XXHighEnd

B'ASS Dynamical Current Amplifier (a buffer would almost be a better description but it is not 100% that either)

Edit November 2016 : This page is actually obsolete. Look here at the G3 page (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3592.msg39774#msg39774) for the actual version and price.

---

(edited June 4, 2016 with pricing data)

To be inserted between D/A Converter Output and Power Amplifier Input.
Adds current to the output of the D/A Converter so the output waves receive more strength in a fashion which can be called "way over"; if your DAC would be able to drive 10 meters /33ft of (Single Ended) Interlink, then the base (amplification) setting will make that 60 meters / 200ft. Additional amplification levels can be switched on, adding 30 meters / 100ft per step.
This only indicates which crazy amount of current is added and which is enormously audible, exactly because it is not needed at all and now performing other tasks (think of a super stable and strong wave).
Because the strength of the signal also very easily brings forward anomalies in the system (think distortions from noise), the amplification can be too much. For this reason the amplification can be hooked up in steps and is set by means of switches in the front (including bypass setting).

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/Phasure B'ASS 03d.png)
Outside footprint is 23 x 23cm / 9.2 x 9.2". Height is 7.4 cm / 3".
The case is all 6mm aluminium, except for the back plate which is 2mm aluminium.
Cooling is provided by means of heatsinks at the sides and a large vent in the cover.

Front (plate) is to be determined.
Volume Control will be with display in the front plate (without Volume Control the display is omitted (closed front plate).

---

Pricing

OBSOLETE - See first lines in this post.

All prices excl. VAT and Shipping.
Volume Control and Input Selection is subject to changes (research and testing in process).

