Well again, this is where my method 2) comes into its own. If they indeed 'filter less', then when placed in series with another (any) cable, the sound should not change fundamentally. But it does. And there's the rub.

The cables that truly 'filter less' MUST be those that affect the sound the least when placed in series with another (any) cable... no?

Mani.

Tomorrow is going to be a sad day. Gerd Sauermann is coming over to collect the mono amps he lovingly built for me. I just don't need the Sauermann amps for the fully-active Orelinos. Otherwise there is no way I'd be selling them. I put Gerd's amps in the same league as the NOS1 sonically, and well ahead of anything I've ever owned in terms of build-quality.

Although I have no need of Gerd's products going forward, can I just give him a big plug? If I was using passive speakers, there is no other amp on the planet I would rather use than Gerd's. If you're in the market for an amp in the €8K-€10K range, please put Gerd's amps on your list of those to listen to. In Europe, it should be possible to get some sort of demo.

Mani.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I compared the 10m Klotz directly with a bunch of 1m ICs, including a pair of 1m 'anti-cables'. These direct comparisons are what I meant by method 1). And of course, these direct comparisons were with the NOS1 still in the room. Isolating it totally from the room (using the 10m Klotz cables) may well dwarf any differences I'm hearing between ICs.

Or do you mean <1m length??? I think the only really short XLRs I have are a pair of 0.5m Analysis Plus cables (I have both the copper and silver-over-copper versions). But even if I preferred the sound of really short ICs, the result would be moot as I'd still need to use a pair of ~2m ICs, even with the NOS1 bang in the middle of the room between the speakers.

But what I like about my method 2) is that it gives an idea of the exact affect a cable has on the sound. For example, I would have sworn that my anti-cables were the most transparent cables I had. But this proves not to be the case - they're actually adding a brightness that isn't there otherwise. I could not have identified this characteristic without method 2).

Anyway, I'm going to repeat 1) and 2) again in-depth... before I commit to pulling up any floorboards.

Mani.

A quick update...

I was relaxing yesterday trying to get over some jet lag and decided to compare my 10m Klotz cables with some other balanced XLR cables I had lying around. Not entirely scientific, but I tried a couple of different ways of testing them:

1) single cable direct from NOS1 to power amp
2) 2 different cables connected in series, with one acting as a a 'reference' (the great advantage of XLR connectors)

1) Results:

Well, the 10m Klotz microphone cables are bloody good! I thought they had a beautifully balanced sound - not too LF heavy or too bright. There was a quality to them that I simply cannot define but that I really, really liked. Anyway, nothing annoying at all. Compared to all-but-one of my other 1m cables (some of which are seriously $$$), they had at least as much HF detail. So I'm not sure their capacitance is an issue at all.

There was one set of cables that did seem to have more detail - these were my XLR 'anti-cables'. But for the first time I noticed that these had an uneasy edge to them compared to many of the other cables.

2) Results:

Well this was interesting. Here was the process:
a) listen to 'reference' cable connected directly between NOS1 and amp
b) insert another cable in series with 'reference' and listen
c) any difference in sound between a) and b) must be attributable to the newly inserted cable NOT being totally transparent

In a nutshell, NONE of the cables I have are totally transparent. All of them changed the sound of whichever 'reference' cable was in. My most striking observation was that the 'anti-cables' changed the sound of the Klotz cables (when the latter were the 'reference') to a brighter sound. So, the 'anti-cables' are certainly not transparent. Of course, I tried this the other way too. And indeed, the Klotz cables changed the sound of the 'anti-cables' (when the latter were the 'reference') to a less bright sound... but the change was to a much lesser extent.

Anyway, if I had to choose just one pair of cables, it would be the Klotz. So, it seems my dilemma is sorted... for now.

Mani.

Hey Nick, thanks for the update. So the 'modded' NOS1 that Peter is currently using - is this in any way related to the mods you've implemented in yours?

Mani.

I've been thinking about this a lot recently. What you say makes sense. But there's always been something that I haven't managed to get my head around. As a generalization, lower SFSs sound brighter and fresher, and higher SFSs more 'woody' and smoother. And it's with higher SFSs that I have some trouble. Let's say SFS=120. Wouldn't we expect to hear the sound change within each cycle of SFS activity? I mean, within each cycle there should be a burst of activity for a short period and then things should settle before the next cycle. So I would expect a yo-yo effect - the sound yo-yoing from fresh to smooth within each SFS cycle. But this doesn't seem to be the case at all.

Mani

Hey Peter, it was nice to read this again. Everyone should have a mission in life that they pursue with full integrity and authenticity, and give it everything they have. Seems you and Ciska found yours - recreating the most beautiful music in the home. Yeah, not a bad one as far as missions go.

Mani.

