XXHighEnd

Until now I have been advicing NOS1 requests for useage with a Mac to wait until a player was known with decent upsampling facilities. Well, I spent some time on this and by now I can tell you that at least two players exist which fulfill the needs ...

It was only yesterday I was about to publically anounce that the NOS1-USB would not be sold to Mac users. I tried Fidelia and I tried iTunes, and it was totaoly unacceptable. Nobody would dig *that*. Ok, it may depend on what you're used to, but this is still not a real commercial thing, and merely something which would make people really the most happy. And somehow this starts by myself ...

It is good to know once again that the NOS1 for 100% depends on decent filtering means outside of the DAC. And remember, this is because now we can choose the best, without the DAC herself ever interfering. But does it not exist, outside my own Arc Prediction ?
At the moment of actually having given up on it, I decided to download Audirvana. A free player. Open source, but actually run by a single person as far as I can see. And suddenly it totally worked. Heck, if I had to listen to this forever I would do it; Throughout the 3 hours or so I could run my familiar test albums I could only detect a few anomalies not there otherwise. I dedicate that to the lower output sample rate available for the Mac, and in the mean time I have some pretty good ideas about how to attack that. 24/384 must be possible; maybe 24/768.

Of much greater interest is that I "learned" how to select a player by measurement. Oh :yes: This is how I learned today how that super-sh*t (really !) Fidelia actually can sound good just the same. Theoretically (measurements) even better, but that really needs 384 ( 352.8 ). All is about the filtering ...
And mind you, I'm in the stage of at least finding Audirvana to be better net than XXHighEnd. This should be, because of the better filter response I see. Maybe a tad less detail, but mostly you/we/me wouldn't care about that (there are such spades of that already).

That Audirvana has far less of the anomalies other players have is one thing, but that it behaves very well regarding the used resources is a thing to my heart (of course). It can be improved on some aspects, but who cares.

What was key for me to be playing by means of Audirvana right now is the bass. It seems to behave the same as via XXHighEnd, and for me good bass is crucial. So, measures less good, but sounds better (than Fidelia), at this moment.

The other way around counts too; all the really super-sh*t I perceived yesterday is plainly measureable. I mean, if an impulse (which is from zero to full scale and back to zero) comes out as a 100% sine (which is from full scale plus to full scale minus), yes, that makes it 100% wihout any life. Dull. No snap. No highs. Zzzzooming at all frequencies. Ear-damaging. I'm serious. It needs playback of 20dB or whatever less. The crux is to have a filter which sustains the impulse as good as possible while in the mean time there's no high frequency stuff beyond the audio band which shouldn't be there. The former is the far most important, while the latter is debatable.

In any event, go for it !!
Peter

Great to hear that Peter ;
I will be grateful if you could explore some software for linux also , if possible . I think there are some possibilities there .

Thanks ,

Stefano

After a quick tour on Ubuntu , I am not really sure there will be options for a good player there anymore ... :-)
(pardon the offtopic)

I have a few questions:

1. Are you running 44.1 with Audirvana? As far as I know, Audirvana does not do any filtering if we do not choose upsampling.

2. What is so special about Audirvana compared to your Arc Prediction?

3. Are you running OSX 10.6 or 10.7?

4. Does Phasure NOS1 support integer mode?

Thanks!

adyc, excellent questions!  I was just going to ping Peter about this as well.  I am A/B'ing Fidelia and Audirvana right now with my LIO-8 DAC.  Audirvana supports integer mode with the LIO-8 while Pure Music and Fidelia do not at this point.  AKAIK, with the advanced license copy of Fidelia you can adjust the filtering/upsampling while with Audirvana you cannot.  I don't believe integer mode works yet with Lion (10.7).  I am running 10.6 on my MM music server for that reason.

Really glad to see Peter's progress with OSX as I really believe it deserves to be compatible with the NOS1.

I really can't tell about integer mode because of using 10.7 (and 10.6 wasn't saved to fall back on). But on another note I think integer mode isn't so important at all (if at all).