Current Amplification (2ch) 2 amp      3 amp      4 amp      5 amp      6 amp      7 amp      8 amp      VC (adds) 1. RCA-In / RCA-Out    81512 94013 106514 119015 131516 144017 156518 270v 2. RCA-In + XLR-In / RCA-Out + XLR-Out      99522 130023 160524 - - - - 390v 3. BNC-In / BNC-Out (incl. Blaxius set)    94532 107033 119534 132035 144536 157037 169538 270v 4. BNC-In / BNC-Out x 2 (bal., incl. 2x Blaxius set)    112542 143043 173544 - - - - 390v 5. RCA-In / RCA-Out x 2 (balanced)    99552 130053 160554 - - - - 390v Each of the options is direct In to Out. When you like additional inputs (see table below) : It is an option to route the main input (D/A converter assumed) via the Input Selector. Add 50I for this. The Main Input is now subject to Volume Control as well. When this is not wanted, add 20x for that. Otherwise it is assumed that the Main Input (direct In to Out) is connected in parallel to another active input (when selected) which for the NOS1(a) is fine. Input Selection (2ch) (all prices add, Volume Control mandatory - see rightmost column, above) For : Base    1x RCA    2x RCA    3x RCA    1x RCA 1x XLR    1. RCA-In / RCA-Out    60 401 802 1203 - 2. RCA-In + XLR-In / RCA-Out + XLR-Out      60 401 802 - - 3. BNC-In / BNC-Out (incl. Blaxius set)    60 401 802 1203 - 4. BNC-In / BNC-Out x 2 (bal., incl. 2x Blaxius set)    60 401 - - 1104 5. RCA-In / RCA-Out x 2 (balanced)    60 401 - - 1104 The tables show the possibilities. The subscripted small numbers can be used to order. Examples : 14v2 : An RCA-In / RCA-Out with 4 levels of Amp, with Volume control and 2 additional RCA Inputs (total price is 1415). 42 : BNC-In / BNC-Out x 2 (Balanced) with 2 levels of Amp (1125). 32vI : BNC-In / BNC-Out with 2 levels of Amp, with Volume Control (can't be without routing over the I(nput Selector) because we chose no other inputs and VC always goes via an input as such; apparently we want the main input with Volume Control) (1265). 32v : Illegal. 32v3 : BNC-In / BNC-Out with 2 levels of Amp, with 3 extra RCA Inputs (1335). 32vI3 : BNC-In / BNC-Out with 2 levels of Amp, the Main Input routed over the Input Selector with 3 extra RCA Inputs and the Main Input also subject to VC (1385). 32vIx3 : BNC-In / BNC-Out with 2 levels of Amp, the Main Input routed over the Input Selector, with 3 extra RCA Inputs and the Main Input NOT subject to VC (1405). Below you'll find the original text from this first post. Dear people, These days we tend to say to ourselves : Can it get any better ? ... with that implying that it impossibly can. Still, a couple of times per year quite significant improvements occur, some times in the category of "huge". This day, April 1, should be a memorable day; the day that it couldn't get better ... Well, it should be, because never before I took so much time for an improvement; first at finding out a proper "setting" (set up), next a period of listening which has been outrageously long (what about 6 months), and lastly the check-back to the original situation; the situation you all have it at this moment. Why not start with the latter and which I wrote yesterday : This is the small story about how I, for a sheer 6 months, never dared to remove the New Device but which I now finally did. It is about the final hours before I had to put up a post about it because I had to post about it at some time. So what do I perceive from that ? Bass seems of the more deep down earth one. But although interesting, it doesn't combine with what's going on above it - the upper bass / mid bass. It's not there. Or I just want more of it, suddenly. What's more profound is the highs now being from a rasp. Call it the too much Windows 10586.0 thing. In the end (which means within 5 minutes) all disturbs me. The attention is drawn to all sorts of the strangest things and nothing seems music. Not any more. Not since I know how it can sound for the better ... ... Via what I like to call chaotic sound, I start to miss my beautiful differentiating drums (the different toms in the kit). It seems back to "only my own recording can do that". ... The similarity in the highs of Windows 10 starts to disturb me again; Too much of "rasp". ... The deep down earth bass also starts to be annoying because too much in everything. The sound is fuller too, but it feels like now "chaotic bass" is the cause. In the end it is less accurate, I am sure. Maybe I am glad that today's listening hour was relatively short. I will try to emphasize : this is after 6 months of listening in a row to our new gag. And how much I wanted to tell about it, and how many times I did, in between the lines. Some times more explicitly. But also : How super difficult things became with each of the novelties coming about, in between. For me myself this has been first the Music Server PC principle for a year before I could spit out the RAM OS Disk. So I rolled from that lean PC situation into the New Device's situation, after a while being able to have the RAM OS Disk alive (better : dead). And, even prior to the RAM OS Disk was in production for you all, there was the Intona. The above tries to tell that for you, all happened (and happens) in an upside down sequence, compared to mine. You first had the Intona, next received the RAM OS Disk and lastly try to create the Music Server PC principle. And now I try to keep up with your sound ? What a yoke. :yes: Thus indeed it is so that I started out with the New Device about a year ago. Lean Audio PC was there, but no Intona and no RAM OS disk. The sound was way better. WAY BETTER. Then RAM OS Disk came about, but I could not even judge it because at the same