Phasure NOS2

[PeterSt]

Hi Michael - brief response :

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

still once in a while some hiccups

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

Regards and thanks,
Peter

PS:

i believe there is really not much upwards potential anymore.

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.

[juanpmar]

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

[Matt]

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

[Mamba315]

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

(other) steak and cable Matt 

[hvdh]

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

[acg]

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

[CoenP]

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...)

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

[PeterSt]

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.

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).

[PeterSt]

"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

[Matt]

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.

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

[PeterSt]

Understood ...

[Scroobius]

Phasure Modular Distinct

..... 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.

[acg]

"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

[acg]

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.

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).

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.

[listening]

NOS:amp