XXHighEnd

---

Edit April 9, 2015

Please notice that this topic started out with asking for a name for the new D/A converter from Phasure, while when you read this, the name looks to be determined. So see the title and know that at first the title was "New NOS1 = ?" (so the first 138 posts in this topic still carry that title).

Then, it might be good to know that this topic seems to turn into an April Fool joke as you can see happening on April 1. But the subject of the new D/A converter is real, and the April 1 joke was the joke itself. :wacko:

Peter

---

Hi there all,

Say that a new "NOS1" is on the horizon ...
Say that it is to be the "very best sounding" D/A converter ever ...
Say that at this moment you have no further information ...

What name would you come up with for it ?

I will now start to gather bits and pieces of the design so from now on we can (hopefully) enjoy the finishing stage of the production of the first prototype of this DAC; I have been working on it for the past 18 months (longer actually).

But I like to have a name first. One hint regarding that (I think the name should represent it somehow) :
There is really nothing imaginable which is not subject to upgrading. This time though, no sending in of your DACs. So all what is theoretically subject to upgrading, is just that and you can do it yourself (replace PCBs). Your D/A converter for ever.

I wonder myself how far this topic will go and where it will end. Of course I have high expectations but at this moment there's nothing more than the first (raw) PCB being produced, and it is due next week. Make a nice photo of it, post that, solder the components, post a photo of the finished PCB, start testing it, post the results ... and so on; Take you through the process of this last stage of all the super complex work.

Regards to all,
Peter

Hi Peter,

I assumed you would call it the NOS2 considering it is a total change of topology and approach.

Cheers,

Anthony

NOS DONE  ;)

If it will be the best ever.....

Hi Peter,

Does it mean that the existing NOS 1/NOS 1a would be upgradeable to the "new" DAC DIY? That would really be a lot convenient.

How about naming it NOS Legend or Ultimate.

Best regards,

Arvind

Hahaha, only a few responses and I am laughing already. Keep them coming !

Arvind,

No, it can not be an upgrade from the NOS1 / NOS1a.


Maybe not because you'd have to send in your NOS1a !
hehe

Kind regards,
Peter

How about "The Terminator" or maybe just "Arnie"

But those are just first thoughts

Paul

NOS Horizon!  ;)

NOS-hit
without -

NOD - "Never (an)Other DAC"

NODD - Non-Oversampling DAC w/DSD (just speculating, probably wrong)

Omega

Zed

ZeDAC (combines final letter of alphabet and "the DAC" as pronounced by a Francophone)

I'm not reaching desperately here, oh no, not at all....

The NOS Legend  :)

Fantastic news, really looking forwards to more details as they emerge  :wacko:

Nick.

A new DAC?

Don’t tell my wife  :secret:

A name: PERIOD (.)

Regards,
Stanley

other suggestion: Optinos

 :coocoo: Sorry for intrude because I don't even have a NOS...

Name : NOSFERATU  It can squeeze every drop from your Music   :tomatoes:

I only wish I can afford one in the near future.  :whistle:

Maxi

NOS∞SON

:)

Ah... Bert said it :) My idea was "Son of Nos" but I like what Bert think of :)

Alain

Hmm... why does everyone think it's going to be a non-oversampling DAC? I mean, I just can't see how Peter could improve on a NOS1a B75 in this respect. Nah, I wouldn't be surprised if the new 'mother of all DACs' uses a different DAC chip to the BB1704U-K.

I've always loved the Greek symbol 'Σ' - i.e. Sigma. In mathematics this is the summation operator of course. The new DAC would be the summation of everything Peter has learned in his long audio journey. So for me, the 'Phasure Σ' would be an apt name. We could have a beautiful Σ inscribed on the DAC in silver or gold, just like the 'α' on the NOS1a.

Mine isn't the most original idea here though... some of the others really are great.

Mani.

My hunch would be some kind of discrete delta sigma DAC.
Makes a lot of sense to go that route.

So for that reason, Phasure Sigma would make a lot of sense as a name.

Michael

Hi,

I would propose a name which has dynamic/action such as ** edit "Midas Touch". Thought I'm probably far from the ideal name, some thing that means conversion or change would be suitable.

VJ

NOStradamos

NextNos

- Phasure Open Project (O-P)

- Phasure DIY Ultimate

NOX1    an x always looks good.

Yes, Phasure Sigma or NOS Sigma or NOSigma

Matt

Delta BlueΣ ?   ;)

Phasure Creare DAC

Hey ...

I never imagined that you guys could come up with such ideas, all so good. But merely, how they inspire for thinking in certain directions.
Of course, at this moment it is a kind of guessing for you so I need to explain a bit more. Thus as promised I gathered a bit of material. Coming up in 30 ...

Peter

Looking at the date of today I think NPO would be the appropriate name for the replacement of NOS.
(sorry only for the Dutch this one....)

or NPU , Non Plus Ultra...

I am quite :blush2::blush1::blush2: by all your good ideas, the one even more smart than the other !

Bbbbut ... a best sounding DAC is a not sounding DAC, right ?

---

Well, our son Paul may enter the company (or already has) because during 2013 Christmas holidays he worked on some secret project somewhere upstairs for many hours per day and for 4-5 days.


Therefore this is a seriously good name.

I could hear he was making something from Lego by means of the ever "search sounds" in the many boxes with the bricks. On and on and on.
I couldn't imagine what the secret could be unless it would be a super large space ship or something and the surprise could be all the many details. Theoretically such a thing would be possible because of the tens of thousands of Lego bricks and such he has out there.

Then finally he was finished and uncovered his creation ...

---

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/a20150331_163523a.jpg) High Resolution link NOS1 Lego (http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/a20150331_163523.jpg)

Don't ask me what an ever and always gaming guy puts to his head to even start thinking about this but the surprise was huge. No big space ship at all, just a NOS1 ...

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/a20150331_163056a.jpg) High Resolution link NOS1 Lego (http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/a20150331_163056.jpg)

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/aWP_20150331_16_32_24_Refocusa.jpg) High Resolution link NOS1 Lego (http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/aWP_20150331_16_32_24_Refocus.jpg)

The real surprise was found in the inside.

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/aDSC_0032a.JPG) High Resolution link NOS1 Lego (http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/aDSC_0032.JPG)

For fun you can open your NOS1's and see that actually everything is there, up to the capacitors and other smaller parts. So what Paul had done was stealing a new NOS1, open it and start to copy it in Lego. Well, I opened my father's gear for whatever reason, by not for such a thing. :swoon:

At the top right there's the two transformers on top of each other (one bigger than the other) and the power inlet and power switch. Bottom right is the main power supply with all the capacitors and the heatsinks and all in their real position.
At the very bottom there's the display including the chips on that PCB at the back of thedisplay. To the left of that you see the 5 switches.

In the middle section there's the DAC and output stage on top of it and here too the parts/chips on the boards are just there. Output terminals are in the back.

Top left there's the two USB inputs and under that the USB interface. Under that we see the power supply for that section, including a great real looking heatsink, a transistor in its middle and the large input capacitor in the top right. Of course 4 rectifyer diodes show.

So yes, I envisioned infinite search for parts which could resemble whatever was seen in the real thing.

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/IMG_0402a.JPG)
And all in the 1:1 scale of course.

---

So I promised Paul that I would make a topic of it in the forum and make it a special ...

Of course that takes some time and the longer it took before I did it, the more "Dad, when are you going to do it finally ?!" was whispered to me. Meanwhile the Phasure NOS1 Lego has been in the living room all the time and a few of you will have seen it when you were here.
Two months or so ago, when Paul had given up or at least stopped asking (more than a year later) I told him I had a nice idea but we had to wait for a while. Ha !
So today that day has finally come.

But you'd have to admit ... is this modular or isn't it ?
Really everything can be replaced and we can do it ourselves.

Ok, done. :seeyou:
Peter

Cool!  Peter, I think you must take note for your next designs appearence. It's some kind of Mondrian look.


Maxi

Hey Peter, really nice story.


Well that would be really great. I look forward to the day I see the 'PaulSt' username on the forum. Having someone from Phasure who actually makes sense [and can play the drums 'on beat'] would be a nice change.

:prankster:

Mani.

Paul, I'm writing to you directly on the off chance your dad may miss this post. You never know! Anyway, congratulations on the NOS1 Lego. It's an incredible achievment; the photo's are stunning! It must have been frustrating waiting for the photos to finally be shown to the world but I hope you'll find the wait was worth it. I mean your dad is saying there will be a new DAC better than the current NOS1a-75B. Seems impossible to me. But then who thought the Lego you made was possible? Really having the photos of your achievement in the forum thread announcing the new DAC is nothing short of perfect!

 Now, any chance you could replicate the Lego color scheme on existing NOS1a's? If so I may be sending mine back to you! Also, I was wondering if you could do me a favor. Your dad has suggested that his new DAC circuit board will be finished soon. Any chance you could steal it from him for a bit and see it if will fit in the current NOS1 DAC chassis? If so, could you incorporate it into your now existing Lego version and post more photos so we can see how it fits? I'm only asking because your dad makes cryptic statements like this:


Maybe I'm reading too much into these words, but if they mean what I think they mean then you should be able to make the new circuit board work in your so very cool Lego replica. Thanks and sorry for such a long post.

Brian

No doubt. It has to be NOS Legacy :ok:

Legocy ?

Better :gotya:

:rofl:

So, us April Fools survided that day once again. The question of course is : where was the joke ?

Something really strange happened ...

So I set this all up for you on March 31. And really, I have been eager to do so since the beginning of this year or even earlier.

I thought to start out with asking for a name. And yes, I like to apologise to everybody joining in with their best ideas ... all for what appeared to be an April Fool's joke.
Oh, read again this last sentence. My poor English tells me that it still can go in "either" direction, right ?


Nah, that wasn't cryptic. It was only consistent with this :


Of course this anticipated the April 1 post about the Lego. That too was planned since the beginning of this year ...


At yesterday ?
I hope not !

Now on to that strange thing ...

When I was asking for that name I thought it could (only) serve as a decoy. But actually before people started responding I was already working on yesterday's post and set my mind to posting a post with a new title, actually as I did in the end (Phasure NOS1 Lego) BUT wondered what "Lego" actually means.
When I saw it, I realized that I actually knew already, but never saw it in the context of the name of a DAC. Look it up ... please do ...

It is only that I think I won't get away with it ...
:scratching:
Peter

Well i think its a really good Joke  :teasing:
Not one second i thought of 1 april
 
And happy to because i really could not see me buy a new DAC

 :)

[Highlight mine.]

Hmm. So the whole thing appears to be an April Fool's joke... but actually isn't?

Yeah, I'm confused.

Mani.

Remember April 1 2014 ?

"Lego": from Danish leg godt, 'play well', according to the Oxford Dictionary.

Well that's what a DAC should do - play [music] well. But I suspect the word 'Lego' already has just a few trade marks ;)

("Legato" is also taken BTW.)

Mani.