time I was configuring the New Device with its infinite possibilities. So at some stage (and this is up to this 6 months back) we were changing the configuration each week, some times each day (because of clear failure). Then with the Intona all got way better again and I started to wonder whether the New Device might actually still do something for the better. The last configuration change I tried to apply has only been 2-3 weeks ago, introducing a switch for a dynamic configuration for one of the elements, and that in itself perceivedly being allowed now because of the long break in. But it didn't work out. Because of what I just told about the new goodies being introduced along the lines, many of you having those, but not having any New Device gag, *and* everybody being so happy with those goodies, I could seriously wonder how my situation would be without the New Device. So envision, working on it for so long, my own sound improving by means of the same things you have applied in the say past year, actually being afraid that by now the New Device would only be for the worse. This is how I finally tried (to remove it) yesterday, and the small report of that you already read, above. And careful, because what I described there is what you listen to today. And of course I am not telling you that you all listen to cr*p, but what I do like to tell is that we can get used to things so easily, that any previous situation quickly becomes unbearable. Well, we actually know the story ... With our new toy we, I am sure, will not be able to let play any robot any more; it has been the W8 thing at first, it has been the W10 thing again ... maybe not so much at first alone. Why ? because right away yesterday I heard it again. All loose sand. No real joining of musicians. There was too much to be annoyed about. But for me, and this seems crucial, all right away recognizable from how it was; only (for me) to be tamed by W10 10074, which by now is a flat flubber anyway. So easy to be fooled ... Because I never attempted to write down initial thoughts, it is always difficult to do that in aftermath. The extacy has gone. However, with yesterday's experience I can sort of backwards try that : - It will be a "world record" of old records sounding like today's. - Drums sounds about completely real, especially from the toms. - Voices are very profound, forward and pure at the same time. - There's air between everything, unheard. - It is very very hard to see unrealism (dangerous because you say that already). - This is all about balance, balance and balance. - Nothing disturbs while it remains to be super interesting. The last one is a kind of special; Especially yesterday, thus without the New Device, I noticed right from the start all the so-called interesting aspects. They attract because they are noticeable and obvious. The opposite of that, in my experience, is that nothing draws the attention and that you have background music instead (no matter the level). But this is different ... With the New Device you'll *always* be drawn into the music. :oops: What did I just say ! Everything, really everything is interesting. But from a strange angle. What might occur, depending on the music of course, is : - The sheer purity of sounds and voices; - The differentiation of drums (toms) with a "how the h*ll did this actually sound without the New Device then ?!"; - The some times infinitely long playing cymbals; - The sound of electric bass guitars (the real revelation, I tell you !); - The "why does nothing disturb" feeling; - The almost constant urge to envision the difference with real musicians, that never succeeding; - The orgasmic intention of music concerned. The latter is a special one; I have examples where "orgasm" as such is explicitly implied (:swoon:) where it would be tough to make it really explicit, but without the New Device you won't know about the implication to begin with. My conclusion of this is : so real everything becomes. And actually this is not so difficult to understand for those who play musical instruments (or sing I guess) themselves; A performer is just that. This is not someone making money - no, it is a performer. And the messages in that really can come across. It is that other dimension again. So say it is about sweep up and what's very noticable is that the sweep up works for you when the performer implies it; People some times talk about "dance" as a music type which can be liked. I am among those, but it very much depends on the quality of the music, but foremost about the "working out" of what dance implies - that sweep up again. Hardwell, Tiësto and their interaction with the mood of the audience and how to influence that at the precise right time so extacy implies more extacy. And mind you, this thus depends on interaction between two parties, while now there can't be interaction. It is you and the speaker, the speaker talking to you, your talking back being useless. So now it is 100% of going into the implied emotion. And I say that this works, and that without the New Device nothing much of that is there. There's many aspects being so good, but there's no blend (I say). It is clear that I am trying to talk you into sleep; That you will not be able to finish reading the April 1 post, of which I each year seem to need one. Maybe I am trying to tell you that last year's post was an April Fool's post at first, was not at second, but unintendedly was after all. Or maybe I like to tell you that my efforts were doomed to end up as a yoke. Maybe I need to put my both feet on the ground and tell myself that nothing is going to be better