Phasure NOS1a DAC

[PeterSt]

But it will work, yes ... (so really no problem).

[PeterSt]

Originally Posted by PeterSt

Also notice that XXHighEnd comes with a 100% Windows 7 Shell for Windows 8 and this does not work for Windows 8.1.

 

Peter

 

 

Sorry ... but this is precisely why I try and avoid Windows-based systems. I never have this problem on the Mac as a user. If Audirvana worked on Mavericks 10.9 it works without a problem on 10.9.1 and 10.9.2 etc.

 

Misunderstanding !

What I tried to say is that - might you be used to Windows 7 - you will not see a difference with Windows 8 because it can work with a Windows 7 Shell (which creates the looks and usage of the operating system). So, just for convenience.

 

What I tried to say next is that this Windows 7 Shell can not work for Windows 8.1. This is totally unrelated to the playback software. Really. And I could add : While people may hate the Windows 8 normal Shell already because of a lacking "Start Button" (which thus is solved by using the W7 Shell) this is not needed for that reason in W8.1 because there the Start button is Back.

 

alcarp, if you weren't referring to these kind of solutions but general changing stuff in OSes then I better refer to sudden upside-down working Scroll Bars from OS/X 10.6 to 10.7 or whenever it was. THAT is stupid (OK, W8 Shell vs. W7 Shell also is ).

 

Can I purchase a copy of Windows 8 bundled with XXHighend from you?

 

Yes you (most officially) can. But you will be buying a disk where all is pre-installed. So optimized OS (hey, ~500 topics) plus XXHighEnd itself and organized for the NOS1(a). And including W8 license. The only thing which is not 100% official is that this is meant to be as upgrade for people owning the "XXHighEnd PC" bought ever back with W7 installed (so swap disks - done). But now I don't care whether this is a bit unofficial.

Still what acg said is also valid for W8.1; it just won't matter any more (with NOS1 yes, with NOS1a no).

Oh, mentioned ~500 optimization topics also are quite moot by now (won't influence any more). Must get used to these things myself.

 

Helpful ?

Regards,

Peter

[alcarp]

Originally Posted by PeterSt

Also notice that XXHighEnd comes with a 100% Windows 7 Shell for Windows 8 and this does not work for Windows 8.1.

 

Helpful ?

Regards,

Peter

 

Thanks Peter. Very helpful. Will email you.

[manisandher]

What's different? Well, one thing is that the audio clocks now sit right next to the DAC chips and the USB interface is slaved to these clocks. The latter means that the DAC is now totally immune from the PC and the USB cable.

 

I would like to retract the latter part of this statement. On extensive further investigation, it transpires that the Phasure NOS1a is indeed totally immune to any changes in PC playback software, HOWEVER... it is now even more sensitive to changes in USB cables than before the upgrade.

 

When I first received the upgraded DAC, I spent most of my time playing around with the various parameters in XXHighEnd to confirm the DAC was now immune to these. And indeed it was. I then replaced my expensive 3.5m USB cable for a 'standard' 1m cable, and they sounded pretty much the same. I then concluded that the upgraded NOS1a was immune on that front too. But it now appears I was premature here. I think it was simply a coincidence that these 3.5m and 1m cables sounded similar. With a much larger sample size, it is obvious that there is a marked difference in SQ between different USB cables (types and lengths). Interestingly, this wasn't the case before the upgrade.

 

So why is the upgraded NOS1a more sensitive to this than the original NOS1? I'm not sure if anyone (even PeterSt, who probably knows more about what's really going on with computer audio than anyone on the planet) really knows at this point in time. But one thing is for certain - the upgraded NOS1a is so transparent that any minute differences are now totally apparent.

 

Mani.

[Bob Stern]

What's different? Well, one thing is that the audio clocks now sit right next to the DAC chips and the USB interface is slaved to these clocks. The latter means that the DAC is now totally immune from the PC and the USB cable.

 

I think Peter is keeping the NOS1a "invention" as a secret. I don't think the two improvements you mentioned are the key invention.

