Boozing about OS- and NOS DAC's

[Gerner]

Hi Peter

I didn't knew where to comment on this, so it landed in the Boozers corner.

You wrote in your "HIGH END - Technical work out": Excellent article BTW.


The most important message for this page, is that there's not one expression of mine anywhere that states that with an os-DAC XX won't perform. Nowhere. The only thing I do say, is if you follow the 1:1 route best (nos-DAC), all fits to what XX achieves, and if you don't (os-DAC) you'll be destroying what XX so carefully tried to achieve. Here too is a "net" for the overall result, knowing about the lacking (and actually needed filters and all). So, besides destroying partly what XX created (and remember this is partly only) it is coincidentally my opinion that an nos-DAC sounds best. This latter is unrelated to XX itself obviously, and in addition it's just *my* opinion.

I cannot care less how your player does what it does as I am not a techie in this respect. Just a happy user.

But however it is your player sounds far better than any other even on an OS-DAC. It was maybe unintended it should do so, but it does. So as you mention yourself that  the player was intended for bit perfect only in Vista or XP connected to a NOS-DAC for the reason of keeping things bit perfect as long as info stays in the digital domain, it must do some magic anyhow as the NOS-DAC kills the perfectionism.

I have both a NOS- and an OS-DAC and can compare.

If i should say it in an uncomplex context: 80% of the quality you gain from the player is acheived on a OS-DAC and the rest 20% from player is acheived on a NOS-DAC. Conclusion: The 1:1 chain wins!

I have left out the description of "what" kind of quality I'm talking about as I did not listen too much to my NOS-DAC of other reasons. But I am talking about "quality" differences related to the #1, #2 and #3 to either a OS or a NOS machine.

So what can be dragged out here: That I am 100% sure the player improves everything and no one nessecarely have to skip their OS-DAC's right away. And why not?

Because it might very well be so that the rest of your playback system just sound best with the NOS-DAC for any reason. Then the NOS-DAC can be seen as a tweak to your own preferences of how good sound sounds like....or?

It has been posted many places that if the source is right, the playback can be optimized. And when that happens, the source can be optimized again. continue that process until nothing more can be squeezed out of the system and you have only "music" left. Hey...and as Peter and Bert, I think I'm close to be there. 


Gerner

[PeterSt]

Thanks Gerner.

For others ... I maybe add this :

Gerner here is THE example to whom I possibly 1,000 times have said : go get your nos-DAC and try it. Gerner wouldn't because the past had shown him that his os-DAC (a rather special one) presented more "music" and all.
But this was the past, and the past did not include XXHighEnd.

Okay, mind you : I do not provocate the nos-DAC for stupidity, possible less cost or whatever, and I too just have an $5K os-DAC on my shelves. But, from the indeed kind of stupid 1:1 theory APPARANTLY follows that the nos-DAC brings more for net result.
That this might not work with other players ... what can *I* do about that ...

To make this subject more lively to you all, I will summarize the 1:1 thing by means of one example only : synthesizer sounds, producing all wild waveforms from squares to upside down sawtooths. Now, take some time and hookup your scope, and look what happens with xxx oversampling. Sines ! All become beautiful sines.

With this in mind as a pure advantage for nos, there's the general perceivement that (and this is just one example) the nos-DAC goes off when the sound gets complex. Large orchestras, many instruments make it go wrong. And you know, I agree with that. However, I agree with that when a random player is feeding it, might it be software or the best boxed player. Not so with XXHighEnd !

Okay, I can stop blah-ing now, because it is just something you can try and hear for yourselves.

Additionally, for fun, I can refer to digital camera's, and then specifically the Kodac DCS SLR. What is psecial about this camera ? it lacks an anti alias filter ! Now, if this (photographing) is your world, you'll immediatelky recognize what I mean by that. The net (!) resolution of this camera just outclasses ALL. And this is only because of the lacking AA filter (AA filters almost explicitly blurr). This time, you can just see it. So much more easy then listening ...
Of course it has downsides just the same, and maybe it's not for nothing that this is the only camera lacking the AA fillter, many people having problems with it. But if you know how to use this special case ...

In many many aspects, audio is similar to imaging. The good thing of imaging is that you just can see what you are doing (to it) and what happens for results. I use this similarities heavily.

Much, much follows from this for sound quality, or better, the orginal naturality of it.

If you'd look to the "problematic" pictures of the Kodak DCS SLR, you'd see aliasing artifacts (mainly moiré). Say, in one out of 100 pictures this happens. So, this one small object on this one out of 100 pictures shows an artifact. But now look at the content of all 100 pictures, and compare the enormeous detail with the AA bagged camera. Detail means : discern between e.g. a dog and a human being.

HTH for better judgement (which always keeps on being yours).

[Gerner]

Thanks Gerner.

For others ... I maybe add this :

Gerner here is THE example to whom I possibly 1,000 times have said : go get your nos-DAC and try it. Gerner wouldn't because the past had shown him that his os-DAC (a rather special one) presented more "music" and all.
But this was the past, and the past did not include XXHighEnd.

So true Peter 

To put my problem with the OS-DAC in this conteXXt... let me eleborate.

I can verify any bit of what Peter just wrote. #3 ->Vista ->Fireface -> NOS-DAC is superior to the same track on #1 Vista to OS-DAC.
My problem was of another kind than just the digital route. My problem were an analog one.

My TD+ NOS of first beta-version has a impedance ratio to my amp input impedance of: DAC-output 2.7 kOhm to a tubeamp input of 10 kOhm. The DAC is as per its DAC to trafo amplification, not able to output more than 0.7 V P-P!
Throw in a TVC as a Django i.e.. This doesn't work! The TVC act like a low pass filter and it cannot do the job just using the +6db tap. That even worsen the lack of treble.

My OS-DAC on the contrary has a very very low output impedance 2 Ohm!!!! 2 V RMS output!!!

So this is why it works without cutting the treble and being able to saturate the tube amp through the TVC.

Hence the NOS-DAC didn't deliver juice for my amp and the TVC cut the treble.

NOW:

Still I'm able to detect the "bettered" #3 true bitperfect machine despite the above mentioned mess. At very low listening levels the TVC doesn't act like a treble filter and I can compare.

Now you know.

The problems are now solved and in August I throw in a new amp that has a different gain and a higer input imp.

As from then, for sure, I will run bit perfect to nos-dac. Period.


Gerner