Ramesh, hmm ... that is not what I recall (for asking Bert to make). But maybe.
I think chances are higher that the connection you make is actually RCA, you convert that to XLR and now use the "wrong" pin ? ("wrong" between quotes because it also can have been made wrongly and adapts to whatever unknown - so mind you, XLR is meant to be that and then there's two hot wires, one of them used; if you use actually RCA then there's one hot wire and with 50% chance we'd have the wrong one).

If you really want to know fir sure, the by far easiest is to remove that panel (matter of a few screws) and look how it connects internally. One wire should connect with the (middle) hot wire of BNC ...

Regards,
Peter

Hi Ramesh,

Yes, I have two Ethernet ports in the Music Server PC. Theoretically this is a matter of spending $10 on a PCI card for it. Also theoretically is the more-spent time on figuring out how to do it via the Router, while the Audio PC remains disconnected from the Internet (I am sure this is in the forum somewhere and not easy to find out your- (or my-) self. But it can be done.
What's your hourly tariff ?

Anyway, good point.


No, not that I ever noticed. But let the OS resample "as nice" as possible. Since (IIRC) Windows 8.1 you can also resample to the 44.1 based sampling rates. Not that you would need that for movies, but still.
You set this at the Sound Device's properties and the data for "shared mode" (you choose what to resample to). See screenshot below (no NOS1a there because as of yet this is still the Music Server PC not playing the movie yet while normal Audio is playing while typing this ).

Regards,
Peter

OK. I am thinking of putting up the original post I had in mind originally (but saved it elsewhere), that post expressing about the sound. But for now it could only be more confusing when doing that prior to this very post I am writing now, because of new data available ...

Yesterday I have been playing with a 10/20 core. Say that this is the one for fmanheck but only in "test" and to see what the 10/20 core would bring.


And that was a still pending question ...

Whether Silver or Gold (or Bronze or Platinum) is maybe not of importance (I do not know of inherent technical differences apart from number of cores and processor speed) but anyway this 10/20 is the 4114 and it should represent the good old 2640v4. Well, for the number of cores, that is. But there the comparison stops. And this is all related to the explicit "Server" environment which is radically different. So I need to say it again : the 26xx Xeons were actually consumer oriented and today no such an environment exists any more for the Xeons, unless it would be the new W series but although looking interesting, this is the opposite of what we'd want and is more "laptop" oriented. So we have the "Xeon Scalable" and it is their architecture which makes them interesting for us. Well, says me and with the hopefully present experience (which often is merely about hunches but alas).
It is also about the six lanes of parallel memory processing.

If I first try to summarize everything : this is all about how the power provision was made "super stable" which in itself happened a bit by accident but had its foundation in the fact that no normal cooling mechanisms exists for this. It anticipates 90dB generating blasting fans (ever been in a server room ?) and with that airflow and in an air conditioned room of 15C or so, it will work. But this is all not really us, right ?
So if I did not tell it yet : there's always one very slow fan running now (not PWM controlled which is good) and the result of that is a.o. a stable power draw. It is way more stable than the Mach II and at hooking up a power consumption meter this is easy to observe (Mach II jumps regularly, Mach II is always the same).
Do notice the importance of this *if* we recognize that the minute differences implied by stupidities as XXHighEnd already implies vast sound changes, right ? Thus, seeing the power consumption change by 2-3 Watts all the time, can't be the example of the theoretically best sound (about theories, hunches and real empirical experience).

Back to the 10/20 processor

When I was listening to this setup yesterday, into an hour of it, this text for you all came to me (and I hope you recognize I am always honest) :

This 10/20 processor is for those who do not have the very best system. It now will sound better than the 16/32 (the only other one I have experience with so far) just because the 16/32 demands too much of the system (more elaboration later, if I don't forget).

A few hours later, partner in crime Ciska arrived back home and I know what she sort of complained about the past few weeks, which I will tell about later as well, but which made her say literally this :
"Hmm ... maybe the one processor is better for more inexpensive systems and the other for the more expensive ones". And the sweet question : "how's that actually with the Orelos ?" ... and then I started taking about small chips producing the sound instead of a 1000 components etc. with the question what could be better when. And also about the speaker itself of course and how its speed matches, well, the 16/32 processor's exhibits. So ...
So let's quote myself from the text I did not put up, actually for the reason of too much of theory at the time (which was a small week back) :

---

Sound ... literally shattering good.