 

Positioning the word clock as close as possible to the DAC chip is an objective of almost all DAC designers.

 

Slaving the USB interface to the DAC's word clock is the "async USB" method originated by Gordon Rankin (Wavelength Audio) and now used by the majority of DACs having USB inputs. This seems to be what Peter tried in development iteration 3 (NOS1 Async USB) mentioned in post 29.

[PeterSt]

You are correct Bob (hats off for your good reasoning as well).

What Mani did, and with not the slightest intention to blame him, is copying this from someone else who suggested that in order to seek conformation (which I obviously never gave). And since I am not inclined to tell anyway, I easily let things go as long as they look good. If I debunk it, I'll receive the next suggestion and so on. This "looking good" stopped per your post Bob.

 

Btw slightly related to your post : http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/where-audio-truth-16613/index30.html#post242518

(last phrase)

 

Thanks and regards,

Peter

[YashN]

My thoughts exactly, as I read the Apple developer info, and CoreAudio/Audiohardware.h...

 

And I'm getting more and more furiously pissed off with anything related to Apple, more I deal with it. Extreme demotivation to work on OS X.

[matthias]

Peter,

 

are there any news regarding a Phasure DSD DAC?

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/direct-stream-digital-or-not-direct-stream-digital-16093/index49.html#post356342

 

Thanks

 

KR

 

Matt

[PeterSt]

Hi Matt,

 

If you like to call this news as such :

 

Not long after the post you linked to, the ladder modules (these are modules) were ready and I almost had the PCB's for it produced and then ...

Then it came to me that actually the jitter of the setup as a whole could be improved upon. This is merely about "skewing" and how the individual bits do not fire (get set) at the exact same moment, which is something we normally don't see much (or recognize) when using D/A chips, but which in the end is something which deserves explicit attention.

And so a redesign of the ladders had to be in order.

 

By now this is almost finished again, but it gets more and more crazy. So with a discrete (ladder) DAC you may have seen the pile of resistors needed for this (say per channel) and now I have taken this to a next step : each bit itself is now a module.

Think a differential (Balanced) ladder setup where each channel has a ladder module, and to such module now 56 bit modules are attached (56 small PCBs (2x28), each PCB taking care of 1 bit which itself consists of 10 or so components).

When I was working on the timing anyway, the whole design is now in exact 50 Ohm impedance and is actually over-speced to multi-GHz video frequency. What comes from this ? I can't tell until listening. All I learnt is that not any chip will be able to meet the specs like we're applying here, which already starts with CMOS logic which has its (timing) limits.

 

So what I can also tell by now is that "jittter" as such normally operates on the "audio word" level, hence when a new D to A conversion is put out. But no such thing will exist in real life because the D to A conversion itself is subject to exact timing of (in our case) 28 bits to be converted to analog at the same time, which "same time" is at the ns (nano-second) level for CMOS. Virtually this implies ns level jitter just the same, although it is not really the same as the clocking of the whole word. IOW, nice that the clocking today can be at the fs (femto-second) level, but not so nice at all is that the settling of the individual bits is a million times higher. This is not really jitter, but un-equal timing hence "error" as such.

 

Got that ? of course not. But it is this what slowly came to me as a culprit, while actually by now a complete D/A chip is designed in discrete form.

 

Btw, for DSD this problem of skewing can be in order just the same, depending on how the hardware is organized; Optimally the skewing can come down to the real clock jitter (plus what's behind it for logic in hardware), but that would count for genuine 1 bit converters only (so forget about this).

 

Maybe to keep in mind : What this design explicitly will do is run PCM and DSD through the 100% same hardware, logic and (sampling) speed (PCMx256 and DSDx256 but DSD can be higher in a later stage); only then the formats can be compared like apples with apples which sort of has become my search (or obsession) for life. The filtering obviously will be different for both situations and for 2 channels this will be in-PC so the (different) processing load of that (current draw etc.) will not be able to influence the in-DAC electronics (this latter since the total isolation introduced with the "a" version of the NOS1).

 

I apologize if this was a bit too technical, but this is the "news" anyway.

