Async-USB 24/768 Phasure NOS1 DAC

[manisandher]

Start Edit:Not content with being the first to develop a WASAPI player or the first to develop a non-oversampling 24/192-capable DAC, PeterSt has done it again... with the World's first async-USB NOS 24/768 DAC!End Edit

 

This is not a trivial 'numbers game' exercise. Being a truly non-oversampling & non-filtering DAC, it's important to feed the eight PCM-1704 chips within the DAC the highest rate they are capable of taking (in this case 768KHz). This keeps any unwanted unfiltered signals well away from the audioband.

 

I've just taken receipt of my DAC and will be posting my thoughts on its SQ later. But for now, I just wanted to give you all a heads up.

 

IMHO, the world of computer audio is about to be turned on its head... again!

 

Mani.

 

PS. Chris, you really need to take a listen to the Phasure NOS1 at some point...

 

PSS. I have no affiliation whatsoever to Phasure. I have paid the full retail price for the 3 licensed copies of XXHighEnd that I have, the two Phasure NOS1 DACs that I own and all upgrades that PeterSt has made to them. I just tell it as I hear it... nothing more, nothing less.

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Mani - I should receive my review sample NOS1 (USB) in the near future. Peter has to build one for US power requirements.

 

 

 

[manisandher]

Hey Chris,

 

Cool. I'd love to hear your thoughts... if nothing more than to verify that I'm not going out of my mind.

 

Mani.

 

[sq225917]

Sorry to burst the bubble but doesn't the Young already use 768 internally to feed its DAC chip.

 

first filterless usb 768 DAC...

 

[manisandher]

Most DACs work at much higher rates than 768KHz internally, because like the Young, they use chips with SDMs.

 

The Young can accept a 24/384 async USB signal from the computer. The NOS1 accepts a 24/768 async USB signal from the computer.

 

So no, not the first filterless 768 DAC... but the first async-USB 24/786 DAC... PERIOD.

 

Of course, you may be wondering what the hell you pass on to such DACs, because native 24/768 files just don't exist. True. But players such as HQPlayer and XXHighEnd can 'upsample' 16/44.1 to 24/768 and really transform their sound.

 

Mani.

 

[Audio_ELF]

The Phasure wasn't "first-to-market" 24/384 DAC: the Naim DAC could play such music (upto 32/768) via a USB memory stick prior to the availability of the Phasure. You can't (I acknowledge) play such files via a computer though.

 

But then I'm just being an annoying pedant!

 

Eloise

 

[manisandher]

Ha, missed this.

 

Yes indeed, the Naim DAC was released a while ago and can accept 32/768 via its USB input.

 

But I think we all know that 'async-USB' implies the control of data from a computer using the DAC's and not the computer's clocks. Last I heard, a USB memory stick doesn't have a clock inside...

 

But I know you were just being cheeky... and that's cool.

 

Mani.

 

[Elprior]

>> Last I heard, a USB memory stick doesn't have a clock inside...

 

Yep, so the dac must be in control here, which is your point.

 

Elp

 

[manisandher]

... talking of 'async' when there's only one clock involved is a bit like talking of 'clapping' with only one hand...

 

... a bit pointless.

 

Mani.

 

[Elprior]

Async is just the 'marketing' hype for extracting the data to a pace that allows for the use of reference clocks (on the audio side).

 

My guess would be that this is exactly what the Naim dac must do (there is no clock on the usb stick, as you pointed out).

 

Eloise's point is still a valid one (in my book).

 

As for clapping with one hand, well, you can still use your knees to complement (unless you want these removed too)

 

Elp

 

[vortecjr]

when did Phasure DAC come to Market?

 

Jesus R

www.sonore.us

 

[manisandher]

Well, I received my original (32/384-capable) Phasure NOS1 in December 2010. Not sure when it actually 'came to market' though.

 

In which case I suppose the DAD ADC/DACs could claim to be well before the NOS1... and perhaps many other DACs too. But I'm pretty certain the 'new' NOS1 is the first async-USB 24/768 DAC (Eloise's objection notwithstanding).

 

Happy to edit my original post if necessary.

 

Mani.

 

[vortecjr]

You might want to change it...lol On the audiophile side the MSB DACs are 24/384 and the manual for the DAC III dates back to 2005. You could say the Phasure DAC was the first to pump 24/384 through a Juli@ card:)

 

Anyway, don't mind me and preceed with your review...

