Phasure NOS1 vs. Pacific Microsonics Model Two

[manisandher]

Detailed NOS1 specs and measurements can be found here: http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=1560.0

 

I think everyone would agree that these are 'worldclass' by anyone's standards, and of course unprecedented for a NOS DAC.

 

Unfortunately, I don't have any equivalent specs and measurements for the Model Two.

 

Mani.

 

[1audio]

Pretty extensive and details specs with very good measurements. Peter has done an exceptional job of addressing the challenge. I think the power line noise numbers should be in microvolts, not millivolts.

 

This also shows how good the Juli@ card is and how flexible it is.

 

TI has not come through with the demo board yet for the dual link experiment. I am expecting them next week or the week after. When I have it and have made sure it can work I'll try to work out the details and post them somewhere. The Dual link thing has had me vexed for a few years. KOJ explained that it was created because there was no 4X recording hardware so they had to invent it. And they would not have if there was the standard we use today. I have found no documentation on it and it seems to be a hack, but TI has support for it in their digital output chips.

 

I'll look around for a receiver solution from TI so we can get the output of a Model 2 into a Juli@ card.

 

[manisandher]

I stated earlier in this thread:

"Mains related products measure 17uVRMS at –121dBFS (measured at 50Hz mains)"

 

The Phasure site seems to contain a typo. Peter?

 

Demian, I'm really looking forward to hearing your findings about the TI boards. It would be great to get the Model Two interfaced to the Juli@, though I understand this is far from a done deal at this point. But I just wanted to say that I really appreciate your help in this matter. It's the sort of thing that makes CA a great place - people from all over the globe helping each other out, not in the pursuit of profit, but in the pursuit of great sound.

 

Mani.

 

[PeterSt]

The Phasure site seems to contain a typo. Peter?

 

Wow, thank you Mani, and Demian of course !

 

Well, I guess that happens when you copy-paste a Word document into an HTML editor.

 

I just tried it again :

 

17mVRMS

 

So yep. Mani, I'm sure you noticed this too ! But you changed the m into an u.

 

Well, that's nice ...

Dangerous stuff !

Btw, 17mVRMS (which for noise really can be 50mV easily for peaks) whould just be "sound" ...

 

In the attachment below a picture of what I just copy-pasted.

 

[manisandher]

Yes, I think I recall noticing that the 'µ' had been replaced by a 'm' and not a 'u' when I posted the specs earlier in this thread. But I hadn't noticed the mistake on the Phasure site until Demian pointed it out.

 

Looking forward to installing and hearing the latest version of XXHE when I return home this weekend... I heard it's a bit 'special'.

 

Mani.

 

[manisandher]

"... KOJ just won a Grammy for his surround recording of the Britten..."

 

Apparently, this surround recording was originally recorded at 24/176.4 on a bunch of Model Twos, and then transferred to SACD (http://www.stereophile.com/content/professor-johnson-scores-his-first-grammy).

 

He has some interesting thoughts on SACD:

"SACD is a strange animal. It's a very inefficient, DSD-based system of encoding, with compression methods going on to allow the data to fit. It technically is not as good as a straight 176/4 file because of what one has to do to make it fit onto the DVD, but it's a whole lot better than 44.1."

 

Mani.

 

[tmornini]

This DAC seems like a shoe-in for a Thunderbolt interface, as Thunderbolt is 100% PCIe compliant...

 

 

[barrows]

Peter's DAC is specifically designed to work with his XX Highend PC software, and there are no PCs with Thunderbolt, I think the idea of Thunderbolt compatability with his DAC is somewhat premature.

 

[PeterSt]

This DAC seems like a shoe-in for a Thunderbolt interface, as Thunderbolt is 100% PCIe compliant...

 

Of course this is correct or a good remark at least. It is also why I said (in this forum) that "Thunderbolt" existed for some longer time than when Apple came about with it, when it was anounced. It existed for ages on PC's (but read the anouncements from back then to get what I mean).

 

In the end we didn't go that route (of other means of PCIe), and choose for async USB instead. The reason ? not all mobo's are compliant to what the NOS1 uses from PCIe and it was too much of a DIY look or feel. I think that matters. So, that there's now the Phasure NOS1 async USB shipping could be called a commercial act, but it is merely about the unexpected support it needed occasionally. Not so with USB.

 

Regards,

Peter

 

[tmornini]

barrows said:

 

"Peter's DAC is specifically designed to work with his XX Highend PC software"

 

Why would that be?

 

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

 

[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

 

[tmornini]

Hello Peter, thanks for the reply.

 

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.

 

Or did you say that it sounded pretty bad and that finding the right combination would require you to listen all day which, presumably, you don't have time to do?

 

[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

 

[zerung]

Hi Mani,

Apologies if you have stated this somewhere in this long thread. Did you or not use Preamp in the chain. As unadvocated by Peter? Also if you did your views please.

Thanks

 

[manisandher]

Hi Zerung, one of the things I like about actually owning kit and living with it is that you can try a number of different configurations over time and get a real feel for how things sound.

 

I tried both DACs with and without a preamp in the chain, feeding a Sanders Magtech power amplifier (which is totally excellent and great value for money IMO). The preamp was my old Pass Labs X1 - considered pretty good in its day. I also tried a 'passive' controller (the Audio Synthesis Passion, also considered very good).

 

My order of preference was:

1) No preamp in chain. Volume controlled by XXHighEnd's built-in lossless attenuator. Both DACs have powerful output stages easily capable of driving a power amp directly. (The PM2 has a monster output stage.) Of course it was a pain having to continually change the cables at the back of the power amp.

2) Audio Synthesis Passion in chain. I detected no particular decrease in dynamics, which is the usual complaint for passives. However, the sound definitely 'thinned out', sounding less full-bodied and weighty. Slight loss in details.

3) Pass Labs X1 in chain. Quite a marked decrease in details and resolution. And a more diffuse and hazey bottom-end.

 

So yes, I agree 100% with PeterSt that connecting the DAC directly to the power amp is the best way to go for ultimate sound quality. I've had a NOS1 for over 9 months now and in this time, have never had an issue with using a direct connection to the power amp. But I guess there's always some risk involved in doing this (I know Miska warns against it).

 

HTH.

 

Mani.

 

[zerung]

Mani,

I appreciate your taking the effort to answer my question.

 

For too long many of us have believed the shortest signal path, the lack of preamp, passive control, etc are the best music path. I had never advocated this .Despite trying passive preamp, etc. The coloration of good preamp adds volume to sound. Even integrated amps gains flavor with preamp in certain cases. yada! yada!... and now PeterSt says otherwise and you concur. Mad!

 

I will decide when I get my Phasure - Peter says in 6 Wks. Which is a shame, he needs to get his village involved in the production instead of Him, His wife and the baby .

Thanks for spreading the good news!

 

Cheers