Arvind, OK. What I tested tells only that there is no difference between playing from the Intermediate structure vs playing from the Streams structure. So never mind that part. Best though is for now to do exactly what I said because I just tested that path over here. So we should be able to end up with the same result when we both do the same.

Regards,
Peter

Yes you can !
BUT you must activate the Showing of the Wallpaper (OSD is not necessary). Or else you won't get any repons at all.


Hmm ... that's actually an anomaly of the UpgradePatch mechanism as we use it these days. It coincidentally is harmless but it sure is confusing as well.
So let the .tss file be (for maybe a next time).

Regards,
Peter

Tore,


Get what back ? Sorry but I don' understand. I already didn't and you didn't answer my question about it ... so now I am at a "total loss". 

Ah ... wait ... you mean the VolumeForNoWallpaper.tst file ??
Rename back to VolumeForNoWallpaper.tss.
But I did not change anything about that !
So if you want no Wallpaper Coverart then you must leave things be as they are ...

Regards,
Peter

Hi Arvind,

Now we're getting somewhere ...
Sort of.

It looks like you have executed everything well and also that you understand, no matter how "blind" you must be because it doesn't work. Moral : not your fault. But now what ...

Look below.
That is mine. Freshly searched for and Prepared. Also Volume Normalized and even still in the Intermediate structure, just like yours. Same version of the album. Both XXHighEnd 2.10.
Same XXHighEnd PC and same OS software if all is right.
Still mine works and yours does not.

But watch the Normalized Volume.
For this 100% the same version this is not possible. So probably your Preparation has been done differently than mine. So can you now please do this :

- Throw out the album again (via XXHighEnd and the Library Area (RightClick - Original Files ...).
- Double Click in the Search field at the bottom so all is refreshed.
- Quit XXHighEnd. Restart it.
- Research for the album.
- Prepare it.
- Volume Normalize it.
- Play track 01.

If you performed the about literally the same but still see that Volume so much higher (see your -13.5 vs. my -21) then at least I won't understand. But if you see the same now (and it works meanwhile) then you must try to tell me how you provoked the previous situation which apperantly let things go wrong. Could be playing one track without explicit Preparation ...

Let me know and regards,
Peter

Dear Zheng,


This is (has been) for me no different and the only reason to exploit it. So Yes, assumed it can work for real. And there we have right away the undoable part : how to prove it.
So all we can do is listen and agree over something which is very hard to agree upon in the base (but we still could).

Side note for you and others : I don't think there is a single "Remaster" as such around anywhere that I like over the original. There also is hardly Hires around that I like better than the Redbook version, but this is mainly because this Hires in native version hardly exists (DVD 5.1 a lot but making Redbook out of that will be a mess).
Still MQA almost always is OK for me and this thus while a Remaster and such is not OK at all. Add to this that MQA for sure is/sounds different and there it starts to intrigue. Also, it has to be something "a kind of inherently good" or else I would not be able to like it in the first place.


No. It happens in the ENcoding of the file. Thus, we have an album with its tracks (which are files as you and me know them) and they are processed through a software and this applies the "Deblurring" (mind you, FWIW).


That would be correct anyway, Yes. So what we obtain from Tidal already is "deblurred" and all it really requires is the decoding of MQA. Let's say that only then the real "deblur" comes forward but which is hard to prove because playing without decoding (MQA) is a mess again (sounds super bad to me) and so can't be judged for any "deblur" already active in there. But we don't cae because we decode anyway (in XXHighEnd).
What's crucial in your question(s) above is that we do NOT need the MQA DAC to apply this "debluring" because it already happened. All the MQA DAC adds is a proprietary set of digital filters which any self respecting DAC has inside its cabinet. Here though it is presented as the 2nd and 3rd unfold which is only a nice story. What happens for real is upsampling through those filters and let's say that we can do better with out own filters OR we just like those in the MQA DAC. But this is so with any DAC, actually. Of course unless the DAC has no digital (and analog) filter at all - then it is NOS and it is up to you to again apply filters in software or just nothing because you like NOS as is.


