing resolution and impact. I can only imagine how big diferences are right in your room:)

I got them all right, and every time liked the T+A D200 better (I own the Holo Audio Spring 3 KTE, and better should start saving up ;-) )

if I have to judge from my headphones, i would choose the T+A. With that said, i know hearing stuff live and over my own system and room, will be a totally different experience.system match is so crucial. thanks though for the insight!.

Version 1 sounded clearer, less colored and more live in all demo tracks. I am stunned by the fact that so many seem to like Nr. 2 better. I think on cheap headphones or a chip system (let alone pc speakers) Nr.2 can sound more likeable but that is the only excuse I can think of 😅 congrats Guido for capturing the sound in your room so well. You have a very nice room/ system.

I agree with Thankful. Might even be my favorite audiophile channel. I am more closely aligned with your taste in equipment and you’ve taught me so much. That said, In the last comparison, I could tell you switched the T+A Dac from track #1 to #2. The T+A has more high end detail present only because the Halo has the mid range forward. Not sure if one is really better or just our taste. As a 62 y/o with the commiserate diminished hearing perhaps more detail would be better but DAMN, I love that big forward mid of the r2rs! I own a Terminator plus so….

The d200 you can hear into the music more holographic. The May is smooth and nice . I like both .🤷🏽

The Holo May sounds a little softer on the transients, and a tiny bit more laid back in comparison. I definitely preferred the T+A. However, just based on the recordings, the differences are really small...

For me, despite all the amazing galvanic isolation etc of the T+A, the R2R Holo May still wins clearly here. The main difference is on the sustained notes of both female vocal and woodwind instrument: both have a fuller body and therefore a more realistic and engaging tonality with the May. I was prepared to accept the T+A as being the superior Dac if it was track 2 in the first two demo's, but that turned out to be the May. The single main sonic feature I want from a Dac is (organic) "tonal realism" and the May is clearly superior on that dimension to the T+A IMO. Great demo though! I really enjoy these A/B demo's it makes it so much easier to determine which component is best. The toughest competition under 10k for the May may actually come from the Musician Aquarius which easily beat Denafrips Pontus in an AB demo (mainly on instrument separation), with the Pontus beating the Gustard R26 in another AB demo (mainly on dynamics).

Disappointingly I picked the May 3 out of 4 times. I found the sound to have slightly more body and weight, and importantly just took a touch off the edge of the highs which can be grating for me. The Dac200 did reproduce the second song on the direct capture the best though, with a clearer presentation which let the individual instruments pop out which I did enjoy.

This demo was well done! I listened via my 2channel setup & I could immediately hear the difference. I much preferred the T+A for its wider soundstage, clarity & “aliveness”. The Holo was warmer & more closed in. I was thinking of upgrading from my Chord Qutest to the May, but I may have to save up for the T+A.

Just took delivery of my T+A DAC 200. Comparing this to the Holo Audio Spring DAC 3 KTE. Really nice design, and easy to navigate the menus. So far with only a few hours on the device, the Bass and wider soundstage are the biggest improvements. Also hearing more of the recoring. Tracks I've known all y life are revealing detaild buried in the recording.. cant wait to see how this ends up after burn in. I'm guessing that I'll be selling the Holo KTE soon....

i have an holo audio may l2 and other 6 dacs (msb, lector, gustard,chord, m2tech, vitus) and listening to our files it was quite easy for me to recognize the sound of the holo that is warm, analogic, it has a very distinctive sound.. different from many other dacs i feel that the dac200 has better dinamic and resolution .. however the holo has that kind of sound that you can listen for hours and hours.. i hope i can listen with my ears this interisting dac200.. thanks for your videos.

Another very enjoyable comparo Guidman! Do you have any classic Western swing in your collection? I’m looking to hear how the D200 can image these really dynamic mid-20th century records?

The 200 scream audio fatigue.

I knew that for the environmental tracks, track two was special, I knew it was the Holo DAC.

Fantastic video! I agree with Guido, T+A is better. May makes the poor Pentangle recording sound better but lifes too short to listen to poor recordings.

i preferred the Holo May, the D200 was still good. I think the D200 sounded more intimate and mid forward compared to what I perceived as a more open staging better macro dynamics in the May.

there both acceptable, it was during the direct i could hear the most difference, i chose track 2 on both, so 1 of each...😀 thanx 4 sharing

First test I was wrong twice, but 100% right for the second.

