Phasure NOS1 vs. Pacific Microsonics Model Two

[PeterSt]

If this is a high-res filter-it-yourself-in-software DAC, then surely it could work with other software as well

 

Yes off course. Btw, sorry you were ahead of me - I wanted to spend a separate post on this, but got busy elsewhere.

 

Point is of course that this is not common-thinking. Or at least not yet, but that will come. XXHighEnd does it with the (by now explicit) purpose for other DACs, HQPlayer does it for the sole reason of that being a good thing - and it being the future, and lastly there's our own "DIY" filter stuff. Of course the latter again depends on the playback software whether that allows for such a "plugin" or not, but I already saw a SoX application which does just that.

 

But Barrows is not so wrong in the very end (already because he in the very end hardly ever is :-), if we see this only in the realm of doing it the best way possible. Ok, whether *I* do it the best way possible with my proprietary Arc Prediction Filtering which indeed is XXHighEnd only - is debateable, but obviously I think it is or otherwise it wouldn't be there. On that matter we should say that the NOS1 is dependent on XXHighEnd for the best sound ever coming from it, so what Barrows said is almost true.

 

Now things get tougher, because the sound is so totally different from anything else, that we really may wonder what will happen to the sonics when we apply an in my view lesser filter (but always apply one !!). Well, I'm not even sure I told it in this forum somewhere (I did extensively on Phasure), but due to the now Mac compatibility (with async USB) I did some explicit testing the other day on the Mac and with careful selection of player + filter(s allowed), I really could listen to that forever. Without that selection (just attempting upsampling blindly for the various players), the sound is as bad as imagineable. But here too, all is relative, and all we would be doing is listening to the filter(s) a more common OS DAC applies. So I am per se not saying that any (Mac) player is bad, but I do say that for a DAC which leaves all alone (hence doesn't touch a bit so to speak) this is of crucial importance.

 

On another kind of subject it is interesting to notice that in normal circumstances - where your DAC (its filters) rules sound - you will be having a hard job in differentiating between the upsamplers and stuff provided. It should tell us how important the filtering is. It really makes or kills sound, and whether that happens in-DAC or outboard really doesn't matter. Of course, when it happens in-DAC you are a kind of stuck to what the filters in there make of it, while when it happens outboard you are dependent on what is out there for software filtering.

 

May it be important, of course I am here to select players + good filtering for the NOS1, like I did for the Mac (this really needs measuring as well). That can happen on Windows just the same, might the need be there and as long as other people didn't do that already. And I really (REALLY) don't care if no any XXHighEnd comes out of this. If the sound from something else is better, you can bet I will use that myself. Be it PC or Mac.

 

Peter

 

[PeterSt]

Did you say that when you tested on a Mac with good filters, it sounded good and that you could "listen to it all day?" which, to me, would indicate that you found a combination that sounded good and non-fatiguing.

 

Yes, that one.

 

But maybe I wrote a little carelessly and more in the realm how I/we write over at Phasure. So, I wanted to put it stronger than your quote tells. Something like :

 

When I would be without my Windows audio PC (hence without XXHighEnd), I could listen to that particular Mac software forever. Not because it's not fatigueing or anything, but just because it is good enough not to be disturbed forever because it can be so much better (XXHighEnd). For me that might be a psychological thing (knowing the difference with XX), but even then it would be okay. Thus, really good enough.

 

Peter