This is the vague part (or at least it is for me and it can be investigated further) because it is indirectly claimed that this is so. With "indirectly" I mean that it has been found that the files may pass on different filter data (which to set out of a possible 32 or whatever) per album (or track for that matter). Now watch out because this is about a kind of opposite of time blur. Think lof this sequence :

1. File is "deblurred" and now is as transient as can be (and too much of it); This is not done the same for each recording as it can't be the same (some automatic analysis should be going on in the encoding software);
2. Each DAC is different for it's native D/A section (without filtering which will be overruled by the MQA filtering) and now the BLURRING is applied best matching the DAC of concern.

Blurring : This is the filtering again which is required. So it is not explicit blurring as such - it is re-applying the filtering which was taken out to some extent at the "deblurring" process.

Remember, this latter part is highly speculative as nobody really knows. It is about logical conclusions of what is and can not be.


I say you can't execute this really.

a. When you do so you need that MQA DAC and you first need to like it for all its aspects (chance is small unless your current DAC can be upgraded with an MQA module and then still ...
b. You must be able to switch off the last (Rendering) stage and this eliminates the filtering all together and you have theoretical rubbish (but it would be no different from playing through the Tidal Desktop player directly to your current DAC).

So you can't compare in a good fashion.
What you can do is A. find a native album (not MQA encoded) of the very same master as an MQA version you have (a toughest job to begin with) and compare the two through the MQA DAC which fully decodes (thus also applies the Rendering stage).

Done ?
No. Because tell me why you are using XXHighEnd ?
Only when you currently use that with preamp and no digital attenuation and also no filtering active and thus only use it for its "environmental" (OS) influence, you are good to go and let that part of the chain 100% in-tact. But if you use it slightly differently then then you need to set all to what I just told anyway and things will sound different because of that. If you like the net result - OK. But of not ...
So you see, it is a LOT of hoopla for the unknown result at this moment WHILE you can apply the most crucial part already : the MQA decoding (includes the "deblur") *and* apply the filter of your liking (within limits of course because they must be available in the playback oftware of your choice).

Best regards,
Peter

Hi Telstar,

Maybe it is good to remind you that XXHighEnd is made for Unattended Playback and that is not what you are using, as it seems. From there (Attended) it really requires knowledge of your system and what it can take to play Attendedly (thus with GUI) in sustained fashion.
I can do it (still with requred knowledge) by my system is not slow anywhere except for the CPU cycles (500 MHz). This is crucial.

But maybe I observe wrong in the first place ?


This tells nothing. And it especially tells nothing when you use either of the "Contiguous" memory modes.
Now go and read the 1000+ pages books on Windows memory organisation and Garbage Collection. Eh, for each OS (eh, version).

It could be well so that the most "errors" happen because of your own idea about how Windows operates and next state to yourself that it should work and make yourself crazy with it.

Did you know that your mentioned error actually can spring only from "disk full" situations ?

Best regards,
Peter

Telstar - of course nobody asked for that because it is in there since 0.5 whatever (just making up some version - but 8-9 years ago).

The [ A ] and [ B ] button do just what they suggest for a track. Repeating the album would be loading the album x times in the Playlist Area (this is quite harmless).

Regards,
Peter

Hi Tore,

Nothing changed that I can remember. But there's also nothing really crucial for practice use. It is only that Pause does not work (well, it works, but resume will start all over with the track). Somehow this failed to be in the ToDo for 2.10 (and I let it be for an earlier version - so my bad). I put it in the ToDo for the next version now.


Assumd that my text above already was some answer, I don't know what you mean by that ...

Regards,
Peter

This topic has been moved to XXHighEnd Support.

http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=4015.0

Oh boy ...

All you need to do is set Decode HDCD/MQA to active.

Learn that by heart, OK ?
haha

Peter

Original post updated May 18, 2018.

---

Hi all,

The original post from April 1 is now superseded with this text (the old text you'll find more below in this post).

The Phasure Mach III Audio PC is an outrageous beast with a gorgeous sound, unimaginable. It wildly surpasses its predecessor, the Mach II.
It is now based on robust server technique but still comes in the ever so nice form factor of 44x36x10cm / 17x14x4" (WxDxH), and still sporting a Linear Power Supply inside. The sound is truly incredible and is about speed, speed and more speed. More down in the topic you may read about the earlier descriptions of the sound which I tend to describe as "more important than a DAC".