than the NOS1a anyway. Or that it makes no sense to work on improvement along such lines, because all the effort is out of control during the design, the work of prototyping and testing. Heck, it is already overruled by a new XXHighEnd version and if not that a USB cable and when we think it is done an Intona comes about and all other virtual improvements are moot right away. So what about no reason for a new DAC ? When one sits back and thinks about what could be done to again improve the current situation, the least that brings us is the affordability for every one. No 20K+ D/A converter hoopla (no matter it was for real). No diving into the unknown. No being the only one with maybe 5 more who has it because of $$ capabilities. It would not be my style. People may not know (or have forgotten) but the "a" from NOS1a already came from the design of a new D/A converter; in there and at the time this was unfinished, already because how to test without the real D/A converter at hand. But we can do such thing more often (for a while) and this is how today the New Device emerged; Your most valuable and "cheap" upgrade for the NOS1(a) at the same time. Wait, it is not even for the NOS1(a) alone. It is the total overkill of formal current requirement at the speaker side by a factor of more than 6; It is the precise arrangement of how adding current to the output ends up in precisely that balance required. As often in audio, there is no real math for defining best sound, let alone that it would be about "best balance". However, what I can personally say about it, is this : From the NOS1 development we learned that too few current makes the highs suffer. Back then I could reason how the highs (with its high frequency cycles of the wave) actually require more current than the bass wave. It is even logical; What we see today is that too few current raises the lowest frequencies and take out the higher ones. But this is super fragile and with the notice that everything has so much improved since the original NOS1 development, that there is no comparison; The highs suffer to the sense of the "rasp" idea I talked about. Think like an original fluent high ferquency (not really a sine (sinus) but at least consistent) which now exhibits "holes" in it because of the lack of continuous current (this will also be related to the feedback of the speaker driver). But this is just something you might get used to, as it shows a fairly normal "highs" sound. But watch out, it is a flavor meanwhile (and I can't stand flavors); What is way more interesting to perceive because we may know if from headphones only, is how electric basses suddenly show their "wood". This is about the frequencies just above the lowest (think 300Hz) and how they seem to be eaten first by too few current. Maybe it is too much hypothetical, but think like this sequence of matters : - first the highs are arranged for by means of leaving them out each few milliseconds; - next the upper bass is smeared because of the (most probably) feedback of the speaker driver and too few control; - Lastly the lowest frequencies suffer with the - I dare say - again the speaker (impedance) reaction. Notice that I don't think that we ever experience the latter step because there's sufficient current for that. But it works an other way around : when the lowest frequencies are not really under adequate control (think speaker driver) we get deep down earth bass - but nothing much of any bass in a normal speaker. So : Watch out : Bass of a kind which only Orelo MKII owners might perceive, because of its undistorted straight to 19Hz explicit feauture. And since I did not have an Orelo MKII speaker myself back in say 2010 and the "current" experiences of the NOS1, I really can't tell how it would have sounded back then (with for example passive current to voltage (I/V) conversion). Today I do, and now too few current exhibits too much bass but one of a strange kind (as I said in the beginning, interesting, but chaotic). Because of the versatily of the New Device it is easy to create too much current. Actually it can do up to the "overkill" of almost 44. Now remember, today we apply an overkill of just over 6 and this implies the exact right balance. But it can do 44. Side note : the overkill is related to the momentary current output of the NOS1(a) and which implies something like 20 meters of normal interlink with moderately good capacitance. This, while the Blaxius interlink is a total overkill in itself with being able to do 160 meters of 6GHz frequence and further the same result. This now all is "overkilled" with that factor of 6 again, while it could be 44. Now : When we go one step further than the 6 (which would be something like 9) we're in disco land already. All is mighty interesting, but it is too much of "blax". It is not playing fragile any more and all becomes too much of stompin'. Like being in the real disco and you can experience it as tiring. Btw, this too exhibits as chaotic. If people are still awake, they may want to know what the New Device actually is ... Let's say I am fooling around with headphone amplifiers; Output impedance is just under 3 Ohms which should be good enough for a 32 Ohms input impedance (very good) headphone. Maybe I'll post some more about it, later today. :wacko: Peter :wacko: PS: Of course people can subscribe to this. First come first serve. Edit May 8, 2016 : Here's the picture of what became of the design of the case : (http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/Phasure B'ASS 01d.png) (http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/Phasure B'ASS 02d.png)

