Phasure NOS2

[AlainGr]

Phasure Array ?

[rakeshpoorun]

"Phasure Modular Distinct" does not translate well for me...sorry.

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

Peter

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

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:

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

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:

Phasure DAP 5a

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

Best regards
Rakesh

[boleary]

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.

[Matt]

PHASURE LEGOS

Matt

[acg]

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).

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.

Slew Rate is 1950V/us ().

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

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.
 

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

[xp9433]

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?

[PeterSt]

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.

[PeterSt]

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 :

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

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

[PeterSt]

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

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

[PeterSt]

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.

Anthony,

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

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

[acg]

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

Interesting.  Will it be digital or analogue volume control?

[PeterSt]

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).

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

[PeterSt]

Interesting.  Will it be digital or analogue volume control?

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 !  )

[manisandher]

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.

[acg]

Interesting.  Will it be digital or analogue volume control?

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 !  )

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.