Phasure NOS1 vs. Pacific Microsonics Model Two - Round 1

[manisandher]

Here are my first thoughts on comparing the NOS1 with the Model Two:

I’ve mentioned before that the NOS1 is like taking an x-ray of the music. It is so crystal clear and pure. And yet it is so easy to listen to. It is exciting and yet relaxing at the same time. I’ve never been too bothered about imaging, but I’ll just mention that imaging with the NOS1 is super, super sharp. I think people for whom imaging is a big deal would love this aspect of the NOS1.

In contrast, the Model Two is more full-bodied. It gives the impression of richer harmonic content. What’s interesting (for me) is that it seems to retain much of the NOS1’s detail but loses some of its super sharpness. It’s quite a nice balance. The bottom end is more pronounced and weightier – but then perhaps a little less tuneful.

At this point, it is a hard one to call. My wife actually prefers the Model Two, and I can totally understand why. It is so musically engaging. It just sounds so nice. Is this down to extra distortion? I don’t know. But if it is, then it’s nice distortion that is adding rather than subtracting from the listening experience.

If I had to guess, I’d say that the NOS1 is more accurate. But it sounds a bit thin in comparison. If this sound ‘fleshes out’ a little over time, I think it will be very, very good indeed.

Mani.

[Nick]

Mani hi,

I am up and running now after Peter helped me with some set up this morning (try getting that level of support elsewhere on Christmas eve - thanks Peter).

I recognise the sound your describing. From past experience the fullness is just what comes from a nice long burn in period. I am enjoying the sound very, very much already but am really looking forward to listen with a few hundred hours on the clock. What really amazes me it that it sound so good straight out of the box 

All the best Nick.

[PeterSt]

I am up and running now after Peter helped me with some set up this morning (try getting that level of support elsewhere on Christmas eve - thanks Peter).

Nick, great ! But I guess that's why it was this morning. But I am really (really !) glad you managed. You'll know ...


In the mean time I am real sorry that 5 DACs (maybe even 6) seem to be stuck somewhere underway.
I only want to say to those waiting ... keep it up, it will be there at some stage ! But it's sad.

Peter

[manisandher]

WHAT'S GOING ON HERE???

I can get the NOS1 to play at 16x Arc Prediction! I just had to reduce the SFS right down. Peter, I thought the interface wasn't supposed to handle this.

I've only played a 30 sec track thus far but will continue to experiment and report back findings of Octo vs. 16x AP.

Mani.

PS. What's the prefix for 16x?

[manisandher]

Of course, everything plays at half-speed!!!

OK, false alarm.

EDIT: Setting the 'DAC is...' to 32 bit 768 and reducing the upsampling to OAP also gives half-speed playback. Peter, is there a bug in the SW with the DAC set to 32 bit 768? If so, is there a possibility that we could get 16x AP to work?

Mani.

[PeterSt]

Hey Mani,

I am sure you won't mind a lillte quote here :

Yes, I've tried it. If this is the correct speed, I will eat my hat. Actually, it will be easy to check"

A little out of context of course, but I just had to laugh.

I think it says somewhere that "Is NOS1 768" is not to be used, which is because the (software in the) hardware doesn't anticipate on it. So, it works allright, but not in your DACs. Also, it was intended to work (as you may recall), but there's just some 10% lack of bandwidth and it won't go at this moment. A typicle base for an ever hardware upgrade by the way ...

PS. What's the prefix for 16x?

Double Octo - if it is that what you mean ...


Sorry for having confused you.
Peter

[manisandher]

For the last 10 days or so, I’ve been playing the NOS1 through my pre-amp – not because of any glitches or whatever, but simply because it has sounded too ‘sharp’ going directly into my power amp. Also there was just not enough low-end to provide a decent overall balance. But a couple of days ago, I bypassed the pre-amp and am now getting a very nice sound. Still not as full-bodied as I would wish for, but very nice nevertheless.