I'll take two  :grin:

Best regards,
Diede

I'll take at least one... :)

BTW, do your comments regarding the "NOS2 Lego DAC" also apply to those differential amplifiers you were developing?  Or are those also "no go" at the moment?

I dreamt about this device last night. Before you even posted!
Just what I want.

I just spent half an hour reading that post Peter and I am no closer to knowing what the New Device is.  At first I thought a new I/V stage for the NOS1a and then I thought you have developed a preamplifier and later still your writing made me think of a passive buffer to go between DAC and amplifier (eliminates DC offset, breaks ground connection) but your descriptions are really of something between amplifier and speaker...at least I think they are...unless you have developed an active buffer.

Scratching my head...

Haha... sounds like the approach I'm using with my AC mains. I knew I needed to lower the impedance post isolation transformer, and decided to employ a PS Audio P10 simply for this purpose (not sure if its 'wave regeneration' is helping, but its not the reason I bought the device).

So your New Device is simply lowering the impedance of the NOS1a and giving options for current delivery?


This has always been my experience replacing a powerful amp with one that isn't really up to the job of driving the speakers adequately.


So your New Device is a line-level device and not actually directly connected to the speaker?

Mani.

Djzzzzz sounds interesting.... But do not have any idea what this is.... I have 4 amps now... So 4????  ;) no idea if it could work with my speakers.....

First more info  ;)

Hi Peter,
Interesting, I really do not know what you talking about, but:
Put me on the list for this New Device...... I like new devices.
All for better SQ.
Regards, Arjan

Ok, below the post I originally created on last February 8 ... (but did not post until today).

... and the best ever.

Wow, have I been breeding long on this one ...

It was April 2015 when I started testing the Poweramps for the NOS2, that I saw forthcoming something for the NOS1(a). Purely by accident and just because something wasn't working well for those poweramps.
The poweramps went through a reincarnation hence a 2nd version and from there on I got even more convinced I could do more with them; much more.

Envision a project of listening to uncountable variations of different operational amplifiers in sequence (in a chain), where also the amount of them wildly influences. That is, when it is used as a kind of pre-amplifier. No, wait ... Post Buffer.

This is what I wrote back in May, 2015 :

---

Maybe it is hard to follow, but this is thus the exact other side of the "chain" to test as this is no load at all. However, there's infinite current available were it for headroom. In this built (config) case this is 750mA while normally we use 80mA for our NOS1(a) (and then usually into 50-100K).

So what I found, unexpectedly, is that this matters a LOT. It is a bit of the same thing as people calling you names when you come up with a 6GB bandwidth long distance video solution and name it Blaxius, which also matters a lot. Do the math with capacitance and all (and the 80mA) and you'll come up with 20m+ of cable length. But make an even less capacitance cable and it helps vastly. What I did here was increase the current possibiliy and again it helps vastly.

---

And this is what I now made formal and name it


I forgot a bit because of too many things happening lately, but it will have been since last October that I have my solution in there permanently, without ever wanting to take it out. And up till today I am thinking that it got better *again*. So I suspect quite some burn-in time although it is always difficult to pin-point.

So I told about all these combination possibilities, right ?
Well, now *that* bugged me ! I even found out what element in the NOS1(a) is causing the burn-in of it needed. If was an exact same thingy I put on the B'ASS board and that caused an unjudgable situation were it for Sound Quality. But how could I know ...

:secret:
Ok, I'll tell you :

You don't want to know how much I desired this to be an outboard thing. I am not even sure why, but I guess I felt it was possible. Thus, for one time NOT evertybody sending out his precious NOS1 or NOS1a. Man, do those DAC's have a mileage on them by now !

Envision me testing all these situations with one purpose only (and I am super serious) : have more bad ass bass while no drop of accuracy is lost.
But wow, that is a difficult task, I can tell you !

The two types of PCB's I obtained, both served all the "chips" in the world needed (this is about pin layouts). This is about a required operational amplifier (OpAmp) and they tend to make "sound". But as known, I don't like sound. You don't either. Neutral is key ...
None if it would sound like I wanted it to (which is "not sound") until ...
Until at some stage I thought to recognize something of burn in. It was the same situation as in the NOS1(a) already (for that chip) and to my strict ideas it shouldn't make a difference for sound. But it did. However, as it was the best performing setup so far, I let it in for over a week and started to hear improvement. And only then I thought : okayy, so why not take out my own burned in part (from my NOS1a) and move it to in there. And then listen again.

Tadaaaa ... :yes:
:xx:

By this, the most stange situation happened and this is about my NOS1a now being criple as one of its required parts was in the B'ASS (temporary) box. I didn't care much, but it suddenly made me see the light ...

With these things, all is about feedback and no feedback. So feedback technically is good but may not be good sound wise, while no feedback is technically bad but something is out of the signal path so it should be better, "audio" wise.
This is why the PCBs are able to do both. That is, one of them could - the first version.
I'm afraid it is impossible to understand, but exactly this "feature" of the board made it possible to see that light ...

