Phasure NOS1 vs. Pacific Microsonics Model Two - Round 1

[manisandher]

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

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

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

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

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

Mani.

[Nick]

Mani hi,

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

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

All the best Nick.

[PeterSt]

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

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


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

Peter

[manisandher]

WHAT'S GOING ON HERE???

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

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

Mani.

PS. What's the prefix for 16x?

[manisandher]

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

OK, false alarm.

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

Mani.

[PeterSt]

Hey Mani,

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

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

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

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

PS. What's the prefix for 16x?

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


Sorry for having confused you.
Peter

[manisandher]

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

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

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

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

Mani.

[Flecko]

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

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

[manisandher]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mani.

[pedal]

Interesting.

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

[boleary]

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

[christoffe]

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

Hello Mani,

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

Thank you

best

Joachim

[Gerard]

Maybe a good idear to do both? 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mani.

[Flecko]

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

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

[manisandher]

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

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

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

Mani.