High Resolution link Phasure Mach III Audio PC 17

High Resolution link Phasure Mach III Audio PC 16

High Resolution link Phasure Mach III Audio PC 10

These are the prices of the Phasure Mach III Audio PC in euros and excl. shipping (VAT will be added for VAT liable countries) :

---

Number of Cores	Original Price	Current Price	As of date	Linear PSU	SQ relative to Mach II
8/16	2700	2725	August 20, 2018	Yes	?
10/20	2980	3005	August 20, 2018	Yes	++
12/24	3300	3325	August 20, 2018	Yes	++++ *)
14/28	3900	3950	August 20, 2018	Yes	++++
16/32	4350	4425	August 20, 2018	Yes	++++
20/40	5000	5250	August 20, 2018	Yes	?
22/44	6300	6370	August 20, 2018	Yes	?

The price of the 10/20 is held commercially low to give people with not too deep pockets a fair chance.
The 8/16 is not advised until someone orders it so the SQ can be judged.
The 22/44 would be experimental and may require a faster running cooling fan (then lightly audible at 10cm distance).
*) The 12/24 received a ++++ rating; see here.

---

Remarks on the "Current Price" column :

Prices on Intel processors go in US Dollars. The US Dollar has risen against the euro with 5% in only the past two weeks. This means that I just had to adjust the table for some processors with 120-200 euros, upwards. But it is worse : The prices depend on the stock at the supplier(s) and they tend to adjust their current price when they run out and have to purchase (against the current currency rate). Example for the 14/28 as of May 18 (2018) : I can see that this is stock from a few weeks back and still against the old price. This means that when we'd buy the last one today (there is one on stock indeed), tomorrow the price will rise with 70 euros (while the currency rate itself did not change much).

The price of memory increased like crazy the past two years (the 32GB for the Stealth II originally was 100 euros, now 260). If this price keeps on increasing, it has extra impact on the 48GB of the Stealth III. In addition to that, memory too is payed in US Dollars.

Whether the purchase prices go up or down, they will be actively maintained on a regular basis within some "hysteresis" bandwidth (50 euros or so).

---

The additional features are equal for each version :
- DVD Drive (the 3.5" external bay requires the removable HDD/SSD part, but a device which combines with a DVD enclosure ceased to exist);
- Removable 2.5" bay;
- 48GB of internal memory (installed with 6 parallel channel support);
- RAM-OS SSD (240GB) suited for 25GB RAM Disk (OS boots from RAM - SSD can be removed);
- OSes provided : 1x Windows 8, 3x Windows 10, upgradable by download (it is assumed you own a license for Windows 10);
- Activated XXHighEnd for power control;
- Actively managed super stable power consumption ... (with help of totally silent fan, no PWM);
- Very efficient Linear PSU explicitly made for speed (of delivery), very cold running (42-48C / 108-118F on the heat sinks, depending on CPU)
- Thermal protection for CPU, PSU and main ATX regulation.
- Non-obtrusive VGA on-(mother)board.
- 4 free/usable PCIe slots, 2 free memory DIMM slots, 2 M.2 SSD connectors, 4 free Ethernet ports, 6x USB3 (2 front) and more superfluous matter like 11 free SATAIII ports, a serial port and multi channel HD audio;
- No USB2.

---

Here is the original text of this first post :

Hi all,

On this Easter day I announce the most crazy Audio PC ever : The passively cooled Phasure Mach III with 20 up to 44 hyperthreaded processor cores.
Yes, you read that well.

The PC aims at HQPlayer users who want the very very best and inifitely apply HQPlayer's filters (in multichannel as well). All resides in the same enclosure as the Mach II so it fits beautifully in any audio rack (but it can be stowed away in a basement just the same).

