NOS DAC - Marketing BS? - Page 11

No. I have provided scope traces that indicate superiorities of NOS over OS. It seems that somewhere along the line these OS guys decided that these measurements are not as important to the sound as the measurements that support their views, though none has had the balls to come out and say it. Convenient. From the beginning I have said that there are things that each does better than the other, and that I prefer to keep the things that NOS does better than OS, and give up the things that it doesn't in return. They said I could have a free lunch with OS, yet the traces tell a different story.

Meanwhile, ben fantasizes about running ABX tests with 'preprocessed' data.

Who is being rational here?

Dan, thank you for noting the high frequency energy passed on to following equiptment, I am aware of that, but had forgotten to include it in my summation above.

You provided scope traces from an ADC. This is a discussion of DACs. While that's an interesting ADC, I'm not sure what it has to do with the discussion.

The first one!

I do not think you know what you are doing. What is your background? Where are those measurements, and what was the setup. What you said is not just a little off, it is way off! Totally wrong! Such as did you use a broken OS DA? Did you put the scope ground in the wrong place?

I assumed that you do not commercial interests to post such wrong information. But then you said:
"It seems that somewhere along the line these OS guys decided that these measurements are not as important to the sound as the measurements that support their views, though none has had the balls to come out and say it".

I would say you are not only dead wrong, you makes suggestions out of mid air, that are completely wrong(!), derogatory and very misleading. That is the sort of attacks is the garbage I expect from folks with commercial motivation. So I am asking you openly - do you have commercial motivation to promote NOS?

I assumed that you do not commercial interests to post such wrong information. But then you said:
"It seems that somewhere along the line these OS guys decided that these measurements are not as important to the sound as the measurements that support their views, though none has had the balls to come out and say it".

I would say you are not only dead wrong, you makes suggestions out of mid air, that are completely wrong(!), derogatory and very misleading. That is the sort of attacks is the garbage I expect from folks with commercial motivation. So I am asking you openly - do you have commercial motivation to promote NOS?

I expect an answer, but regardless to how you answer, I do have the balls to say that your statements are wrong, and so are you "findings", totally out to lunch! And based on what you said, you do not have even the most basic and fundamental knowhow or qualifications to properly measure gear.

On behalf of my friends and colligues (engineers at Analog Devices, AKM, TI, Phillips and more) I can not let such slender stand. You are suggesting that over 20 years of developments by many serious proffesionals around the world, resulting in major advances, inventions and innovations are based on - "these OS guys decided that these measurements are not as important to the sound as the measurements that support their views, though none has had the balls to come out and say it."

And who are you to say such stuff about so many hard working, and some are very competent engineers, and life times of dedicated work?

Dan Lavry
Lavry Engineering

Your links are meaningless on the basis that they're meant to prove a conclusion invalid due to a misunderstanding of the fundamentals.

edit: I didn't see Dan's post, chopping this short.

I do not sell audio equiptment, Dan.

You do.

lol.

Well, these measurements are indeed pretty much irrelevant. The terrible scope traces for the filterless NOS tda1543 just prove Mr Lavry's points: the sine is perfectly reconstructed by the DF1704+pcm1704 system, not by the the NOS ones.

I suggest the reading of those threads, preferably only the posts by werner:
why is oversampling in CD players considered bad? - diyAudio
CD square wave pre-ringing a filter problem? - diyAudio

Here is the conclusion of the website you quoted:
"Now some people say, that a music is entirely composed of sinewaves and a ringing step response does not pose any problem, as there are no steps in music.

Other people argue, that every note played and every drum hit represents a step, and if this step is bandlimited, it will be smeared over time (ring) causing audible distortion."

Due to recording techniques (ADC's anti aliasing filters...), the steps will indeed be bandlimited before even landing on your cd and thus no ringing can make it to the output sine. All this worry about pre-ringing is moot for 99.9999% of the CDs money can buy. The redbook format will not play correctly signal above 20khz indeed but it doesn't matter to the DAC maker. His job is not to change the way recordings are made but to play existing materials.

If you were asking my point of view, the Altmann 's website is one big sick joke for gullible audiophiles.

PS: before I get tagged as NOS-hater: I've got a cdp I modded years ago to turn it into a NOS tda1545, with an open loop discrete I/V. It sounds decent. I don't try to rationalize it as "technically better", I just accepted that - maybe - its distortion pattern pleased my ear.

I would like to say, all the NOS love around here made me worried if something could beat my Buffalo32s with a Sabre32 chip. I now feel comfortable on the fact that NOS may have been the best and ever superior to the first OS designs but now the chips are greatly designed and proponents of NOS are just cheap or lazy to upgrade their designs. Or they use tubes as an output stage and go strictly upon the sound of coloration which is the transducer or sometimes amp's job. Cleared up my worry thanks

That's all you have? Just admit you haven't a leg to stand on, that everything you've brought up is in fact the worst tripe of pseudoscience.

You also have to admit, that given your elementary understanding of digital information theory, it's easy to see why one would assume you're either in marketing, or are otherwise employed as a shill.

I prefer NOS as well.

You amuse me, that's all.

All well and good, I assume at this point that you concede and your only possible rational for why you feel NOS is superior is do to the fact that you enjoy distortion?

Thing is... I don't "prefer" NOS per se. It was an experiment that turned quite ok for the price invested (less than 100€ total).

I'm currently working on my new DAC. It uses a src1492 (upsampling from 44.1khz/16bits to 96khz/24bits) followed by a pcm1798 (8x oversampling). I/V done by opamps (servoed opa1632). Quite the opposite of a NOS philosophy and this is where I put my money.

You're fantasizing again, can we stay on topic rather than discussing our imagined motivations of those that disagree with us?

Or not?