Without any licensed version of Fidelia all filtering modes can be active (I'm just doing that), and with Audirvana they can be anyway.
But indeed I'm talking about upsampling - if you per se want to name it like that. For the NOS1 it is filtering, and it needs that (the better, the better the sound).

Re your question #2 :
That Audio Midi's "best" setting almost beats all of the others by quite a marging (just measuring). This is the story within Apple. With regard to Arc Prediction it is more difficult, because Arc Prediction sustains 100% of the Impulse Response, but has energy beyond the audio band (is that bad ? - it depends). The good filtering means have not, but leave nothing of the Impulse response. Well, Fidelia (with Izotope) does that the best, but isn't all that good as a player for aspects I'm always hunting (and which is very well audible). Audirvana is quite good at this, and the best tradeoff. Not much wrong with it net !

Does that help ?
Peter

Thanks for the answers. Audirvana provides Apple CoreAudio and SRC libSampleRate filtering.

1. Which filtering do you use for Audirvana for your evaluation?
2. Do you use 4x or 2x upsampling or Maximum sample rate upsampling?
3. Do you use any filtering with Audirvana when playing >= 88KHz music?

I am very curious as I am a Mac user and wants to buy Phasure NOS1 DAC. It seems that Phasure NOS1 DAC works best with XXHighEnd player. I am just wondering why or how Audirvana changes all that.

BTW, I use Audirvana with other DAC. It is indeed the best Mac music player out there.

Hi again Adyc,


Yes, I said AudioMidi. Should have said CoreAudio.

Upsampling is "4x or 2x" (for others, this is the "even" upsampling, opposed to uneven like from 44.1 to 192).


Haha, I'm glad I have some listening time in between jobs at all. But really, I did not try it. I guess I would not upsample that, if only I'd know the material is good. However, in 99% of cases it is not the case for 88.2 or 96. Well, that other story.


The real answer is, it doesn't. But, I'm now talking about the more smaller nuances which are not important anymore. This is because other things are far more important. I'm not sure I can give a decent example about this, but here's an attempt :

Suppose you listen to a random DAC, and this really can be anything, as long as it is not NOS. These DACs will behave very similar (on their filtering !) to all those filtering means we can choose from those players. Let's say you choose "Default" from Fedelia and you upsample 4x. Or just use iTunes which is really the same. This makes your music totally unrecognizeable because all is changed so much that it, well, becomes different music. Mind you, FOR ME. For you ? ah, you may perceive a slight difference at engaging those filters, because there's always your DAC. It will overrule to some extend, but it can't make destroyed things undone. So, looking at the impulse response ... when the player (like with those settings I mentioned) makes pure sines of what ever was a one sample transient into one direction (impulse), no DAC (filtering) is going to restore that into the original impulse. So, 100% not. But, the other way around, when the player spits out that impulse more or less in-tact, the DAC possibly destroys it again because of its own filtering means (when engaged at the higher sample rate), or it may leave it alone (still to some degree).

Still, and talking about Redbook of course, in theory there's hardly a chance of things being allright, because everything which is not a "Non Oversampling Filterless" DAC, just *will* destroy those transients because of its nature. And the nature is : reconstructing the (too low) 44.1KHz sample rate into something which we like to call analogue.

Still there ? Now, the crux is that when there's this NOS/Filterless DAC which is capable of the higher sample rates and bit depth, the software can do it all on its own. Nothing will interfere afterwards. Now, on to the matters of your question : what I can do (by now) is interpreting any other random filter on to what Arc Prediction makes of it. Thus, whether that is theoretically good or bad (energy beyond the audio band which is normally filtered out), it sounds the best, and thus it now can be a reference for choosing filters which come close to the "Arc Prediction behaviour". And that's how I did it in the end. Listening didn't work (I tried for hours and hours to find the right combination from the diverse players) and all was as bad as imagineable (remember, which is not worse that what you will be used to, so what's the real problem hehe) - but in the end I could just "see" it through the analyser, and I was even able to "re-do" Fidelia which I already had given up upon. It really worked in one go, although my partner found the sound somewhat too harsh from Fidelia (mind you, compared to what we're used to). For me this is logic (the resources thing which Fedelia is really bad at), so I switched back to Audirvana for the remainder of the evening (and really not feeling the need to hop over to Windows again).

