What's your opinion on non oversampling dacs? Any experiences or comments welcomed.Planning to give one a whirl..just wanted to see what I'm getting myself into.
Also what sonic differences do you hear between the Non-oversampling and oversampling versions?
When I was looking to replace my Quad-77 with a new digital set-up I decided to go to separates. After reading about non-os type DACs (Audio Note and Sakura Systems have great information on the non-os design concepts)I decided to take the plunge and bought an Audio Mirror D1. Then I used that as the basis to compare against oversampling designs. I listened to many DACs in the process both in my system and in shop systems. Some of the ones I auditioned were Audio Note, 47 Labs, Bel Canto, MSB, and Benchmark.

What seemed to me to be the most consistent difference is that the non-os design sounded more natural and the closest to analog. The oversampler DACs made the music sound somewhat artificial by comparison, like it was recreating the music as oppposed to allowing the signal to flow as it was intended to be heard. Now I know some of this is based on the equipment used in the tests, but each of the non-os DACs had this quality. Without having to upsample and filter the signal there is less risk for errors in the conversion process. Sometimes less is more.

There are obviously great oversampling designs out there. To me though, as a vinyl junkie what I wanted from my digital set-up was to get close to that sound I hear when I spin LPs or listen to 2 track DAT or reel-reel masters. The non-os DACs gave that to me.
I have an Audio Mirror NonOS Dac and I'm using my Sony XA777ES player as the transport. Yeah, the little $500 dac is better than the $3,000 Cd Player - IMO. Bigger soundstage and warmer sound without losing the details are the biggest differences. And like they claim, I do favor it over the Sony SACD's on some titles, so I play the CD layer. I know the Sony is a good transport too as I used to have a Proceed CDD transport only (nice unit) and the Sony was it's equal soundwise...much nicer features on the Proceed though. At this price I think the Audio Mirror is a keeper.

I have 2 D1's and sent one off to TRL to be modified. The early results after about 50 hours of burn in time are amazing. I can't wait until it completely burns in (500 hours). If you have $550 to spend I highly suggest the upgrade. Otherwise the stock unit is as you say, a keeper.
Thanks guys ..I wanted to confirm .What I've seen a few other folks say about the non OS Dacs. " Less is more" This is the concept I have followed for nearly a year now. The simpler the components seem to get in the system,the better it sounds in my system.Meaning minimum parts count and short signal paths. I seek the sound of unamplified instruments. Which too my ears sounds more natural than listening to instruments through equalizers and amplifiers.

Not looking for amplified rock concert type sound. I've come to the conclusion.Most audiophiles fall to one side or the other.This seems to take them towards a system that gives a sound of amplified instruments or one of unamplified instruments.IMO the unamplified instruments sound more intimate and natural .
I own the Audio Mirror as well, and my opinion based on my experience is similar to Clio09's. I'm pretty surprised that a $500 DAC can sound this big, bold and musical. The only upsampling DAC I've owned that has similar attributes is the Kora Hermes tube DAC.
I'm a committed zero sampling fan. I like the Audio Note DACs, but also have a Wavelength Audio zero sampling DAC in a headphone system which is just as nice. They sound very natural. Smooth, dynamic and certainly all-day listenable! The upsamplers I've had sounded more digital, more artificial. Some are nice, but the zero samplers can't be beat, IMO.
I've been seeing alot about this Audio Mirror Dac. Seems like some good stuff! It reminds me of some of the Dacs from I almost bought one to try it out. But since I was having an integrated amplifier built. I had the designer to make me a NOS Dac as well to match it. It doesn't have tubes. I may add some type of tube buffer..just for a taste of tube magic eventually.These are good times as prices for some good stuff is with in reach.

I've tried the upsampling thing.Great dynamics but waaaay too much top end. It can be very fatiguing.You need plenty of tubes in front of it to smooth things out.All this stuff about getting super high frequencies is nonsense too me.
I tested my hearing two days ago. I hear up to 18 or 19khz.
Anything past that is a waste of time to even worry about.Makes me think some of this equipment is spec for hype more than anything else.
Gmood1, it seems like you have excellent hearing! Especially if you are a male of our species, heheh.
Hey Gunbei ..imagine my surprise! I thought I didn't hear above maybe 15 khz. LOL
The test disc proved me wrong .It also proved my assumption wrong that my speakers had no real output above 16 khz.The SPL meter was still reading decent pressure up to 20 khz. Even though I couldn't hear it.:-)
Here's a couple of pics of my new NOS Dac.It's kinda of Retro cool to me.The top is clear acrylic with perforated aluminum underneath. The board mounts loosely on the standoffs (I was told it sounds better this way), and the top cover assembly just slides on top of that. The bottom plate is made out of maple. Very simple design and to the point. The little Dac features blackgates galore with gold traces and extremely short signal paths.
It uses the same D/A converter and input receiver of the 47 Laboratory Shigaraki DAC. Just without the price that comes with the name.

Audio Sector Premium Dac 1.
Audio Sector Premium Dac 1.
Audio Sector Premium Dac 1.
Audio Sector Premium Dac 1.