Yes, the keyword is "shattering" here. I wouldn't know a better description, although to you it may come across as a negative. But the contrary is the case.
Let's first try to see that all wht you'll hear from the Stealth III is delineated like crazy (that word again). Each is on its own and with that in mind now think "shattering". Or better : how shattering (like copper instruments) can really shatter. How it creates a crazy amount of layers and fills the whole room with sound, this time not with low frequency only; Supposed you play something of not the most common instruments and you may never have witnessed those instruments live, then such an instrument can/will now sound all over different than you ever imagined. And, as so often, you won't even be able to recognize the track/album. I had an example the other day I now forgot, but think like a most normal Steely Dan of which you have to look twice whether you did not put up a(n unknown) coverband. Com-ple-te-ly different.

Bass is like you ended up in hell.
Deep Thunder is like ... OK the same. But there wasn't deep thunder previously in tyracks accordingly.
The highs are so so idiotly "short" and bright and whatever superlative more we can try to think of, that all else now sounds like dirt. And yes, I have serious problems with listening to the Stealth II now and if I had to go back to it I'd give up the hobby first.
Can't imagine that eh ?

---

Here is where I decided not to put that up because I couldn't talk existing Stealth II customers into spending another 4K+ euros only because of something new again, the old for some only months old. But I also seriously started to wonder whether what I perceived over here could work out for others elsewhere. I mean, that "shattering" won't come automatically; it requires speed speed and more speed. Like one small chip processing all of the sound (as how the main amplifiers in the Orelos do it). What would happen when this speed is no available ?
Now, together with Ciska talking about "maybe too cold" (which is an exhibit of "super speed" because of all the highs coming to you) I started to wonder whether I could do something to tame the speed. And I found ...
Q1.
It was a kind of logic (for thought) because we all just started manipulating that one for more speed and after trying a bit, I ended at 30x10 (instead of 30x40). Now there was less of the super speed and more of the necessary warmth.

Well, day before yesterday we both explicitly checked that, and all what I heard over and over was "this is not what I expected (it could do)". So to a large surprise now and the warmth was back, and the speed was there just the same. But her surprise was about S-es remaining normal, while all the highs seem to incur for "overing" that. But not so. Not so at all. And now it requires my original post about the SQ impression, but never mind; I can refer to the "Addictive" I put up for the replacement post. Highs which clearly incur for the worst (like shattering braking windows) while nothing is wrong with S-es. How can it be.

Wait, we were talking about the 10/20. And btw, this is not 4K+ but 3K+. Also I must now revisit the prices because by now I know exactly what goes in there. OK ...
What I could sense of that was the better capability of my system. Yes. Well, mind you, I reason towards matter I hear and this is what I am now saying : my system of course is not the best of all. It just isn't. And it is just the same as reasoning with the 16/32 for a base : the system must be sufficiently good to let that processor (setup) excel. It does here all right, but ...
But it needs just that tad more ?
No wait, with Q1 at 30x10 all is fine. Yyyyyess, but what about more speed sounding worse then ?

I hope I am clear a little, but probably not at all. But the 16/32 summarized : for me this is perfect when I don't dial in the max possible for speed (as how I perecive it now).
The 10/20 is perfect at 30x40 although I can't check beyond that.

The 10/20 sounds totally different again and it is the "woman's" processor. It is more slick (sound wise). It shows all the (crazy) speed of the world more downwards in the spectrum. It is more easy on the ears. It is not as 100% interesting compared to what the 16/32 can do.

And mind you, between the 2640 (10/20) and the 2660 (14/28) I never perceived a real difference "but if anything the 2660 sounds better". Not so when the "Scalable" 10/20 and the 16/32 are compared. The difference is huge again. And btw as huge as the difference is between the 2640 (mind you, for a whole computer system) and any of these two.
See the "dirt" remark more above, from that post I did not put up. It really is so.

So finally the verdict between the 16/32 and the 10/20 through these ears :

- 16/32 exhibits speed that at least lets my system run into limits, as it seems. Not 100% sure yet as more settings exist than Q1. Bass excels, highs excels up to shattering good, mid is just very good but may stay behind a bit caused by the overwhelming highs. Can be tamed by Q1 towards more warm sound, but it seems a waste to do that (the super special may disappear somewhat).

