Which DAC to consider pairing with Esoteric p0?
- Thread starter tjwm338
- Start date
I would look to an NOS type DAC, there are lots of great ones on the market now, steer clear of DS DACs IMO. Depending on budget, and needing a volume pot - look to Metrum Accoustics, Lampizator, TotalDAC. Don't forget to consider used.
Thanks astrostar59 for the quick reply!
Can I ask why a NOS type DAC would work better? Also, what is a DS DAC?
Thanks for pointing to the different makes. Will definitely check them out and check out the used market. I heard a lot about Stahl-Tek. In your opinion, would they also work? Or should I be also considering an Esoteric DAC since the transport I am using is from them?
Thank you.
DS = Delta Sigma. Or, more fully, SDM (Sigma Delta Modulation). SDM is a type of DAC core architecture. There's far too much to cover about this technology to do it justice here. Suffice to say that it is the most common architecture among today's audio DACs. SDM technology supplanted full-resolution-multibit technology among commercial audio DAC core architectures years ago. Which isn't to say that it necessarily sounds better to a given listener's ears. There is something of an audiophile debate regarding which technology of the two produces the best sound.
NOS = Non-OverSampling = Has no digital reconstruction/interpolation filter unit. This is a techical area related to yet different from that of SDM versus full-multibit DAC core debate. This has to do with the oversampling digital filter unit which typically precedes a DAC's core architecture. NOS DACs lack this filter unit, which, while theoretically incorrect, does produce a sound many audiophiles perceive as much more relaxed and natural than with the digital filter. You'd have to audition for yourself to know which best suits your own ears.
Without any filtering and oversampling prior, I would of thought a NOS DAC would be as digital as digital can sound. I assumed a NOS DAC would be desired when the filtering and oversampling is done prior to getting to the DAC. Be it a separate box or HQPlayer or such.
To the OP
In my demos over the years and owning both types for 20 years+ I have settled on NOS types. They seem to sound more natural to me. Not sure in my tests wether upsampling achieves anything if the DAC has no filter. The whole point of up sampling either in the DAC or in the PC prior to the DAC is to give the filter an easier time. Anyway, don't take my word for it, get some demo's to see what floats your boat. But on Esoteric DACs in the ones I have heard, they are firmly in the 'technical & detailed' camp, and I would say far over to the right and NOS is far over to the left. Not to say NOS isn't detailed (on the whole) it is, but it doesn't throw things at you in a colder 'hifi' way IMO.
There is another camp, the FPGA DACs like Chord, dCS and the Lampizator GG with the DSD engine, the latter which is quite unique as also uses Directly Heated Triodes which some believe are the ultimate amplifying devices. And in that DAC you can flavour the sound by tube rolling. I have rolled the tubes in my Audio Note DAC to great effect, it gives you more control to ensure it 'fits' with the rest of the chain and speakers.
Good luck.
In my demos over the years and owning both types for 20 years+ I have settled on NOS types. They seem to sound more natural to me. Not sure in my tests wether upsampling achieves anything if the DAC has no filter. The whole point of up sampling either in the DAC or in the PC prior to the DAC is to give the filter an easier time. Anyway, don't take my word for it, get some demo's to see what floats your boat. But on Esoteric DACs in the ones I have heard, they are firmly in the 'technical & detailed' camp, and I would say far over to the right and NOS is far over to the left. Not to say NOS isn't detailed (on the whole) it is, but it doesn't throw things at you in a colder 'hifi' way IMO.
There is another camp, the FPGA DACs like Chord, dCS and the Lampizator GG with the DSD engine, the latter which is quite unique as also uses Directly Heated Triodes which some believe are the ultimate amplifying devices. And in that DAC you can flavour the sound by tube rolling. I have rolled the tubes in my Audio Note DAC to great effect, it gives you more control to ensure it 'fits' with the rest of the chain and speakers.
Good luck.
Last edited:
Sorry, I must of gave the impression I was looking for a DAC. I'm fine with what I have, I have yet to hear anything better fortunately.
An NOS DAC is no longer Non-Oversampling should oversampling (brickwall digital reconstruction filtering) be performed somewhere prior to the DAC. That aside, following are comments I posted long ago elsewhere regarding my own subjective assessment of NOS. Significantly edited for posting here.
OCTOBER 2, 2010:
Here are my extended observations of NOS via an AD1865 based DAC of my own design which allowed me to switch a typical half-band brickwall FIR digital reconstruction filter in and out of circuit on-the-fly by simply flipping a toggle switch.
What NOS gets right:
1) NOS delivers CD digital which is non-fatiguing and relaxing, indeed, much in the way that vinyl is. I can listen to NOS for many hours without tiring while standard digital usually has me feeling inexplicably anxious, or just as bad, bored and switching the music off before a single CD has been fully played. This subjective characteristic of NOS is not to be underestimated, and will override all other performance considerations. It rightfully is THE reason many audiophiles are drawn to NOS.