I could create the exact same situation by putting back that chip in my NOS1a and nothing in the B'ASS box for that matter. So all the B'ASS contains and does is having a few chips which add current with no feedback whatsoever. And while they measure as good (about the technical thing) they sound superb (with the feedback - officially required - it was so-so).

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/NOS1 B'ASS 01.png)
So here you see a picture of how the THD measures (this is Single Ended hence RCA output) and I can tell you that totally nothing is added for distortion. We would see the same without B'ASS.

But there is a difference with :
The bass. :swoon:

Yeah, who would have guessed that eh ?
Actualy it is uncanny;

With the careful selection of the amount of current to push through (believe me, that took months all together, including the other permutations) I now have a bass over here I previously only perceived at concerts. But actually it is not the bass as such;

As usual it is hard to explain. But let's say that it is about slam to begin with. How everything receives a layer under it, pushing upwards that everything. How this really is the finishing touch to let people sing with their own unique voice. How you see them taking a breath for the next phrase to sing.
So what has this to do with bass ?
Apart from the slam maybe not so much. But it is about power. Power in everything. How the cymbals start to sound infinitely long. Ehm, how current usually does that ...

It makes a guitar string a guitar string. Like you can see that you can pull the string up and let it go. How the zzzingg now is a real guitar string.
Actually it is about all but the bass. But ...
But bass is made of so much more overtones ... and it is them doing the job.

So ... On to the most crucially occurring matter ...
It is about how electric basses now so much shine.
Err, WHAT ?!?

Yes.
THis is so "bad" that from now on you will recognize the wood the bass guitar is made of. And might you not know - oh yes, this is what bass guitars are chosen for by their players. For how they sound. We may think this is the amplification which let sound a bass guitar how it does, but this is really not so. And now you can hear it.
This is so much so that you now can see how the bass player is holding his instrument. How he stands.
This is so much so that you are going to pick any next album on more of that. I'll give a super simple example, encouraging for your "what ?!?" once again : The Police.
Easy to think "The Police so what ?". Well, try it. Your familiar album will sound like totally new. So much is this a new dimension now ...

It is not so that there's a slamming bass now everywhere, no matter I used the noun "slam"; it is not so that it is all over deep low sound everywhere; nothing of that kind. It is so that those basses now have a most profound colour and therefore play the lead rythm. The walking bass lines so often played are now suddenly there while previously they (were there all right but) went unnoticed. Some times this is so full with emphasis that it looks like I'm taking the bass out of the music and amplify it separately. Btw something I suggested to do in the very early days of XXHighEnd. Just because the bass guys on stage do so too (their own amplification) which is actually mean because we can't.

Because the application implies electrically more speed, there's also the most clear purity now springing from instruments and voices, which otherwise wasn't even known. That guitar string again as the example, but which somehow implies a "focusing depth". Very difficult to find the words for it; it is how a voice is talking to you from the far end in the room, you also not having problems with it actually springing from one source point. This is the same and I guess it is about reality. But anyway, it creates depth and makes the room full with sound, without being fuzzy at all (the opposite).

---

I am sure this will be your greatest NOS1 upgrade so far. It will also be relative cheap because you won't need to send off your NOS1(a) indeed. We also don't need to send it back to you. All what will happen is that we will send you this nice poplar-wooden (which is very soft and white) box with B'ASS capabilities. :yes:

The sort of downside is that we can choose of 3 flavors :
1. With RCA only;
2. With XLR and RCA;
3. With BNC only.

#1 and #3 are cheaper because it requires half of the "amplification".
#2 is required when you use XLR (Balanced).
#3 is required when you use the Blaxius interlink.

... which latter also formally requires small pieces of Blaxius, which makes #3 more expensive than #1.

And of course, try to envision that what goes out, goes in the very same. Thus for example : Have RCA+XLR out, means that you also have RCA+XLR In.

Prices (ex VAT and shipping)

Edit, April 2, 2016 : Added the option of BNC Differential.

All in wooden box of 23(W) x 36(D) x 7(H) cm (9.2 x 14.4 x 2.8 inch) with 120/240 switchable linear power supply and On/Off switch. No switches in the signal path anywhere.