 

 :scratching:

XXHighEnd Eliminated ? (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=2937.msg30864#msg30864)

And in the end this one :
Re: XXHighEnd Eliminated ? (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=2937.msg31205#msg31205)

Yes. And that is the strange thing which happened ...
I was proposing to find a nice name for a most modular DAC, then though that especially Lego would suit that, only then started to look up the meaning of Lego and ...

well, and before a first proposal popped up I thought WOW;
How can a "Play Well" be better combined with modularity if the name would be "Lego".


As I said, I won't be able to come away with it I think, even if the official name would be Phasure NOS1 Lego.
All I know is that Leggodt could work. But that sounds daft to me.

So back to the drawing board.
Eh, for names. :grazy:

Peter

OK, off the list you are !
:swoon:

Have been waiting for the april fool topic.... Witch will not be that afterall. I do remember last year  ;)
Looking forward to receive a new dac  :grin:

Your fool day is driving me crazy. A new dac or not? Silly me yesterday I bought a soldering kit to learn how to make those fantastic upgrades. I´ve always been TOO fast. Hey, still there are people that don´t know how to solder a miserable piece of electronics. So Peter, I want the money I spent on the kit back to my pocket or in other case I WANT AN UPGRADE (at least to practise with my new toy).

Just for your information, here in Spain the fool day is on December 28th, I let it know only to not look so stupid.

Anyway and to take it with a smile, this is my new suggestion para el NOS1 lego: Paulego Dac or perhaps Paul-ego Dac  ;)

Juan

not so quick  ;)

I was caught  the year before. I'm afraid Spain is going to be different forever...: :swoon:

Regards

Maxi

PS.I'm afraid  I lost my chance to listen the NOS. I've noticed you live in Murcia now.

Hi Maxi, you are invited to visit me but also once in a while I go back to Madrid, next time I'll let you know and take with me the NOS1a.  ;)

Juan

Look I'm making a complaint. I'm very worried that xxhighend has slipped down the ladder of innovation due to, too many distractions on Peter's time, cables, NOS updates and now Leggo NOS DAC's.

Gosh I read on TCA yesterday Jplay has a new version out. I'm going to be tempted to try it, what if its better than Xxhighend?

 

Haha. At least I have finished the Release Notes now. But there's always things for final checking and that makes one run into things.
Should be an easter egg ?
:innocent:

Is this another joke? Today is April 2

Juan

Great!  :bye:

That would be nice the last update was a Christmas present.

Back to New NOS1 = ? ...

50 PCBs have just been shipped; should be here early the upcoming week.
:grazy:

Peter

huh so there is really a new DAC  :wacko:

Peter,
is it possible to hear the prototype at High End Munich in May?

Matt

Hi Matt,

Nah, impossible. This has been the original plan though. The design is so complex that by now it is already almost a year later than originally planned. But at least it's now in a stage that I think all is consistent and can (get to) work.

The means the D/A is done is completely new and therefore highly suspect to overlooking things ... which happened several times. I think it was last September that I was in the order screen to have one of the (raw) PCBs produced when I saw such a thing "not for the better". That PCB today still hasn't been produced because I now like to wait for the result of that other one due. If that does not work out, the one I just talked about must change a little plus it will be back to the drawing board for the one now due. And that one too is based on a new concept as far as I can tell ...

Peter

So ...

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/Phasure Amplifier 01.png)
When you use a fairly normally sized monitor, you see an about 1:1 scaled screenshot of "something" of the first PCB, which will be here next week. Say that this is the most physical product I have at this moment because it's the confirmation of the (Chinese) company of how the so-called solder mask sheet is going to look like.
A solder mask sheet is an (in this case) metal laser cut sheet with holes in there and if you overlay it on the PCB under/in the holes you see the soldering pads of the PCB.

But now guess what this sheet is for in our case ...
(just shoot)

Anyway, this first PCB to really put to getter is for a fully differential power amplifier (an amplifier with two voltage sources both working in opposite direction, with very good common mode noise rejection and "no 2nd harmonic" exhibit).

The THD+N should be better than 0.00003% but how much better is yet to see (and measuring it could be a problem).
And yes, this is a power amplifier and it does ~52Watts into 8Ohm.
The gain will be 18 which is just about right for everyone but the 52W can of course not bear too inefficient speakers but normally it will do and for an SPL of about 100.
Slew Rate is 1950V/us (:swoon:).

If this works out it could be the best amplifier ever, that is, looking at the distortion figures only (but then it should sound the best as well). And notice that this is not stupid Class D, so no HF sh*t  either.
Also it will be a "cold" amp, or IOW if you don't use it or play softly, it will hardly consume power.

While this is to be a great power amplifier, we're still talking D/A converters. Now 8 of these can be in there, max ...
:grazy:

For your fun, and looking at this part of the DAC only, try to envision how huge the heat problem is, and how much time it takes to find setups which can dissipate sufficiently. Meanwhile I am still so that I want the heat in the cabinet to be very low *and* consistent. Especially the latter is of crucial importance. Just think about how resistances will vary when the heat varies (bad for D/A converters !).
Now think that I can easily work for a month to find good solutions for such a problem. Really so !

What's also problematic (but I create the problem myself) is that I like to have linear power supplies. This is not easy at all when so much power is required (so think x8). And, not sure yet if I am going to make it with that, but at this moment it looks like it is going to work (power supplies will be in a separate cabinet anyway, which btw implies its own problems with high currents).

Btw, the modularity is already visible here;
Envision that each of the large squares contributes to the current needed. Now, I may need maybe 8W of power only. So I also need only a fraction of those black squares. And the design is so that we can just leave out what is not needed.
Or :
I may need that 8W for my woofers and I need 0.5W for mid and even less for the tweeter. And thus in my own DAC each module (in pairs - stereo) will be (or can be) different.

But first it must really work.
(first parts for it arrived yesterday and the remainder upcoming Tuesday and then ... :smirk:)

Peter

Very impressive, Peter,

can you tell us something about how this design handles DSD?

Thanks

Matt

Do you know the output impedance for the amps?

Peter, it is being difficult for me to follow you. A new amp? for what? to replace the Gainclone you use with your Orelo? Those amplifiers would be included in the NOS1 chassis or I am wrong?
What is the ultimate goal of these new projects? I do not speak about to get a better sound but about what kind of system configuration you are looking for. A simple squeme would help.

Sorry in case I´m not understanding anything, you know that I am of those who have the hardest head with respect to the technical side.

Regards,
Juan

Take it easy guys. ;) I know it looks intrigueing but it may be that because I'm not posting everything at once. So here and there, with some spare time, I'll put up things. And think that maybe 100 posts are required to describe basics without answering questions.
But of course, ask what you like !

Peter

Hi (other) Matt,

It is rated to drop to 3 Ohms for the power (current) it will handle (read : the heat it can dissipate).
Notice that this (3 Ohms) anticipates normal drivers which will be 4 Ohms or a little less *and* that this DAC is also all about cross overs. So no elements will be in your speaker to let drop the DC resistance of the driver (as the only device in the speaker).
Otherwise think like the resistance dropping the more current will flow (in linear fashion) *if* the power is to be the same. However, I think that the lowest resistance will happen in the highest frequencies and the highest frequencies (tweeter) relatively don't require power. So for easy thinking : suppose that first the tweeter requires 26W (RMS) only but it is rated to drop to 1.5Ohms, then the heat dissipation is still the same and nothing is the matter.

Something else is that the heat dissipation depends on the heat sinks which are going to be taylor made - can be as large as required because of that *and* will be at the outside of the cabinet (thus no heat build-up inside anyway).

Btw, the (max 8 channel) power amplification itself is an option. Besides that, it is an option per channel. So for example, you could use (also XOver-filtered) power amplification for mid and high and use line out for 2x bass (e.g. with different delay on each channel).

The reason for the integrated power amplification is that now you'll have access to 8 channels of the highest quality at a relatively affordable price (with the notice that us guys often are not an exception in using 10K costing 2 channel amps).
And the "highest" quality doesn't mean "for the price" but just the best I could think of for design and real practice. Anyway the specs tell me so.
And that we can avoid always detrimental interlinks is something else.

And oh, as a bonus you can "cascade" two of these DACs, one for the left channel and one for the right channel and now you have 16 channels. For now this is sorted out theory which can work (each DAC about "in" the speaker and both synchronized) but it is a bit crazy. This means :
... That we are not planning smaller cabinets which could contain e.g. 3 channels per (L/R) side just because it would be better to have the DAC very close to the speaker (very short LS cables). Thus for example there will be a main board and this main board can take 8 channels; We are not going to make a small main board so we can have a perceived less costing DAC in two separate cabinets. Thus, this is not cheaper at all - only more expensive.

Regards,
Peter

I agree with Juan... At this point we do not have sufficient data to really understand, apart from a multichannel dac and maybe electronic crossovers (?), with the needed power amplifier(s)...

At this point I am clueless... But a schema of the placement of the components would help maybe...

Alain

As Alain,

I suspect a multichannel amp/DAC with crossover and DSP or ASP  :wacko:

VJ

Peter,
a short question only:

Is this the DAC you mentioned here and on the CA forum, which gets running DSD256 and PCM256 through the same hardware?

Matt

Peter, do you have a "hand extinction" ;)

A Dutch company ............... .

http://www.grimmaudio.com/hifi-products/loudspeakers/ls1/


Joachim

Hi Peter:
Tell me if I'm on the right track with the new DAC/amplifier by way of this example.  Say I wanted to build my own speakers with three drivers in each:  tweeter, woofer, subwoofer.  I know the new DAC allows for 8 channels but my example above would only require 6 (3 X 2) channels.  The DAC along with a hardware DSP/crossover (presumably adjusted somewhat with software) would allow me to set the crossover frequencies digitally (primarily)as opposed to what I have seen by others done in analog.  Add to that the ability to amplify each driver separately up to 52W giving me a unified/integrated system.  Presumably the system is designed like this to enhance the overall sound quality. So fewer or shorter length cables, closer proximity to the drivers, hardware digital adjustments vs analog, external linear power supply, etc., all add up to a "No Holds Barred" NHB approach to the best sound quality you can come up with.  You stated the THD to be 0.00003% which is pretty incredible and I look forward to finding out other distortion characteristics and such as you give us more info along the way.
Would you say these amps are at least as good if not better than the gainclones in the Orelo MKII's?  Also I note that you mention that the system is modular meaning one could start with 2 channels and later add on up to 8 channels. So in my example above if I wanted to double up the channels to give more power to the subwoofer, I could do so (adding up to in total 8 channels with the subs @ 100dB+).  Not only that but on each channel itself I can choose how much power (up to 52W) I want to go to each driver.  So the tweeters obviously would need less power than the subs, requiring less from the linear power supplies resulting in "purer" sound. The one proviso is that the speaker or driver(s) should preferably be at 100dB or higher efficiency to benefit from this integrated approach.  Am I roughly on track or off base?!

Regards,
brunok

oops, 100W+ not dB.
TNX

Peter,
please, a short answer. YES or NO. Thanks
Matt

Yes Matt, it is the same.