Thanks for your this video comparison. I prefer T+A DAC200.

Thanks Guido, I love the Pentangle!....but I would like make similar test but from USB interface or the I2s because in my experience the SPDIF interface isn't the best in the Holo DAC. I use the Holo Spring 3 KTE with DDC and I2S interface and I really enjoy how play in my system, I can also listen in your track the mid-high more natural and organic than T+A. I think that T+A DAC have many features but is missing the I2s input and this do not allow to users like me to connect the Audiophile computer trough a DDC with same final quality of other DAC inputs.

👋 THANKS GUIDO …for sharing this 🤗💚💚💚

Now listening more and more carefully it seems to me like the Holo May has more accurate timbre. The T+A has a fuller presentation. It also fills the space between instruments more. I call this the ‘harmony’ part of the music or ‘wall of sound’ where you can still pick apart instruments. Some DACs I’ve noticed space instruments too apart from each other and sound a bit like they are isolated from each other and are missing some of that ‘ wall of sound’ which is natural from a band playing together. We hear both the ‘ wall of sound’ and can pick where the instruments are coming from The Holo May isn’t as cohesive in that aspect. A little too much isolation between instruments. The Bryston also does this and I don’t like it. Isolates instruments too much and lacks the ‘ wall of sound’. To me that takes away from the overall impact of the music as a whole The best DACs combine the two well. Just my two cents. I would have liked for the T+A to have more clarity and timbre accuracy that the Holo May had It would be a great idea if you could compare the T+A with a DAC which many have heard as a ‘ reference ‘ if that makes sense. The benchmark DAC3 would be a good reference to compare the T+A to if you have the time. The DAC3 has great clarity and resolution and more people have heard it. Does that make sense? Great channel btw ! Good job.

Do you have any favourite tracklist available for us, Guido? I've learned about Muraoka from this video, so grateful! And want/need more :)

The May sound is a more dull, polite sound. Leading edges on the May are blunted. The T+A is sharper, cleaner, and more crisp. The May is less detailed or more hazy. The lower mids or upper bass on the T+A are better in both quantity and quality. The T+A is brighter. The T+A is more detailed and more dynamic. Verdict: The T+A is the better DAC. However.... in a chain that is already clean, neutral, and fast... would the T+A be too much of a good thing. Is "hifi" instead of "natural"? This is my only question.

Crazy how different they sound even on RU-vid playing out of my crappy laptop speakers. Hearing the D200 was like experiencing music through clean crystal. The May felt similar, but more rounded and romantic kind of like the glass had a slight amount of fog on it. It guess it would depend on a system pair/preference thing. For me, the D200 sounded much more realistic and did less editorializing of the sound. Great video and comparison. Really hoping for you to get your hands on a Mola Mola Tambaqui one day.

The winner is the May. The D200 suffers from digitus.

I almost fell over when you said the T+A sounded better! I mean the HM sounded WAY more analog, layers, lifelike. The T&A sounded hard and brittle (on both samples). I mean a lot worse. I love these tests because it just shows how the beauty of sound is truly in the ears of the beholder. Great video once again! 👌💯🎼✨

I agree with you...the T+A sounded better to me. The guitar notes on the May sound a bit hard and rounded off in comparison to the crystal like quality of the t+a

There are clearly more resolution and dynamics with the T+A 200. There is some "little warm" unnatural coloration with Hollow May.

I'm not sure if my current DAC can do the justice of allowing me to clearly hear the size of the difference; however, I felt the May had a hair deeper soundstage, while the d200 had a hair more detail. Then again I'm questioning my sanity.

T+A D200 is much better - even through youtube. The chinese Holo Audio seems to add veil and coloration to the music.