1.
With RCA-in and RCA-Out. Single Ended Stereo B'ASS. Output Impedance 33 Ohms.
Including Headphone output jack. Output Impedance 2.9 Ohms.
610 euros.

2.
With RCA-In + XLR-In and RCA-Out + XLR-Out. Balanced Stereo B'ASS. Output Impedance 33 Ohms.
Including Headphone output stereo jack (Single Ended). Output Impedance 2.9 Ohms.
790 euros.

3.
With BNC-In and BNC-Out. Single Ended Stereo B'ASS. Output Impedance 75 Ohms.
Including a pair of Blaxius BNC Interlinks of ~ 50cm / 20".
Including Headphone output jack. Output Impedance 2.9 Ohms.
740 euros.

4.
With 2x BNC-In and 2x BNC-Out. Balanced Stereo B'ASS. Output Impedance 2x 75 Ohms.
Including Headphone output stereo jack (Single Ended). Output Impedance 2.9 Ohms.
920 euros.


With all this, you will have a totally differently sounding NOS1(a) (or other DAC), while you can always choose to (not) use it.

Hope you weren't fooled too much !
Peter

It's over 1. april so - BNC-In and BNC-Out for me please ;-)

Arnt

#3 for me!

Regards, Arjan

Hi Peter,

Do you have images of the B'ass box?
Just to have an idea of the connections and how it can fit in my setup.

Regards, Arjan

Peter

You don't mention it specifically, but I assume if there is a headphone out then the B'ASS comes after the NOS1a in the music chain not before it?

Perhaps add the B'ASS to your listed system?

Have you measured the power output delivery of the headphone output jack?

Thanks
Frank

#1 please

Esau

Pictures please Peter.  It is a pretty big box.

A couple of questions...

Can it be built into the NOS1a?  I would prefer to have fewer boxes rather than more.

Do you think a switch and phono-in and perhaps a volume control could be incorporated?  After all it seems as though this new device is acting as a preamplifier.

Do you have some specs for the new device?  Gain, power draw etc.

Regards,

Anthony

Count me in for BNC as well Peter.

BTW, I love reading your description the difference with the B'ASS. It's always about those things that make live music instantly distinguishable from recorded playback. The fact that the difference is ever diminishing with each of your improvements, gives me hope that one day I really won't be able to tell!

Todd

Peter,

BNC for me also  :) do we need 1 or 2 for 1 NOS 1a Peter? You now my situation what would be needed.

 :)

Peter,

BNC for me  :grin:

Tore

Hi Gerard,

Just one for one NOS1(a). So The Device ( 8)) is stereo (two channel) in and out.

Regards and thank you,
Peter

Hi Peter,

One for me too, the BNC one.

Could you pls post pictures of the B'ASS box.

Best regards,

Arvind

That is just great....  :)

Hi Peter,
#3 for me  :)

A #2 and a #3 for me please Peter.

So if I understand correctly, these boxes can be used at the output of any DAC... or any line-level device for that matter. Correct?

Mani.

If I would have that I obvisouly would show it. :)
But I haven't, as I didn't go further last November than sorting out the possibilities for a real audiophile box without resonance (of e.g. the lid) and such and that it should be of the proper wood type (the type of which I say it feels good for audio). As it is now this is 18mm of poplar wood but which maybe turns into 12mm because it is possible for the joints required. But with the 18mm it is 67mm of height, which I think is nice (with 12mm the height drops with (2 x 6 =) 12mm).

Nothing will be shown of the lid as it drops over the base and is screwed from the bottom side. The bottom side edges are 45 degrees angled inwards. There's also some gravures, plus slits in the lit for venting.

The color is transparant white (there's a polished finish over the wood which itself is close to white).


No, not really. It could with quite some additional effort ($$) but it was my explicit idea to avoid the transportation this time.