 

Jesus R

www.sonore.us

 

[barrows]

Delivered any Phasure DACs to the US? In any case, what does matter who is "first"? It is clear to me that Peter has a very interesting approach to computer based playback, and now that his DAC is async USB capable, it is of more interest to many more folks. Hopefully player software developers for Audirvarna, and Pure Music will update their players to be able to oversample all the way to 24/768, as well as to give some interesting filter choices, and then us Mac folks will have the opportunity to really utilize the Phasure DAC to its best abilities.

Personally, I am now coming around to PeterSt and Miska's way of thinking: that it makes sense to do the processing (oversampling, filtering, volume control, etc) in the computer, and just allow the DAC hardware to do the straight D/A conversion and analog buffering. I really suspect that this approach is the future of computer based (all?) high end audio playback.

It is great to hear that Chris will be auditioning this approach.

 

[PeterSt]

Hi Jesus,

 

Just out of my own interest (the DAD and one other never finished brand I forgot the name of (I think Swiss originated)) ... MSB from 2005 ?? nah ...

 

I think I followed MSB quite well and know nothing of 2005 (now there is). Couldn't this be a simple case of that ever so confusing website of them ? Man, have I been looking in there for what was current, what was still available, and what was archived - back then (also interesting for me, because ever back they seemed to do real NOS, but stepped away from it). But that was 96KHz ...

 

Important is this all not indeed, but interesting some times. Well, once you know I have been seeking the life out of me for any NOS 192 I "had to" build my own in the end ...

The DAD was the only option back then (this is well over 3 years back) and needed 12K euro or GPB, I don't know anymore. And then for starters, and I don't even know (anymore) whether it needed a Pyramix system around it.

 

Ok, end of story :-)

Peter

 

[Audio_ELF]

I really don't think it matters who was first... My original comments were meant completely tongue-in-cheek...

 

I really didn't mean to take anything away from Peter's work.

 

I do think MSB are interesting as one of the few truly unique DACs in that they don't just take a common or garden IC (for better or worse)... But that's a subject for another thread.

 

Eloise

 

[manisandher]

OK, a totally tongue-in-cheek comment from my side now.

 

Eloise, didn't you once accuse PeterSt of working in a back shed or something... and not possibly being able to compete with the 'big boys'? I'm sure I remember this.

 

Anyway, as I said, totally tongue-in-cheek... but do feel free to apologise if you feel so inclined. Actually, I can imagine Peter laughing at such a comment, over a good cigar.

 

Mani.

 

[Elprior]

@Mani : re-reading Eloise post, I think she did not mean to argue about the async-usb part, but rather the julia version (being the first 24/384, but not sure) Anyway, Peter is always up with something new and exciting...

 

@Barrows : I do agree with you on this one. This looks like being the future for CA.

 

IIRC, Gordon thought (or was it Peter, which would seem quite logical ?) that you could go as far as selecting the filter based on the music track (style, metadata, ...).

 

Elp

 

[PeterSt]

Has PeterSt Delivered any Phasure DACs to the US

 

Three of them are out there (non-USB), and I think 10 (or 11 if I can count in Chris's) are waiting for our slowness here.

 

Much of the slowness is my own fault - posting around too much maybe. But merely it is about finding "the better ways of USB", while at first I was happy I could achieve the same sound (quality) that was produced through the PCIe solution. So, all the listening and trying (and obtaining parts again) really holds up. A few Mac trials in between. But ok, done.

 

Mani received the first, although this was a bit coincidental. Next I managed to forget that the XXHighEnd version for this wasn't in a finished state really, that undergoing the biggest upgrade ever - while for optimum sonics that theoretically belongs to it. So, Mani is "forced" to try that too, and we finished the main part of that right today.

 

Chris, thank you for your kind attention about the "needing to create a 110V version". Instead we are just slow really.

Now, that's out. :-)

 

Peter

 

[PeterSt]

Eloise, didn't you once accuse PeterSt of working in a back shed or something... and not possibly being able to compete with the 'big boys'? I'm sure I remember this

 

No ... before Eloise gets angry or anything ... I do NOT recall such a remark anywhere.