Peter

But I do. 8)

With the notice that the title will be wrong (I think), it does indicate some kind of successor of the NOS1. I mean, I don't think it can really be so that after more than 4 years a same D/A converter can remain the very best for SQ, no matter it went through "some" upgrades. But it is dangerous ...

We can well say that right when the NOS1 was finished end 2014, I started working on a new one. Well, almost, because first there had to be a USB interface (as how I thought after all), then new oscillators came about and some more as we all know, and this actually was all "taken" from the new design.
What you don't know is that I've had a few designs really running under way, and I learned from that how to improve again. An example is the later isolation which was taken from a DSD design (which never saw life although I have the PCBs for that now since almost 2 years already).
So instead the new design got finished, parts of it went into upgrades of the NOS1. Not smart ? commercially maybe not, but good for you all sure yes.

Point is : The NOS1 got so much better, including some exterior parts (think BNC) that the new design also had to be better (had to outbetter). This is how around a year ago again everything was changed from the ground.

Outside the better SQ, there also had to be a "multi channel", just because right from the start the NOS1 was to do that with some extensions. And that now failed around that same one year ago. So it worked, but with (measured) specs which did not suit me. Say it was too simple. 8 channels yes, but not of the quality of the known 2 channel NOS1.

Meanwhile the idea was set to provide some very good means for -indeed- the Orelo type speaker; something which hasn't been done yet as far as I can see : the highest quality required number of channels, instead of some weak thing because it's 6 channels (as in the Orelo speakers). For a DAC this still might exist (but still more in the Pro world - and where Pro certainly is not "high SQ") but then the amplification had to go along with that. Thus as I already told : the best we can think of without needing 50K++ on amplifiers. So this had a bit a commercial base : why to provide a very best 8ch D/A converter if nobody would like to afford 8ch (or 6ch) high quality amplification ? Such DAC would be a moot thing (in my view).

If we put the above all on one big pile, then we see that the new DAC just needs to be capable of everything and all.

The new Phasure Modular Distinct can just be a 2 channel with line outs (RCA, BNC, XLR).

Say like a normal DAC.
(I made up this name right on the spot - maybe it's a good one ?)

But it will be nothing like a normal DAC because, as said yesterday, it's D/A process it quite new. Or not ...
So a bit of history again :

Even before I was working on XXHighEnd I had been working on a design for a D/A converter that wouldn't use D/A chips. I recall more than a year of typing into a document of 200+ pages. I obtained some wild PC card with a lot of I/O's on it and even attempted a few things. But, was difficult for me, certainly at that time.
By heart I quote the last line of this design document :

"Oh, but that's just DSD - f*ck - that already exists".

So when I finally found the way to do it without chips, I recognized that this already existed (re-invented some wheel). And so I quit. Mind you, this must have been 2004/2005. And two years or so after that I started working on what we today call the NOS1.

Such a design which I got working (about 3 years ago now), started out with a 20 bit very good chip just as a trial.
From there it would become 32 bits via a means that I attempted in mentioned 2004/2005 with that multi I/O card. But that chip also showed anomalies I did not like and another chip I could not find. So now what to do.
Well, that design couldn't do DSD anyway, so a DSD design got around. But not in a way I really liked, and it couldn't do PCM. This is mentioned PCB I have but never used.

Well, one year later (and this now is one year ago) I thought that the means to make 32 bits out of that 20 bit chip, could just as well be used to make any bits out of any bits. Say, combine "chips" but the chip can be one bit.
This still is not really new, but the electrical means to do it, is.

Anyway what logically followed from this was a fully discrete design. Say an R/2R ladder design, but this time one which will resolve to 25 or 26 bits.
Notice that the best discrete designs will resolve to 16 bits or so, maybe 17 (NOS1a does 23). So a discrete design will sound different and possibly better because of no CMOS used but resistors, but high resolution it never can be.
This one will, if all is right. And believe it or not, I was working for a month in a row on a spreadsheet which would show me what all needed to happen where, in order to get to that 25-26 bit resolvement. This with the notice that anyone knowing a few things about this will tell you that it can not exist because no resistors exist with sufficient accuracy (like 0.01% or even 0.005%).

The next thing you should know is that the PCM1704 chip as used in the NOS1(a) is nowhere near to any accuracy (this, with our knowledge how accurate the NOS1 sounds). Here too : it just can not be done. Again for the insiders, this is all related to monotonicity and how R/2R is supposed to give a linear relation throughout. Think like 1000/2 is to be exactly 500 which 500 is the base for the next 500/2 to be exactly 250 and so on (that 24 times for the 1704).
When this is all not within "specs" you'd have IMD distortion (never mind, but it is so).

This DAC is 28 bits and it is 100% monotonic for all its bits.
Why can't it resolve to 28 bits ? because of the noise holding back of that. So system noise should be 0.5uV RMS (NOS1 is 4uV) and when doing the math you will see that the 26th bit will be into the noise.
But one never knows how much the noise really is, and it can be somewhat lower and certainly can also be somewhat higher. We'll only know when the physical product is working and can be measured.

Peter

Hi Peter,

I was completely unaware that there was a new Phasure Modular Distinct, and am now unclear how this would affect your recommendation to buy this used NOS1, if at all. If the sound quality of this unit is indeed better as a pure dac, how still does it compare with the NOS1/NOS1a? It is all very confusing...Please enlighten me.

You may reply by personal e-mail if you prefer.

Kind regards
Rakesh

Thanks, Peter,

this DAC will be a game changer.

Matt

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the note clarifying my order for the NOS1 and the upgrade path to the NOS1a. I am delighted that I will be the owner of the NOS1 shortly, and I certainly will be looking forward to take the upgrade path to the NOS1a as you advise next year.

Happy Easter to all.

Best regards
Rakesh

Not only a game changer but it gives the feeling of leaving in the dust everything done so far with the NOS1a-Blaxius-Clairixa. Was it the idea? certainly not, but those seem to be the consequences. Don´t get me wrong Peter, of course you have the right to terminate a project and start another. Maybe it can´t be possible to make further improvements in the NOS1a, but that sounds frustrating and certainly a big surprise. I always thought that all the improvements could be done inside the NOS1 chassis.

For this new project looks like we will need a new (or almost) complete system: new dac, new amps and in some cases new speakers (mine are auto-amplified).

If it is so, and I´m not wrong, there are only two alternatives to the current owners of NOS1/NOS1a: a. stick with the NOS1/NOS1a and forget the new "Phasure Modular Distinct", then resign ourselves without subsequent developments or b. leave in a corner the NOS1/NOS1a with a big drop in the resale price and embrace a new project in evolution (for a while).

In my case, I'm afraid I'll have to wave the white flag and stay where I am and maybe work in the music pc, which at least is still an area that needs improvement.

When I asked what was the ultimate goal of this new project it was obvious that always the aim is to have a better sound. What I meant was, as set out in the lines above, if you were talking about a new system that renders obsolete and out of play the NOS1a.

Am I wrong or there is still hope for the NOS1a? I see you continue with the NOS1 sales, then maybe I'm not understanding this issue correctly.

Regards,
Juan

Luckily, yes, there is still hope. And the proof has already been there : when I ran - and run into something that can apply to the NOS1(a) I'll just let you have it. So remember (but I already said it today), the isolation comes from this other development; it is only that I suddenly could see how to apply it to the NOS1 (with a ~2 days hassle but alas). And what I also said is that this is not much of a commercial act, because what would have been better (commercially) than offer a new DAC, now with isolation. But I am not like that ...

No no worries as the NOS1a will not be discontinued; last week I just ordered another 150 of those PCB's which go new on top of the DAC board (of the NOS1) and 300 of the small PCBs which go to the sides of the DAC board and gain stage (the other small new one in the left leg I already ordered with 500 at first).

When something comes up for an upgrade it will just be offered as usual. It is only that at this moment I don't see anything yet. But that just needs time. Or "you" so to speak. And remember again, where came the "B75" upgrade come from ? "you" - by means of Joachim.

No worries !

Best regards,
Peter

I just changed the title of the topic because I think I like that name ...

N.b.: In the larger topic from earlier today I layed out a couple of more things from which the "Distinct" part gets clear better. But I went too far with it (explained a bit too much, also thinking about the competition) and did not post it. So I must adjust that text somewhat before putting it up again.

Regards,
Peter

Great news Peter

Best regards
Juan

I like the unique DSD capabilities of the new DAC:

"What I feel is that DSD in the end is the better format, BUT when used as upsampled means of 16/44.1 and when done right. So indeed, nothing like "only when DSD remains unmolested right from the recording" it is right. It doesn't exist anyway (when analog mixing was used Yes, but what to say ...).

So just for your information, our D/A converter is 24/768 input-capable for this filtering reason (choose any filtering means you like in-PC). Still this is not enough in my view, which is why I meantioned the 24/11.28 MHz PCM input in near future (PCM x256).
That this is also DSD x256 capable is another matter, but crucial for apples and apples comparison; now all goes through the exact same electrical means and speed and current draw etc.

What I'm also saying and "claiming" thus far (I mean, as long as the real physical thing is not operational yet) is that DSD will be the better format than PCM, when upsampled/filtered from 16/44.1. But I also said (above) "when done right". The difference ?
No noise shaping into the HF regions, no matter many will say it is harmless. So DSD as we are used to, but now without all the HF noise."

I am very curious.

Matt

I have placed an order for the NOS1, an order for which I have not paid yet, and so it is with some hesitation that I bring myself to share my opinion on this subject.  This issue is one which is likely to cause controversy, confusion and some degree of frustration, understandably from current and potential owners of the NOS1a. Whilst ultimately I agree that it would have been nice to have an upgrade path open to NOS1a owners to the latest and greatest invention of Peter’s prodigious and talented mind, I think that commercially there is no need for Peter  to do so.

Peter runs a business, one where there are an endless number of competitors at all price points. Most electronic goods have in-built obsolescence and even those which were touted as being upgradeable turned out to be anything but over time. Peter has provided a service where owners have from the very first day been able to enjoy a huge amount of incremental improvements over the course of many years. This is quite unique and shows evidence of an ethos which is very much a cooperative venture where the overriding objective is not the single-headed pursuit of profits but developing a cooperative spirit where customers are treated as stakeholders.

Clearly the greatest enemy of the NOS1a is itself. It seems to be so good that its owners are presumably more than happy to see it upgraded incrementally over time. It is also a victim of its own success. If it is so good that owners are not looking to buy the next unit up, it makes Peter’s business less secure financially and that is not good for anyone if we want to enjoy the fruits of his talents.

Businesses have no obligation to provide an upgrade path (although it would be nice if they did) or an obligation to provide incremental improvements to current products (although owners appreciate it when they do). Peter, quite uniquely, does both and I think this noble approach must actually cost him money. So it should come as no surprise that Phasure brings out products which ultimately provides the company with financial rewards more commensurate with the quality of the product and service it provides to all its customers.

