OK, I'm pretty certain Peter will tell me that I'm doing totally the wrong thing, but I'll go ahead anyway...

I've drawn up my current grounding/PE scheme. I use a 'star arrangement' with a 3m copper chemical rod in the garden. The guy who installed it believes it's around 5 Ohms to earth, based on the clay soil in which it's inserted. In any event, it should be much better and electrically much cleaner than the house PE. (I won't go into details here, but I use 2 balanced transformers - one for the basement and one for the listening room - to isolate this earth from the house PE.) There are actually 12x 3m earth wires connected to the solid copper bus - 6 going into my listening room and 6 going into the basement (I've only shown 5). Now the interesting stuff...

Every component has its PE connected to one of the 12 earth wires. Being of equal length, each of these should sit at exactly the same potential wrt to earth.

Now, in a regular setup, the NOS1 will derive its ground from the USB cable (I'm not talking about the NOS1's PE here - this is derived from 4 and is just connected to the chassis). But the ground is itself derived from the PC's ground plane (which I'm assuming is ultimately derived from the  PC's PE connection, 1).

Now, I'm using a >5m length of USB cable. Everyone says this is a bad idea. I'm not so sure. Pat over at AR-T uses very long lengths to make his spdif cables, to reduce the affect of reflections - at MHz freqs this matters. And maybe there's a case for long USB cables too? But of course the major downside is the susceptibility to RF interference with such a long length. So what I've done is to connect the USB cable's screen at the PC end to earth (2) and at the NOS1 end to earth (3).

But this has now done exactly what Peter wanted to avoid - use the PE for ground in the NOS1. What puzzles me though is that this is unavoidable isn't it? I mean, where does that ground get it's reference from anyway? The PC's PE, no?

Anyway, what I really wanted to talk about was the affect that having 3 connected or not has on the sound. It totally changes when it's connected. It's cleaner with what sounds like a quieter background. It's darker with less 'sparkle'. But along with this, there's much less sibilance and edge to the sound. It's much easier to listen to. 'Blanketed'? I wouldn't say so, but compared to 3 unconnected, it certainly sounds less bright and lively.

Any thoughts as to why connection 3 in my scheme is having such a profound affect on the sound?

Mani.

Well, I've just been playing around with a few things this morning and... I'll take your bet!

There is no question in my mind that the sound is better with the power line disconnected. With it connected, the amount of USB noise is simply not acceptable - it's easily audible when the music is playing.

Apart from the USB noise, the sound itself has that 'digital glare' which I believe contributes to 'false detail'. And unlike you, Peter, I'm very familiar with this effect. I used to own an Esoteric D70 DAC (my first introduction to the PCM1704 BTW). It was a very educational unit. You could connect it to the transport in one of three ways:
1) PLL. Initially this sounds very nice, but you soon realise it's 'digital glare' and 'false detail' all over.
2) RAM buffer. The worse. Dead. Totally dead. Yes, just like your 'blanket' description.
3) Word clock (with additional BNC cable). Easily the best. Loads of detail, yet clean and pure.

And the difference in SQ that I'm hearing between using a regular USB printer cable and the split power/data cable is very similar to the difference between 1) and 3) above. I'm pretty certain anyone listening to the two cables would prefer the latter.

BUT there are a few caveats that I should share:

1) I'm using a 5m USB cable extension before the 1m USB cable to the NOS1. My music PC currently sits in my basement. It's a totally silent machine (apart from the HDD), so I'll bring it up to the main room some time and see if shorter USB runs makes a difference. I did experiment with USB cable lengths a while ago and couldn't hear a difference between 5m, 3m and 1m runs. But with my current USB noise issue, it might be worth experimenting further.

2) My mobo may be totally cr*p. Nick found this with his. It could be that the mobo is creating more USB noise than normal. I believe Brian also has the same mobo, but I've not heard him mention anything untoward about the sound he's getting from it.

3) The USB noise has only now become an issue because until very recently I've been using balanced connections between the NOS1 and power amp. With balanced connections, there is absolutely no USB noise, irrespective of USB cable type or length. Indeed, with the Sauermann monos, the only thing you can hear with your ear inside the 114dB horn is some low-level white noise. With the Berning SET, there is noise of certain frequencies, but it's not mains hum - the amp uses a switch-mode power supply. I'm generally against these, but understand why David Berning uses them (for a whole bunch of reasons that he describes on his website). In any event, he's a smart cookie, so I'll assume he knows how to make a proper power supply.

Peter, not sure how to conclude our bet. If you have any ideas, let me know...

Mani.

Hmm... I think it might be the first time then. I getting absolutely the sweetest sound I've ever achieved, I think. Maybe not 'more' bass, but deeper and paradoxically more tuneful.

But will keep on eye on things.