With no pre-amp, using Engine#3 (WASAPI) with OAP (8x Arc Prediction) is pretty much unlistenable. Engine#4 is an absolute must.

On a final note, I’ve tried the NOS1 with the HQPlayer. This is a very nice player and provides some pretty advanced 4x-upsampling filters (and also noise-shaping schemes). As such, it's a great alternative to XX for NOS1 users, providing just enough filtering before the totally filterless NOS1 DAC. IMO, HQPlayer (with WASAPI) using one of its advanced minimum phase filters is better than XX with Engine#3 - here, AP is simply too much and AI just kills the sound.

BUT... XX with Engine#4 and OAP easily beats any other player/upsampling-scheme through the NOS1.

Mani.

[Flecko]

BUT... XX with Engine#4 and OAP easily beats any other player/upsampling-scheme through the NOS1.

Thanks for the hint.
I tested HQPlayer with different upsampling methods and without upsampling. I think it is far away from xx, no matter if I use Engine3 or Engine4. HQ sounds very bright and unpleasant while xx gives more resolution and a deeper and finer sound with more bass and body. No option in my case.

[manisandher]

Yesterday I started my quest to digitise all my vinyl records. The idea is to firstly thoroughly clean (using 'Disc Doctor' liquid and a Loricraft cleaning machine) and then record 7 records per week. I have ~5000 records, so it's gonna take me a while!

I've spent the weekend comparing various formats because I want to choose a single consistent format for all the files. The size of the files isn't really important as I have a large NAS, and can easily increase the capacity when needed. One consideration though is the ability to stream these files wirelessly around the house - my current wireless router just about handles 16/44.1 OK.

But my main criterion is of course SQ with the NOS1. To this end, I've been listening and comparing various recorded formats through the NOS1 and comparing to the original vinyl. And I've decided to go for 24/192 files. Through the NOS1, these sound indistinguishable from the original vinyl. With these files, the NOS1 and the Model Two sound pretty much identical.

But there is one interesting thing that I discovered. It is 'better' to play these 24/192 files natively through the NOS1, i.e. with no DAP to take them to 24/384. If DAP is applied, the sound gets brighter and looses some of it's bottom end weight.

So, just to conclude: vinyl = NOS1 (at 24/192 with no upsampling) = Model Two (at 24/192 with no upsampling)... with these 24/192 files.

I'm absolutley over the moon with the sound I'm getting from the NOS1 playing these files back.

Mani.

[pedal]

Interesting.

I did a quick comparison between Adaptive mode and Special mode, and I think that Special sounded slightly darker. It was done at the end of a long listening session on Sunday, so I didn't have time to double check it. Did you try this, Mani?

[boleary]

You guys may find a fuller mid and bottom end by setting your sfs.ini to 00 and then reducing your SFS. Just a suggestion. Great to hear how the NOS1 compares to your Pacific Microsonics Mani. Has the NOS1 changed at all regarding upsampling 16/44 material?

[christoffe]

Yesterday I started my quest to digitise all my vinyl records.

Hello Mani,

may I know the equipment (brands) and software you are working with?

Thank you

best

Joachim

[Gerard]

Maybe a good idear to do both? 

Meaning 16/44.1 and 24/192. It is just a little more extra time ( I think ) When Peter comes up with 768 maybe  you prefer it over 24/192 than you need to start all over again.

 

Yesterday I started my quest to digitise all my vinyl records. The idea is to firstly thoroughly clean (using 'Disc Doctor' liquid and a Loricraft cleaning machine) and then record 7 records per week. I have ~5000 records, so it's gonna take me a while!

I've spent the weekend comparing various formats because I want to choose a single consistent format for all the files. The size of the files isn't really important as I have a large NAS, and can easily increase the capacity when needed. One consideration though is the ability to stream these files wirelessly around the house - my current wireless router just about handles 16/44.1 OK.