Guido - you have put together a very interesting test comparison of these two DACS - the D-200 T-plus-A and the Holo Audio MAY Kitsune Edition. Your SECOND SET of comparisons - in which you DIRECTLY recorded the analog outputs of your two DACs (rather than using a microphone to record the sound from your loudspeakers) - was definitely the better test. In all honesty, I could barely discern (hear) much of any difference between these two DACs. I kept switching back and forth between the two examples of each track from your two CDs. PERHAPS the D200 had a SLIGHT edge over the MAY in overall clarity of sound, but only VERY slightly, in my opinion. To audition your test via RU-vid - I used my own very good streaming-audio equipment, consisting of another (in my opinion) very good R-to-R DAC made in Milano, Italia, the aqua hifi Formula xHD Rev. 2 DAC, their latest version - fed from my PC via its USB cable input and played back over HIFIMAN Susvara headphones, which when properly driven are very revealing. In the end, I could not hear much of any real difference between these two DACs. I would have to be IN THE ROOM with you to get a DIRECT idea of the difference between them. By the time we get to hear what you have gone to such effort to share with us, the sound has gone through many makes and models of audio equipment at our end of the listening chain. Add to that our individual hearing acuity, which depends on whether we're young listeners with keen ears or more seasoned listeners whose ears may have been affected by everything from too much exposure to deafeningly loud rock concerts to health- and age-related hearing loss. STILL, ALL IN ALL, GUIDO, THANK YOU FOR DOING THIS TEST FOR US LISTENERS! You are top on my list of favorite audiophile RU-vid guys.

I like clean crisp sounds from instruments and vocals, like I am listening in a live envoronment, the D-200 reproduces that sound brilliantly without harshness, and also giave a better sense of stereo seperation, through my HIFI Man Edition 10 headphones plugged directly into my laptop headphone jack nothing fancy. The Halo May as others have stated was a much smoother softer sound, and @marekpuskas6707 mentioned "almost veiled", and compared to the D-200 I totally agree with that assesment. The D-200 gave me the feeling I was in the same room as the performers, the Halo May made me feel like the performers were in the room adjacent to the room I was in and the door was open between the two.

Very well done demos! I believe I preferred the May, hands down on the vocal track. The woman's voice was just too harsh on the 200. The May had a slightly warmer, more natural, full bodied sound that translated well to this track. I didn't notice much difference in resolution on this track between the two either. I think the May's signature lent itself really well to bringing everything out on the first song. On the Bamboo instrumental piece, it was more of a toss-up for me. I believe that on the in-room recording, I still preferred the May because it's slightly warmer overall signature and slightly softer top end translated better. However, on the direct recording, I noticed a clear difference in resolution and separation between the two. The 200 brought out more detail and clarity in the track, while the May offered a more natural and relaxing presentation. Toss up again, until the very end. But then, that instrument that comes on in the far right channel just before the cut, was loud and clear on the 200 and I had completely missed it on the May. I had to go back and listen again on the May and yes, it's there, but just barely. That kind of technical prowess really pushes me towards the 200. I listened at work, yesterday on my cheap, Sennheiser ear buds on my phone and I preferred the 200 because those buds are a little dark and have subdued highs to begin with. I am listening at home now on my LCD-4 with Cardas clear cable, Audio-GD R1 DAC and Master 19 headphone amp. I have obviously based my conclusion off of my home system. PS, I looked up USA pricing. The top tier May KTE that you have here runs about $5600usd, it seems. The DAC 200 seems to go for $7125 + another $600 for the HDMI module. These are not budget DACs! (You should try out an Audio-gd R7-HE as an alternative.) PSS, I found the Pentangle track on Tidal in master quality. Listening directly on my home system, I would say that the vocal highs on this track approach "piercing" level on the recording itself. I would like to put in a request for "Little Sadie" by Crooked Still as a female vocal test track for these two DACs :)

Hi Guido! Put my Dac200 on NOS2 - thanks a lot - I call it "Mr.Clean" from now on. Not to forget, that the RJ45-syslink-cable as changed to Chord Epic blew me away another time. So listening to Bamboo I am not really surprised of your findings. 😊 Info System is a complete 200 with monos an Dyn Cf20. Never heard something like this T+A performance in my house or elsewhere. And that (DAC-)list is long and contains my former Naim NDX2/XPSDR...among others...

Through headphones, I preferred the May in 3/4 of the clips. The T&A has a sheen in the upper midrange which reminds me of some of the ESS DACs I have owned. I might try downloading the files to play back through my Mola Mola Tambaqui.

which connection you are using: rca or xlr? i find myself adjusting the sound between the two, quite fun. also, i have turned off PLL per suggestion here, and also got polarity right (invert, the same now as with my Luxman amp), wow, everything opens and widens.