- 10/20 exhibits speed in the mid, is warm up to being in a warm bath. Bass excels possibly even more. Maybe no real shattering highs but easy on the ear always for those who want easy on the ear.

So, done.

The 10/20 was a test. Next up could be the 12/24. I expect this to be "better" again than the 10/20, just because the 10/20 does not let me (with my system) run into limits that I can see (OK, after one day of listening !). Point is that I can't get it at this moment. And, going to the 14/28 is a bit moot because of the price approaching the price of the 16/32. Also, I obviously can't be obtaining processors forever just for testing them. Not at these prices. They should be feasible to sell. And well, the 16/32 for sure is (I probably get one for myself) and the 10/20 for sure is too (I will keep using that if nobody wants it ).



Now I hope you don't regard this as the most idiot blabla reasoning ever (about system limits and such) but anyway it is really how I now think.

Regards,
Peter

Hi there Ramesh,

What you ask will work but I would suggest to disconnect the Essence when you play music. If not, strange things may happen to the two connected cables (physically the other interlink will be connected to the Blaxius) and the impedance of the Blaxius will be destroyed. Of course when in the other way around (HT usage) the same counts but you may not be much interested in that. Or ? ...

Over here we are just contemplating what will be Saturday's night movie and surely the Orelos will be used for that (in just 2ch fashion). The set up is easy, once you use the PC for HT playback;

First off there's the Music Server PC (so not the Stealth). This PC will hold your HT programs and it also has access to the movies (we always carry around a USB connected disk so the movie can be prepared elsewhere again, like on some tablet with USB connection). When done, the USB disk connects to the Music Server PC which of course can now play the movie of choice (which just as well can reside on your NAS of course, might you use a NAS).
All it now needs is moving the USB Cable from the Audio PC (*)(your Stealth II) to the Music Server PC and now you play the music via your NOS1a/G3.

*) Literally we unplug the Lush from the DAC and put in the normally loose hanging USB cable coming from the Music Server PC. Thus, B sides of the cable are just next to each other close to the DAC's input and you can put in the one you like in 3 seconds.
On a side note we always first switch off the Orelos so the "plop" which may occur at (un)plugging the USB Cable will not occur, plus we always first re-check the DC Offset of the NOS1a/G3 (another 3 seconds).

Doable for you ?

Kind regards,
Peter

Hi Joachim,

Definitely still with W10 and definitely all the very same (setup / configuration).
But yes, I am guilty of making a usual first-post-chaos of matters which are so-called true (on April 1). At some stage I will revisit the first post and make a nice summ-up of all what is in there.
But ask ahead anyway ! The Stealth III is really there. And seriously for the better, but I held a bit back of that so far. Maybe in a next post ...

KInd regards,
Peter

Hi there Michael. From me too a warm welcome here.
And yes, you caused me quite a project here. But it will be worth while for the next 2-3 years.

Minutes ago I performed the very last things to do, like making your RAM-OS Disk ready with the settings I like (SQ) best myself.

High Resolution link XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC 10

So that's her - only yours. And with special application, as you can see.


High Resolution link XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC 11

Thanks a lot, kind regards and never do this again please. Haha.
Peter

I am a full time priest. Just got up early to practice today's preaching.
I better go to sleep again ...

Well Fred, congratulations. You will go into the books as the first. OK, not really because the one now (about) finished is for someone already but he gently forced me into this. That is always different.
Haha.

Kind regards and super thanks !
Peter

Hi Dave,

The speed is about the transient response of the whole system, starting with the power supply (and even the transformer ahead of that). This is not about transient response in audio per se. But it *is* how it works out. Think in the realm of slow and fast capacitors.


The former question is hard to answer with numbers of some sort. Theoretically, however, the more cores the better because of less and less influence of processes not audio related. Say that it is an adhered strategy throughout (so also within XXHighEnd) which actually always rewards.
I did not play with less cores if your further question is about that. Well, I did because of testing and taming the heat (with 10 (20) but this was a not further optimized situation and I could not really compare because of not using 16 (32) yet.

Regards,
Peter

Hi Arvind,

Like the NOS1a/G3 has been heavily optimized for power consumption, the same "techniques" were applied to the Mach III Audio PC; The Linear Power Supply dissipates an unbelievable low 35C or so at an ambient of ~22 as it is over here. It is about equal to "nothing". Btw this is during playback with Q3,4,5 to 1,1,1 (this implies maximum power usage).