Peter

[matthias]

I apologize if this was a bit too technical, but this is the "news" anyway.

Peter

 

Peter, no need to apologize.

That sounds extremely interesting, thank you very much.

Please keep us updated after some listening.

 

KR

 

Matt

[driz]

Wait, did someone say their Pacific Microsonics converter sounded like a transistor radio? I've used those for years in classical music recording and have never found a better ADC.

[reverendo]

so, I just recently heard about this DAC and stumbled upon this thread. I already own a 1704 chip-based DAC (Resolution Audio Cantata) so am interested, since I like mine quite a lot.

a couple of questions:

1. I use a SB Touch with Welborne Labs PSU. Will I still be able to use the Phasure NOS1a DAC fully using it? The interface is great and it makes life very easy and keeps a large computer away from my system.
   
2. I read somewhere that the NOS1a can play directly without preamp. Is this adviseable and does anyone have any experience in using one or not?
   
3. Is there any input and output preference for the DAC?
   
4. What's the current price and can it be auditioned before buying?
   

Sorry for reviving an old thread.

Thanks in advance

Andre

[reverendo]

no one?

[esimms86]

You need to post your questions at the Phasure website: www Phasure.com. Beyond that, my short answer is that:

 

1)XX High End player software is required to get the most out of the NOS1a. HQPlayer also works but XXHE is really the way to go. If you must use the SB Touch then I would say that the consensus is that the NOS1a would not be worth the investment in your particular case.

2)I use the NOS1a with an integrated amp but I would guess that the majority of NOS1a owners don't have a preamp in their systems.

3)Balanced is optimal relative to RCA but RCA works fine if that's what you have(my amp limits me to RCA and the sound is still outstanding). There is also something called a Blaxius setup that requires a mod to your amp and a BNC connection added onto your NOS1a. Peter St, the NOS1a designer, uses this as do some of the hard core NOS1a faithful. I won't go into it any further except to suggest that you check out the Phasure website for more details if you're interested.

4)An email to Peter St will give you the current NOS1a price. The NOS1a can only be auditioned by arrangement with a current owner living near you. Beyond that, you would have to purchase one with an included trial period. Hope this helps.

[reverendo]

You need to post your questions at the Phasure website: www Phasure.com. Beyond that, my short answer is that:

 

1)XX High End player software is required to get the most out of the NOS1a. HQPlayer also works but XXHE is really the way to go. If you must use the SB Touch then I would say that the consensus is that the NOS1a would not be worth the investment in your particular case.

2)I use the NOS1a with an integrated amp but I would guess that the majority of NOS1a owners don't have a preamp in their systems.

3)Balanced is optimal relative to RCA but RCA works fine if that's what you have(my amp limits me to RCA and the sound is still outstanding). There is also something called a Blaxius setup that requires a mod to your amp and a BNC connection added onto your NOS1a. Peter St, the NOS1a designer, uses this as do some of the hard core NOS1a faithful. I won't go into it any further except to suggest that you check out the Phasure website for more details if you're interested.

4)An email to Peter St will give you the current NOS1a price. The NOS1a can only be auditioned by arrangement with a current owner living near you. Beyond that, you would have to purchase one with an included trial period. Hope this helps.

thank you very much. I appreciate you taking the time.

[PeterSt]

Hi Andre,

 

I am sorry, but I never saw your post(s) until just now.

 

Yes, ask all you want to know at sales.at.phasure.dot.com.

 

Regards,

Peter

 

PS: One hint : I almost literally forbid people to use a preamp. So by far indeed most don't.

[jtwrace]

thank you very much. I appreciate you taking the time.

 

Hi Andre,

 

I am sorry, but I never saw your post(s) until just now.

 

Yes, ask all you want to know at sales.at.phasure.dot.com.

 

Regards,

Peter

 

PS: One hint : I almost literally forbid people to use a preamp. So by far indeed most don't.

 

One more hint: Be prepared for the most thorough answer(s) you've ever wanted.

[reverendo]

One more hint: Be prepared for the most thorough answer(s) you've ever wanted.