Correction: your coaxial cable does not have a 75 Ohm resistance, it has a 75 Ohm characteristic impedance. Your DACs’ SPDIF inputs provide a termination resistance of 75 Ohms .

Cds are worlds better than people think. They are probably even better than what I think. As I further mod my cd playback equipment, the improvements keep coming. They came in leaps and bounds earlier this month and have settled to a trickle, but still a trickle, as my ideas have trickled out for now. I have been asked "Where do you get your ideas?" I say "if I knew where I get my ideas, I'd be there right now, getting more." They come when they come. Before I embarked on this latest project, I picked out 2 cds, which I had owned both the Audiophile lp pressing and cd of, and I have a perfect tape copy of each, which I made when the lps were only played once or twice. I picked out 2 cds whose sound quality really paled in comparison to their lp pressings. They are the self titled first Boston album by the rock group of the same name, and Aqualung by Jethro Tull. On even very good cd playback equip. the cds of these albums sound like crap. A major disappointment compared to the lps. A month later and many mods later, the cds now sound better than the lps. With the Boston cd, it now almost sounds like you could be listening to the master tape, and what a master tape that must be. Wow! Of course the most interesting of the two is the Boston album, with its incredible amount of detail, layering and dynamics. The cd was just so brash and harsh before. All gone! Get your distortion down enough and things can sound very pleasant. The sound is now big and open; a huge canopy that has opened up and unravels countless details and textures. The electric guitars are so pure sounding. When the lead singers voice goes way up in pitch and loud in dynamics, it still thins out just a little bit, no harshness at all. Glare and spatial limitations really hid a lot of detail on this. No more. What sounded like a distinctly under par cd pressing is now like you're listening to a master tape. Believe me, it's possible on this one. Both cds are now amazingly transparent. Before the mods, these were 2 cds which had great music, but were almost unlistenable before. Now you can't stop listening.

There were subtle differences between the first 3 tracks, giving the edge to the May on each. But on Direct Capture - Bamboo - the Dac 200 was well ahead. I don't understand why, as the May had the edge on Bamboo during the environment capture. Its possible the downstream equipment may not be neutral enough to reveal the full capability of both these dacs.

My money is in the Luxman D-10X and Aurender N20. But I did buy those CDs to add to my collection. By the way, after I watched this last night, I had a dream I had a 3rd Hi-Fi listening room I didn't know about. The T+A 200 was in it 😅😵‍💫

I'm in market for new dac, these two are amongst those I'm considering. I'd likely purchase Holo based on this and many other reviews. Wasn't difficult to pick out correct dac on every track with exception of Bamboo direct. I preferred Holo on both environmental and Pentangle direct, preferred T&A on Bamboo direct. Even through youtube and my home theater system I could easily hear the delta sigma sound signature of T&A, reminds me much of my Musetec 005 (Sabre 9038 chips). Highly resolving, transparent, dynamic, the Holo had a bit more natural timbre, especially on the vocals, and the resolving capabilities were very nice, something I"m wary of with R2R dacs. I'm looking for different sound signature from delta sigma with my next dac, Holo wins here.

Great that you did this one. Bit I must say that the only thing this video did, was to reinforce my idea about ESS based DACs - that I think that their sound is inferior to a proper R2R (or even AKM chip based DAC). I know it's personal taste - but I am a bit surprised that you like the T+A so much. To me ESS sounded great at first, but then it started to get fatiguing, even annoying - just artificial bling. - Based on your other video I thought that I was perhaps wrong, but listening here, I could easily pick the Holo Audio. It is personal of course, but please keep your Holo Audio until your initial excitement about the T+A has worn off - if my predictions are right, you will want to go back to it in a few months.

I tried to find differences and for me , sometimes i found the Holo Audio May better than the T+A and sometimes it was the T+A the clear winner, so in fact RU-vid doens't permit to have a good evaluation of these two gorgeous products.