The PC will be very different from anything else because it will comprise of official Server elements, starting with a Server Motherboard. It is to be noticed that such an environment is made for super stability and e.g. self-checks for due (memory) failure. A key element of it could be that it can be fully remote controlled, meaning that this includes changing BIOS settings by means of a remote (like a tablet). You'll never need to connect a monitor again.

In this stage I am not sure yet whether the RAM-OS Disk provided with it (OS boots from that and next the boot device can be removed) will also contain an official Server version of the OS (like WS2016) as this depends on the license costs and it will make the PC unnecessary expensive. Do notice however, that when it is not XXHighEnd which arranges for the playback environment, it seems logical that people will like this. Anyway, I am not conclusive about this yet.

The PC is not for the faint hearted in the sense of the price which will be 3450 euros for the 20 core version via 4550 euros for a 32 core version and 5850 euros for the 44 core version. We regard the 44 core the maximum, although theoretically and with more testing it can be more cores against then really crazy prices (like adding 1500 euros for a next version and another 1500 for a next). So we skip those.

This now most explicit Audio PC comes with 48GB of internal memory and the topology serves 6 memory lanes (was 4).

Compared to the Mach II the most attention went to the power supply which will exhibit 10mV of ripple (on 15V which will regulate to 12V) at full power and merely : unsurpassed speed of the power supply. This is where the difference will be made audibly and how you will see that a next significant step could be made.

A first 32 core version is running over here with some things yet to solve, but while more than a month ago I thought to have announced it by long by now, I didn't like to let pass Easter without a nice Easter Egg. I'd have to tell you that most of the time in this stage is spent on throughput time for waiting for parts and answers from BIOS specialists etc. with again the notice that a Server (board) environment is a totally different beast from what we are all used to.
All in other words : I have no idea really when this "super machine" will be ready for purchase, but it could be in two weeks (seriously) or in two months (hopefully not but if things go as slow as right now ...).

Current Mach II owners and XXHighEnd users (or Phasure NOS1a/G3 owners for that matter) do not need to worry that they need to invest money in a new Audio PC again. OK, it will sound better again, but maybe it is not worth the investment again. It is merely about the future path which is coming to an end with the "26xxv4" (like 2640v4) infrastructure and how we improve on the way when we need to re-invent things anyway. More experience again, more knowlegde obtained and more and better ideas pop up all for the better. And more $ but that's how it goes.

Happy Easter everybody !
Peter

Hi Arvind,

Most of it is wrong. Derived from your list, this is it :

0. The “allow MQA/HDCD to decode” in settings is active.

Hmm, can;t find more.

hudesigns (Zheng) has been confusing you (and maybe a few others as well) with suggesting he had an MQA DAC. Your list counts for that and then requires more like :

1. The “allow MQA/HDCD to decode” in settings is INactive.

So let's skip the MQA DAC. I don't think you would want that anyway.

Kind regards,
Peter

Can you even enter that ? I recall that if I put the "native" speed in there, it will jump to Auto by itself. But maybe that is in my imagination.

Interesting point is that I started working on this myself (see first post in this topic) because of such a thing. I just noticed that Turbo Boost was on (in the live environment (OS booted up)) which can't be, officially. So the MoBo apperently was capable of booting into that mode, no matter Turno Boost should be off *because* the Ratio was not set to Auto. Understand ?
I also saw exactly what happened in that one situation (I saw it happening only once) : I rebooted, system went normally off, went on, went off again and went on again. And then Turbo Boost was on. Normally this goes unnoticed, but I was working on a problem with that PC and so I saw it happening.

So Tore, what you observed may or may not have come from loading that XX01 but I feel that even without this loading (while it already was loaded of course) this can happen. But I never saw it before (which once again : is coincidental to observe to begin with).

I wouldn't pay attention to it. But if you suddenly see your white led being On while at other times that never happens, then you can bet that Turbo Boost is On "unsolicitedly".

Thank you for the feedback !
Peter

Hey Telstar,

I feel that something else could be (or should be) the matter. But mind you please, it still is so that few will have the experience with so few memory these days. Anyway :

Is the version you use (still) 14393.0 ?
See a cleared Playlist Area for the version.

What is the resolution you are using while on the remote ?
Bit depth ? (implying you can set that lower)

Peter