Yesterday I have been working on this "measuring filter" theory again, and I planned to show it all with graphs in here. Sadly I still have a server down, so at this moment I'm not able to put up those graphs. Hopefully I will manage today. But I can promise you already that you will be shocked about the differences, and still music is coming from either. And I say it again, there is so, so much wrong with it all, that we must be glad to perceive music from it in the first place. And in the end it is about choosing the best tradeoff. Well, I will show it later.

Kind regards,
Peter

PS: You are the first on the "Mac" NOS1 list I put there with a good feeling !
(counts for the others as well now, but in retrospective :))

Thanks for your detail answers again. I guess one thing that Audirvana lose out to XXHighend is the volume control as XXHighend volume control is lossless. Anyway, I like to have a tube preamplifier sitting between dac and power amp.

Peter,

What do you think would be different between Audirvana, which uses Apple Core Audio and iTunes to make Audirvana so much better? 

Thanks!
Tim

Hi Tim,

Keep in mind please : I can only judge through the filtering needed for the NOS1. So, this is about what we tend to call "upsampling". Upsampling by itself is a dumn and useless thing (it never sounds better), unless it is used upon a Non-Oversampling DAC because raw 16/44.1 really can't go. Ok, half a world loves NOS because of its more pure and musical sound, but from the technical point of view it measures very poor. Proper means of upsampling makes NOS the best, and the key is in that "proper". Notice this is not done anywhere for this explicit reason (the DACs don't even exist), so it will be hard to find anything about it (unless it came from my hand).

Now, the first thing a player will fail upon (mind you, regarding this upsampling aspect) is that proper filtering. It is also to keep in mind that no upsampling means from players are made for this filtering, unless it is Arc Prediction as made for the NOS1, or HQPlayer from Miska who has a kind of the same ideas as I do, with the difference of him letting it loose on Oversampling DACs in order to overrule the filtering of those DACs (an OS DAC always contains the necessary filtering itself). That this is justified for cases one has to awaiten (it completely depends on the math within the DAC whether this works or not) is prooven by Arc Prediction itself which is used by nearly everyone, even after my advice not to use it. So, it ever arose within XXHighEnd for the NOS1, but people started using it anyway, and stuck with it.
This part concluded : When upsampling is explicitly setup as a filtering means, it really can work out to be better than doing nothing and leave it to your OS DACs. But the explicitly filtering players are rare.

Because it is a gadget or something, and merely because people are asking for it, players start to contain upsampling. Look at Bitperfect for example, where the developer really didn't intend to do it, while already now he is working on it because people ask. What will come from that ? well, something which upsamples. :)

A very imnportant notice is the fact that nobody is even able to judge the net outcome of the filter(ing). Why ? because the OS DAC does that again (by its own means, which actually is unknown). But I can, because the NOS1 can. So, software filters can be measured for their result, but while the analogue output of the DAC can be measured for the net result as well, it all becomes moot to create a filter while not knowing what any random DAC will do with it. The result might be better, it might be worse, it may be strange. Not so with the NOS1 (and it really is the only one allowing this) because it really doesn't do a thing and it just passes on the filtering done in-software. This doesn't mean the filter can be created in theory only to next look at its result from software only, because the DAC is still there to pass all on 100% or 50% or whatever, but since in the end it is an analogue device, it will change again to some degree.

