Phasure NOS2

[PeterSt]

Yes Matt, it is the same.

Peter

[PeterSt]

What is the ultimate goal of these new projects? I do not speak about to get a better sound

But I do.

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

[rakeshpoorun]

What is the ultimate goal of these new projects? I do not speak about to get a better sound

But I do.

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

[Matt]

Yes Matt, it is the same.
Peter

Thanks, Peter,

this DAC will be a game changer.

Matt

[rakeshpoorun]

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

[juanpmar]

this DAC will be a game changer.

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

[PeterSt]

Am I wrong or there is still hope for the NOS1a?

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

[PeterSt]

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

[juanpmar]

Am I wrong or there is still hope for the NOS1a?

Luckily, yes, there is still hope...as the NOS1a will not be discontinued...When something comes up for an upgrade it will just be offered as usual...

Great news Peter

Best regards
Juan

[Matt]

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

[rakeshpoorun]

Am I wrong or there is still hope for the NOS1a?

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 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

[Matt]

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.

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

[christoffe]

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

 

[AlainGr]

Am I wrong or there is still hope for the NOS1a?

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 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

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)

[michaeljeger]

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