But my main criterion is of course SQ with the NOS1. To this end, I've been listening and comparing various recorded formats through the NOS1 and comparing to the original vinyl. And I've decided to go for 24/192 files. Through the NOS1, these sound indistinguishable from the original vinyl. With these files, the NOS1 and the Model Two sound pretty much identical.

But there is one interesting thing that I discovered. It is 'better' to play these 24/192 files natively through the NOS1, i.e. with no DAP to take them to 24/384. If DAP is applied, the sound gets brighter and looses some of it's bottom end weight.

So, just to conclude: vinyl = NOS1 (at 24/192 with no upsampling) = Model Two (at 24/192 with no upsampling)... with these 24/192 files.

I'm absolutley over the moon with the sound I'm getting from the NOS1 playing these files back.

Mani.

[Flecko]

You guys may find a fuller mid and bottom end by setting your sfs.ini to 00 and then reducing your SFS. Just a suggestion.

You are right (and I think it was you that suggested that from the beginning), I was using first 21,150; then 01,150; then 10,150 and now 00,100. Best option at the moment.

[manisandher]

I did a quick comparison between Adaptive mode and Special mode, and I think that Special sounded slightly darker. It was done at the end of a long listening session on Sunday, so I didn't have time to double check it. Did you try this, Mani?

Yep, I tried Special a week or so ago. I can get down to 2 samples totally glitchless! Amazing. I'm not sure about 'darker'.  Maybe that's correct. But I'd describe it as sounding more 'rounded' to me.

In any event, I prefer Adaptive at 1024... like I always have.

Mani.

[manisandher]

You guys may find a fuller mid and bottom end by setting your sfs.ini to 00 and then reducing your SFS. Just a suggestion.

Thanks boleary. I think this could definitely help when using AP with the NOS1.

Great to hear how the NOS1 compares to your Pacific Microsonics Mani. Has the NOS1 changed at all regarding upsampling 16/44 material?

Well, I have a tentative theory that's actually been brewing for quite a while now (>1 year) and that has only been supported by having the NOS1 to play with. My theory is that all oversampling/upsampling (i.e. filtering) performed in the digital domain is bad. And this includes Arc Prediction. BUT... AP does the least damage of all the filtering methods I've tried (in HW and SW). But it still seems to change the sound. Leading edges are over-emphasized and I'm sure extra HF content is 'created' that may not be there in the original analogue. But AP is so much better than any of the old FIR-type filters or the newer 'sinc' filters found in all oversampling DACs (and in all upsampling SW)... these simply kill the sound IME.

You know, I would love to be able to report that the NOS1 with 8xAP applied to 16/44.1 is just perfect. BUT that's simply not how I'm hearing it.

However, in the last couple of days, I've proved to myself that the NOS1 with 'properly' recorded 24/192 (which actually includes analogue filtering by the ADC) and no additional upsampling/filtering is as close to perfect as I need.

Mani.

[manisandher]

... may I know the equipment (brands) and software you are working with?

Hi Joachim. Here's my total chain:

Technics SP-10MKII (mounted on a solid metal plinth, which itself is mounted securely to a supporting brick wall)
SME 3009II (pre-improved)
Denon 103 (on high mass headshell) with Kimber armtube cabling (no connectors from cartridge to phono stage)
AQVOX phono stage (using moving coil balanced input)
Analysis Plus Solo Crystal XLR cables
Pacific Microsonics Model Two (no digital or analogue attenuation or gain)
Pacific Microsonics AES cables (with ground-loop isolators built in)
Weiss AFI1
Belkin firewire cable (with power wires disconnected)

At the moment I'm using Sony's 'Audio Studio' software. This costs €30 from Amazon! I have no idea how well it compares to professional software, but I can say that using the Weiss's ASIO drivers, Audio Studio is good enough to capture 24/192 files that I cannot distinguish from the original vinyl source.

