NOS vs OS: An Audiophile Culture War?

I silently keep track of trends and the opinions around those trends. Often times choosing not to involve myself, partly because I just don't have time to get into back and forths like I used to. Mostly because I'm older and just tired of online stuff. Its exhausting involving yourself in the myriad of rabbit holes the internet offers so I choose to keep my involvement to a minimum. Preferring to enjoy it from a distance like spectacle. All I need is a tub of popcorn and I'm good. Part of aging is picking and choosing your battles, something I used to suck at.

But I do like listening to smart people's opinions in the audio world. Its fascinating seeing how two different people with the same passions can come to wildly different conclusions about the same piece of gear.

Inspired by @k4rstar 's Delta Sigma Inconvenient Truth thread, I thought it might be nice to get a bunch of data points on the NOS vs OS debate. Something I've been viewing from a safe distance, but since this is now affecting my own personal audio journey (my next DAC will be either NOS or OS whereas maybe a year ago I never even considered NOS, not because of disinterest, but because I didnt hear much about NOS back then... NOS DACs seem to be making a comeback lately).

I dont know what to make of it. I have a NOS DAC in house thanks to the kindness of @Erroneous . A modded MHDT Paradisea+, which I've been enjoying with my ZDSE. But I have no idea how NOS stacks up to an OS DAC as I have only used this a NOS DAC with the ZDSE, and so far cannot reliably comment on NOS vs OS... yet. As I will eventually have the Yggdrasil LIM loaner to compare.

Until then I'm left with a bunch of other people's opinions floating around my head. Many of whom I trust but who are on opposite ends of the debate.

Some say NOS is more authentic. Some say it's a bullshit con job (and vice versa). Many are not this extreme about it, purely going by benign preference.

The title of this thread is an exaggeration of course. Real ugly culture wars are raging right now all over the place. High quality audio is an insane luxury we are lucky to experience (I'm still astounded how terrible most normie's setups are, and they have no idea just how good it can get). But this does, to me at least, feel like our own little culture war. People seen passionate about the topic to the point where the other side becomes almost enemy like. An affront to "authentic" music reproduction.

And still, I haven't heard a satisfactory answer as to why NOS or OS is better. Just vague half answers (something something more natural whatever that means) or technobabble that I cant relate to.

Maybe there is no answer to be had and this thread will die a quick death. That's okay. But if anyone feels compelled to add their two cents to the discussion, here would be the place to do it and I'd appreciate it.

 

See-saws and throwback can be a sign of fashionable boredom with whatever has been good for a long time. Each side has hardline adherents and the malleable middle jumps in or out whenever it seems interesting to do so.

As for your question, I haven't heard any NOS DACs (but I'd like to!) so can't comment. Love my Yggdrasil A2.

 

I don't view it as a culture war. some people seem to be very sensitive about their audio equipment and make them part of their ego and image of self. my thread was started as tongue in cheek, some tone deaf people who have a hard on for me didn't get what I was trying to say and it devolved into shit flinging as a result.

NOS vs OS doesn't matter and neither does DS vs R2R or any other buzzword vs buzzword. what I rail against is lack of innovation and cop-out designs. paying more for less. $2,200 DACs with opamps should probably go to the gulag. one step forward and five steps back. $6000 DACs with USB in from a gaming computer or a little raspberry pi box, then flexing about it? WTF?

I listen to the little AKM chip in my Vanatoos at my desk and the $99 helm bolt dongle or cheap CD players when I am messing around with vintage speakers and tube amps, which are 50x more interesting than discussions about the theoretical benefits of oversampling, AES vs i2s, ESS vs AKM, or $700 audiophile network playback software. DAC comparisons are for dweebs. I would know, I was one.

eventually you will come to terms that no one on internet forums or chat rooms has any idea what they're talking about and you will do your own thing and find inner peace.

 

Guess LIM should start saving cigarettes to trade for food rations.

 

I'd also hear about others' arguments as well as their anecdotes.

But let me suggest several considerations to keep the discussion clean.

1. Clarification about "over" sampling is necessary. I'd suggest by OS we only consider increased sampling frequency WITHOUT changing bit-depth structure. Otherwise, tech like DSD would be quite ambiguous.
2. I believe this context only considers multibit converters. Saying this because delta-stream or dsd dacs are likely NOS by construction.
3. Some self-claimed NOS features are not NOS. I recall Goldensound discussed it well in some of his reviews/analyses. Denafrips is well known example.. but there must be lots of new or small companies that confuse us. Intentionally or not.
4. This applies to many Holo dacs in SBAF. Running NOS dacs with software PCM upsampler SHOULD be considered as OS IMHO no matter whether dacs in question per se are NOS in hardware. Also with the same logic, running NOS with DSD modulation/resampling on PC should not be included in the comparative context because of #1 and #2.
5. I'm a little unsure if we should focus on "filterless" implementation when it comes to NOS.