The all over power consumption is maybe 3W higher than the Mach II, which is theory because I never checked with the NOS1a/G3 and the Mach II. This, while I saw the other day that the G3 alone consumes ~14W (I never knew this but it will be caused by the Phisolator).
So the answer : ~56W with connected NOS1a/G3 (playing) and ~42W on its own.

There will virtually be no restrictions to the ambient temperature because the "hot parts" it can be regarded to rise linearly with the ambient temperature (there's too much headroom to not let it work out like that). So say that your ambient is 40C and with that 18C more than over here, then the hot parts become 35 + 18 = 53 (which would still be a bit less than the Mach II) and the processor will rise from 42 which it is now to 60 which still will not let trip the safety cooling (which is there just the same).
But the safety cooling is there, including explicit switch on, just as with the Mach II.

On a side note, this is with a processor frequency of 960MHz (can be lower but it is tuned for the best SQ), and 6 DIMMS of memory (8 GB each) set to 1866MHz. This will run at the lower speed of 1600 (as long as memory is available which supports this) but it will also run at 2400MHz (current memory supports that for sure).

Nothing is really on limits although it took me 4 weeks to get it there.

The "infrastructure" as such remained the same as the Mach II although it was not easy to achieve for many reasons; Removable RAM-OS Disk is the same as it was and the DVD drive is also still there.
Weight is a few Kg more.

Kind regards,
Peter

So ... I made this descripion yesterday but found it to be containing too much blabla. Well, nothing new there, right ?

So about the sound of the new Phasure Mach III Audio PC eh; What do you want to know ? What do you like to know ??
OK, what can I tell ...

The sound of this PC has something new (for "dimension") to me. Each and every day again I find it to be addictive.
?

The sound of the Mach II could possibly be described as "yeah, necessary; belongs to my system; is definitely for the better; more rest; blacker." So really, it is a must have. Linear Power Supply and all. Passively cooled. We audio idiots want such a thing and we have the desire to spend good money on it.
But it is a "must have" and really just a prerequisite to produce good sound from computer audio.

Mach III

Although the Mach II came along with the approach "let's do it really right for an Audio PC", with the Mach III the liberty was taken to make it the very best SQ wise. This path was a kind of logic for me because we are actually forcred to find a new Audio PC for the upcoming years, as the Mach II's parts (mainly MoBo and processors) start to become obsolete. With the original XXHighEnd PC - when the end was near - I started to buy all what was still available back at the time which in the end was a good approach. However, it was clear that we'd be buying "old stuff" maybe two years into new processors and all available. In the end this even shortened the life of the Mach II (started late with it). With the Mach III all is the other way around and I started with it while not even processors could be obtained. OK, I learned some lessons there.
The Mach III emerged in the midst of nobody knowing a hoot about its environment, but here it is, ready to buy. And I mean "today".

I think in the first post I mentioned the "server" domain we're in now. Well, this is a kind of forced too (you don't want to know how many times in the past month I wanted to step back from that - but impossible because of too many goodies) and this means theoretically but also practically that all is more decent. I am not sure whether it is this I want to hear in the sound coming from the Mach III, but if it is one thing, it is more decent. Robust. Dignified as well.

But if it wasn't clear by now already ... something totally new occurred; the PC has become part of the music reproduction. By now, I could regard it even more important than a DAC. And let's be honest, what wild changes in SQ we can already imply with "a" PC system (including the playback software) ? So am I right or am I right.

The Mach III is as if you bought a new DAC with new D/A principles, stuffed with all 100$ parts instead of 1$ and while this latter is even so for real, the sound is from whatever angle right. Correct. And with that addictive.

I now emphasized the word because it really is something new. Well, you can tell yourself "yeah, I know what you mean" but my response would be "no you don't". This is because I mean the phenomenon to be literal. Like smoking would be that. Say that it could be the difference between (Mach II) being sucked into the music on one hand and having the (Mach III) sheer desire to be sucked into the music, on the other.
So like yesterday ... who today is having the idea of "yeah, let's put up Led Zeppelin I and be overflooded with all as how it was meant to be and get high over it". So with that desire you put it up without knowing in advance what will happen (but be certain it is something for the best), to next tell yourself or others "how in the world has it been possible that such a new band could make such a superb album as their first, track by track".
So the addiction even ends up in satisfaction. All of it is there.

