You are not logged in. Please login or register.
RME User Forum → ADI-2 & 2/4 Pro series, ADI-2 DAC series → SD Sharp vs. NOS
These tend to be my favorite filters along with Slow -- I've been trying NOS more often and find I'm liking it. Question I have is which filter could be argued to be more "authentic" to the original sound source?
Based on default settings (without use of PEQ) ? The filter which is more linear, in this case "slow".
Some time MC posted PEQ settings to compensate the loss at higher frequencies for Slow and NOS.
Maybe you still prefer slow, because FIR filters are phase linear over the whole frequency range.
But differences are so small / subtile, the only differences which I could recognize for sure is between
NOS and the other filters. Its easier to hear because NOS has more loss in high frequencies.
I've read a bit about oversampling, and am not clear on whether oversampling would be expected to alter the eventual playback in a way that could be considered less accurate to the original source -- really more out of curiosity than anything is why I ask.
I'm wondering if there's some benefit to "Non-Oversampling" in terms of accuracy to the original sound file.
Based on default settings (without use of PEQ) ? The filter which is more linear, in this case "slow".
Some time MC posted PEQ settings to compensate the loss at higher frequencies for Slow and NOS.
Maybe you still prefer slow, because FIR filters are phase linear over the whole frequency range.
But differences are so small / subtile, the only differences which I could recognize for sure is between
NOS and the other filters. Its easier to hear because NOS has more loss in high frequencies.
Hi,
Is it possible to post a link to MC's PEQ settings for Slow and NOS..
I may try it once I have time.
Thanks.
https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.php?id=26952
Copied text from above link:
-------
And for the rolled-off treble there is a simple workaround: use the EQ to compensate. Here are two settings for Slow and NOS to linearize the treble response at 44.1 kHz sample rate:
Slow B5 G +4.0 F 16.5k Q 2.1 Shelf
NOS B5 G +3.0 F 14.3k Q 0.6 Shelf
As you can imagine with only 3 and 4 dB gain this is just a slight change, it linearizes NOS perfectly, and Slow good enough.
Here are examples for EQ settings to compensate Slow and NOS at 48 kHz sample rate:
Slow B5 G +2.5 F 16.3k Q 1.7 Shelf
NOS B5 G +3.5 F 16.5k Q 0.9 Shelf
-------
I myself use NOS with correction and it is perfect for me.
which filter could be argued to be more "authentic" to the original sound source?
I am a creator of this magical original source(s) and the only way to hear what I was hearing is to sit in my chair. But you would maybe be disappointed cause I might have less good equipment as you. Or worse acoustics. Or a different taste. Thing is in the production process I use radical eq, compression, distortion, artificial reverbs, all to create an illusion, that it sounds natural and balanced (or the opposite). This I do all to my taste and with much broader strokes then the difference between DA converters and their settings. If you want to hear it as intended, roll off bass and treble so you hear mostly mids. Then roll back the lows and highs until it has a solid basis and pleasant clarity. You can even do that per album or song. Then you will be nearest to the intended sound.
Feel free!
Vincent
These tend to be my favorite filters along with Slow -- I've been trying NOS more often and find I'm liking it. Question I have is which filter could be argued to be more "authentic" to the original sound source?
You're asking "Audiophiles" what sounds most Authentic?
My recommendation would be to partake of some of the Fine Arts offerings in your area! Perfect Season to hear Great Music in a Fine Venue, absent all the Audiophile BS. 
Form your own "What's Authentic" opinion by starting here:
Curt
RME User Forum → ADI-2 & 2/4 Pro series, ADI-2 DAC series → SD Sharp vs. NOS
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.