Yes, I am referring to my G3 upgrade, but I have no doubt you have other things in the pipeline.  I don't know if it is coincidence, but you usually announce something at the end of April.

Mani, An excellent write-up on CA.  I've been meaning to write for sometime that I am in awe of the genius, and I don't use that word lightly, of Peter.  Just on the software side of things very few engineers could write the code at some many different levels (from kernel drivers up to the UI).  On top of that, add in the the skills needed to be build a world class DAC, USB cable, PC music server, etc.  Peter  without a doubt in my mind has more knowledge of digital playback than anyone else in the world.  I believe his contributions to the audio space has been game changing.  Thank you Peter for allowing me to enjoy digital playback at a level I never thought possible.  And I know there is more to come...

Thank you Peter, that makes complete sense.  I sometimes need to be reminded of how you always solve the root problem so expensive band-aids that may not even solve the problem are not needed.  In thinking about it, why would any audiophile person want network activity during playback.  Hmmm, why did they design and build this expensive card...

Wondering if anyone else has seen this -
http://www.jplay.eu/ml_post_slider/jcat-net-card-femto/
and is planning on trying it out in particular with the MachII.
Peter, in your research for the MachII did you look into replacing the network interface on the motherboard for improved sound quality?  Just curious.
thanks, dave

Paul and Peter -
Thanks so much for your post.  As I've been listening I have heard things changing and I didn't understand why.  I wasn't sure if it was playing at night time vs. day time, my imagination...
   
I was at Fred's house last night and the difference with XXHE from the first time I heard it was significant.

Time to leave XXHE on for a couple of weeks.

Again thanks,
Dave
P.S.  I also heard another system last night that had pretty expensive components and it really made me appreciate the NOS1a and XXHE even more. 

In case I wasn't clear (a) was USB external drive on the music PC, not the audio PC.
(c) was connecting to the NAS via Wifi from the music PC.  Not sure if that changes anything in your answer.

I just plan on having the laptop as the 'remote'.  It has a direct ethernet connection to the audio server.  I don't understand the comment 'This puts constraints'.  If you don't care to elaborate that is fine.

As always thanks,
Dave

I have now gotten a music PC hooked up to the audio PC.  I have three choices for the drive to share the folder that has music on to the audio PC -
a. USB external drive
b. internal drive to the music PC which is a laptop
c. NAS (map a folder from the NAS to a drive on the music PC and then share that drive so I can map it from the audio PC)

Are any better than the others for sound quality?  Or anything else I should be aware.

thanks,
dave

I am one of the new owners of the MachII with OS RAM drive.  I haven't been able to spend much time listening or optimizing.  I currently have a mouse, keyboard, monitor and USB drive for music hooked up to the Mach II, so again far from an optimal setup.  Prior to the Mach II I had a laptop which is my comparison point for sound quality against another computer.  I don't have a lot of comments so far, but here are a few -

- First it is a remarkable engineering job from the hardware to the software.  I will post more on this later.
- Read the directions carefully, it is all there, but easy to miss things (or maybe it is my reading comprehension).
- I originally hooked up a USB keyboard and then switched to a PS2.  The sound is better with the PS2 keyboard.  To me this gives you an idea of how sensitive the sound quality is to the computer and how with this system you can hear the difference...  Of course most of you have known this for awhile.
- I'm not great at describing sound differences, but I'll give it a shot - bigger sound stage, better clarity and definition, more natural, and a lot more bass. I think the most surprising thing is I've never heard bass sound so natural on my speakers before.  Even though I am coming from a laptop, before the NOS1a I had a great CD player and amp and all the things I mentioned are significantly better except the sound stage with the same speakers.

I plan on using creating a direct Ethernet connection from the laptop to the MachII so I can RDP in.  This way I can take out the video card, etc.

As I progress more I'll post.  Looking forward to hearing other people's thoughts.

Cheers,
Dave

Hi Peter,
Not sure if you saw my question on PSU dials in XXHighEnd for the Mach II.  I didn't mean to ask anything proprietary, I just wanted to understand if there are knobs that have been added to XXHighEnd as you indicated in an earlier post that allows you to some tuning.

Cheers,
Dave

Hi Peter,
I assume the MachII comes with an XXHighEnd version that has the PSU dials?  Could you provide the details on what the dials are and how to use them?

Many thanks for truly being innovative and hence moving the digital sound reproduction by leaps and bounds forward. 

Cheers,
Dave

Peter, in the Eureka thread you mention the issue of PE affecting sound quality.  Did you solve it in the Mach II and if so is it by disconnecting it or some other means?  I ask as this is a significant design improvement in audio PCs.

Just to add some context on the 2 LAN connections -
Fred currently has a NAS, so he could do either
(a) Connect the NAS to the music server directly.  In this case, he would need one Ethernet connection for the NAS and one to the audio server.
(b) Not use the NAS and have the music on a drive on the music server,  In this case, one Ethernet connection is needed. 

Fred, if you go with (a), then you only need a small drive just for the OS.  I don't see in either case why you would need a USB type of drive.  You'll either use your NAS or an internal drive in the music server.

In both cases, the audio server would have a drive mapped to where the music resides.

From reading Mani's, post switches and routers should be avoided.  Direct Ethernet connections are better.

The music server needs an OS version that is professional, so RDP connection can be made.

Hopefully I've got everything correct.

yes, CPU.
A decent read of where Intel is going with CPU's over the next year.
http://wccftech.com/intel-2016-roadmap-leaked-confirms-kaby-lakes-10-core-broadwelle-apollo-lake-processors/
Dave

I am starting to look at a new pair of speakers and thinking about the Orelo MK II.  Before I ask a lot of questions I was wondering what are the dimensions and weight of the speaker.  How much room around them do they need from the left, right and back wall.  I know some of this is room specific, but just trying to get a rough idea.

I believe the Orelo's are active speakers and have 4 channels built in so no amp is needed.

thanks,
dave

I guess what I am getting at is the 3930k requires 130W and is about 4 years old.  With some of the new energy efficient chips, they only need 4.5 watts.  And over those 4 years, Peter has also made dramatic improvements with the software and 'client-server' (music and audio PC) topology is now being advocated.  With these things in mind, perhaps a low energy audio PC should be conceived with a LPSU ;-) 
thanks, dave