I have taken the time to listen using headphones, and based on what I heard I prefer the Holo Audio May. The Holo Audio May has better wider sound stage and three dimensional presentation. Very good suggestion for the test albums and I will be purchasing both on CD format. Thank you. In regards to your new reference CD player Ayon CD 35 II, I can say I am a proud owner of Ayon CD 5s which set the bench mark for the CD play back, see reviews. In the hunt for up grade, I have settled for Denafrips Terminator 2 with the Denafrips CD player, I am very sure the combination is better than the Ayon CD 5s (I do have my Ayon for reference) and Ayon CD 35 II. I also purchased PS Audio CD Player to compare and get I2S output to Denafrips T2. But I found the Denafrips combo was better, and ended up selling the PS audio. This combo is better because the DAC can be upgraded when time goes on, you cannot do that with Ayon CD 35 II. Interested on your monoblocks, I am running Rogue M180 Mono, Audio Research Ref6 and the Speakers are Pure Audio Project Quintet 15. The speakers are open baffle and does not color the sound, and you get what is recorded. You should try open baffle speakers, as they say "if you do not venture out, you will not know what you missed out on". I have been listening to box speakers for the last 40 years, last pair were Wilson Watt Puppy 7.0.

I listened through my center channel speaker only (mono), which is set to be bright for voices. So take what I say here with that in mind. I could easily distinguish between the two, and guessed which was which every time. To me, on my compromised setup, I liked the Holo Audio DAC more. More fleshed-out, smoother upper end, better reverb/sustain, more you are there feel, natural. Not sure about the dynamics and bass articulation though due to my speaker’s equalized-for-spoken-voice settings. The difference that I heard was not small.

Minoru muraoka - Bamboo is a wonderful album :)

不错

With the speakers I preferred the May ...........on the direct recording I choose T&A....

Guido -- I didn't see/hear any mention of which DAC filter was used on the T+A DAC 200. Maybe I missed it. Which filter was used? Each of the six available shapes the sound differently and has an effect on the baseline against the Holo May. For instance I find the BEZ2 filter to be the best, followed by BEZ1, and the other four lag behind significantly. Or were both units set to NOS?

On YT all tracks 2 sounded more spatial and natural but little less definition. Great fun though!

May kte seems to be a bit heavier on subbass. I use Sennheiser momentum 2 over-ear

Can you elaborate on what was better on the T+E vs the May? to me the sounded the same even after downloading the files to listen too. Cheers!

This machine is a catch up from T+A, to be on same level as Holo May, Chord Electronics etc. Right now I will just wait for the new Chord DAC’s…(and others to come perhaps).

Hi Guido! I heard the tracks through my smartphone (Samsung, entry leavel). I did this not hopping much of diferences. But, surprisingly, I did. Pure honestly, I picked the May on both runs. For me it's clear the May had a more natural and real presentation. On track 2 the top was a bit harsh and more analitical with D200 and less so with May. Clearly a win for May here, dispite not be able to judge soundstage and instrument separation. On track 3, the presentation was tight with both Dacs, but I could still prefer the realism of May DAC (PRaT inclusive). Disclousure: I am a owner of a May KTE DAC. I guess I am use to natural/real (analogic) sound, not fatigue and less edgy/analitic sound. At my system the soundstage is huge with a lot of separation (my pre is a serene KTE and my streamer is a innous statement). I don't feel any lack of that. My wife and childs think there is someone playing live at living room, even if they were away in other division. The sounds of water, wind, waves etc seem so dam real. As someone said here, the best you can say about the HM KTE is a endless hours of pure analog audio pleasure. I think any other delta sigma DAC would give me fatigue at some point.

The T+A Dac has a little bit of a midbase bump but the differences are very sublte in this video. If I was a holo audio may owner I did not hear enough difference to justify the switch. Both are great dacs.

Personally, I prefer May, it gave a little more thickness and warmer sound based on this video only, not sure about real world experience, it is just interesting to see that everyone really has their own thoughts and taste on sounding style. I will have a chance to test a demo DAC 200 for a week, let's see how it goes with my own system.

On invariorment room I prefer Holo....less fatigue.Strait away I prefer the T+A ....more 3d sounds, better bass control,better sound in general.NOT easy at all..The invarioment is essential, so MUST be try both of them with own equipment!