Two more points. All of the above is in many ways a nonsensical debate about an issue which should not even arise. The owner who has bought the NOS1a has by all accounts one of the finest dacs available anywhere. I sort of doubt that it is the weakest link in an audio chain. Should owners not worry about their system as a whole and improve other areas which require improvements? Or take their family out on a nice holiday if they have the funds? Or donate to a village without food, clean water or teachers in Africa. The long and short of it is that we are lucky to be able to afford what we can in this hobby so we should learn to be content with what we have. Many of us will not own the latest Ferrari or Lamborghini but that does not make the (by comparison affordable) BMW or Porsche any lesser and less enjoyable driving machines.

And finally (you will be relieved to hear) my last point. ALL progress is good and eventually technological advances trickle down to a more affordable price point. The success of Peter’s new dac may well mean that the technology behind it comes in a cheaper product over time.

I know, I know, that was supposed to be the last point. It just occurred to me that it should still be possible over time to offer his new dac circuitry in a standalone unit without the additional DSP and amplifier modules which might make it affordable enough to those who must have the absolutely latest dac. Just a thought...

Best regards
Rakesh

If I understand Peter correctly you can get this DAC with line outputs and without any amp and DSP modules:
The new Phasure Modular Distinct can just be a 2 channel with line outs (RCA, BNC, XLR).
Matt

 :good: :good: :good:

Hi Rakesh,

+1 for your response.

When I read that a new product was coming and as I am putting money aside for the upgrade of my NOS1 to the NOS1a + Blaxius, I was staring at the screen with... Well, some desillusion.

Like Juan, I have been wondering if I could afford yet another dac, maybe better, but still it would require another effort for me to have the funds.

A voice inside tells me that I should wait for the product that will emerge from what Peter has worked on, with his legendary creativity and his aim for "the Best".

My intention has never been to aim for the best, but for once this aspect of things has been alive through a big amount of trust in Peter and up to now I don't have any complaint about what my NOS1 delivers.

Progress will always... Progress, so for the moment I have decided to wait and I am happy I did up to now. It is not a matter of dismay for me, just a matter of wisdom.

I do not need an amplifier, nor electronic X-overs, nor DSP, nor any other analog component. The dac may be the exception for me, but as Juan mentionned, the PC is still the place where the most problems are located.

Peter, I know this may sound like I did not understand correctly the extent of this, but I sure hope that this upcoming dac could be sold as a standalone, not integrated with anything else. I sure hope this will be taken in consideration ?

Regards,

Alain
EDIT: (I corrected my comments - Thanks Matt)

My thinking at the moment is as follows:

As an owner of the NOS1a for 6 months with the latests cables (Blaxius und the new USB Cable), i believe there is really not much upwards potential anymore.
The NOS1a is already so high up there, in my opinion there is not much upward potential.

I understand that Peter needs to continue improvements on a different path also due to the fact that the PCM1704 are running out. So from this perspective totally understandable.

Since the NOS1a is pretty maxed out, the obvious next way is a new DAC. If it is really so much better remains to be seen.

I am enjoying the NOS1a for sure for a long time going forward.

My biggest hope is that the software will become more stable.... still once in a while some hiccups.

Regards, Michael

Hi Michael - brief response :

It can't be about the 1704 - still a couple of 1000 left here.


Please open a topic about that. I mean, not so here ...

Regards and thanks,
Peter

PS:
Strange problem eh ? I think so as well, audibly. But the number of times I thought so myself are countless. So I learned not to think like that. And as long as specs tell differently there's good hope.

At this point and after the comment from Peter I see no contradiction in the path he has chosen. On the one hand the susceptible updates to be applied to NOS1a will be applied, on the other hand he has a new research and development of a new dac and it must go its own way.
The ones who want or can afford the new dac will do fine buying it. Those who feel comfortable and satisfied with the sound of NOS1a and prefer maybe some more rest without the need to get involved in a more marked process of upgrades and changes will stay with the NOS1a.
At this moment, without knowing what will be the new offer I could not ensure 100% which will be my position.

Regards,
Juan

Reading what Peter wrote on the CA forum.....
Maybe to keep in mind : What this design explicitly will do is run PCM and DSD through the 100% same hardware, logic and (sampling) speed (PCMx256 and DSDx256 but DSD can be higher in a later stage); only then the formats can be compared like apples with apples which sort of has become my search (or obsession) for life. The filtering obviously will be different for both situations and for 2 channels this will be in-PC so the (different) processing load of that (current draw etc.) will not be able to influence the in-DAC electronics (this latter since the total isolation introduced with the "a" version of the NOS1).
..... I have to say for me - as a DSD lover -  this is the best thing for years.

Matt

If I understand correctly, Orelo MKII only needs 6 channel DSP/DAC --> 6 channel amps, right?

But suppose a person has the 8 channel dac + 8 amps, keeps the DSP programming set on those first 6 channels for Orelo.

So 2 extra channels..

For trying 2-channel speakers, but also headphones?

52 watts into 8 ohm = 6.5 watts into 64 ohm, 812.5mw into 512 ohm

This kind of wattage is considered a good thing in parts of the high end headphone community.  And why not with amps as quiet as these Phasure ones?

Gain of 18 is too high for my tastes, though.
Actually 0 gain works well most of the time, sometimes nice to have a louder setting (like +12db gain).

Could lower gain(s?) be accommodated, or too complicated to execute in reality?

Even if not, could adding headphone output be possible on 2 channels of amp?

Any reason the amps wouldn't perform just as well with these higher impedance loads (up to 600 ohm in headphone land)?

Would this be easy to do, in terms of easily changing which outputs are active  Say having channels 1-6 ON for Orelo listening, channels 7-8 OFF.  Or reverse that if playing something on channels 7 and 8 but not wanting output on the Orelo speakers.

Hope not too many questions at this time :innocent:

(other) steak and cable Matt  :dntknw:

Peter,

I couldn't help but notice that you were unable to find a resistor which is accurrate enough for you application ( <0.005% accuracy??)

So, could you tell me what is wrong with the Vishay Z-foil Resistor? (except for the price of course:)

I've read some raving stories about them (0.005% accuracy, with a TCR of 0.05 PPM/C) while other people don't seem to like them one bit...)

Regards,

Henk

Hi Peter,

As you know I am quite excited by this product and just how it ends up and can be used will be very interesting.  Like Mamba315 says, I think that being able the vary the gain is quite important.  The dac/DSP/amps will not only be used by the Phasure speakers so being able to set up proper gain structure for the system is very important.

I really appreciate the modular approach but to be honest am not rapt by the name you have chosen so far.  "Phasure Modular Distinct" does not translate well for me...sorry.

Cheers,

Anthony

Because only the resitors and the oven to keep all resistors at the same value will probably will cost as much as the NOS1 now.

Alternatives exist and there are ways to do this like the MSB and Total DAC, but not 26 bits linearity.

Regards, Coen

Anthony, a quick one for now because a bit busy ... (and before you're off yourself) :

How would *you* see the necessary gain then ?
How I propose(d) it is that we *all* need the same gain and then reflecting it to SPL required (I set that to 100).
Maybe you can't do it ... maybe I am wrong, but ...
Let me know.

I'd have to say though that there's a headphone output just as well, driven by the same power amp structure, but a little different (because indeed, it would be a bit much of current). So we won't use/spoil separate channels for that.
The headpone output will even be better because of the "gain part" not being there. :)

Regards,
Peter

PS: Do not make the mistake that the power amplification is made for the Orelo speakers. It is not. Still the 52W max can be the limiting factor of course, to make it work for everything and all (at 100dBSPL).

Can you try to explain to me why not ?
I am not English based so it is a bit hard to see ...

Peter

Sorry, Peter,
but I think the same. This name is way too long. You need one name for the make PHASURE and one additional name MODULAR or something else, but not two names. It is the same with your son. I am sure you call your son by one name, like I do with my son and not by a double name. And a DAC is something like a child .........

KR
Matt

Understood ... :)

..... I have to agree it doesn't work at all in English but it is a good name for this thread because it puts over what is in Peter's mind. Hopefully one of us will have a moment of sublime inspiration and come up with a stonking great name.

Actually "Sublime Inspiration"? ..................... naah doesn't work ah well we have time to come up with something.

Hi Peter,

"Modular" and "distinct" are two words (in English) that I would describe as bland or mundane...they are often used to describe something or how to use it but not to sell something (unless it is from somewhere like Ikea which is pretty boring).

So, your target market I assume for this product will be DIY'ers or switched on people developing their own acoustic system, so they are people with a little knowledge already.  I would suggest a name that is distinctive but easy to remember and easy to correlate to you and to Phasure.  For example, WAF audio have a DSP/dac product called the Najda board which is very easy to remember because it is an unusual word, but it is also a short word with two syllables and is probably easy to get people to identify that word with WAF Audio.  "Modular Distinct" is going to be difficult for people to associate with Peter Stordiau or to Phasure because they are common words used in many different contexts and generally with subjects that many people find tiresome or mundane (espencially the word "modular").

I agree with Matt that Phasure ????? (one word - probably an unusual word and a short word) is the template that I would use to market this product.  First make it easy to associate the product name to you and your company and then associate the concept to the product name.

So Peter that is what I am thinking, and a little toward why I am thinking that way.  I say this with best intentions and in the right spirit.

Best Regards,

Anthony

Myself, I would like to think that gain could be altered by swapping a resistor or two to match the sensitivity of the tranducer.  The less gain used the better I would have thought.

I take it that you are assuming that everyone using this product will be 100% computer audio...no SPDIF or i2s input...or analogue input even.

NOS:amp

Phasure Array ?

Today is Easter Monday. I have a moment of calm and quiet in the storm that I call my life and I thought, given that I do not like the names which have been offered thus far by different contributors, that I would take 5 minutes and come up with a suggestion that appeals to me, personally, on a subjective level.

As a warning, I should add that you are most certainly wasting your time in reading my contribution here, as I have no relevant experience or expertise that would remotely suggest that I am in the least competent in coming up with a satisfactory nomenclature. Secondly, Peter keeps mentioning that his first language is not English. I should add the following qualification that the same is true for me, if it is not abundantly clear already, and so please discount my opinions on this topic accordingly. All in all I have a little time to kill and entertain myself on this Easter Monday, so take everything that follows in the light-hearted tongue-in-cheek manner in which it is meant and do not take offence by any claims which I make, as they are merely intended to shock, cause debate and entertain.

First of all, let’s remind ourselves that a name does not do much if the fundamental object behind that name would still function as required. Shakespeare probably did not have to think long and hard to come up with these lines which speak of that simple eternal truth down the ages:

Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

Where the bard was mistaken though was that for his audience at any rate, if Romeo had been called Yorick, his Elizabethan audience and I daresay even our modern audiences would have been less than pleased.

I personally like names which capture the functionality of the object being described, create a hierarchy in terms of where the product stands with respect to others. The  main functions in order of importance of the Phasure Modular Distinct, for me, subjectively is the digital to analogue function, followed by the amplification modules and then the preamp/processing functionality, in that order. This suggests DAP (Digital to analogue converter with Amplification and Preamp functionality) which has a nice ring to it. It also has the added virtue that it consists of three letters, which can become Phasure’s nomenclature philosophy (use of three letters to name products). The problem is however that Phasure Dap does not sound too nice to my ears. There is something missing.