Now it becomes "dangerous", because while a normal filter will degrade steep transients to saltless sines (this is just the general naturte of a filter), a filter which sustaints the transients may let the DAC choke on that because it can't follow. Now the real merits (of a DAC) come along, because any random DAC doesn't even *need*  to follow because it's fed with those saltless sines anyway.
Things now become more and more difficult, because a filter which sustains the steep transients, urges for a DAC to be able to follow. When not, sound will only get worse. Of course this is now talking the other way around, because first there is this fine DAC, and next a filter can be used that feeds it with fine data. But what I want to say and make clear is : this isn't just a matter of Audirvana being good or best or anything. It is about a best match while nothing (including Audirvana) is made for the job.
A convenient thing at choosing a proper filter, is that the NOS1 can take "infinitely all" so to speak. I mean, it has a slew rate on the output stage of 650V/us (micro second) (with only 2.25VRMS output) so it really can follow everything. That it will throws this "everything followed" at your amps is problem-next to carefully think about. Anyway, the NOS1 can be taken out of the equation looking at the behaviour of filters, and on this matter a software simulation would just do. Not that I do this, but it is a convenient thing at developing filters, knowing that they work out as simulated in software.
This part summarized (and not to forget) : The NOS1 is NOS/Filterless so the first prerequisite is fulfilled, and it is so overly fast that nothing is changed along the way. BUT, anything it is fed with which is "strange", is now followed just the same ...

Hopefully you start to see why the long story is necessary :
1. I know what test data I put in and how it should look like;
2. I can see the result of it and compare it with how it should look like (100% the same in the case of the NOS1);
3. I thus now can put that test data through any player and compare.

None of the players I judged so far come even close to what I want, but now it becomes more complex, because there is a tradeoff at play;
This is the filtering which *is* applied to all existing upsampling, just because of the way it is done. This by itself is a good thing, because it removes mirrors of the signal (the sound) beyond the audio band. Well, theoretically that is a good thing, with the notice that we officially can't hear it. Can't perceive it ? maybe, and this is a subject within itself. Anyway it doesn't belong there, because it is a false image of what plays *in* the audio band (say, 1Hz-20KHz). Arc Prediction doesn't remove that, but it sustains the transients for 100%.
The latter within itself is not explained in a small paragraph, because "100%" a. isn't in order because of upsampling and b. shouldn't even be in order because of the too low samplerate (remember, we're talking Redbook). So, things *are* flattened, but only because it is a necessary thing (remove the distortion coming from the digital stepping at the too low sample rate).
But look at this like a one sample long (short) transient from zero to full scale, which after 8x upsampling now has become 8 samples long. Still, however, in the time domain nothing changed, because where first the one sample took an amount of time (what about 1/44100 s) now that 8 samples take the same amount of time. So, still 100% good afterall, but not 100% the same as originally there.

The filter to choose will be the filter which resembles more or less that transient response we like so much. Ok, not that you will know it (although it could be from max 18 bits NOS DACs), but this really does the job were it about good sound. Ok, it is. :yes:

At last coming to the matters of your question, iTunes can't do better than making a pure (pure !) sine of 1 sample short pulses with 8 samples "no sound" in between. So, that transient going from zero to full scale (say 2V), repeatedly played with 8 samples nothing in between, turns out to be a sine going from -2V to +2V. A ratatatatat becomes a nice flute. This is what the filter made of it.
Further sticking to Audirvana only, this makes a distorted sound of it. Something like rata-fluuuut-ratata-fluuut-fluuut-ratatatat. Bad ?, well only to some degree. It sustains some transients, but at a lower frequency (the ratatat is only there once in the x samples). It now completely depends on the profound frequency in the music whether that's really audible as something we call "distortion". And as I said earlier, I can hear it here or there. But nothing I would prefer a Windows machine for, were I on a Mac and had to learn the Windows abouts (IOW, XXHighEnd still is better, and infinitely better for the theories on the transients). What it *is* about though, is the huge difference which can be achieved by being able to use this DAC in the first place. Because remember (and believe me) any other DAC will fluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut only. And hey, use iTunes and you won't know the difference anyway.