Mani.

Thanks for sharing Jud. Really nice.


I'm confused. Are you talking about yourself and the NOS1? Nah, can't be. Maybe Berkeley?

Anyway, my recent exploit with USB cables suggests to me that whatever is happening inside the NOS1, eliminating noise as much as possible in the first place still matters.

Mani.

It's a 1m Ridge Street Enopias USB cable. I paid USD150 for it from eBay. Apparently, it was >USD1000 new, which is simply crazy. There is very little information on the Ridge Street website about the cable - it looks like they may have stopped making digital cables - it doesn't look anything special. But it has certainly totally killed the crackling noise. Maybe the added change (improvement?) in SQ has nothing to do with the cable's properties (materials, geometry, etc), but rather the separate the data and power lines. Certainly, the NOS1 seems perfectly happy just connected to the data line. But having the ground connected is essential.

Mani.

Just a quick post to share my latest USB experiences...

A couple of weeks back, I decided that I really ought to try my Berning OTL SET amp with my 114dB/w horn speakers. The amp is a strange design - DC-coupled, no output transformer, switch-mode power supply, etc. It's pretty quiet by SET standards...
- Signal to noise: 92 dB (20 kHz bandwidth)
- Line-frequency hum components: 60 Hz: -94dB; 120 Hz: -100 dB; 180 Hz: -104 dB

... BUT, with my ear fairly close to the MF/HF horn I could hear some 'crackling' noise coming through the speakers as soon as the PC was switched on. And lo and behold, I could 'hear' my mouse whenever I moved it. I could also 'hear' the HDD doing its work. No question about it, this was noise being propagated from the PC to the NOS1 via the USB cable.

A couple of years ago I bought a USB cable from eBay which had separate data and power lines, with the ground passing through the data line (not the 5V power line). I fished this cable out and connected it to the PC via only the data line. Et voila, no crackling noise whatsoever...

... AND, a totally different sound too. A much cleaner, fuller sound, with much deeper bass. On first hearing, it sounds too laid back and almost dull. But with prolonged listening it sounds more realistic. The highs, although more subdued, are sweeter. And the real test is that you can listen to music for hours without any agitation.

[I tried the cable (just data) in my office system too - totally different mobo, CPU, PC configuration, etc, and the change in sound was very similar.]

Not really sure what to make of this. My mobo is the same as the one that Nick has just replaced. It could be that the mobo is cr*p and having just the USB data line connected helps. As to the change in sound... Well, either it's better because of decreased USB noise entering the NOS1. Or it's worse - the USB cable suppressing transients and the like. Will try a few other things and report back.

But one thing's clear to me - even the NOS1 is affected by USB cables and how they deal with noise from the PC.

Mani.

So what's wrong with this one?

Mani.

Edit: As always, very interested in hearing what you think. And depending upon what you say, I may be in the market for a pair. If so, I'll be selling my Swings. If anyone here wants them, I'll be selling them for what I paid - i.e. 1/4 of their retail price!

Hey Peter, what's going on? I've learned more about your way of thinking from the thread below, on another forum, than I have here on your own forum. Surely that's not on. Now, get your act together and share more of your thinking with us here too.

http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/index.php?/topic/55227-phasure-dac/

Or is it because you like Aussies more than the rest of us? I like them too, though they can no longer play cricket to save their lives... or rugby... or tennis...

Mani.

Hey Peter, thanks for looking into this so thoroughly. Your findings reflect what I'm hearing, I think. With the settings I've described, HQPlayer sounds more laid back than XX. And the 'reverb effect' isn't present. I've been assuming that the latter is an AP anomaly that I'm hearing. Maybe it isn't. As I said, it's actually very, very pleasant and really gives the music a 'recorded live' feeling.

I've stated before that AP sounds much better than the 'Polynomial' filters in HQPlayer. These are just awful, and I agree with Miska's recommendation not to use them.

But I still think it's nice that NOS1 owners have something else to try and play around with. I mean, there just aren't enough parameters in XX to keep one occupied

Mani.

Peter, just for my understanding, you're talking about the 'RECORDING & MASTERING – The Making of a Great Hi-Rez Recording' session, right? (I thought you weren't interested in attending this session...)

OK, you didn't want to mention names, but the following people were due to attend: Jack Kenny, Sean Martin, Jeffrey Norman, John Nowland, Jon Reichbach, Michael Romanowski and Paul Stubblebine. Was the 'Prof' there also by any chance?

Your post is really saddening. If the guys who make the recordings can't hear how bad the 'live' event sounds, what chance is there they can produce good-sounding recordings from it? Pretty much zilch, right? Really saddening. Thanks for sharing all the same.