Now remember that the NOS1 was called one as it established the hierarchy of where it stood in Peter’s mind, ‘1’ being the top dac available commercially anywhere in the world. However, Peter claims that the Modular Distinct here will be the next step up. So let's do what BMW has cleverly done and associate 1 with the lowest range and odd numbers thereon with higher models. So the choice is between 3 and 5. Logically it should be 3 (the next odd number up). Now Phasure DAP 3 has a nice ring to it, because the “f” sound in the first syllable of Phasure is repeated in the “f” sound in “three.”

But sod that! It is my subjective opinion and I will say what I like. I prefer “5” which has the same virtue as 3 in that it begins with the “f” sound. It also corresponds to the number which I associate with the motoring industry making sporty racing cars performance available in an accessible “Ultimate Driving Machine,” the 5 series. So maybe the "5" captures better the idea that Peter is not trying to have one over his customers but is priced for the luxury high-end but still covetable and accessible object that it hopefully will be.

We all however know (or rather hope) that Peter will continue with offering upgrade paths to his product line as far as it is feasible for him to do so. So I would suggest the addition of “a”. This means that small iterations could be named ai, aii etc and major changes in design could be labelled b etc. This would also create a nice link with the nos1a which is Peter’s ultimate version of his current dac.

So at the end of this gruelling thought process, my subjective preference is to re-name the Phasure Modular Dac as the:


Please do yourself a favour and ignore my ruminations. I will go and talk with my kids and have a beer.

Best regards
Rakesh

Personally I think it should be called: NOSII- The Legato. In classical music legato means played in a smooth flowing manner, without breaks between notes (digital becomes analogue with Peter's magic) Also legato is very close to "Lego'. Just my 2 cents.

PHASURE LEGOS

Matt

What?  Did you add a zero or two in there Peter, or are you really shooting for sub 0.00003% THD+N?  If so then...wow.



Yes, swoon is right...that is very, very fast.  Similar low noise amps are rated 14V/us.


If this is not Class D but a cold amp then how are you keeping the heat down? Are you using SMPS? (joke)

OK here are some names that might spark some inventiveness - These would follow "Phasure":

Gods:
Apollo
Athena
Aphrodite
Zues
Chronos
Muses
Hathor
Bastet

Musical terms:
Altissimo
Magico
Passionato
Primo or Prima
Tutti
Virtuoso

Descriptions:
Inspiration
Ecstasy
Supreme
Prime
Premier
Ultimate
Exaltation
Legend
Euphoria
Prodigy
Rapture

Other:
titan      thing of enormous size, strength, power, influence
Galileo
Hologram


ideas?

Thank you for that list, Frank. I have been thinking along such lines as well, but it is difficult to find something which resembles what this is all about. For example, Ninja could be that but it also tells too much (nothing much Japanese related).

Ninja : Japanese warrior.
It is also a very modern (slang) word, although you'd have to be in modern youth circles to see it.

Something else maybe :

People seem to focus on the power amplification; Could be for a good reason but it really is not about that at all. It is only that I could mention that as an "entry point" because it will be the first phyisical product of the lot (and this has to be tested first or otherwise preceding stages must be adjusted). Anyway :


I told about it earlier; the heat dissipation is (was) the biggest problem already for the amp (x 8 !) itself. Next is the supply (is in a separate box) which also has its requirements regarding this. It is "a complex".

But I guess I'll start to lay out the other elements so you can see it is not really about the power amplification at all. That's just a (very nice) other option ...

Peter

Hey Henk,

Maybe you missed the (in my English) point :
I tried to say that 0.005% (which exists indeed) is not enough. Far from ...

What's required for this is 0.000-001-490% accuracy (mind my notation, which is just the same as 0.000001490% but doesn't read not so easy).

Thus, this is one of the most crucial parts of the DAC; when the net result of it all can't be met regarding this, then it's nice to say you have a 28bit DAC, but what to do with it when it can resolve to 16 bits only with the best (most accurate) resistors available.

Also (again) notice that the DAC could be more bits regarding this (no big deal to physically make it 30 or 32 or whatever number of bits) but that the noise (now) determines the resolvement.
The DAC is 28 bits while 26 is expected to resolve outside of the noise, because 2 spare can appear handy when the noise is somewhat lower than expected in advance.
And oh, might it appear that it resolves all the way to 28 bits, then bad luck and I will make larger ladder (R/2R) boards because it's worth while (theoretically).

Also, while the ladder boards can hold 28 bits, any number of bits less on them will work just the same.
So here you have a next part of the modularity; want a 22 bit DAC because you think you won't perceive the resolvement beyond that anyway ? then it will be 22 bits. Or 17. Or 21. Etc.

Regards,
Peter

Anthony,

... and I take it that you assume that no Volume Control will be in there. :P

The assumption "the less gain the better" is correct, normally. However, it completely depends on the (combination of) chips used and whether they were *made* to gain (and show the specs of that) or not (and then you'll do wrong with letting them "gain" after all).
Of course this is a way simple expression of the matter and you can take it from me that it requires the reading of 1000+ datasheets (several times) to get where you want to be. And, because indeed it is about "combinations" it's a quite mad excersize.

Do again notice that while we have the power amplification as the subject, this applies to everything in the chain, from even various angles. So for example, all starts with the reference voltage in the ladder (with a 100 constraint points) and how that is turned into an RCA line output. This already is very different from turning this into an XLR output. This, while in this case the RCA output will be as "large" as the XLR output. Both are differently setup, but the lot must *also* comply to the best power amplification output, which again is different.

All in other words, while we tend to look at one "subject" only, or one element only, again it is "a complex" because all must work at their best and this alone (the "all") makes it a 1000 times more difficult.
And for insiders : the output of the voltage ladder is high ohmic, which is issue #1 to solve.

Crazy project ...
Peter

Interesting.  Will it be digital or analogue volume control?

The DSP is a separate (self developed) module indeed (ha, another one). However, it will always be in there (subject to improvement/replacement). It is only that it can pass through so it is not effective when wanted.

Btw, the DSP requires programming and this will only happen when first all works. This means that by nature the first DAC(s) will work without the DSP active anyway which in itself means that it will be 2 channel only at first (why ? what to do with more channels when the XOver filtering is not active yet).

This again implies that at first there will be the mentioned "normal 2 channel" DAC and logically it will not use the power amplification because I can not use that myself.
Why not ? because my speakers are active and only when the cross-overs are outboard (like in-DAC) I can utilize external amplifiers with good result.

All in other words, of course nothing goes out as a real product before I could audibly judge it; first will thus be the 2 channel line output-only which also is the most prone for "the market".

Lastly, and this can be important :
That 2 channel version will be able to do the 256xPCM, thus outside of the DSP. With more channels the bandwidth of the USB interface is not sufficient for that and now the DSP will do that part (and now normal 16/44.1 will go over the USB interface).

Peter

Neither. Well, the (remote) control itself will be digital, but all it does is controlling the voltage reference to the ladders. So it is not in the signal path ...
(hey, what do you think !  :shout:)

The discussion is getting way too technical (and interesting). So I'll bring it back down to ground with my own name suggestion. You could take a leaf out of Ferrari's book and call the new DAC "LaPhasure". Ordinarily, I'd say this is the most stupid idea put forward... however, it seems to have worked perfectly for Ferrari. But maybe that says more about the person buying the car than anything else?

"LaPhasure"...

... yeah, stupid name.

Mani.

Freakin' awesome.  The slow volume change is my wife's pet peeve with my system, so a remote will be excellent.  The way that it works though...of course!...and wow.

Just in case people are still not sure what the April's Fool joke was ...

Still, this is one of the bigger secrets. Or mile stones, actually.

With a bit of prayer that it will work ...

:whistle::whistle::whistle:

Peter,
Very interesting.

On the names for the new DAC/amp

Something out of the box, A different path!

Poincaré conjecture edition (NOS-PC edition)

One of the most interesting problem only recently solved by an enigmatic mathematician. In short explanation of a hyper sphere (sphere in a higher dimension).

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincaré_conjecture (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincaré_conjecture)

Tesseract is another option (NOS The Tesseract)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract)

In many ways we can consider bits to be another dimension with computers becoming more and more sophisticated.

It's an amp, DAC, DSP, modular. Something that has been not done before ...

VJ

The picture above makes one thinks of the stained glass windows one sees inside a church. One could take inspiration from this and come up with the following names:

[/b]


[/b]


Well, these names can be linked to what Peter is trying to achieve. Trinity suggests strongly the multi-functionality of the device as well as its supremacy. Omega draws a sly arrow towards the Alpha dac but suggests, that whilst the Alpha is the beginning, Peter's device is the end of the journey.

Best regards
Rakesh

There is already a Trinity dac and it is not unlike the original NOS1 in some ways.  It costs $50k or something silly like that.

Man, I woke up at 3:30 am and couldn't sleep because of all these names floatng through my head.

I saw VJ's Tesseract and liked it very much. But when back in bed I already couldn't tell that name any more. And even now I had to look 4 times before having it typed correctly.

Then, being in bed, something stupid happened;
I first thought of (Thunderbird's) Zero-X which I always have found a super name. But I couldn't find the resemblence much. Then from there I came to Zero-One and while this was all just in my mind, a "pfff" came outlout from my lips because of so daft, but also so true.
Although true for very much digital, a bit strange and not all that much saying; If you imagine a 0-1 instead then things get more strange, and also more true. DSD blahblah and such.

Then, only a few hours ago I thought to fall back to an internal code name I have been using a year ago, and which I even presented to you in the forum (an in between the liner).
An attempt in the next post ...

If names like Tesseract or Thunderbird appeal, other names that can be derived from popular culture are:

[/b]

after the James Bond film which deals with both Q, who can more do more damage on his laptop over a cup of Earl Grey, or the villain who can cause nations to rise and fall by hacking, and in fact hacks M16's network





I quite like Phasure Serenity...

Best regards
Rakesh

Ahhhhh.....the Serenity.

Quote from a famous Aussie movie.

I like it.  Good name.

Well, what's in a name !


Here's an attempt to make clear what exchangable modules are in there :

• Main Board
  
  May seem a strange "module", but all the logic is on there, and logic may change ...
  This of this as a PC motherboard. It concists of a half related to the PC interface and a half which is fully isolated from that (same approach as the NOS1a regarding this).
  
  
• Interface
  
  Computer Interfaces may change, so this "obviously" is a separate module.
  Notice that there's also S/PDIF and AES inputs.
  
  
• Clock Module
  
  A smaller module holding the oscillators, obviously subject to change.
  In this case this goes way beyond oscillators only, because there's a whole "clock tree" with buffering and all which is required to control the further away ladders.
  Also the whole clock line is setup differentially and in 50 Ohms (this is also PCB stuff) while at this moment the oscillators itself are not differential ones (so the transport of the clock signal still is). But this is only because the differential oscillators existing are not the better ones. But this may change ...
  