 

I thought of the LIM when I read his line. Why does the LIM have opamps - was (is still?) the OG Yggdrasil all about discreet? All else being equal, would it not sound a bit better if it was discreet? Triangulating (as I have not heard it) it's not for me, but I would put it's opamp output in the minus column if I was considering/hearing it. Just being honest.

 

LIM has more clarity/blackground at the sacrifice of some plankton, and the signature is darker. LIM SE and BAL outs are also closer in quality while A2/A1 discrete outs differ between SE and BAL (SE is a step to half step worse in most respects). Some (including me) feel A1/A2 is greyer sounding than LIM, although I prefer A2 for richness and detail. Also worth noting LIM is great performing and cheaper than the discrete A2.

 

It is $400 cheaper, but are the opamp's (as compared to OG discreet output BOM) really a significant part of that? I thought it was the DAC chips themselves that was the main difference. In any case, at this price point, is that $400 savings worth the 2.6%, or 4.1% loss in SQ worth it (all else being equal of course)? It's a question I would have. In any case you sum up the SQ comparison well...but what does the opamp output have to do with it as a whole - is it an integral part - that is "less (opamp) is more (than any discreet that would not push up BOM)"? Not really possible to answer these questions of course that I am aware...I can't help but wonder however if the LIM could be just a little bit more

 

Given what their product strategy seems to be, I suspect they make that tradeoff 11 times out of 10 and don't even lose any sleep over it. And I mean, it could be that the sound quality loss isn't even 2.6% or 4.1%. Maybe the op-amps really are good enough that it would take hundreds of dollars in manufacturing costs to do any better.

I know when I was DAC shopping a while back, it struck me that of the things that all seemed to be in the same class of product (so to speak), the Bifrost 2 was just way cheaper than all the others, and I think the same tradeoff is going on there. 700 dollars and 2000+ are very different price points, but the value tradeoff is still there. If the point is to offer a good value product so lots of people buy it so you can keep making it, it might not even be defensible to do something other than the op-amps. At that point, it's not paying more for less, it's paying a lot less for a little less. Which is something we all have to be comfortable with anyway, unless we're really going to spend 6 or 7 figures on getting everything just so.

Anyway that's a different audiophile culture war. I don't know anything about the topic title one sadly.

 

I’ve only heard 2 NOS DACs: Holo Audio Spring 2 and Abbas DAC0.1 SE, and I liked them both more than any OS DAC I’ve had. I can’t say exactly why that is, but it’s probably as simple as personal preference, not NOS being definitively better.

It's not a culture war, the point of the comparisons is helping others zero in on finding gear they'll like. People in these forums have helped me to better understand the landscape, and I’m very thankful for it. There’s no way to fly solo in audio. It’s too complex. The best thing about SBAF is the thoughtful, varied reviews that include topics like this one.

 

Schiit states on its website that the OG upgrade costs more "due to expensive DACs and discrete analog." You can buy four DAC8812 chips for less than the price of a single AD5791. How much a frankenstein AD5791 + opamp output stage would cost or sound better is anyone's guess. Maybe it was one of the 10 original flavors that they tested? Anyway, enough OT.

 

My fairest apple-to-apple OS vs NOS experience was Holo Spring dac auditions (both 2 and 3).

• A: NOS mode + Software PCM upsampler (400% f_s)
• B: NOS mode + Software PCM upsampler (100% f_s) -- This was to control software confounding.
• C: NOS mode + No upsampler applied.

I obviously preferred A over B/C for both dacs. My ears had hard time in distincting B and C tho. Speaking of A vs B/C, the most audible difference was deeper headstage and stronger center images. Not night-and-day difference by any means tho. But at least to the extent I was willing to pay a little more.

So, it seems I am likely an OS guy. lol.

Btw, I haven't found any convincing tech explanation about NOS benefits to date. For OS, as far as I learned in the college, Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem straightforwardly explained why OS would benefit easier and more effective LPF implementation, which may result in better out of band rejection others being equal. But I am happily looking forward to being proven wrong.

 

I'll say it, it* is better.



*It - what ever you like

 

Unless I like it, I have terrible taste.