If you're thinking of doing something similar, I'm happy to help in any way I can.

Mani.

[manisandher]

Maybe a good idear to do both? 

Meaning 16/44.1 and 24/192. It is just a little more extra time ( I think ) When Peter comes up with 768 maybe  you prefer it over 24/192 than you need to start all over again.

At the moment, I have the ability to apply 2xAP to upsample 24/192 up to 24/384. If/when Peter comes up with 768, I'll have the ability to tp apply 4xAP to upsample 24/192 to 24/768. I won't need to start all over!

However, I don't like what 2xAP is doing to my 24/192 files - it's changing the sound. And they sound absolutely fine through the NOS1 with no upsampling whatsoever.

Mani.

PS. I've found a way to stream these 24/192 files over my wireless network.

[PeterSt]

Hi Mani,

Well, I have a tentative theory that's actually been brewing for quite a while now (>1 year) and that has only been supported by having the NOS1 to play with. My theory is that all oversampling/upsampling (i.e. filtering) performed in the digital domain is bad. And this includes Arc Prediction. BUT... AP does the least damage of all the filtering methods I've tried (in HW and SW).

Although for the general statement you are correct, for the specifics you can not be.
This at least counts for 16/44.1 material which just doesn't contain enough sample points to be right. But please don't fall into obvious pitfalls here;

When you use any random DAC which is not explicitly NOS (the very first were NOS too but not much recognized as such), there's always something in the DAC which "upsamples". However, as you know this this the actual filtering, or better : the means to allow for filtering. So, without upsampling no filtering is possible.
Now, I will confuse you by turning this the other way around : the filtering as we know it (like FIR, PIR) is *explicit* filtering. That is, software changes the wave shapes and you could say that it "filters out" the wrongnesses. This is not what Arc Prediction does; AP merely upsamples only (so, now we could talk about explicit upsampling instead of filtering), but because upsampling will need a proper interpolation means, it does that in the mean time. And that by itself (when done right) acts as the filter again, altyhough nothing is explicitly filtered.

To put this all in other words : when it would be so that even for 16/44.1 AP upsampling makes it worse, well, you would say that vanilla 16/44.1 sounds the best.
Do, do you ?
Nah, I don't think so, and which is in between the lines in your post I just quoted from. But, it may be good to realize that it is not this black and white.

Similarly we must be careful when I say that I even like 192 to be upsampled to 384. First of all, I wouldn't be playing any poor hires so it is not about that. Thus, only the good ones are in for judgement, but now think further what the good ones will be ... This will again be unfiltered results from whatever recording (could be masters), and theoretically they'd need filtering again !! But, only for content which would be there beyond 96KHz, so it is a kind of far sought;

When I'd have done my own hires recordings - and did that the best way possible, I would never "upsample" that again.

All 'n all I hope it is clear that "upsampling" should be done on 16/44.1 definitely (when playing on real NOS), and the more of it, the better it will be. BUT, only when the first step of it is for the better to begin with (and something like SoX is not).
Uhm, "the better it will be" ? this is not per definition true, because here too (AP), the more upsampling is applied, the less the smaller squares will stay like that (when intended of course). So, there's a tradeoff somewhere (and it is a subject I can't deal with well, unless higher frequencies are dealt with differently from lower ones).

Leading edges are over-emphasized and I'm sure extra HF content is 'created' that may not be there in the original analogue.

Although undoubtedly this will be the case, be careful that you don't judge too soon. Not to undermine your findings, but you *are* too soon to really judge;
I'd say your second break-in period is just about to begin. Give it two more weeks and then it's okay to judge this (and your findings will most probably not differ, but still).

You know, I would love to be able to report that the NOS1 with 8xAP applied to 16/44.1 is just perfect. BUT that's simply not how I'm hearing it.

Simple ... it can't be so. It can be better than (wrongish) native hi-res, it will be better than not applying anything at all, but let's not forget : it is not real.