Dizzy ? probably. Anyway, the lesson I learned myself is that once there's some ratatat left in the result, it really starts to sound like how the music is to be. This "some" really is "some" and not all that much more. But when there's nothing (like iTunes) it's totally sh*t. Here too I must add somee precaution;
The fact that iTunes shows exactly nothing of any transient I put in, does not tell it does nothing all the way. I mean, suppose I wouldn't have 8 samples of silence but 24, something might still be at work, depending on the "length" of the filter. On this matter, think of filters as averaging things, and that they -briefly said- average the samples over a longer period of time in order to come to the net result of the one sample output. But it also works the other way around : if my 8 samples silence were degreased to 1, all will become a further mess by using a filter which really can't cope, and a song within a song might emerge. Notice that at one sample space the frequency of it is 22050Hz (you will understand that), so my 8 samples space is really something in the audible area. Also, if you have followed my several stories about how improvement on the NOS1 always is about On-Off sound and how foremost synth music is needed to judge that, you will now understand why. This transient stuff is about On/Off all the way, and iTunes makes flutes of everything. But so do OS DACs, or IOW iTunes can't be *that* bad.

I hope it is clear that this can't be an absolute judgement about player software. The allowed (choices of) filtering is the importance here, and it really is not a normal application.
Also, I am not finished with judging it all, plus I have not much time for it. But at least I am 100% confident that all is good to go for the NOS1, and I seriously could listen to Audirvana forever if my Windows machines broke down. I hope his tells enough.

Peter

Well, if you have read my previous post, I can assure you this is not important. So, it would be top of the bill when first everything else is 100%, which it really is not. Now this won't do a thing (relatively speaking).

By the time you sure will try it without preamp (which is the advice, also for the Mac) and you will be able to judge for yourself. But my story : never use any preamp because it can only kill and it will never be able to improve. That is, not when the DAC is made to drive long interlinks, which the NOS1 is.
Might you have missed it, not even one $10 resistor made for the job will be any good. The sound is "dead" immediately. But you will see ... :)

Peter

Thanks for the detailed explanation Peter.  I'm convinced that you're on to the right approach with the NOS 1.  I don't understand why so many "computer audiophiles" don't seem to want to take advantage of what a computer can do in the way of filtering prior to sending data to a dac.  Now I see from your explanation that the way iTunes and Audirvana do the upsampling is pretty different as far as capturing a steep transient.  I wasn't sure how much Audirvana just used the same SRC as iTunes and it seems like they're quite different.

Tim

Hello Peter. You probably know me from the Computer Audiophile site where I am active from time to time. I have been lurking on this forum for longer than I care to say and I am intrigued with both the new asynchronous usb phasure dac and the recent developments for the mac computers. I currently have a PS Audio Perfectwave DAC that I am generally quite happy with though I am anxiously waiting on interconnect and speaker cable upgrades to be added to my system within the next week(plus burn in time). With zero listening experience behind me, I have talked myself into viewing the phasure nos 1 as my personal holy grail dac. The reviews on this site are overwhelmingly positive, as you know, and it has been a leap of faith for me to see the phasure dac as an answer to my audiophile dreams come true. Though I am not an engineer and not particularly well versed in the ins and outs of dac design, I see nothing but upside for the phasure, particularly now that it is not XXHighEnd exclusive, plus it also now does DSD without PCM as an intervening step.

I have a 2010 mac mini with a solid state drive that I have for playing video content. I am seriously thinking of having it converted with software from mach2music(www.mach2music.com) such that it would become optimized as a music server with no extraneous software included for non-audio purposes. Alternatively, I would get a mach2music mac mini 2011 for music and leave my 2010 mac mini as is for video.

With some expected influx of funds over the next several months I am hoping to be able to eventually place an order for a black asynchronous phasure dac with the added expense of paying a customs charge to the United States and, of course, allowing for the woeful exchange rate that exists between the dollar and the euro.

