617
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Playback Tweaks and Source related subjects / Re: HOW I´VE BUILT MY NEW PC FOR XXHIGHEND AND WHY I´VE CHOSEN THE COMPONENTS
|
on: July 24, 2012, 07:31:45 pm
|
Juan, per Nick's Tweaks, i get better sound unplugging my Plextor optical drive and secondary SATA II drive when listening. This is a bit cumbersome when wanting to rip cause things have to be plugged in (just the optical drive, the secondary internal drive never gets used). Given the need to access the inside of the computer, I'm currently using the sides of my computer as bases for my amp and DAC! My wife kicked me and my system out of the living room and I'm now on the third floor where I can play as loud as I want whenever I want. Though everything was moved hastily and I now have to figure out how to organize the room. I haven't decided yet whether to get a proper "tower audio stand" to put components --DAC and AMP--on, or whether to just get a couple of "single shelf" boards (extra thick hi-end meat cutting boards perhaps with some well placed spiked feet ) and leave the DAC and amp as they currently are on the floor. See below. Sorry about the digression there. What I really want to say is that I currently run the OS with XX and all of my music on the same 3 TB SATA III spinning drive. I have found an amazing difference in SQ between music ripped to the internal SATA II secondary drive and music ripped to the 3 TB OS drive, with the latter providing the amazing sound. I have not tried an external USB3 drive but am willing to bet the family farm on an external drive not being as good as the SATA III OS drive. Of course there are important practical problems with setting ones system up this way, namely: If music sounds best on the OS drive then why make backups that sound inferior? In other words be prepared to rerip ALL your tunes if the OS drive dies-- a pain in the ass, truly. But if you don't have a "lot " of music--my entire collection--as wave files-- is "only" 1.5 TB's-- its a risk/pain you might be willing to make. For me, the sound is that much better that, for now, I'm willing to do it this way. Though I don't know for sure all the causes for the SATA III OS drive sounding so good, I do know that the SQ is made worse by connecting the SATA III drive with a standard SATA cable. My Corsair AX650 Power Supply came with two dedicated SATA III cables. At one point plugging and unplugging drives I accidentally used a stadard SATA cable on the SATA III drive. SQ was not what I had gotten used to and when I realized the mistake I switched back to the SATA III cable and, viola, the good sound returned. SATA III has a metal locking clip that the standard SATA cable doesn't have. Certainly the electronics of SATA III contribute to the difference. On the other hand, I wonder if the UEFI interface that came with the ASUS MB, which interface is necessary for using a 3 or 4 TB drive as an OS drive, is what has so changed SQ here? Lastly, my new room's dimensions are 11x15 feet with an 18 " "punch out" for a bay type widow on the exterior wall. The sound here is much better than the living room, probably because there is no piano between the speakers and the floor has wall to wall carpet. Anyway, any suggestions regarding room treatments are welcome!
|
|
|
618
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: Split file size and volume
|
on: July 12, 2012, 04:58:18 am
|
Several times I've tried Peters settings and everything but the SFS of 2 works for me. I'm staying with my SFS of 450, though I've changed my signature regarding the other settings. Voices are eerily natural on my system at this SFS setting. Maybe I'll change my mind when, geeze, whats that new thingy called, oh yea, 9z-7 is released. Peter, please try and change my mind soon. Brian
|
|
|
620
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: Split file size and volume
|
on: July 03, 2012, 02:36:41 pm
|
Btw, today still (0.9z-7), I'm sure that the higher SFS is the better one, but it is a sort of overruled by "that" other new setting which exaggerates much more of something else which already was good for NOS1 users. By 40 times to be more precise. So, think like being able to set the SFS 40 times higher than now, and imagine it would extend the good exhibits of the higher value SFS from today.
So, wait a bit again ? But sure don't forget to come back on this one, when 0.9z-7 is sorted out somewhat on your side.