One last thing maybe ...
Before people will think that comparing (with) vinyl is a measure, IMHetc.O it is not. Of course, a DAC should be able to do that in the first place or oterwise it's "nothing" to our standards. But I think we must be careful when it's taken for an absolute quality measure. There is so much less dynamics in vinyl, sub-low is not possible and all sounds gray-ish to begin with - that it just would not be justified to say "my vinyl sounds the same, so now I have a decent DAC". Oh, I love to hear it from the NOS1 obviously, but I never have been a commercial guy much, and if I (or we) were trying to mimic vinyl, I'd better had made a fine turntable or something.
I hear people say "but if you'd listen to my rig !" ... yes. And you just as well may be right, but then I didn't hear it. The only thing I base this upon (apart from my own poor turntabe) is the getting togethers which are organized each year here, ahead of that mr. Van den Hul, with the finest turntables and cartridges, and really it is nowhere. Still my personal opinion, but just as well something to maybe hunt for. Don't blame me when I'm wrong afterall, but it is unimagineable, the distance being soo large.

Well, let's say all of the above is for some perspective. I'm trying to learn as much as I can myself.
Peter

[manisandher]

Hi Peter, I think we're pretty much in agreement. But let me just clarify a few points.

To put this all in other words : when it would be so that even for 16/44.1 AP upsampling makes it worse, well, you would say that vanilla 16/44.1 sounds the best.

No, absolutely not. Vanilla 16/44.1 is headache-inducing and simply needs upsampling.

Similarly we must be careful when I say that I even like 192 to be upsampled to 384.

Your graphs are interesting here. Your 8x graphs are actually identical to the 4x graphs (due to the limitations of the ADC). No doubt the 'real' 8x graphs would be better, but I think 4x is already good. My point is that additional upsampling of my native 24/192 seems to do more harm than good. I'm not sure, but I think that an analogue filter is applied by the Model Two during the ADC. For ADCs that don't do this, I can see how upsampling even 24/192 would be beneficial.

All 'n all I hope it is clear that "upsampling" should be done on 16/44.1 definitely (when playing on real NOS), and the more of it, the better it will be.

Yes, I agree 100%. For 16/44.1 material, I use 8x AP.

I'd say your second break-in period is just about to begin. Give it two more weeks and then it's okay to judge this (and your findings will most probably not differ, but still).

Yes, and why I called this post 'Round 1'. I want 'Round 2 to begin as of tomorrow and 'Round 3' in a few weeks time. But I have to say that the NOS1 already sounds great with my 24/192 recordings (with no upsampling)... although 16/44.1 with 8xAP still sounds a little edgy.

Before people will think that comparing (with) vinyl is a measure, IMHetc.O it is not. Of course, a DAC should be able to do that in the first place or oterwise it's "nothing" to our standards. But I think we must be careful when it's taken for an absolute quality measure.

You've hit the nail right on the head here. I'm definitely not using my vinyl rig as an absolute quality measure. Like you, my feeling is that a DAC should be able to replay my recordings and exactly match my vinyl rig with total ease - adding nothing and taking nothing away. Hell, the dynamics aren't great and the freq response is limited... And yet, most of the DACs I've tried simply can't do this. The NOS1 can, and the Model Two can. So, they've passed the 'entrance exam' in my eyes, that's all.

EDIT: You know, it's so easy to get fooled into thinking that something sounds great, when it's actually just adding more HF or LF, or whatever. Using my vinyl rig as a reference against which to compare is just like using a 'control' in a scientific experiment.

As always, thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts Peter.

Mani.

[Flecko]

Before people will think that comparing (with) vinyl is a measure, IMHetc.O it is not. Of course, a DAC should be able to do that in the first place or oterwise it's "nothing" to our standards. But I think we must be careful when it's taken for an absolute quality measure.