The thing about this addiction is really not just a story;
Something is happening to our brain that must be really good or something like that. It must be so well fitting/matching with what we expect, that unconsciously we suddenly accept all what's thrown at us (by loudspeakers). Additionally (for some proof) I notice that I am not wondering "is this right ? is this really right ??" but instead accept the music as it is. It is just for real or something like that.

Technically there is much, much more to say, but this will end up in the usual bla because how ever to bring across my perception of what's suddenly possibly with my system and to my ears. Still it is foremost about that because it is the first what comes to you. Thus, the addiction comes a bit later but what you hear is immediate. I'll try :

The sounds in the music are delineated in a way I have never heard anywhere. Actually this little description desribes it all (I think), but what to do with that. So I must elaborate :

First thing to notice with the proper music for it : there's shatter that makes you shudder. Oh yes. So with the sheer delineation in mind you might envision how very "super individual" sounds now react to each other. Think like one small sound is pushed from the speaker and right after that (few ms) a next sound. But this next sound influences the first in mid air. It collides and has its own effect. Then a next sound comes along and it again does the same and the effect becomes more complex. And more. And ... it fills the room completely with "sounds". Not the low frequencies as we know them and how they may energize the room, but just the higher and highest. These "effects" could very well not even have been recorded in the data because they do emerge in mid air. For example, a synthesizer will not be played through air in order to record it (unless played live and captured by microphone). It is also the instrument that isn't obfuscated by air first prior to it being recording by microphone. Well, that kind of sounds now work in extraordinaire fashion. Of course it has to be your music (for most it is not) but it tells about how all now "technically" is dealt with.

A good description could be "lack of smear". But, only after you heard it. I mean, smear ? are we suffering from that ?
Yes we do, because listen to this. Then you will know.

Let's turn shatter into the perception of copper (instrument). One of the more (if not the most) difficult sounds. Try it. Combine that with bass which is so, so deep - (not one octave but make that two if you're at it anyway) and find yourself in hell.
Yes, hell. Not heaven. What to do with heaven. Heaven is easy peasy. Hell is where all happens. Hell breaks loose. Well, shatter breaks loose too. Ratatatatatat and you try to hold up against it. Try that trumpet live in your listening room and see how long you surive. You really won't for long.
And that because of a stupid PC ?



But didn't I tell it in the first post ? The Mach III has been made to support speed. It is full with things here and small things there to let that work out all together, net.

High Resolution link XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC

No, that is not the PC, but each and every element you may see piled up there has been in it. Try this, try that. Most of it was used to overcome technical hurdles, but along the way I got acquainted with how actually "speed" as such is to be created for an Audio PC. Of course I won't tell but in the end it worked out perfectly. More actually.

High Resolution link XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC 02

High Resolution link XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC 03

High Resolution link XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC 05

High Resolution link XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC 06

High Resolution link XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC 07

High Resolution link XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC 08

High Resolution link XXHighEnd Mach III Audio PC 04

The last picture shows a big secret : a very slow running completely inaudible fan (not PWM connected). Believe it or not, is key to the sound ...

Peter

Hi Brian,

I sent you an email with instructions.

Before you begin, I'd check whether you're still in the ".0" version of your OS of concern. The 600MB free is not normal and should be close to 3GB or so (but tbh I forgot for the 16GB original version you have there).

Kind regards,
Peter

Hi Zheng,


Yes, this is fine (and honest). This is also when you try to A-B the lot which maybe is not the way to do it (well, I for instance can't). Rather play such albums of your liking as if you play and listen nicely to music, and watch yourself unconsciously just liking it, or get annoyed over it. You will see (later) that in either version it may happen. So, it may happen with MQA because you just don't like MQA or it may happen to normal Redbook because by then MQA "is" better (and I add carefully : to you). And don't A-B ... just play music.
Say that you won't be playing MQA all the time because not all is available in MQA of your liking and mood of the time, so you swich to Redbook automatically.

The only mere explicit comparison I made was with Heavy Metal, a faw months ago. Now, I don't like Heavy Metal so I was trying to find artists and albums that would sound OK and not overly compressed in the first place. In all cases MQA won that came (and I add again : to my ears).

Kind regards,
Peter

If someone can remind me to describe the CRAZY sound, tomorrow ...