I am intrigued by the notion of hearing redbook CD's ripped to hard drive in all their glory with little in the way of expected improvements from hi res downloads, of which I have several. I like the notion of not having to build an audio-only pc and, with all due respect, I like the notion of avoiding the use of XXHighEnd which sounds to be a wonderful program but with a steep learning curve(and not particularly friendly to a wife looking for a plug and play system).

I am hopeful that my dreams can become a reality and my hat's off to you for coming up with a product that sounds like the only one of its kind.

Esau

Hi there Esau,

Thank you for your kind words and trust. And no, you really won't be disappointed. But if so afterall, you can return it (90 days). But don't let *that* happen, because you would be the first.

Please notice that Direct DSD is not in there yet, and I only assume this will be a later upgrade. It is under design right now, and many things can go wrong after this, including redesign, longer waiting etc. In any event, when it is there you will be able to perform the upgrade yourself (an additional board with ready connectors and things).

I can't judge what it all takes to make a Mac a real music machine, but I guess it may be a long way from home (yet). On the other hand, I'm using an out of the box iMac without further tweaks on my side (how could I :no:) and there's really nothing wrong with it. But, as you may have read, there's nothing much wrong with out of the box Windows also, although it today needs playback software which is able to optimize things. Let's say the difference between Fidelia and Audirvana (I'm not sure you (Mac world guys) ever see the difference, but I do in favor of Audirvana). So yes, tweaking a Mac "to death" may help, but as it went in here ("Tweak your Vista to death") when the playback software does it, it *really* is going to work (everything under continuous control). But hey, no worries, because I'm not worried. Ok, not anymore, while two weeks back I really was.

Yes, the good thing is (well, I think), that I've always been hunting for optimizing Redbook, and never spend a dime on HiRes. Of course the NOS1 is as good in that area, if only the HiRes were something. But it isn't, and if it were there's relatively nothing around. Well, the known story. Also, as you may have read, "we" are now into the too old to be good material, which turns out to be so good. :scratching:. It's really a new world, and honestly, I never worked on *that*. So, a very nice surprise and bonus, and really a new world to explore (unless you like Metallica of course).

Ok, I'll stop the ever blahblah, with the notice that I have put you on the list for next Oct. 15. :heat:
We can always change that, and no obligations anyway.

Kind regards,
Peter

Thanks Peter. I'll keep you posted on where I stand with gathering the funds to fully commit to a purchase. It's great to hear that the
Phasure NOS 1 asynchronous Dac is less demanding of connected computer power. I may in fact not need to upgrade my 2010 mac mini after all. A gentle nudge from you and Mani in the form of some very useful information was helpful and the new upgrade sounds like it hits the ball out of the park(if you can stand an American baseball metaphor).

Esau

Hi Peter, have you tried PureMusic for playback?
I prefer it by a large margin in my system to Amarra and Audirvana.
At the moment I prefer the "NOS" setting, probably due to the USB bridge I am using - ART Legato - limited to 44.1k .
It is available as a trial download, usable for 15 days: http://www.channld.com/pure-music4.html .

Regards,
Bogdan.

Bogdan, hi there !

... No I did not. Maybe this is because I stopped believing in Amarra not long after its start. Then came PM around, and it somehow looks too large to me. But since you so kindly provided a link for download, I will.

I will let you know ...

Regards,
Peter

Paul, thanks for your quick answer!