[reverendo]

Hi Andre,

 

I am sorry, but I never saw your post(s) until just now.

 

Yes, ask all you want to know at sales.at.phasure.dot.com.

 

Regards,

Peter

 

PS: One hint : I almost literally forbid people to use a preamp. So by far indeed most don't.

thanks, Peter. Am sending you an e-mail right now.

[jabbr]

Just got my NOS1a up and running using XXHE playback software on Windows 10. Definitely a fidgety project to get it all working but most likely because I'm a Windows dummy and I started trying to get this working as an NAA with HQPlayer... In any case the sound is terrific. XXHE is very CPU efficient for the degree of upsampling it does. Did I say the sound is terrific. My FirstWatt J2 is very happy.

[bibo01]

45 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Just got my NOS1a up and running using XXHE playback software on Windows 10. Definitely a fidgety project to get it all working but most likely because I'm a Windows dummy and I started trying to get this working as an NAA with HQPlayer... In any case the sound is terrific. XXHE is very CPU efficient for the degree of upsampling it does. Did I say the sound is terrific. My FirstWatt J2 is very happy.

Congratulations! I would have always liked to lay my hands on such device.

Did you have a Windows based NAA? I suppose not your Clearfog...  

[jabbr]

10 hours ago, bibo01 said:

Congratulations! I would have always liked to lay my hands on such device.

Did you have a Windows based NAA? I suppose not your Clearfog...  

 

So it turns out that since I have the clearfog, I happen to have a spare NAA that was booting from iSCSI. I added an SSD and installed Windows 10, got everything up and running including XXHighEnd, and then cloned the SSD to my iSCSI server (different endpoint). Trying to get this to boot entirely in iSCSI...

 

I have some other tricks I'm playing around with but don't want @PeterSt to have too large of a heart attack before I get it working (or not  ... I am *also* working on getting the NOS1a up and running with this Windows NAA. The fact is, I am so pleasantly surprised that XXHighEnd is running so well on my very low power NAA machine ... would it run better on a higher power machine? Lots and lots and lots of variables...

[manisandher]

Congrats Jonathan. And you have the latest G3 upgrade, which is simply phenomenal. I'll be posting about it soon...

 

Sorry I wasn't able to help out - your request for help/ideas on the Phasure forum came just as I was travelling a lot for work. And in any event, I've never used the NOS1a with an NAA (in the way I think you mean). In my office, I use HQPlayer on a high-powered dedicated audio PC (28-thread Xeon running Win10 from RAM - runs totally cool with only passive cooling) which feeds the NOS1a there. I have Roon on the music server in my basement, which feeds HQPlayer via the network. It works very, very well. I love the usability of Roon/Tidal, and the flexibility of being able to feed any of combination of HQP's filters @705.6/768 and noise-shapers to the NOS1a. But for my main system, I stick with XXHighEnd, because it sounds so good.

 

Congrats again.

 

Mani.

[bibo01]

8 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

So it turns out that since I have the clearfog, I happen to have a spare NAA that was booting from iSCSI. I added an SSD and installed Windows 10, got everything up and running including XXHighEnd, and then cloned the SSD to my iSCSI server (different endpoint). Trying to get this to boot entirely in iSCSI...

 

I have some other tricks I'm playing around with but don't want @PeterSt to have too large of a heart attack before I get it working (or not  ... I am *also* working on getting the NOS1a up and running with this Windows NAA. The fact is, I am so pleasantly surprised that XXHighEnd is running so well on my very low power NAA machine ... would it run better on a higher power machine? Lots and lots and lots of variables...

What does your NAA do with XXHighEnd installed on it? Can you please explain.

 

What are the new features of G3 upgrade?

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, bibo01 said:

What does your NAA do with XXHighEnd installed on it? Can you please explain.

 

The 'NAA' in this case refers to the computer which ran networkaudiod. It has an ASRock Q1900 motherboard, and an Intel x520 NIC. Powered by a 12V LPS into a picoPSU.

 

Now the machine is loaded with Windows 10 and XX HighEnd. It gets music from the NAS over my (fiberoptic) network.