Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › NOS DAC - Marketing BS?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NOS DAC - Marketing BS? - Page 20

post #286 of 311
2/15/10 at 3:37pm
To contrast Lavry, I dont sell NOS DACs, but I do recommend them, including the VALAB and the Chamelion.

The thing that makes NOS DACS good is the lack of digital filtering, and minimal analog filtering. Most systems filter enough by themselves.

The bad thing about NOS DACs is that they dont support 24-bit or hi-res, another thing that Lavry believes is overkill based on his white-paper.

I happen to believe that eliminating or reducing the effects of digital filtering and going to higher resolutions are both beneficial. I designed my Overdrive DAC, which just got "best USB DAC" in TAS Feb. Issue, with this in mind. This result is due to these things, plus low jitter.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio
Reply
post #287 of 311
2/15/10 at 3:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverCans View Post
Has anyone taken a scope pic of the output of a NOS dac playing a 1khz signal and compared to an OS dac? The NOS output isnt pretty.
So, do you sit and stare at a scope when you play music, or do you use your ears??
Reply
post #288 of 311
2/15/10 at 3:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by googleborg View Post
is this why my Valab NOS dac doesn't seem to be able to produce anything over 16k? i know i can definately hear over 16k, it's lovely and painful, but through my valab i get an odd sound going down until about 16k where a high pitch emerges.

gonna run a test now between analogue out form my pc and via the valab...

Based on feedback from my customers, you may find that upsampling your files to 20-bits sounds better on the VALAB.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio
Reply
post #289 of 311
3/9/10 at 11:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverCans View Post
Has anyone taken a scope pic of the output of a NOS dac playing a 1khz signal and compared to an OS dac? The NOS output isnt pretty.
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f7/val...ml#post5483734

there is my old post showing NOS sine waves measured on my CRO.

PS. Still absolutely love my Non Over Sampling TDA1541. I can listen for hours without fatigue. I cant do that with any other DAC.
Reply
post #290 of 311
3/10/10 at 10:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingStyles View Post
all dacs are probably are doing a little upsampling even if it is just x2.
oops, looks like I missed this thread entirely...anyway, I still stand by my original quote in the OP...read the datasheets for the DAC chips that are in those "NOS" boxes, they all run through a mandatory OS. true "NOS" would sound horrid, you can't quite run a DAC stage w/o OS altogether.

and the stellar post-filtering done within the AK4396(and the newer AKM chips) is just as good as it gets..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Lavry View Post
You can call my argument "dogmatic" or "catmatic"


this said, I'd like to hear the PCM1704...but I guess that the waveforms in that link are also bs? Mother of Tone - Conversion Techniques

what's supposed to filter all the noise on delta/sigma DAC outputs? LPF opamps?
Reply
post #291 of 311
3/10/10 at 10:49am

What a horrible signal!

Quote:
Originally Posted by erin View Post
There is my old post showing NOS sine waves measured on my CRO.
The resulting signal is no surprise. This has nothing to do with HiFi, rather with a wild conglomeration of different fragmented particles of a completely uncontrolled sound synthesis. I wouldn't trust my ears, no matter if it sounds "good". It is really unbelievable that someone can have fun with mutilated music.
Reply
post #292 of 311
3/10/10 at 11:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcousticDreams View Post
I wouldn't trust my ears
that's the problem! real ppl don't listen to oscilloscopes yada yada
Reply
post #293 of 311
3/10/10 at 11:27am
Google Translate
Quote:
Flemming Rasmussen's Gryphon Mikado uses AKM DACs. With AKM's latest-gen 32-bit 4397 DAC, so does Esoteric in their new D-05 converter. As does Alex Peychev in his Esoteric-based, massively paralleled APL Audio NWO universal machines. In August of 2006, Peychev clarified that while "the Transporter has one physical DAC, it equals two DACs per channel. Each AK4396 (which is the current top-line AKM 'miracle' DAC) has two outputs per channel. One is 0 and the other is at -180-degree, aka differential or 'true balanced'. Since the Transporter uses both outputs of the DAC chips, this equals 2 DACs per channel. Being AKM's flagship part, this DAC has up to 10 times less out-of-band noise compared to anything similar on the market today. It also has the capability to accept a 216KHz sample rate while keeping the same digital filter oversampling rate and the same speed of the modulator."