  
• DSP
  
  The DSP module is prone to change because of the development in speed and capabilities. Also notice that what we are talking about here is a complete graphical interface (provided to make the filters) and that at this moment it is not 100% clear yet whether what we want is sufficient for bandwidth (and this is just the at this moment lacking of the programming experience for the DSP (chip) concerned).
  Also notice that this is only one example of the reason of the modularity, which is not only future update possibilities; it is just for ourselves to see whether what was decided in the design turns out as expected; when not, only a small part needs to be re-done. This counts for almost all of the DAC.
  
  
• Ladder Module
  
  The Ladders too are modules and they are the most subject to change, which is because the most "vague" logic is on them. It is here where the R/2R stuff really happens and what switches on and off the bits. I say "vague" because it is also here where a completely new means is applied for this logic.
  
  A Ladder Module always comprises of two R/2R ladders and is differentially setup throughout.
  It it designed to hold 28 bits and resolve to 26 bits.
  
  Take it that actually a complete D/A chip has been mimiced which all its features as far as could be determined - but now in discrete form. A quite undoable task in itself, were it about improving over the commonly known D/A chips for the cheer technical merits. But the advance : no active components to form the signal. Just resistors to create it.
  
  A tremendous amount of work has gone into the net applicable jitter during the D/A process. I say that this too is completely new and that actually no discrete design exists that takes into account what's all in order here (without laying out what that is). It would be a fact though, that all what normally happens in-D/A-chip regarding jitter, certainly has not been taken into account (no specs exist about it anywhere). The fun is though that when you rebuild (or re-engineer) such a chip, you can easily see what's all there to be detrimental to jitter.
  For this reason alone it should be the lowest jitter DAC ever.
  
  A Ladder Board goes into the Main Board like a PCI (etc.) card goes into a PC mother board. There's sockets for 8 of them.
  
  
• FPGA Firmware
  
  Not a real module of course, but changable by means of firmware files. And, also necessary, thinking about future updates of any kind.
  Each differential Ladder Board contains its own FPGA.
  
  
• Bit Module
  
  Yes, now it gets crazy. Even one bit is on its own small PCB;
  Think 10 or so components on such a PCB and it forms the R or /2R part.
  The real reason for the bits ending up on their own PCBs is a real strange one : The design of the Ladder Module (PCB) was out of control otherwise. So it's a bit like a computer program : when all is stuffed into one main section, the overview is lost and it is all a redundant mess. If something needs to change, it needs changing (in our case) 224 times. Not now, because only that one Bit PCB needs the change and it is just produced 224 times (again).
  
  So yes, you read right - 224 small PCBs for this alone for 2 channels.
  They go into sockets on the Ladder Module - parallel to it.
  
  A next dimension of modularity within the Bit Module is the resistors going on there. Remember, with the discrete D/A converter it's the resistor making the sound.
  All can be on there what we want, and the module is designed for both SMD and Through Hole resistors.
  Notice that it even will be so that the MSBs (Most Significant Bits) can be layed out with different resistors than the LSBs (Least Siginificant Bits), just because the MSBs are more crucial to the sound.
  Never forget that resistors too cost money and the better "sounding" they are, the more they cost.
  
  
• Output Module
  
  The Output Module bears the line output stages which comprises of buffer or gain or a combination, depending on the real needs.
  
  Think about the Output Module as a long small board going across the width of the DAC cabinet, near the back wall, sticking to the Main Board in parallel; it contains all the output line terminals hard-wired.
  Outputs are RCA and XLR and true 75 Ohm BNC. So max 24 in total for 8 channels.
  
  
• Power Amp Module
  
  Not really subject to change (once it works as expected), but modular in itself apart from the number of them (one per required channel). So, which channels bear power amplification can be decided (including none at all) and how much power each channel needs to provide can also be decided.
  
  Each one module is differentially set up from head to tail and the speaker outputs go by wire into the cabinet's back (one for plus, one for minus).
  Envision the (max) 24 line outputs (see above) to be on the bottom in the back of the cabinet and a row of (max) 16 speaker outputs above that.
  
  I rate the output power at ~52 Watts but this depends on the power supply and what's feasable there.
  So just notice : peak power can be 221 Watts and in continuous RMS it can be 78 Watts. But see below.
  (output voltage is +/- 15.8 (so total 31.6V))
  
  THD+N is theoretically rated at better than 0.00003%.
  
  
• Linear Power Supply
  
  Comes in a separate cabinet at max 1.5m power cable distance.
  Power Amplification for 8 channels assumed, 56A needs to be provided. :oops:
  Now we run into a few problems because of the transformers needed, how large they are allowed to be to avoid humming and how large that cabinet is to be and what we can still bear (weight !).
  So while 1KVA transformers are required to deliver this power, I'd say this is too much of it and we stick to 600VA, that devided over 2ch per one transformer of 150VA. And that will be heavy enough already.
  If we now think that nobody is going to use the maximum RMS = continuously and redo the math for 150VA transformers then 55.71 Watts remain. And I made that 52W so I never claim too much.
  
  Please keep in mind that all still depends on the possible heat dissipation, which is exactly why this needs to be tested in practice.
  
  

All done by heart and possibly I forgot a "module" here or there, but for now it's enough I think.

Peter

Excellent!

"Ph" for phasure, "d" for digital, and "1" to draw link to NOS1? And "PhD" to suggest the intellectual challenge/achievement presented by this new device

This is very very clever indeed.

Congratulations

Best regards
Rakesh

P.S. As it happens, my first serious phonostage (which I still own) is the battery-powered PhD by Sutherland in the US. And I like it very much indeed. Some coincidence... Look it up!

Well well !


There's even a third dimension in that. But you can't know.
:secret:

PhD1
Phasure/DSD/1 ?

Excellent

Matt

Peter,
is it possible to get a PhD1 without DSP module?

Matt

Hi Matt,

No. So as I said, it will always be in there, but will be passed by when not in use.

Why ?

Peter

Btw, I said No, but I'm not even sure why. The Main Board is not in production yet, so it is a matter of passing by in hardware. But I must look into that.

Still : why ...

Peter,

We talked about it before (long time ago) . My speaker manufacturer said to me that if i one day like to change my amps i have to be sure there is a Baffle correction. Normal slopes wont work. Do you now what he means and can you make such?

Grtz and what looks everything great  :ok:

Hey Gerard,

Undoubtedly I can make that. But this is highly theoretical because it requires your speakers. But by that time you will have learned to do that yourself.

So please notice :

One little part which is not finalized yet is the idea about a nice 24/192 ADC. This is not really for recording facilities but for measuring what we cooked by means of the DSP.
Will allow 2ch recording just the same though.

Not finalized because I am not sure yet whether something made for the job could be better. But anyway :

It must be clear that to some extent a full DSP means to allow making cross overs (and more in the end) requires measurement (by yourselves) and a bit of knowledge of that. But point is : you'd need to get the knowledge from somewhere and besides the software (made by myself) aiding with that, there will also be "help" and support. Ehm, obviously.

So no worries ?
Regards,
Peter

No Worries  :)

First enjoy the journey of making the new DAC and the innumerable posts that will be written  :blob8:

Just in the day's of the NOS1   :)  :yahoo:

It would be very nice to get the PhD1 without DSP..........
Thanks.
Matt

Why ?


Jaaaa ja.
If you ask your wife whether it is allowed to again buy a new audio toy and she asks you "why " ? do you get away with with such an answer ?

In other words, not useful at all.
Peter

PS: Mind the "useful" which is literal.

Jajajajaja ... ehh, Yes.

It is even so that the bypass already is in hardware (think solder bridges) but when I made this part of the design, it was for myself because at first I myself can't use the DSP (because it requires the programming and the hardware must run first).
So the only change it requires is making jumpers of those "bridges" and then everybody can put in the DSP later (I mean : factually that can be done because it doesn't require soldering (out) on the main board of less than 1mm SMD bridges). Just pull the jumpers and put in the DSP module.

But you would not want that Matt, because you don't want that. Why ? well, just because I suppose.
:swoon:

Peter (in good spirit)

Thanks, Peter,

is there an estimated price range for the most basic version of the PhD1 (two channel, no DSP, no amps)?

Matt

Very interesting. looking forward for further information regarding THE ultimate dac project.  :yes:

Very nice with the new arrangement for volume adjustment, will the same remote control functions in xxhe?
I sure like the concept with the modules, very very nice.

Hope it will be possible to have the split setup- DAC close/behind the speakers. I want that!!!

So Peter, have you got the new amps together yet?

Hey Anthony - almost. You are just ahead of me, me waiting for the final results on the power stability which is going to happen in a few minutes. It had to wait for a few components to arrive for that measurement only; I am going to show a nice picture of that. You could be shocked although in the end it is quite obvious ...

Peter

Btw, I don't like the PhD name after all. Or maybe I do, but the longer I am thinking about it, the more I am missing the "known" thing. I feel that I will only be happy/satisfied with NOS2 ...
And it would still be justified - that "NOS" ...

I am not so keen on PhD either...perhaps a little wanky..or maybe it is just me because I know a couple of people who think their PhD is the thing that defines them.

But on the other hand, we are 10 pages into this thread and we are finally coming back to the second post...hehehe.  I am sure that something will feel right and eventually stick.

Post #2 ?


haha

It is more stupid;
For years I have been thinking about the "NOS2" as the next one. But it turns out to be such a (more) beast that I thought that NOS2 wouldn't justify that. You actually said it the other way around, Anthony ...

Regards,
Peter

What about
- Phasure XEvo
- XEvo1
- Phasure Evolution

Juan

The new DAC is more Revolution than Evolution.

Matt

Yes
Phasure NOS2 Revolution, or
Phasure NOS2 Revelation

Its a hybrid, and therefore quite appropriate.

 ;)

VJ

Below the photo I had in mind. This is about testing the power capabilities of the supply on the (poweramp) board which you see in the right. Btw the white paper covering the board is not to hide secrets but to avoid short cutting.

In the left you see two lousy 5 Watt resistors (the little white) of which I thought at first could do the job (create a load on the amp). But I left my brains somewhere I forgot and when I finally found them I saw that there's 63 Watt on such resistors for the 4A I wanted to test. So that required quite something else, and that is what you see now (these are 300W and 1Kg).

Next it is easy to make the mistake in thinking that you use a supply of 2x 3A and thus 6A in total which is enough for the 4A, ... while the 4A is also x2. Yup (plus and minus).
Comfortable was the mistake to forget about the 0.5A fuse in the 230V mains (towards transformers) because that blew and prevented the power supply from going through the roof.

So, funny, that just testing something for its capabilities requires something otherwise not in order.

Of course when something was changed for the better on the board and a first real measurement was about to take place, someone make a shortcut with the measurement probe and the board was blown before it could be tested finally. So had to make a new board (and cover it with paper ;)).

The result ?
Not known yet. But at least 24 hours passed :1eye: ...
Peter

Haha, it works ...

---

For the not-so-insiders : when I mention +/-15V this means plus 15V and minus 15V. So two separate voltages, one plus, one minus (so it does *not* mean "around and about 15V").

---

But this is only the first part which is about the "ultra low noise" power regulation of the power amp board. It is only that we couldn't test more than 2A for either the plus and minus supply because we lack the power resistor to do that in good fashion for the max 3A (plus and minus) the main power supply I use for this can take. But I see no reason why a bit more current :swoon: won't work just the same.