2) The soundstage is very open and separates what is often a rather congealed sounding mass of sound from standard digital in to a much more natural and three-dimensional sounding presentation. There is a naturalness via NOS, well, except possibly for what sounds to me like an somewhat unnatural tonal energy shift to the upper midrange (see further comment on this effect below).
3) I also find cymbals and bells to have a very natural tone and decay. The FIR filter seemed to add what sounds like synthetic splashes of white noise to such higher register instruments, producing the effect of making them sound more homogeneous in tonal character.
4) There is a sense of dynamic freedom via NOS. It's not so much that NOS sounds louder, or like it has greater dynamic range. It's that there is much less of that distracting, 'on alert to quickly turn down the volume' sort of feeling which so often accompanies the build up to crescendos while listening to brickwall digital filtered CD playback.
What NOS maybe doesn't get right:
1) There is the well known high-frequency roll-off of about 3dB at 20KHz due to the zeroth-order hold operation of most DACs. However, the roll-off can be equalized to flat. Some NOS DACs feature such EQ, while some others do not.
2) NOS subjectively seems to shift musical energy from the upper bass/lower midrange region to the upper midrange region, which then alters the perceieved tonality of most instruments and vocalists. This highlighting of the the upper midrange is initially pleasing by seemingly presenting more musical detail, but ultimately, it becomes increasingly noticeable until is reaches distraction.
This effect also seems to soften or loosen the impact of bass register instruments, almost as if they were no longer properly damped. While I perceive a lack of tightness or an excessive looseness which is particularly apparent with kettle drum, rock drum kits and electric bass, I do not perceive a net lack of bass energy. The energy seems fully present, it just seems to lack focus or punch.
It may be that there is not an actual energy deficit in the lower midrange either. Such perceived tonal energy aberrations can be difficult to isolate - do I hear a deficiency in the lower midrange creating the impression of an excess in the upper midrange, or do I hear an excess in the upper midrange creating the impression of a deficit in the lower, or perhaps some combination of the two?
3) Actually, I'm uncertain whether the following final observation constitutes a flaw or a benefit. Along with the aforementioned perceieved shift of energy to the upper midrange I hear a large increase in the ambient field via NOS. While this greatly illuminates the upper midrange, and may even be what's responsible for creating the impression of there being more upper midrange energy in the first place, I'm not convinced it is an net positive.
4) While the soundstage sounds deeper and more three-dimensional via NOS, it also sounds less wide, or more narrow. That may seem contradictory, but that is what I hear. The left to right spread of instrument placements was much wider with the digital filter switched in, but was also flatter in front to back depth and image placement. It is the the placement of instruments that I hear as being more widely separated via the digital filter, not so much the ambient field accompanying those instruments. Which might explain why the soundstage seemed wider yet flatter in depth.
Last edited:
Some great info in there Ken, thanks for that. And I find I agree with most of it. But I would add the thrust of the article is around an NOS DAC with or without the filter. I am convinced it is best without a filter. So maybe the article is more about the effect of the filter in or out, not NOS v DS? Unless you can set the AD1865 to upsample into DS mode? I am thinking not here. Only the filter in or out. Maybe you can clarify.
But there are many other things at play as well. The PS and line stage have a huge impact on the sound (of any DAC). not just the digital topology. So if we look to compare the NOS v DS DAC design and resultant sound, we need to compare directly to another DS DAC at similar price points, or at least pitch against well regarded DS DACs to have more relevance? That or possibly have a DS board that can be switched in and out v the NOS board. otherwise we have no datum points.
To complicate things further we have Multibit NOS (Kassandre), FPGA NOS and discrete NOS, then single chip NOS (Zanden, Audio Note). R-2R which seemed to be regarded as NOS but many DACs now seem to upsample (MSB, CH Precision).
I also wonder, and in my case, if has NOS has a certain sound? Or at least a way of presentation that is different to DS or other types of digital conversion. And quite possibly I prefer NOS's presentation, wether it be correct or not? What is correct in audio anyway, more detail and more 'hifi' sounding gains many followers, but it is not for me. If it sounds smooth, everything is there, but not 'thrown in my face', then it works for me. YMMV.
But there are many other things at play as well. The PS and line stage have a huge impact on the sound (of any DAC). not just the digital topology. So if we look to compare the NOS v DS DAC design and resultant sound, we need to compare directly to another DS DAC at similar price points, or at least pitch against well regarded DS DACs to have more relevance? That or possibly have a DS board that can be switched in and out v the NOS board. otherwise we have no datum points.