I've been amazed by this quote since you wrote it! Please, please, please provide for my American ears the definition of the word bit. Cause over here it means the briefest passage of time......
|
|
|
621
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Your thoughts about the Sound Quality / Re: Split file size and volume
|
on: June 29, 2012, 08:36:28 pm
|
Don't know if its appropriate to ressurect this thread, but there were a lot of interesting ideas in it so what the hell:
Am home today and had a chance for a nice session with XX. Don't know why but it occurred to me (again) that SFS and volume are very interrelated. For the heck of it I set my SFS to 500 and increased the volume between 4 and 6 db depending upon the music. These volume settings were in a range I rarely go cause all gets distorted when playing this loud. However, with a SFS of 500, these high levels sounded very, very good. Reducing volume to a more usual level, but keeping the SFS at 500, things sounded too woody or muted. Of course, lowering the SFS with the lowered volme brings back that "great sound."
This little exercise got me to wondering if there isn't a "correct" (or approximately correct) SFS for any particular volume level or range of levels, and if there is, or at least seems to be, wouldn't it be great (for those who dislike "fiddling" with too may buttons) if the SFS could be automatically adjusted as volume was increased or decreased? This "setting" would have to be based both on the SPL the music was originally recorded at and the volume you want to use (whether or not wife is in the room, etc) when listening in your living room. The feature could be bypassed (with a button, of course) for those who can't stop fiddling with buttons).
If implemented properly, this could be the "solution" to the SFS "problem". I mean, if volume and SFS are related, there ought to be an accurate SFS setting for each cd and the volume its being played at. Or instead of a specific SFS for each volume it could be set for a range and would change at a certain point that constitute a new range.
Sorry if I've got a bit too much time on my hands and you've just spent a couple of minutes reading a bunch of crazy talk!
|
|
|
626
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Playback Tweaks and Source related subjects / Re: HOW I´VE BUILT MY NEW PC FOR XXHIGHEND AND WHY I´VE CHOSEN THE COMPONENTS
|
on: June 24, 2012, 01:50:15 pm
|
Hi Brian,
maybe buildung a Rolls-Royce and driving it with 50 miles/hour could be a solution. Additionally I got better results by reducing the processor speed and switching the AMD from unganged to ganged mode for memory transfers. Ganged meanns that every core is using the 128 bit memory bus exclusively - the other cores must wait.
Georg
Hi Georg, Per Uncle Google, it looks like "ganged" is an AMD only tweak. Don't know if there is an Intell equivlent. I guess one buys a Rolls Royce to be as insulated from road vibrations as possible. Of course never exceeding 50 mph keeps those vibrations to a minimum. Brian
|
|
|
627
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Playback Tweaks and Source related subjects / Re: HOW I´VE BUILT MY NEW PC FOR XXHIGHEND AND WHY I´VE CHOSEN THE COMPONENTS
|
on: June 23, 2012, 02:35:37 pm
|
Generally faster was better. I am not so sure Stefano said that ? And actually I'd think it is the other way around (theory only !) Peter Edit : FWIW I have mine running at 833Mhz (can do 2100). Last night I remembered the above exchange from earlier in this thread. I went into the ASUS bios and, in the Ai Tweaker (overclocking) section I played around with the memory frequency settings. I've always used the EZ Automatic overclocking function of the bios and have wondered why it automatically set the memory frequency to 1373 MHz when I have GSkill-1600, CL9-9-9-24. Anyway I set the Memory frequency to 1648, 1373, and 1098 and gave each a listen. There was a very significant change in sound for the better the lower the frequency. There is a 824 Mhz setting I've yet to try, but it seemed that the sound became so delicate and smooth at 1098 that it I really need to listen "here" for a while before changing this setting again. Just an FYI regarding things I don't understand but which my button pushing nature and ears regard as worthwhile!
|
|
|
629
|
Ultimate Audio Playback / Chatter and forum related stuff / Great Audio Experience
|
on: June 18, 2012, 01:51:30 pm
|
Yesterday I had the good fortune of plugging my new computer build and NOS1-USB into a couple of Audio Research 250 watt reference monoblocks that powerd Vandersteen Model7's. For me the good news is that my less than ten thousand dollar system sounds damn good compared to one costing 200 times more. Don't get me wrong, the system I heard yesterday was incredible, close to walking into a concert hall. I'm just not sure that what I heard was "200 times" better than my system.
The best part of all was Peter's DAC and software. Let me just say that, to my ears, they more than stood their ground against Ammara and an EMM Labs SACD Player/DAC. The owner of the system was very impressed with the NOS 1.
Thanks Peter.
|
|
|
|