advertisement


Non-oversampling (NOS) is for ... uh ...ahem ... wha????

I wrote the full word out w/o asterisks. W-A-N-K-ers.
Bleedin’ PFM moderation and their nanny filter autocorrects !!!
 
Most of the PFM demographic cannot even hear the 15 kHz+ where the NOS DACs start to roll off a bit

The problem with the term 'NOS' is that on a simple level it means "No Oversampling". But that can be implimented/used in various ways.

e.g. 'NOS' could describe a DAC where the digital circuits generate a 'staircased' output and simply pass this out for your amp+tweeter to struggle with.

Or it could then have a 'Legato Link' that generates linear intersample shapes to give a slightly 'smoothed off' output before passing that to the amp+tweeter to cope with. (Doing the legato link perhaps with an analogue circuit.) NB Legato Link may be a commercially protected term here, but it describes the process nicely.

Or it could mean the DAC output is either of the above, but run though a very accurate flat analogue low-pass filter before going to the amp+speakers.

The problem then is that these all present the amp+speakers with different types of output, and ultimately your ears. So which one is any particular person using and meaning? Or are different people arguing over different 'versions'? And do peope take into account that some amps/speakers may generate their own distortions when some of the above inject ultrasonics into them?
 
I used a 47 Labs NOS DAC for 15 years, very happily. I sold it at a substantial profit and bought a much cheaper OS DAC (the little Soncoz), and that I also use very happily. I think the audible differences between the technologies are not that great tbh. I think the 47 Labs was slightly more rolled off at the top end, but absent a direct head to head comparison I don't think the differences mean much. Buy what makes you happy, spin whatever story pleases you to justify it (we all do this), and chill.
 


advertisement


Back
Top