Richard Kulavik of AKM Semiconductors explained it this way : "This DAC is a large departure from other delta-sigma DACs designed by us and others like BurrBrown, Analog Devices and Cirrus Logic. The AK4396 is an entirely new modulator, pioneered and patented by AKM. It achieves something unique. In the past, many of the old Phillips and BurrBrown parts were R-2R* based products. These older products were looked upon as some of the best. One of the reasons was high frequency noise. In older R-2R parts, HF noise was not present. In all delta-sigma parts prior to the AK4396, everyone has fought HF noise caused from the delta-sigma modulator with the insertion of large filters and other parts to attempt to solve a problem created by the delta-sigma design. The AK4396 today effectively does not suffer any modulator-induced HF noise and is over 60dB better than the nearest Cirrus and BB devices. All of this HF noise can cause many audible artifacts downstream. That is the 'miracle' we believe is making the difference today. This part gives you the performance and linearity of a delta-sigma device with the noise performance of an R-2R part, something that was never previously available.
Reply
post #294 of 311
3/10/10 at 11:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeperry View Post
That's the problem! Real ppl don't listen to oscilloscopes.
That's no argument, only polemic and totally wrong. Nothing can repair a broken signal.
Reply
post #295 of 311
3/10/10 at 11:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcousticDreams View Post
That's no argument, only polemic and totally wrong.
O RLY? yet, they've managed to fill 20 pages w/ it.

and anyway, this link tries to prove that the opamps used as DAC LPF or I/V will change the sound far more than the DAC chip itself ever will: http://forum.rightmark.org/topic.cgi?id=4:504-3
Quote:
Everybody -in different locations, at different times, without knowing from each other- told the same story, that they found the differences between opamps more important than the differences in dac chips.
Reply
post #296 of 311
3/12/10 at 2:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingStyles View Post
It sounds like someone that just likes the qualities that a nos dac exhibits and also realizing what has been discussed here that the specs of a os dac are usaly superior. He never stated that it was technically better according to stats. He just realized it sounded better to his ears. To each there own. Nos dacs are just a different flavor that some people like and some dont. I would agree with Dan that you wont find a nos dac in a recording studio because they need the most analytical, detailed, and transparent sound they can get to dissect and edit the audio. Those qualities are the strengths of the os family. I know personally that I wouldnt think that I would want to listen to my music on a studio quality setup.The appeal of completely neutral, transparent, overly detailed presentation does not appeal to my personal taste. The nos dac is for the average audiophile who just wants to enjoy there music to a more natural presentation. It doesnt mean that an os dac cant do this either. Its just a nos dac is a different flavor like tubes or ss amps, beyer or sennheiser, os or nos. It does what it does and you like it or you dont.
I totally agree with you.
Reply
post #297 of 311
3/13/10 at 12:39am
People like cheap tube amps as well and there are people who even prefer the distortion from mp3s.

Interesting stuff about the AK4396. The first time I listened with a D-05 in the chain was when I first tried a Stax rig. It was quite impressive. I've been meaning to drag my Ref 1 along to the local Stax dealer to compare them for a while now.
Reply
post #298 of 311
4/20/10 at 8:02pm
Haha man, I leave head-fi for like 3-4 years and in the meantime it turns out my amp (SP) was built by a fraud and my (ack) dac is supposedly sub-par.



I enjoy the sound of both greatly, but I am interested in what a "proper" dac + a "proper" solid state amp would provide. Meh, I'll just have to get a dac+amp combo to check it out.
Reply
post #299 of 311
4/20/10 at 10:36pm
Quote:
Haha man, I leave head-fi for like 3-4 years and in the meantime it turns out my amp (SP) was built by a fraud and my (ack) dac is supposedly sub-par.
And they say two negatives dont make a positive. It must have great synergy.
Reply
post #300 of 311
4/21/10 at 4:04am
So what is going on?

Is it that some people like a little high end cut-off?

Is it that some people perceive that extra high frequency energy positively? Most people cannot hear at 22KHz and even if they do they probably can't discern anything of it. It would just be some high frequency energy that for whatever reason is pleasant when mixed with music.

Is there really a NOS DAC? Is the 1704 really a NOS DAC?

Those of you with AK4396 based DACs can you say that it sounds better than any other DAC you've heard and if so in particularly which areas?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › NOS DAC - Marketing BS?