The beauty of it is that totally nothing heats up even a single bit. So total draw is 4 Ampere and all stays at ambient temperature. OK, those resistors get a little warmer.
For insiders : Input voltage is +/-15.8V. The regulated (output) voltage is +/-15.56V. So here's the big trick in "nothing heats up" because there's hardly any voltage drop (it can really be zero but I like to have a little headroom for at least this testing).

---

Next up will be the noise (ripple etc.) measurement from this. Not sure what this will be worth at the moment, because the main power supply I'm using is a lousy one. But I need to know, because next in this little project will be the gain stage, which btw still is not the power amplification (that's behind that stage). And that stage too will exhibit noise and of course all should be the lowest ...

Peter

I get the gist of what you are doing now.  So the onboard voltage regulation components are very well matched and don't dissipate much heat and so where the amps will be will stay cool as a result.  Obviously this is secondary regulation...will the primary regulation be Class A in the other case/chassis?

 :blob8: :blob8:

Anthony, maybe I can imagine something with "Class A" in this realm, but the variation in (primary) supply should be 0.1V or so while it is not the intention that some heat steaming regulation is occurring *there*. So all is matched, but theory for now (like 18VDC secondary nice 150VA transformers (one per 2ch) I have in mind but which have to come from China and must be tested first).
And ordered before that. :)

Only this morning I selected the capacitors for in there.

Regards,
Peter

Phasure NOS2 XX

Hey Gerard, we all appreciate what Peter does, but... blowing two kisses to the guy? Com'on, let's not get carried away here.

:prankster:... of course!

Mani.

So Mani, I don't know your background really, but that's girl's notation. Nobody reads that like you !
So what's up ?

hehe

Nothing! 'Kiss-Kiss-HighEnd' rules...

Mani.

hahahaha  :rofl: :rofl:

Well to be honest the guy deserves a thousand kisses.

 :wub: :rofl:

Well since you guys are blowing kisses at each other I can then reveal another name I was hesitant of doing so earlier ...

NOS "ménage à trois"

 :censored: :pleasantry:

Maybe people thought that nothing was happening any more. Well, that is true to some extent because I am trying to finish some new XXHighEnd version. 8)

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS2/Phasure_NOS1_Power_Amp_Testing.JPG)
Still, two days ago I spent a full day on the testing and the main problem seems to be the testing itself. I mean, results are partly to expectation but partly not. However, the "not" seems to be related to how to actually test hence how to hook it up to the analyser.

I myself easily call this a lack of experience, with somewhere deep down a flair of "that happens when you do strange things". This is all about the differential output, how a loudspeaker implies a load and how *testing* this with an analyser is a whole different story (or maybe not, but as I said - lack of experience). Think plus and minus and how an analyser for balanced input also uses a ground, while in this case there is no ground. Change (convert) the output to SE (Single Ended) also does not work because the e.g. minus part becomes a referenced ground (in the analyser) which is not the same as a loudpeaker which doesn't know anyhing about ground (just plus and minus).

So stupid me and it requires time I don't have at this moment (in justified fahsion).

Peter

No you don't, working on other things well perhaps just tweak XXhighend a bit then I suspect go back to the AMPS. Thats your dream now!!!!

I was going to pester you again for more information Peter but you beat me to it!

Hello Peter,

Long time, no talk. Say hi to the family, always welcome for a visit to So CA. Sounds like all is well.

Have you considered a silicone oil for cooling your amplifier? Along with heat-sinks around the edge, heat would flow through convection and even heat / cooloing to all parts.
Great to hear you are onto another great piece of gear - cannot wait to hear. Laurie & I loved the NOS1 at the show.

David

Hi there David ! Hope all is well with you all. And with the cooking of course. :veryhappy:

Thanks for the tip; most probably this will not be needed, but if it is ... :)

First let's get this thing to work as I want. And, closer already ...

Regards !
Peter

Hi Peter - just out of interest will NOS2 DSD playback have the (obligatory?) low pass filter to remove all that out of band ultrasonic noise that is a feature of DSD files. Or have you done something clever to avoid it?

Hi Paul,

The latter. There won't be any ultrasonic noise to begin with ...

Peter

Have you anything more to show us Peter?  Are the amps operational? 

Nice, very nice!!!!

Anthony,

It goes in bits and pieces with not too much time for it. I must give priority to XXHighEnd and if one issue in that is solved a next pops up. But at least a beta went out last weekend so that must be getting close. But the more of that, the less time for other stuff.

Still every day a few things are attempted on the power amp. Point is : something is wrong and for the life of me, so far, I can't find what it is. So it's a process of flying in different chips, rewire them to the existing PCB, try again, see what might be wrong with *that*, sit back and think and ... all sorts of iterations. I *still* think it is mainly a measurement issue but hard to prove.

...

The above is what I typed 2 hours ago. Meanwhile I again was ordering some other parts (or more of them for new trials) and then I saw a mistake in the initial order for these parts ... :o
yep
A 6.3V blocking capacitor in the supply which should be 16V. :sleeping:
And since I always see problems which lead to something wrong with the gnd this has to be it.
The correct (smd) part should be here Monday (now it is Friday). So a bit of waiting again ...

Peter

:heat:

It is still premature but at least I now have something I aimed for.

What you see below is without any power supply regulation (that is the part which momentary fails actually); additionally I use the worst power supply imaginable (high ripple) and still this (THD+N of 0.00079%) is close to the analyser limit.

Input signal is 3Vp-p which will be the ladder output and the output signal is 8.4VRMS (24Vp-p).

This is with 37.5 Ohm load and after finishing the board this afternoon and sticking on some heatsink it should do 4 Ohm (loudspeaker) load. If the figures are still the same this little part is finished ...
:scratching:
not.

Not really because next up is something which allows a deeper interpretation of the figures because of hitting the analyser limit for the THD+N number. Maybe it can work visually (like see dropping the noise line and harmonics) or maybe I can do something to the analyser squeezing out more.
Or otherwise apply tweaks to the board so the "error" comes forward better (but I don't like this much because actually this implies error and I am not really used to such analysis).

Point of course is, that while this is without any good regulation, how can I check for the regulation to work out for the better if the figures stay the same.

Lastly, when this works for nice measurement figures it is still not a finished job because I am using a chip in there which I actually don't like for sound. So you may remember that I talked about the 1950V/us slew rate this amplifier can do "for a part" but for the net result this is really related / dependent on another ship and the one in there now is 50V/us, but is is low noise (so this is how the measurement looks fine). And now it gets more complicated becase the chip I have in mind  exhibits more noise BUT is highly dependent on the power supply because its noise rejection is worse. And the power supply can not be done as should because that requires a new PCB first.
Got it ? haha
Anyway with that chip the THD+N figure is 0.00110% at this moment and although also quite good for a power amp it is not what I had in mind. On the other hand all may be better when the board is fully populated so that too is to be tested. But still quite moot because it just needs a fine power regulation first.

Summarized it is all a bit of iterations and (much) throughput time but at least it looks (very) good for proceeding.

Peter

Okay ...

First plot shows 11.25VRMS (31Vp-p) into 6.5 Ohm.
Second shows 8.4VRMS (24Vp-p) into (speaker driver realistic) 3.9 Ohm.

The latter just exceeds the power supply which is 6A so there it starts to go wrong because of that, and no power resistors at hand for a little less load. So this is how the first plot shows the 31Vp-p which implies 4.8A which is still fine for the power supply.

This is going to work ...

Here we can hear what is possible with an amazing amplifier.

http://www.avshowrooms.com/Audionet_Amplifiers.html

I don’t hear this performance in my room.

Joachim

And for later reference perhaps, this is how the noise shows up to 96KHz (into 3.9 Ohm). Only a bit of 50Hz but the wires are all over the place.

So THIS is how I like it for a power amp. :)

All,

In between whatever jobs, a small report about the power amp testing.

What you see in the picture below, is the means of testing the amplifier audibly while using a "best reference" (which is my NOS1a);

I did something naughty as I removed the normal gain stage of the NOS1a and let the poweramp now act as gain stage instead. And if now the sound is worse than it was, something is not right to begin with.

At some stage I gave up ...
But what you see below just passed its 4th day of listening and I now reckon that I leave my NOS1a be like that (haha).

I didn't look really, but I estimate that this "little part" consumed something like 5-6 weeks of throughput time, but of course 2 or so lost because of the regulation not working out. Otherwise I can see that the last post was on May 8 and this was about testing the power (current) and since then I've only be changing configurations and listen. Reject, change, listen again. Learn from the both situations, set up something else and check for an hour or 5 of listening. Still good ? then extend more towards the intended end situation. Still all fine ? ehm, no. Back to base and start over again with another config.

And so it is now May 23 (still 2015) and all what I see is that when I extend the configuration further, sound is going to be better again. But I don't like to be spoiled so I just won't.
Yes, I am even serious.

I now wonder whether people ever heard serious slam together with super accuracy; I mean, the slam is not so difiicult but all the failure came from the accuracy going away and things really sounding like a drag. But now ?
Again I don't recognize any of the (dozens) of albums I played.

So it took a while, but this is the first real success. Now a new PCB is going to be ordered, with a new regulation which hopefully does work; dimensions have been changed as well, to even better fit the 8 channel cabinet but we'll see about that later.

Oh, almost forgot : The set up is not differential any more per se. I thought that in the end this is a waste of space and money because all what the differential really does is providing more voltage, while this will only be necessary for channels which require high power, or speakers which are low efficiency. So, one board now actualy carries two single ended normal amplifiers, but it can be used as a "bridged" amplifier just the same.

What I could do now finally as well - and I just did this morning - was write out (on 7 pages) how the connections are to be from the ladders to the outputs or poweramps (and then outputs). What I now could reason out is how no single active element is needed to be in there in any situation. Of course the power amps themselves are active elements, so disregard those.
The focus is now also more on Single Ended with the same "quality" which is very very crucial because it saves about half of the money. So all can still be differentially setup (like the power amp outlay above) but when it is not necessary for the connection I tend to go the route of having the whole chain single ended. Thus for example, when for certain channels the power (amplification) requirement is not high enough to bridge the amps on one board, the ladder feeding it will also be "one".

The design for this all is ready for a longer while, but as I saw myself this morning, it still needs 7 pages of reasoning about how the flexibility in all is to be utilized best. Btw similar to me spending 4 weeks (throughput) on trying different configurations of the power amp board. In other words, nice that I made all so flexible, but it really needs some stiff elementary thinking on how all now actually will or should work. Practice example ?

Envision you order a NOS2. So what do you want ?
- Two channels with ~60W RMS into 8 ohms.
- Two channels with probably 10W or so into 4 Ohms.
- Two channels with XLR output (and RCA/BNC) for the nice tweeter stereo amp laying around.
- One channel for the subwoofer which is active and thus RCA.

This looks easy, but it won't be. This is because all costs money. So who determines the 60W of the first line ?
Ah, we do that so we are on te safe side. Very nice. But those two channels will be two times more expensive if 30W also is fine (actually this now comes down to 15W but alas).