To complicate things further we have Multibit NOS (Kassandre), FPGA NOS and discrete NOS, then single chip NOS (Zanden, Audio Note). R-2R which seemed to be regarded as NOS but many DACs now seem to upsample (MSB, CH Precision).
I also wonder, and in my case, if has NOS has a certain sound? Or at least a way of presentation that is different to DS or other types of digital conversion. And quite possibly I prefer NOS's presentation, wether it be correct or not? What is correct in audio anyway, more detail and more 'hifi' sounding gains many followers, but it is not for me. If it sounds smooth, everything is there, but not 'thrown in my face', then it works for me. YMMV.
Ken, not entirely correct, there are many NOS DACs that do have a permanent filter applied and it is not defeatable. It depends how the manufacturer has set up the chip. The up sampling is part of it, but the filter is another part. My AMR DAC has NOS and it has a permanent filter applied. My thoughts on why some apply the filter is to garner better lab results for reviews / acceptance, as in my opinion it largely sounds better without it. Audio Note used to have a filter, but later removed it, and offered a retro service to apply to previously sold units.
A NOS DAC utilizes no digital filter. Should a DAC contain a digital filter which can be selected as being in or out of the data path, it is operating as NOS with the filter out, and operating as oversampling with the filter in. NOS versus Sigma-Delta-Modulation is not the correct axis of technical comparison for a SDM DAC could also operate in NOS mode. This digital filter logic and the SDM logic are seperate circuit functions.
Yes, the power supply can very much affect the sound. However, I don't concern myself with the technical details of an audio component for the purpose of subjective evaluation. What matters is the sound, the price and the product reliability. For objective measurements, the technology should be considered when evaluating the significance of the parameters which are measured.
You have to be careful about improperly conflating technologies. Multibit, NOS, FPGA, multiple parallel chips, R-2R, SDM, do not mutually exclude each other. Many combinations (but not all) of those technologies can be utilized together in a given DAC design. The only ones among that particular list which are mutually exclusive are (1) NOS vs. OS, and (2) SDM vs. full-resolution-multibit.
Hi Ken
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't intend to say those topologies were mutually exclusive. For example Chord is not NOS and uses a FPGA, and the C1 is R-2R is not NOS as upsamples everything and applies a filter, as does the MSB units (except apparently the Select).
There are DACs that are NOS but apply a filter. Here is the detail from my AMR DP-777 manual:
With a 44.1/48kHz source (e.g. CD transport, files ripped from CDs), the following setup will be automatically selected for optimal playback:
?DAC:
Zero Jitter Mode: Filter: Upsampling:
Classic DAC Enabled Bit-Perfect II Disabled
As you can see, it is using NOS but has a filter applied. The chip is NOS Redbook to 96K no up sampling.
There are also NOS DACs that have no digital filter, but have some filtering in the analogue domain.
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't intend to say those topologies were mutually exclusive. For example Chord is not NOS and uses a FPGA, and the C1 is R-2R is not NOS as upsamples everything and applies a filter, as does the MSB units (except apparently the Select).
There are DACs that are NOS but apply a filter. Here is the detail from my AMR DP-777 manual:
With a 44.1/48kHz source (e.g. CD transport, files ripped from CDs), the following setup will be automatically selected for optimal playback:
?DAC:
Zero Jitter Mode: Filter: Upsampling:
Classic DAC Enabled Bit-Perfect II Disabled
As you can see, it is using NOS but has a filter applied. The chip is NOS Redbook to 96K no up sampling.
There are also NOS DACs that have no digital filter, but have some filtering in the analogue domain.
Only true if that permanent filter is an post-conversion analog filter. Not true if it is a pre-conversion digital filter. Again, NOS means that the DAC is not utilizing a digital reconstruction filter in the data path. A DAC having a switchable digital reconstruction filter simply enables that DAC to be dual mode, but does NOT enable that DAC to simultaneously be both NOS and OS.
Upsampling and Oversampling both utilize digital filter circuits and are essentially the same function. The distinction between the two terms is one that largely exists only in the digital audio world, where oversampling is usally taken to refer to synchronous sample rate conversion, while upsampling is usually taken to refer to asynchronous sample rate conversion.
I can't really tell from that brief description what AMR is exactly describing. However, NOS mean just that, Non-oversampling. If an oversampling digital filter is being employed the DAC is no longer operating as NOS. Any post-conversion analog reconstruction filtering utilized, obviously, would not be a digital filtering.
Hi Ken
Yes I understand. My AMR has 2 digital boards with separate chips sets, but the filter on the NOS board has to be on, no idea why it has a 'no filter' option?