 

I have rudimentary (read:Roon) oversampling at my disposal and I normally just use NOS. I will say that using oversampling ahead of the DAC increases the depth of soundstage with speakers and overall just tightens up the sound, but I enjoy the fluidity (and am fine with the loss of sharpness) of full, true, un-fucked-with NOS.

There's a naturalness to it that really works for me, but that's not universal to NOS. A lot of times the tradeoffs aren't worth it on lesser NOS DACs or compromised systems.

The modified Paradisea+ is an exercise in me trying to balance out the tradeoffs with a lesser quality NOS DAC. I wouldn't be happy with it in my main system forever, as it's too blunted and lacks the details I need so I can feel satisfied. But for the SW51+ and 650 rig it's probably going to be just fine.

Overall I have no dog in the fight of OS VS NOS because all I am chasing is good sound. When I get it, I'm happy. Whatever gives it to me, works for me. So far I've ended up with a NOS DAC that's not going anywhere anytime soon, and I'm going to work on leveling up my vinyl rig because I'm too busy enjoying music to worry about the small shit. And after all, it's all small shit.

 

Until I get my hands on the Holo 3 loaner, my only real experience with NOS is the RU6, and it’s hard to explain but the OS mode on the RU6 feels less “musical” than the NOS mode, whatever the f**k that really means. I enjoy NOS more on that device. I also love Schiit DACs that oversample and other OS DACs so it’s definitely not a hard and fast rule.

I will say I’m drawn to some of the more esoteric audio applications out there, and maybe I’m just a weirdo like that.

 

a slighty more constructive answer, because you asked in earnest:

and you are not liable to get one, for many reasons. let's start with just a few.

first, the instances with which you can compare the two in a vacuum are rare. if the comparison is drawn between two different products, then there are a million differences between them that will have a greater effect than the presence or absence of digital filters. the purest experiment you could conduct is taking the first digital ICs, the TDA1540 and TDA1541, and listening to them with and without digital filters in their natural habitat (first and second generation CD players). you will find then that depending on your taste, recordings and ancillary equipment it may be possible to draw a preference for either mode of operation.

in modern DACs, a 'pure' experiment is mostly limited to discrete ladder converters where oversampling can be toggled on and off with a button push. it seems to be popular with 'high-end' Chi-fi, I don't have any experience with these devices, but by most accounts the on-board digital filters sound so poor that owners are willing to outsource the job to external software up-sampling, an arena in which you have to complicate the signal path and there are a million other factors at play. so what real conclusions can be drawn there?

the second reason you will not get a satisfactory answer is because looking for material or physical explanations for esoteric phenomenon is a fool's errand. so much time is wasted in audio conducting discussions at a surface level with a quasi-scientific approach, and as a result no one understands where traditional physics ends and unexplored areas begin.

who knows why the TDA1541 with its stock filter in a CD880 sounds sharper and more confined and with the filter amputated it sounds freer and more open? it's really not going to be explained by graphs and numbers. the graphs and numbers should be left to the engineers that design the chips and circuits only so that they work. the home audio enthusiast should then be concerned with how to make the chip sound good, which concerns everything in the device except for the chip.

so far the best DACs I have heard have more in common with old tube amplifiers than the modern concept of a what a digital audio component should be. a DAC should not be treated that much differently than an amplifier. it is an amplifier, it just happens to deal with a digital signal at its input, which itself is also an electrical signal, and subject to all the same material and esoteric laws as an analog one. when you start thinking about things in these terms, it becomes rather obvious why most high-end (>$100) converters are just uninspired garbage, and why the unfortunate audiophile is left cycling between 50 shades of the same gray design, hoping to complete a magical puzzle without realizing all the pieces he or she is playing with come from different boxes.

 

How poetic and melancholy that most of humanity, and not just audiophiles, live in such a cruel and opaque universe.

 

In simple terms, this is the typical dilemma I've had regarding NOS vs OS on 44.1/48kHz material:

• NOS: A bit too soft and dark (non-airy) up top
• OS: A bit too sharp and bright (airy) up top

After years of ad hoc experiments with various DACs, I found that a middle-of-the-road solution is achievable by an optimized subtle OS. (Example: 2X OS with an optimized digital filter for 44.1/48kHz, NOS for high-rez.)

NOTE: Even more crazy attempts for a subjectively best compromise (e.g. digital filtering without any upsampling) is possible with a NOS DAC and software like HQPlayer.

Take the above as one of the many possible points of view on the topic, nothing more.

 

It’s a given that we’re all after good sound. Good sound is subjective though, which is the whole point of the loaner impressions threads. The context from known friends matters.