Now, a little more details about my system and my preferences:
I listen mostly symphonic music and opera, but I am listening jazz and blues sometimes.
I am using an EmmLabs CDSD SE (latest version, with metallic transport) and EmmLabs DCC2 SE directly into the power amp - BAT VK-600SE. The IC is Audioquest Wild. Speakers: Raidho/Eben X-4 . Speaker cable: AQ Everest. Power cables: AQ NRG-5. Power conditioning: Isotek Sigmas .
I was trying to built a pc-based playback system that would get near the EmmLabs combo, with no luck.
2-3 years ago I have built a PC with the CMP2 specs, into the tiniest details (hardware and software), and I was very disappointed with the results. I tried XX Highend in the early stages , but it was quite unstable at the moment, so I sticked to foobar + ASIO. I have used several interfaces (ESI Julia, Edirol UA-1ex, M-Audio Transit, HiFace, Modded HiFace) and several tweaked computers (most of them highly tweaked and configured to play from memory). None of them could hold a faint candle to the Emm transport.
Until I switched to a MacBook Pro and ART Legato. First I tried Amarra, didn't liked it, then sticked with Audirvana for a couple of weeks, until I installed Pure Music. This is the first setup that I find acceptable compared to the CDSD se.
I find amusing that some of my friends say that my system sounds more hi-rez when playing just redbook CDs than any other system they heard, using hi-rez material.
The thing is that I find the differences between redbook and SACD (same album) minimal, and I think that the recording and mastering are far more important.
I believe that detail is important, but only when it comes with timbral and tonal accuracy and integrity, coherence, macro-dynamics and layering.
I believe that upsampling in software is good only for NOS DACs, and detrimental for DACs that have DSP.

Just my 2c, sorry for the long post!

All that being said, I will try a PC based solution, with W7/64 and latest XXHE . And I am very curious about the USB NOS1!

Well, I really don't know how you manage to prefer *that*. Over Amarra maybe (didn't try that yet), but PM must really be the most confusing, ugly, interfering with everything program ever. Jikes !
Mind you, I am not talking about the SQ at this time, but about how it causes all other programs to be upfront, herself always being through everything because actualyl PM is *always* up front (with a 50% or so opaqueness), that not showing as active in the top bar (usually iTunes is) ... that it's Less is More function usually stops working as soon as there's a fart of something else ... iTunes is playing while PM should or the other way around or both, or that you can't even load tracks on/it/over it unless by means of upsampling and in an area *you* not even will have found (because it anticipates iTunes really). MAN, what a waste of 2 hours of my time. Only to get it a litte.
And no, of course i don't want to let rule iTunes.

Ok ok, that being behind me I could finally proove when PM was playing and not iTunes, and so ...
Forget about it. :yes:

The most pure sines come from my most strict impulses. And, since one means of "SRC" (upsampling) is supported only, there wasn't much to try further. On this aspect, I don't see much difference when iTunes is doing the upsampling.

Keep in mind guys : I am not talking about native SQ which may come from it on to any other DAC. It is is just not useable for the NOS1. That's all. And obviously I tried, because it would just be very useful (for me, let's say).

Sorry ...
Peter

PS: Maybe my judgement about all the confusing stuff is not justified at all. But I started out with the "Less is More" functionality, which I maybe shouldn't have done. That gets it in a mode which is uncontrollable, and doesn't really work either (really, apply one change anywhere, and it needs a restart, *that* needing to set the Less is More setting again, and ... well, it is a sort of loop). Additionally, it acts inconsistently strange at the sample rate settings. This may go unnoticed to you. For example, if a track is set to repeat (which must be done in iTunes) at the next iteration it may come up with another sample rate as with the first play of the track; this will be related to "use the highest sample rate for your DAC" setting, but which still allows me to change that to lower in AudioMidi and which really plays like that. Until the next iteration (or next track, which I did not try), then it switches to the higher sample rate. Dangerous stuff.

Ok Peter, thank you for the answer! I was trying to find out if Mac would be a viable solution with your DAC.  It seems that it is not.
I'll have to try a PC-based solution with XXHE and see how it works in my setup. So, I'll take a look at the recommended platform for XXHE and start from there.

Ok Bogdan, thanks.


Wait until you heard the new Redbook ...  :)
Then we'll talk again about the minimal differences.

Anyway, I think your approach is the good one. But by the time you have it all up and running, I'd really give Audirvana another try. Or Fidelia, also good. I will provide the settings then. Maybe I'm saying this because it is your conclusion that the Mac is no good for the NOS1. Ok, not with Pure Music, of that is what you mean.

Regards,
Peter