Can I ask what DAC you landed with? I am very happy with my Audio Note DAC 5, but the DAC sector has exploded recently, and discrete R-2R DACs are being launched at a rapid rate. Everyone wants an end game DAC that beats the 'giants' or DACs north of 30K, myself included! But it seems to me anyway, the 'giants' of even 3 years ago are not talked about, and we have another one taking it's place. It might also be dangerous to invest that much money in digital especially with the smaller niche companies?
My old school low tech DAC works so well for me, I am loathe to change it TBH. Unless I hear something that blows my socks off.
Ken, you are 100% correct. What I do believe is many magazine reviewers don't understand this topic either, as they often say as in an Aqua La Scala DAC review, I read:
is non oversampling and utilises no filter, unlike some other NOS types.
I also dug a bit further and found this in the AMR manual:
4.4 Classic 16-Bit DAC Algorithms
The DP-777 under the Classic 16-Bit DAC offers 2 user-selectable methods of filtering that can be cycled through during playback by pressing the “Filter” button (RD9) on the RC-707.
The Filtering options are:
CD1. Bit-Perfect I – this mode directly takes the data extracted from the inputs and re-clocked to generate the music signal. Due to the complete lack of digital or analogue filtering, the treble frequencies are slightly rolled off, making the sound somewhat soft and laid-back. For the same reason, the mid-range and below is very natural and realistic. The reproduction of impulses is completely undistorted. This mode often helps to tame overly-bright recordings.
CD2. Bit-Perfect II – this mode is identical to Bit-Perfect I but complements this with a special analogue filter which corrects the slight roll-off in the treble frequencies. As a result, the tonality is more accurate in the treble. We therefore recommend this mode as the benchmark with which to enjoy music.
Cheers Ken!
For years now, I've been designing and building my own DACs because of my dissatisfaction with the sound quality of CD since it's introduction in 1983. When I bought my first CD player (an modest unit) and played my first CD, I honestly thought the player I'd purchased might be a defective unit, so unsatisfying was the actual sound versus the digital marketing hype. I owned an probably $89 Technics belt-drive turntable at that time which absolutely stomped all over the CD player's sound. After another two decades or so of continued frustration, nearing resignation, with the sound of digital I begain building my own experimental DACs in search of fully satisfying (to my ears) digital sound.
I've designed and built both fully multibit and SDM based DACs, experimented with NOS and with many other design details too numerous to list. I continue to build experimental DACs in pursuit of obtaining subjectively fully satisfying digital playback, so, I've since stopped using any commercial DAC.
Last edited:
This almost certainly is describing bare bones NOS operation - without recourse to an analog reconstruction filter or treble EQ. The high treble roll-off mentioned is an technical artifact/side-effect of the stair-stepped output of most DAC chips - known as; 'zero-order-hold' operation.
This mode also appears to operate as NOS, just like the mode above, but with the adddition of post-conversion analog EQ to correct the zero-order-hold based high treble droop, and possibly adds an analog reconstruction (low-pass) filter, but that's not clear. The necessary EQ plus an low-pass reconstruction filter can well be implemented as a single passive circuit.
Last edited:
Ken, I think TotalDAC do this to correct the high frequency drop.
Funny, I thought my very first DAC in 1980 (a crazy expensive big Sharp CD player) was very good. But I came from cassette as had dropped vinyl a few years before that. No tape hiss and a flatish frequency response was new to me Ha Ha. But later the 'razor tooth' edge to treble became my love / hate relationship with the CD format, as you. To me it sounds like a fast on/off wave form, and kills female vocals and violins, electric guitars etc. Fast forward to about 2002 and I started building Audio Note kit DACs and modding them with trick parts and oversized caps etc.
I would love to build a tubed DAC with a discrete digital board. Maybe it is possible to build a giant killer DAC for under 10K that takes on anything out there? Ken, do you have any pics of your DACs? Or do you post pics in a DIY forum?
Without a doubt if a person had the knowledge and probably for far less than 10K of parts.
Similar threads
Members online
- DW101
- skids929
- flowcharts
- John T
- brad225
- Bobvin
- Emperyan
- octaviars
- addios14
- poonbean
- Tommyz01
- Michael S.
- Audio Addict
- Republicoftexas69
- defride
- Stbo
- Young Skywalker
- Dbattista
- ACHiPo
- crosswind
- Tlay
- 2glory
- Azh123
- Argonaut
- parnass
- abase21
- luca.pelliccioli
- Zeotrope
- trekpilot
- Triode Pete
- sukmano
- Kjetil
- Maxb
- GroovySauce
- MadFloyd
- Pichler
- Audiocrack
- Król_Artur
- UncleE
- howiebrou
- bonzo75
- andromedaaudio
- cuntigh
- Salectric
- Tangram
- keithc
- bigjako
- Oracle1974
- dcathro
- Phon@ix
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |