The "simple EQ" cant do a good job in most cases (including mine).
What would be really good, is to interface (i.e. use a filter) with DRC:
http://drc-fir.sourceforge.net/

It's open source and on total different level than paremetric eq, or even more sophisticate piece of hardware such as Lyngdorf and DEQX.

I know that Peter is working on some filters, so this may be the right moment to look over room correction.

We didn't have time. My guts, I prefer it disabled.

I dont know the ddac very well, but I dont think that it has nothing to do with OS/NOS.
It is more a matter of resolution and dac typology.

I can tell you that the NOS1 did not turn the Violins into synthesizers.

As someone may have guessed, I am visitor B.

First of all, I want to thank again Peter for the hospitality and for giving me the chance to do an important A/B comparison of DACs.

If "cost no object", I would have already shed a few dozens of thousands euros to get a system alike my reference. Instead my goal is to get a reference-grade sound at a fraction of that cost. No bullsh*t. I know that it can be done. But I had to enter the diy world.

Everybody has its own parameters, so I will never say that what I like has to be agreed by everyone, though it makes me happy when is the case. My friend, visitor "A", happens to agree with my ears most of the times. I was glad to hear things similarly from Peter, whose ears -I guessed and I know now- can be trusted.
I'm not posting my comments online anywhere but here, although I will express all my thoughts privately to people worthy of my esteem.
I dont see the reason to bash the ESS Sabre, especially in the DIY community, and I have no commercial interest whatsoever, unlike Peter, (whom i believe to be motivated by the reach of good sound, rather than money) .

My approach in the evaluation stage is to listen just anything, without knowing what's inside and which is the pricetag. This helps avoiding the placebo effect (to which I think to be quite resistant). So, when I auditioned the system which then became my reference, I didnt know exactly what parts were in the audio gear.

I think that more or less, the evaluation stage is finished for me, at least regarding the source. I believe to have made the right choice about the speakers and the amplification, but it is too soon to tell.
I will also not comment in detail about my impression of Peter system, I can confirm what he already wrote here, that is, his system is "one of the best that I have ever heard, but not the best". It has one special merit, it is utterly transparent, and i expected that considering the speakers alone, and I wasnt disappointed. This is very helpful in doing a comparison of a single component.
I haven't auditioned hundreds of systems, only a few dozens, but I think to have acquired a decent knowledge.

During the past auditions, I have found to like, more or less, sources based on the pcm1704 converters. I wrongly assumed that my reference cd player employed the older 16-bit tda1541a DACs, and that's what I told Peter. But I was wrong. I did a quick search yesterday and found out that it does instead use 4x 1704, in NOS mode.
The family sound of these DACs is characterized by realistic timbre of instruments, PRAT, and lack of high-frequency distortions*.
Being multibit mono chips, they require an extreme care in the design and implementation of ALL other circuits around. This is not often found in commercial products. A single opamp in the output stage would compromise irreparably the purity of the sound, while an undersized psu would make the bass muddy.

The NOS1**  built by Peter comes quite close to my reference. His system as a whole, though, failed to give me complete emotional involvement. I felt like i was in front of a concert hall, looking through a window, instead of being inside. Still, it was pleasant to listen and I wanted to enjoy the music of my favourite discs for longer.

---
*   for lack of a better word. In worse systems this is the mark of a digital sound, metallic, unpleasant and that cannot be stand for long. In better systems, like it was in the case of the Sabre in Peter chain, it is just some annoyance with high tones and desire to tune the volume down. This is the effect that my ears receive typically when there is a sigma-delta DAC in the chain. I dont know why, but it is so.

** configured NOS and filterless, with spdif input provided by the fireface

I agree.


Also true. But there will be usb3. But There also will be native M$ firewire audio drivers and some far east company may make some boards then.
We'll see...

Yep

and i'm waiting for that email ))

ah-ha!

I knew that you sometime would have made my same reasoning and trying to get i2s directly from the computer.
That is the best single cable solution. The other best is dual ST, bu too cumbersome to be done with a computer source.

Your last email confused me

No, this is not true. Only if you want compatibility with 32 bit.
If you make a 64 bit native executable you can go over 2gb per process limit.

It seems things all turned out well for the NOS1.
Now, I'm only waiting to listen to it myself

Any update on the Buffalo?

The problem is always space.
Even who hasnt huge collections like Peter, will fill a SSD pretty soon. 2x160gb intels just wont cut it.
BTW i thought xxhe loaded in memory each track. Now I'm confused...

Cannot read the link. Which keyword did you use?

It's always good to have a plan B ))

ps: signature updated

hmm...

I have the pre-beta evaluation version and the only thing i can say is t hat driver support is very poor.
Moreover, there's some version check in LOTS of programs that wont make they work, while they do in vista. It should not require a rebuild, but some adjustments.

The good thing is that Windows7 should have a better audio stack.
Peter must know more. Me, I surely plan to move to it as soon as it hits RC status, for all my 3 machines.