Regards,
Peter

Nice gag :

Because I don't know much of power amplification as such for practice, and I mean how the power required is to be mapped on to speaker situations while I actually never wondered about the real work out ...

I made a few mistakes. Or mistakes ... maybe that's a too string description, but look :

What I did was relating it a bit to what I use at the moment for power amplification and this is 30W GainClones. I always say 30W while they are over 50, but say that this is related to the better specs of them and how they must be used then.

Without really paying attention, I started to measure as you can see in posts above. But what do I measure ? ehm, 31V into 4 Ohms = 7.75A, which 31V I had to drop a bit because of the transformers I had laying around not being capable. Besides that 7A is the max for good specs - which is theoretical. From this follows 28Vp-p. Beautiful.
Also beautiful is that this is 196W and who cares (98W into 8 Ohm).

But the big mistake I made is that I never saw that this is continuous while in pratice this is never ever used. Still I measured it like it to be continuous. In other words - and this is the crux :
With this continuous power the figures are what you saw above. Thus completely crazy. Outrageous actually. And nothing runs really hot either (with the heatsink on I think I saw 50 celcius or so after a minute or 10 of this power).

The peak power will be over twice as much, but then THD will vastly increase. On the other hand it seems impossible that this power is needed by anyone in normal circumstances.
So point is : what I did was anticipating peak power for normal situations and took my 30W as a base, while without really realizing it I turned that into a theoretical 72W which ends up at 98W (8 Ohm) but which is not peak but continuous RMS. :smack:

Now you'll understand better why the power amp boards are more focused on being single ended now and how one board can carry two amps, and how for instance me with my 115dB sensitive speakers will only use SE amps for sure.
The greatest gag is almost that all was so much squeezed and squeezed and squeezed to let fit in 8 power amp channels (quite easily in the end), that now this is 16 ...
ahum
But it would require 16 ladders as well and I didn't even start looking at that - and I won't go that route because where to put al the output terminals (for 8 channels it is 40 already).

Peter

Peter,

Would you expect noise to change when pushing say a 16ohm load?  Would be interesting to see the corresponding graph.

Anthony

Peter, so you are going SE amps now.  How does this affect the measurements?  The theoretical THD+N for the differential amps was less than 0.00003% and some premature measurements above showed values about a factor of 10 above that for the amps in differential mode.  Now this change to SE.  Are we going to get much more distortion, respectively speaking, at these already vanishingly low levels?

What really interests me (as you know) are small signals (say 1W) into high impedances (say 16ohm) because that is what will be in my speakers.  Most of the time I will be using well less than 1W.  There are available reasonably priced SS amps with 1W THD+N of 0.0003% which rises to 0.01% at 0.5W.  SS amps (such as yours) seem the be characterized by rising THD+N as the amplifier output (Watts) falls.  I think that it will be very interesting to see how your new amplifier behave at less than 1W.

Regards,

Anthony

EDIT:  Afterall, your top two channels are 119dB sensitive, so you will be using a fraction of a watt especially if you remove the passive crossover as seems to be the logical step with the NOS2.

I don't know where that 115dB came from, but that's my old speakers.


Don't know where that came from either. :)
It really is 118dB.
But Ok, who cares. :grazy:

Anthony,

Below you see that same amp but now into 50K Ohm and something like +/- 1.2V (so p-p 2.4V). This is the SE (Single Ended) situation for the poweramp. Also, what I measure here is the whole chain in SE (and output is 6dB less indeed).

What you see (is actually the situation from the picture in my post from 2 days ago) is the normal output of the NOS1a but a bit better (worst harmonic is at -116 dB or so) but with the notice that the output is 6dB less and this even weighs in for THD+N (the higher the signal while the harmonics stay at the same level, the better THD+N will be).

Maybe it is hard to follow, but this is thus the exact other side of the "chain" to test as this is no load at all. However, there's infinite current available were it for headroom. In this built (config) case this is 750mA while normally we use 80mA for our NOS1(a) (and then usually into 50-100K).

So what I found, unexpectedly, is that this matters a LOT. It is a bit of the same thing as people calling you names when you come up with a 6GB bandwidth long distance video solution and name it Blaxius, which also matters a lot. Do the math with capacitance and all (and the 80mA) and you'll come up with 20m+ of cable length. But make an even less capacitance cable and it helps vastly. What I did here was increase the current possibiliy and again it helps vastly.

What did I really say ? well, that the spades of headroom, also for the poweramp situation (which really is the very same) are always useful. Remember, headroom, which is different from taking 30V into 4 Ohm and then needing the current (and the dissipation and all).


About differential vs. SE and possible (2nd harmonic) distortion :
This is a longer story while I will try to keep it short - think about differential as things being in super balance and that doing all kind of jobs. That is nice but then first the opportunities for the super balance must be there and I don't see that for the power amp. Or at least not the way it is done here and how it can be done SE by means of the exact same principle. Fact is that this is still to find out for real because with this board I can't test the real SE situation. So secret : the picture from two days agso *and* the measurements you see below are from a differentially populated board, but measured from one (SE) side only. I listen to it SE as well because behind this is my normal power amp from the moment and this has SE input only.
The new board will allow for genuine SE population (2x) as well as genuine differential population. The difference emerges with how the input signal to it is connected and how the output signals are used.

So two examles from day before yesterday's post about the connections :

If I have a SE ladder because it is only half of the price from differential, how can I make a differential power amp out of that witout active (OpAmp) elements ? I can't. So this is how the power amp is allowed to be SE because what to do else (hey, for best SQ !).

If I have a differential (voltage !) ladder because that is supposed to be better for THD+N and I like to spend the $, how to make that work with a SE power amp and no active elements (like a summing OpAmp) ? I can't. So or I now use a differential poweramp as well, or I use only half of the differential ladder.
Now laugh : the ladder is so complicated and is so much set up differentially, that that really *will* matter for THD and all when you use only half of it. This is totally crazy stuff. So you use half of it, throw thus out half of the power, but it is double because it measures better (and may sound better) and this is because of all the really balancing out stuff in there (say what's done in plus is counteracted in minus at the same time to eliminate current spikes).

And in the end all is just possible thus without active elements outside of the power amp itself.

Peter

Hi Peter,

This looks like such an incredible ambitious project. Having the ability to DSP X-over and tailor the room acoustics via DSP is the golden key to audio, takes the room out of the equation. When you have a turn-key system and want to show in the US again, let me know, would love to work with you again - we are working on a promising new motor design, better efficiency, lower inductance & distortion and new VC design.

Laurie LOVED your NOS-1 and cannot wait to hear your complete system.

I do not know if it would help with DSP math, but know someone in Norway that has written some DSP for Windows that might be a marriage for your system. If you are interested in contacting, drop me a line via e-mail and I can share.

Best to you and family,

David
 

So, nothing happened eh ...

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS2/Phasure NOS2 01a.jpg) High Resolution link Phasure NOS2 01 (http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS2/Phasure NOS2 01.jpg)

The loose boards in the left are the Linear Power Supply (the part of it which goes in the external case) and the new design of the Power Amp (black). The Power Amp is optional per (max 72W RMS) channel.

What you see on the right hand side is a 50 pieces of "bit modules" (they are all connected together per the production means). They connect to the sides of the ladder boards, in parallel.
You see 8 ladders here, for 8 channels. 56 of the bit modules go on one ladder (2x 28 bits).

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS2/Phasure NOS2 02a.jpg) High Resolution link Phasure NOS2 02 (http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS2/Phasure NOS2 02.jpg)

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS2/Phasure NOS2 03a.jpg) High Resolution link Phasure NOS2 03 (http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS2/Phasure NOS2 03.jpg)

But there is a small problem ...
:yes:

Need a bigger case?

Looks rather good by the way.  Thanks for the update.

Below you can see how the bit modules are supposed to attach.
Don't look at the values or "untightness". This is just experimenting with the attachment means and how/whether things fit as intended.
They do. :)

So here you see three bits (one module for each) with only the "through hole" resistors soldered. You can see that the size of these resistors is ~ 2mm too large to fit really, but this is intentional. So now this size fits, but a smaller size fits just the same.

Under the resistors you see pads for SMD resistors. So instead of "through hole", the ladder resistors (and it is all about that, SQ wise) it can also be SMD.

And thus we can choose the resistor we like, of the sound quality we like.

The ladder module (the long board) can hold 28 bit modules. Or less - and again it is about what we like or what is useful. This is of course all to find out.

Peter

And that is the problem ...
It should have been 56.

So I have a design for SE (Single Ended) ladders and I have a design for Differential ladders. The decision for which is a bit (haha) crazy and is all related to the output. For example, nice to have a diferential power amp, but with a SE source something has to make that "differential" (make two signals out of one). Or, nice to have a SE poweramp, but what to do with the differential source (combine two signals into one which is veeeeery expensive, because a waste).

So maybe 8 weeks ago the idea was "SE" again, and that's just in a folder on disk somewhere, in the midtst of all the other stuff.

Then the whole boatload was given to China for production and over there they did not understand some file. So I adjusted a few things and resent the file. Again they did not understand so I sent the original again but now with an additional description. Ah, now all was fine.
But the last time I picked the wrong folder ...
:swoon:
I only found out yesterday after everything arrived.

So yesterday I put the ladder board to an order again, with again the original file.
Most probably I will now get a complaint again, have to change stuff and ... hopefully I will not be sending the wrong files again.

So again two more weeks of waiting.

Peter

This is important.  Those Vishay Dales are expensive little fellows especially in the 0.1% variant and at the number you will probably buy them they are like 40c each.  But there are a number of good low noise resistors to choose from, so it will be interesting to see what you come up with.  Var-Z Foil for about $15 each will make the dac very, very expensive, but perhaps they will be just what the doctor ordered!

I know it is off topic but a similar things happened to me this week.  I sent some gerbers to China for some pcb's for the ATX Linear psu project and about 30 minutes after I got the email that they had been put into production I realised that I should have added a snubber in one of the power supply boards...oh well...at this stage I just want to get the thing working...I can fine-tune it later.

Anthony,


Yes. And in the past month they became 30% more expensive (for us - EUR-USD).

And you know what the biggest problem is ?
Someone has to test this and see whether it's worth it.
Not even me is going to do that.

Regards,
Peter

28 bits x 3 resistors per bit (from photo - not sure if this is true) x $15 = $1260 per board.

Times 2 for differential (my own Gerber issue), times 2 for 2 channels.

How many channels do you like to have, you said ??

:swoon: :swoon: :swoon: :swoon: :swoon:

Yowser!

Whhoow ... I just finished ordering the parts for a complete 2 channel NOS2.

It always takes the most time to source the parts (where to find them / where to really obtain them from (is also $$$ related)). This time it took me over 3 full days.

A total of 120 order lines, spread over 4 suppliers.
This means 120 different parts.

If I count right, it is 2886 parts, excluding the cabinet, wiring, input/output terminals, switches, a display, remote and possibly more unimportant stuff.
And those 2886 parts all need to be soldered.

See you in a year ?

:scratching:

Peter