OT. The more I get involved in my vinyl digitization project, there more I think we've taken some massive backwards steps in home audio. A lot of the LPs I'm using are Classical/Opera from the late 50s and early 60s. Take away the inevitable surface noise, clicks and pops, and most of them sound really incredible. I mean, the singers are standing there in front of you. How do we get back to this level of recording mastery or has it been lost forever?

It just goes to show what you've been saying for years - the whole 'hi-rez' discussion/debate is totally moot - 16/44.1 is already too good for most of the cr*p that's churned out these days. (Incidentally, 16/44.1 is not good enough to capture the true essence of my LPs - I have to go to 24/192 to get that with my ADC.)

Mani.

Hey Peter, I'm not sure between 1 and 2, but certainly not 3 - the stereo is no different from playing the 24/176.4 file natively. Miska describes it as '"Dual wire" channel bonding support to reach 2x rates, PCM and DoP (DSD)'.

Another thing that I will try in the next few weeks is playing back a DSD64 and DSD128 file (one of my own vinyl recordings or a suitable download) on the NOS1. HQPlayer will convert these to PCM32/705.6 on the fly. There are a bunch of algorithms and noise filters to try. Could be interesting...

Mani.

An update:

A couple of days ago, tried HQPlayer again with the NOS1. I noticed a small button called '2-wire' that Jussi (Miska on most forums) had recently added in the settings area of HQPlayer. I engaged this and voila, I managed to feed the NOS1 with 32/768 from HQPlayer. Of course, XX has been able to do this since the NOS1 went USB, but it's nice that NOS1 owners now have an alternative to try.

Reading back through this post, I was struck by Peter's comments regarding Arc Prediction. I thought I'd try something. So here's what I did...

I got a 24/176.4 Reference Recording file. I played this natively through XX (all other settings per my signature). Nice sound. I then engaged 4x AP to take the rate to 705.6. The 'character' of the sound fundamentally changes. In a very pleasant way, but it changes nevertheless. Things start sounding more 'alive' - almost as if a tiny bit of reverb had been added to the sound. This sort of chimes with what Peter says about all albums now sounding like live recordings.

I then tried exactly the same thing with HQPlayer. Natively first. Very, very similar to XX. Maybe a tad 'darker', but really not a night-and-day difference. If anything I was expecting it to sound brighter and more 'metallic', the typical WASAPI sort of sound, but this was not the case. (I have no idea if HQPlayer applies any OS tweaks during playback - I don't think it does.) But the really interesting thing (for me at least) was when I applied the poly-sinc-short-minimum-phase filter to take the rate up to 705.6 and also 5th order noise shaping. The 'character' of the sound did NOT change. There was a clear improvement in pretty much every area of SQ, but without any added 'reverb effect'.

So, is the HQPlayer filter/noise-shaper doing a more accurate job than XX's own Arc Prediction? For me, it's opened my eyes to exploring different filtering options.

On a final note, all this is only possible because of the stupendous capability of the NOS1. For anyone who is still sitting on the fence about getting one, just do it. It's the surest bit of kit you'll ever buy.

Mani.

Hi Bill, I've just posted over at CA in reply.

The only thing I'll mention here is that I've got Miska's HQPlayer working at 32/768 with the NOS1. I'm finding it really educational, to the extent that I now feel Arc Prediction may be creating some audible side effects. Offering some minimum-phase filters, and maybe also some noise-shaping schemes, as options in XX would be very welcome.

Mani.

Hi Peter, I'm still having problems with HDCD-encoded files. And it's now getting pretty frustrating because many of these files are simply the best-sounding music I've got.

With the PM2 you can encode in four different ways:

1) with 'Peak Extension' only
2) with 'Low Level Extension' only
3) with 'Peak Extension' and 'Low Level Extension'
4) with neither of the two HDCD processes

If you go for 4), the HDCD flag is still active, but there are simply no HDCD processes applied.

With XX, there is no issue with 4) - the HDCD files play no problem.

The issue seems to be with 1)-3). Although it' never stated on  the CD cover itself, hdcd.exe should be able to figure out which HDCD processes have been used. But what's strange is that this always worked perfectly before - I never used to have any issues playing any HDCDs on XX.

Let me know if/when you'd like me to send you a file via FileMail.

Cheers, Mani.

I'm sure if it's exactly the same, but I've had W8 installed since February (so not a new W8 Pro build) with no issues whatsoever, but only yesterday I was automatically logged off when entering an Unattended playing session (in Minimize OS mode).

I simply rebooted, went into normal OS mode, went into the W8 shell, and then back into the W7 shell. Booted up XX, went into Minimize OS mode and everything is working as expected again.

As I said, I've no idea if this is related to what you're experiencing, but if it is, at least there seems to be a simple solution.

Why this should have happened almost exactly 6 months after installing W8 Pro, I have no idea.

Mani.