Hey Peter, I'd be more than happy to experiment... but right now, I just don't have the motivation with my currently very compromised setup. You know what I'm waiting for. Once they're here, I'll definitely be doing a lot of experimenting and tuning.

Mani.

Ahhhh, but that radiator permanently is switched off. There is another radiator on the opposite side of the room near the window, but even that is usually off. This was never a problem when I had the Sauermann monos - the room would warm up nicely with them. Oh well, I'll just have to use the room's Victorian fireplace (which now runs on gas and not coal... fortunately).

But thanks for the warning...

Mani.

Hi Guys,

Thanks for all your thoughts. Not easy to decide without actually trying all three options. And indeed, that's exactly what I've decided I'll do. I'll wire in the necessary USB and XLR cables now and then play around with the NOS1's placement once the Orelinos are here. This may actually provide a definitive idea of what's most important: minimising vibrations, minimising the USB length or minimising the IC length.


It's been difficult getting the definitive capacitance figures for my Klotz M5 cables. One source suggests 70pF/m, another suggests 50pF/m. And there's nothing on the Klotz website as the cables are discontinued. But either way, these figures don't seem too bad for a double-shielded cable. Even if we take the the worse-case scenario, the NOS1 will be feeding a total of 700pF. Seems doable to me.

As I said, I'll get everything ready to be able to try all three options. I'm genuinely interested in which wins out, not just for my obvious benefit, but for the potential benefit of everyone.

Cheers, Mani.

I should be taking delivery of my Orelino speakers within the next few months (Peter/Bert, let me know if this is not the case!). In anticipation of this, I'm looking at options for placement of the NOS1 and I'd love to hear any thoughts you might have as to the pros and cons of each option.

**************************************

Here are the three options I have:

Option 1:

Place in listening room in the centre between the speakers on a Townshend pneumatic stand. The listening room has the original Victorian suspended wooden floor (~120 years old), with no carpet or rug(s). Its dimensions are: 5.5m x 4.3m x 3.2m. The rear wall is covered with shelves that house ~3500 LPs (see pic below) - probably not the best for creating that 'flying seagull' sound in the room, as the LPs provide a certain amount of rear damping. Generally I think the room has nice acoustics. But of course, the NOS1 will be subject to some serious bass emanating from the Orelinos, with their 3x bass drivers per channel.

Pros:
- short ICs

Cons:
- long USB (5m)
- very little vibrational control

Option 2:

Place in basement, next to 'Le Monster' music PC. The basement isn't exactly below the listening room, but down and then across from it. When music plays, even with my currently very modest setup, the bass can easily be heard through a small opening in the brickwork through which passes a number of wires, including the USB cable. With the Orelinos, there may well still be quite a bit of LF getting through to the NOS1's circuitry inside.

Pros:
- much reduced vibrations from Orelinos
- shorter USB cable required (0.5m-2m)

Cons:
- longer ICs (realistically 6m long - would need to order a pair of balanced XLRs, presumably as well screened as possible)
- close to Le Monster, with who-knows-what EMI

Option 3:

In my LP digitization 'studio' (see pic below). This is a self-contained space, with sound insulation and a semi-faraday cage. It sits 3m away from where Le Monster currently sits. Even with the Orelinos playing 'enthusiastically', I doubt there would be anything getting through.

Pros:
- virtually no vibrations
- greatly reduced EMI (my mobile goes dead as soon as I enter)
- nice, clean environment (totally isolated, air filtered, humidity controlled)

Cons:
- long USB (3-5m)
- long ICs (8-10m) - I have a pair of 10m high quality double-shielded XLR microphone cables already

**************************

Of course, I could (and perhaps should) just try all 3 options once the speakers are here and go for the one that sounds the best. But it'd really be useful to get all the necessary wiring, etc in place beforehand (depending on option, floorboards may need to be taken up, etc) , so I'd be happy to hear any 'theoretical' thoughts on the pros and cons if anyone has any.

Cheers, Mani

Hey Peter, don't PayPal get a bit suspicious with all your returns? Maybe they have a blacklist for the worst customer servicing companies based on the number of returned payments... in which case you're probably at the top!



Mani.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

Mani.

Coen, I'm just pointing out that Peter has stated a slew rate of 650V/µs for the NOS1 in other threads. I'm trying to understand how that equates with the measured 90ns for 2V rise time.

Mani.

Peter, I'm assuming you want to keep the NOS1 measurements thread (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=2856.msg29934#msg29934) 'clean', as there isn't a possibility to leave a reply. In any event, I'm sure there will be people who want to ask some questions, so I thought starting a thread for this would be a good idea.

Here's one from me. In the thread, you say:


So, the NOS1 has a slew rate of 22V/µs??? Surely this is 30x too low, no?

Mani.