A few years ago I was buying a lot of vinyls, and every time I bought a new LP, I recorded it with my PC as 44.1/16bit wav. As I stopped listening to vinyl, I burned the files to DVD's as wav. I picked out one of them last week to look if the DVD's are still working. I didn't listen to them since years and I expected a bad quality from them. But I got surprised. The sound is realy good. No digital sound at all. Full bass and an involving easy sound. I would say it sounds very much as I remember listening to the original vinyl. There are three conclusions I would draw from here.
1.: If you record a vinyl it should still sound like a vinyl if you play them with your pc->So this would be a valid test for your system
2.: Something is wrong with the digital source material we get. There are some very good cd's but also a lot of CD's sound digital. Somewhere, someone does not care and messes up the sound of the production.
3.: Do not trouble to much by recording vinyl with 24bit/192kHz. Why do you want to record the 96kHz noise or use ~144db dynamic range for ~60db dynamic range that you already have covered with 16bit (~95db)?

[PeterSt]

What "we" found out so far :

1. most certainly is true.

Therefore

2. most certainly is also true (and prooved by myself and own recordings; Mani did similar with his recordings from vinyl);

but

3. would be true only when 16/44.1 is so close (with our playback means) to hires, that higher res is near useless.
My standpoint will be clear by now, and I am the most happy that I'm not confronted by the fact that so few hires is there, while at the same time there's more redbook than we'll ever be able to listen to.
But I guess I will be recording in 24/192 anyway - when it where for archiving my vinyl.


The most funny conclusion of it all is that it doesn't take a vinyl rig at all to listen again to that wonderful analogue sound. If it only has been recorded from it, and most probably the only thing it needs is NOT an official instance to do it. If you do it yourself you wouldn't know what to destroy, and therefore won't.

If you could only listen to my own recording on my own system in the middle of those 1000s of good CDs. A few people did and like me heard that the difference is miles and miles and miles. To-tal-ly unbelieveable. I would say that the playback system for that may matter, but relatively "nothing" to the recording itself. And may it be my recording capabilities (which I have done exactly ONE time (that one)), I better seek money in that as a job. Haha.

2c

[Flecko]

But I guess I will be recording in 24/192 anyway - when it where for archiving my vinyl.

I can understand. Sure is sure (sicher ist sicher)

The most funny conclusion of it all is that it doesn't take a vinyl rig at all to listen again to that wonderful analogue sound. If it only has been recorded from it, and most probably the only thing it needs is NOT an official instance to do it. If you do it yourself you wouldn't know what to destroy, and therefore won't.

Yes, I must smile reading this. You could create a digital "Vinyl Filter" to make xx sound like vinyl again, just for fun.

I would say that the playback system for that may matter, but relatively "nothing" to the recording itself

I think so!

[manisandher]

But I guess I will be recording in 24/192 anyway - when it where for archiving my vinyl.

I can understand. Sure is sure (sicher ist sicher)

Yes, this is certainly one reason.

But another is because of my findings over the weekend. HOWEVER... I may have begun the testing a week or so too early - I have the NOS1 playing in the background right now and I think its metamorphosis into the 'World's Best DAC' really is starting to happen... and this is with 16/44.1 and 8xAP.

I think it's ready for 'Round 2'...

Mani.

[PeterSt]

Don't placebo yourself by the exact 14 days which have passed for you today ...

[christoffe]

Don't placebo yourself by the exact 14 days which have passed for you today ...

Hello Peter,

4xArcPrediction has at present more timbre and body than 8xArcPrediction.

best

Joachim

[manisandher]

Don't placebo yourself by the exact 14 days which have passed for you today ...

Absolutey no chance of this... it will be exactly 14 days tomorrow, not today

Mani.

[manisandher]

4xArcPrediction has at present more timbre and body than 8xArcPrediction.

I think this will always be the case. But maybe the NOS1 will continue to 'bloom out' and at some point perhaps 4xAP will start sounding too full...?

Mani.