Wow. Through my ancient multibit r2r redbook dac-i chose the D200 every time thinking it would be the May because i am used to both r2r chips and discrete ladder dacs. The May sounded thin, recessed in the mids with too much information way distant in the back of the soundstage, but it was also slower/lazy sounding which should have tipped me off to NOS mode. The D200 had more snap, a touch brighter on the leading edges but far more balanced top to bottom. It would be the sound i find more suited to my tastes which i'm shocked by because i absolutely hate sigma delta dacs-they give me tinnitus bouts and i'm out due to fatigue so quickly. Are we sure the D200 is true NOS and not just a filter emulating NOS such as a Zero Order Hold? I'm in the OS over NOS camp, so i prefer OS multibit r2r dacs, but i wonder if i like the D200 better because it is actually oversampling and using a filter only to emulate NOS?

Test 1. I like the May more Test 2. The D200...

The Holo May for the win in the environment tracks . More organic and natural , with body throughout and good dynamics in track 1 at least . Whereas the T+A was drier, more detail exposed , yet not as realistic or engaging as the Holo May. Then all changes in track 3 , direct this time. The T+A is more clear and transparent.. Now better balance as the gentle flowing composed nature of the vocals shine through , more realistic and that is after several comparisons. Ever so slightly mind . In actual fact, the Holo might seem like more effort as highlighted in track 3. Like a photo finish , my money goes on the T+A over the Holo . There is nothing between them both , all comes down to style in the end.

I once made a nice improvement in sound quality to a cd transport using a gum band.. If some high end manufacturers discovered doing the same thing makes a nice improvement, and decided to implement it and call it their Mk. Ii version, what would they charge us? Gum bands are worth a few cents at most. I think they'd charge us a thousand dollars; at least.

This is probably already said before in the comments, but have you heard the 2001 cd reissue of The Pentangle? Not compressed to death like the one in the box set from 2017. I must say, that the experience of the 2001 CD on my modest and ancient home office system (consisting of a Metrum Octave NOS Dac, M2TECH HIFACE Evo Usb Transport, HEED Canamp headphone amp, a mildly bass modded AKG K702 headphone and JRiver mediacenter based streamer) was more live-like, engaging and entertaining than any of the provided files. Switching to the Meze 109 headphones brought beside an overall entertaining dimensional experience and engaging transients, also more meat and variation in the lower octaves "to the floor". Conclusion one must hear the tested gear in situ. Thank you for an entertaining couple of hours in companion with my gear comparing, and your video. BTW: An ancient HOLO Spring DAC with a Singxer SU-2 usb interface is the digital heart of my living room system.

Prefer d200… always prefer the more dynamic sound

Was hoping better price category I would die for the hdmi in.

As far as I remember T+A uses higher voltage rails and thus the dynamics?! As I own SPL gear, I get reminded of this. It may be technically superior, but in a lot of cases (especially the older recordings), the signal which is on the source, is mastered for low-voltage gear. I think that's the reason why so many people here favor the Holo Audio May. So you probably could soften up the sound before feeding the DAC, but the opposite could be difficult.

On the 1st comparison I new immediately which one was Halo May(even tho hadn't been revealed yet) and I also thought it sounded better by a good margin. Just had more meat, heavier presence, instruments felt thick and present whereas the D200 felt thin(in comparison) and a subtle harsh/brightness. But in version 2 things got very close. Both sounded heavy, analog detailed, smooth no brightness or harshness, instruments sounded present. I Think perhaps the vocals may have had a slight edge with the D200. But they both sounded great if I had to twist my own arm I'd give the D200 the nod for what I think was a hair margin on vocals with the 2nd version or round of comparisons. And full disclosure I own the Halo May KTE and this was my 1st time hearing a D200. I would not choose the d200 if im listening via th 1st round. However seemed to go toe to toe w HM in round 2. I The HM always sounds good ive had it hooked up to a few different amps i think it has a nack for complimenting various equipment with such synergy and that can not be something overlooked. I think the HM is special and I would put it up against anything. That being said credit to D200 as it was a bit back n forth on this AB comparison video.

T+A sounds better to my ears. The Holo dac sounds kind of unnatural

snare hits is significantly softer to me in the TA, very different presentation

Hi Have you ever tried or heard lampizator dac? If yes what is your opnion about it?

T+A is much better

A big jump from mid fi receivers a few years ago. I'm still not comfortable with the sudden leap to this level.

I will say that all differences we knew about these two technologies are confirmed here,even though T+A seems to push to the maximum quality the Delta Sigma tecn. still leaves something behind in terms of musicality but more detail. It’s a matter of personal taste and system integration. Next time,if you can,include the TDA 1541 or similar,for example using your Marantz cd player.