 

What is logic though, is that people addressed something that looks like "DIY" as impossible were it for that "other direction". And then in the realm of : if that were the good direction, all the big boys would have chosen to go that direction earlier.

 

I think this is a more honest representation of whatever whom may have said.

 

But somehow I did feel this coming ...

Including that cigar indeed.

 

Peter

 

[PeterSt]

IIRC, Gordon thought (or was it Peter, which would seem quite logical ?) that you could go as far as selecting the filter based on the music track (style, metadata, ...).

 

Maybe it was Miska - maybe it was me. In any case this is possible. But, it would not be something I'd advocate because it would be too easy to let all be wrong while it seems to be right. May sound strange, but this is similar to a DAC being good for Jazz and another for Electronic music. On that matter XXHighEnd users for 100% will know how Q1 is able to choose for either. Well, some more back that was - until everybody could use the very low latency settings (which this was about back then) and both sounded right with the same setting. The only thing it told me is that something was still wrong somewhere. And it isn't even depending on DACs (no matter it is the DAC which is influenced).

 

In the end, helpful maybe, but it would draw away from further improvement. Just my personal view.

 

Peter

 

[Audio_ELF]

Actually I think I have commented about Peter (and others) being garage companies: but then so was Naim originally and Musical Fidelity and most (at least UK) audio electronics companies. Let's face it the biggest "garage to riches" story must be Apple :-)

 

Small companies often are innovators; though the judge of whether an innovation from a small company is "a good thing" is often seen when other later companies follow te innovator in terms of licensing or copying ideas. I stand by my comments / suggestions from previous threads that (so far) Peter's ideas and designs [edit: seen to be] very much a niche (if a growing niche). Where I have taken issue is with a "this is the proper / correct way this should be done and every other company is wrong" attitude that has come across in some posts (and not just from Peter). Some of that is down to use of language rather than that being the actual intention.

 

If I can be allowed to express an opinion: XXHighEnd will remain a niche until it has a full graphical interface to rival a MPD remote such as MPod if not the Apple Remote. If he cracked that I could see 1/2 box devices incorporating a XXHighEnd powered computer and the DAC as being a turnkey solution.

 

I hope I've worded this (and its taken) in the way I intended it to come out (and I admit I've not heard a Phasure NOS1).

 

Eloise

 

PS. Interestingly there are (if i understand correctly) actually several parallels in the design of the Phasure NOS1 (when used with XXHighEnd) and the Naim DAC (used with a memory stick)...

 

[vortecjr]

If the data is wrong have a chat with them and claim your stake. It very clearly states in the DAC III Users Manual Rev 2 (11/05),"SAMPLING FREQUENCY: 32 KHZ TO 384KHZ" It looks to me like it's via the MSB network and as a result of it's DSP engine into an MSB design DAC. Also, I first heard of their USB 24/384 input in the months before the 2010 RMAF (Chris or a member may have posted about it here on CA) and that was my reason for asking when your dac came to market. Now I'm not defending the MSB website, but your website is not exactly easy to follow either:) JR -> Kidding

 

Barrows, I'm all for dsp as needed or desired, but Perter is in a unique position to offer it as the author of the playback software and the maker of the dac. I'm curious how a third party software provider might perform in this role not having direct access to all hardware. The end user may not understand the technology (I don't claim to understand it) and apply unneeded or undesired filters. I do understand people want to have control and there will be a market for it...

 

Mani, again don't mind me and proceed with your review...

 

Jesus R

www.sonore.us

 

[PeterSt]

Hey Jesus - sorry ... that MSB is 192KHz and only with that network of theirs. Otherwise it will be 96KHz, although that is my own conclusion. It may need reading the whole manual, but rather early in it it becomes clear that you may be fooled with 384KHz the DSP can take as input. Towards the end there's another small (undoubtedly unintended) pitfall : a 384KBit connection for "control and system data".

 

So, no. If you are right that we started to hear about an MSB doing 384 for input medio 2010, it will probably the same I read, and maybe there still is no MSB-384. But I stopped following MSB being extra disappointed they took out of production the one which really "did it" for me back at the time (but, still 96KHz only).

 

Kind regards,

Peter

 

[Elprior]

The Dac IV platinium does 384khz async-usb.

This is an option, but still...

 

Elp