Denafrips DACs might not actually be NOS?

[etane]

Very interesting.  I did own the Musician Pegasus for close to a month before returning it.  To my ears, the NOS mode didn't sound very NOS. 

 

BTW, enjoyed your MQA video.

[etane]

Would be good to know whether there are different classifications of NOS especially if it differs from the original definition:

 

https://www.sakurasystems.com/articles/Non-oversampling-DAC.html

[etane]

16 minutes ago, idiot_savant said:

@etane- wow, is that like the NOS bible?

 

I think it is, isn't it? 

[etane]

Personally, I believe whether whatever iteration of "NOS DAC" is compatible with whatever post process software such as HQPlayer is a red herring.  The question should be IS THE NOS DAC AUTHENTICALLY A NOS DAC? 

 

NOS DAC is well defined by enthusiasts by products that use NOS DACs such as the list provided by @semente:

But other people like NOS DACs with Redbook. People using Audio Note, Lampizator, Border Patrol, AMR, 47Labs, Zanden, etc. DACs.

 

And, if it differs in design, implementation, technology and, most importantly, in SOUND, then it's not classically, technically or authentic(ally) NOS.   Of course, R2R removes the possibility of using traditionally used NOS chips from TDA or AD.  So, maybe by definition NOS R2R is NOT NOS and consumer should not expect NOS R2R to sound authentically NOS.

[etane]

26 minutes ago, idiot_savant said:

@etane - so do *you* think a NOS DAC should be filterless with redbook ( 44.1/16 ) material? No PC, no external OS box? And if so, why? And does this necessarily match with a DAC type ( e.g. must be R2R, sign-magnitude, a particular chip )?

your friendly neighbourhood idiot

I can't directly answer your question as I am not technically inclined.  I drank 47lab's koolaid and understood the reason why NOS dacs are the only digital source I could effortless listen to is because it lacks brick filter, O/S, PLL and such.  Whether the source hardware is PC or software is not redbook, I don't think it matters.  I think it does matter that additional processing is added to the DAC chip.  To some, it's like adding ketchup to sushi.

 

Just want to add, I've moved away from NOS DACs as Topping D90 offers me a sound that is very close to what I am familiar with NOS DACs, inky blacks and lack of glare.  I've put an order in on Singxer SDA6 and expect it to offer the same menu but with better results plus it has a "NOS" mode haha.

 

[etane]

2 minutes ago, semente said:

 

You need to cut down on the koolaid, the additional processing results in a more accurate reproduction of the signal.

You sound like you're from ASR.  But, yes there's more than one way to skin a cat.  But, what I was driving at is how NOS is defined and that's as much as I could do with a technical definition.

[etane]

@idiot_savantnever did I thought you were criticizing me or anyone else.  again, I am not so technically inclined.  philosophically speaking, NOS does imply no processing but that doesn't imply you can't add processing after that.  But, if I were to purchase something advertised as NOS, I'd like to have option to negate that processing.  And, I am not sure that is the case with the new breed of DACs with a button that is labeled "NOS".  And, this is perfectly OK.  However, I think as a manufacturer, they should explain how they fashion their "NOS".  This gives buyer a level of realistic expectation after they purchased something online shipped from half a world away.

[etane]

i wouldn't mind it if dac mfgs label that button "LI" instead of "NOS"

[etane]

https://www.kitsunehifi.com/nosvsos/

[etane]

you've heard of the mouse who fell into a bucket of milk?

[etane]

28 minutes ago, davide256 said:

Kind of like asking if coffee with sugar already added is coffee…it’s not pure NOS because of the aggressive linear interpolation. Hopefully you like your coffee with the way it comes pre-sugared

it's more like i say i like my coffee black but it comes pre milked.