Both of these were done using PCM in the DACs correct? Because the T+A has ΔΣ chips for PCM and the Holo Audio is R2R. I found the T+A to be slightly fuller and more weight to the instruments. However the bamboo track threw me a bit off as in the conversion track( not room) the Holo audio I think was capturing the echos of the instrument in the room it was recorded maybe a bit better. Like the echos were more clear. But I need to listen again. Great video ! Makes me once more think that R2R even with its strides is just too polite sounding.

Ok,.... Well,.... This is what I heard and this is what I think. ..... Even on my Mac computer and being on RU-vid, I thought the highs and the peaks on those voices were way too hot for my tea, using the T+A,... just too hot and too dry for me. I don't know how it would sound in my system though. It may be just fine, but here it's a no go for me. ... Now on the May, the sound was much easier on my ears and more girth in the midrange. It had much more of an invitation to stay and listen. .... Again, if I could hear both of these DAC's in my system, I might have a different opinion. ... But for sure, what I heard on the T+A was some high peaks on voices..... and I hate high peaks with a passion! ... By the way, ..... Good video.

With the AD conversion with the card they sound very similar. I still don't like the fact that T+A does not have an I2S input.

easy to find difference betweent 2 dacs with headphone from youtube. 200 is brighter, may is darker and round at high frequency. which better is depend on your taste.

how did you connect the source to t200 and holo may respectively ?

D200 wins hands down far better vocals and midrange.....Holo sounded thin / tinny

1. Your system after the DAC is on the cooler side of neutral, either the amps or the speakers or the cables and has a tinny quality especially on track 1 on the T&A. That characteristic of the system tends to favour the holo which is warmer and more forgiving. 2. The difference between the two dacs in the environmental recording is the typical difference between multibit and single bit, or NOS and upsampling. One is more musical and organic lacking a bit in detail, the other more technically advanced, more detailed but less enjoyable. 3. On the direct tracks the DACs are more closely matched to the point one can easily live with the one or the other. If you balance.your system better I think you will replicate the sameness you hear in the direct recordings and most probably be both technically and musically better through the T&A as is hinted by the direct recordings.

I think that at this level of quality, it will boil down to personal preference. If I had a chance to sit and listen to your system in person, I might have a different opinion. Being away from home and too curious to wait and listen on my stereo, I listened on my iPad and some average headphones so a lot of nuance was probably lost. Soon after the first track started, I was already coming down with listening fatigue. It sounded harsh and zingy. My May dac level 2 never did this with any track so I thought that if this is the Holo May, then it's due to to the difficulty of recording in your room environment. When the second track came on, I found it maybe less resolving but much more pleasing to the ear. If someone asks me what I like most about the May, I would say that I can listen to it all day. Again, If I listened to the D200 live, I might have a different opinion but under these test conditions, I don't think I could live with the 200.

Why is it T plus A not just TA, What's the plus meant to stand for?

may is punchier and the T+A some kind of softer ... it really comes down to a personal choice. Had systems on both sides ... if you are in a soft chill mood you don't like a punchier sound and vice versa :) Vor even more "soft and silky" sound - try HEGEL :)

As much as we can extrapolate from listening via YT I go with the May all day long. Its much less harsh, which I am sure is at the expense of some resolution if you're in the room. I need a system that is easy to listen to and just sounds like music, May had better flow and fluidity never felt like I wanted to FF those tracks.

To me the Pre Dac200 is less artificial so now who puts it against the AAdac and NewOntech 🤔

Hands down the T+A D200 kills this. Much more definition, also much more musical, so the timing and clock works a lot better. T+A Elektroakustik is a brand that should have much more followers, but then again, it's a little pricey of course. It's not for the fainthearted.

Would you know a high end r2r ad converter on the market ?

Very interesting comparison still I really find it difficult to understand your conclusion. It could be my chain but in track 1 DAC 200 is so sibilant it is annoying especially in environmental capture. IN general DAC 200 is very resolving but so cold. In my opinion this is no contest and May is a total winner.

whoa, i wrote my first comment prior to reading all the others. it looks like my opinion is shared by many others. just a final observation, you compared pear to apple - sigma delta to r2r. is it fair? :)

U selling the may?

Some people out here telling me every dac sound the same. Bits are bits 😂