You are probably right. But where you go wrong is where any small change which wasn't intended, right awy kills the sound. It is (or feels) similar to the attempt of having RCA next to BNC which I gave up after a month of trying different things. It just wouldn't work out, or say it always sounded worse as the one and only good set up : the genuine 75 Ohm.
So if I'd so this, then the first thing what happens is that I can't listen to it myself. Oh, I can, but then you're forcing me to listen to vinyl.
:sorry:
But quite easy do do it yourself ? This is all not even in the SMD domain. Just input cabling.

N.b.: The box size is a bit over-measured because I don't want the power supply to influence the amplifier boards plus I want the cabling guided around all what could influence for the worse. So there's really space left in there.


Gain I mentioned in my to long story : 1.
So, unity.
Power draw will be close to "nothing", although I need to measure which I will try not to forget for later today.

Regards,
Peter

Correct !

Peter

Hey Matt,

Let's say that all elements are still alive and that it is a matter of finding "the" application for them. This B'ASS is part of it too as it is actually the same. So what it is, is the derivative from those power amps, which turn into power amps again when additional components cause gain and more power. Add a large heatsink and there you go.
Probably at some stage (hereafter ?) I will dive into that again. My personal problem is to some extend that it is hard to test myself sound wise because of the active speakers (which can be fed with external amps but the comparison will be apples to oranges because of then different filter arrangements). So point really is : I only want to make things when they are judged (by me) as the very best; How to do that ...

Best regards,
Peter

Mani, although I think it is clear by now, maybe this outlay makes things additionally clear :

The NOS1(a) too, has natively something like 0.8 Ohms output impedance. The 33 Ohms or 75 Ohms for BNC is created on purpose, which is related to capacitance issues under way otherwise.
With the B'ASS this happens the same (but is natively 2.8 Ohm or so).

With headphones this 33 etc. Ohms of output impedance at the amp is not allowed, or at least not with the low input impedance headphones. So things will go badly when both sides have the same impedance, or better : the input impedance at the other side should be ~10 times higher at least than the output impedance of the "sender". Say (roughly) that otherwise the current won't flow.

Peter

Hi Arjan,

Since you ordered #3 you thus have BNC. I assume also in the power amps;

So outputs of NOS1a goes to the inputs B'ASS and the outputs of B'ASS goes to your power amp(s).

Actually you just inject the B'ASS in the output of the NOS1(a).

If this is not what you meant, just let me know.
Peter

Hi Peter,

Yes, the point is that currently the Nos1a is just in the middle between the amplifiers. With the blaxius exactly at the right length. So to me it seems that the B'ass will be in the middle now replacing the Nos1a with the Nos1a left or right from it. So they will be positioned next to each other.

So will the 50cm enough to do that? I hope you understand what I mean.

Regards, Arjan

Arjan,

Aha ...
I mentioned "~ 50cm" because I actually don't care *and* I know that a bit too long is not comfortable and a bit too short doesn't really work out. Haha.

I know from my own situation how tough it is to have those very stiff cables guided like I want and I too had to make an estimate on the length required. This is all "custom work".
Whether it helps you I can't really tell, but you can have any length (assumed it is reasonable).

Btw, making those very short lengths is a total pain because the inner core of the cable shifts in the outer core when putting (or pulling) pressure on the inner core. Maybe not easy to explain, but the short lengths are quite undoable to make. But alas ...

Perter

Hi Peter,

In my setup the Nos1a has balanced BNC outputs to the balanced power amps, so 2 BNC's/Blaxius's per channel.

How will the B'ASS look like (and cost) in my situation?

Regards,
Stanley

Peter,
Is it possible for you to determine the right length of the short blaxius when positioned Nos1a and B'ass next to each other?

Else, where are the in- and outputs on the B'ass are positioned? With that knowledge I could figure out the needed length.

Arjan

Thanks Peter.

Don't worry about the vinyl.  I am more concerned with other analogue inputs such as an FM tuner et cetera.  It would be nice to (still) not have a preamplifier but to be able to use your active buffer for more than one input.  So if I was listening to some music through my DAC and then wanted to tune into a live FM concert it could be done without changing cables and all that associated messing about.

I could sort out a remote volume control whether that be a high end passive attenuator or something with the Muse chip and then I would have the flexibility I need in that department.

Reading between the lines above it seems as though you don't think more than one input could work optimally for SQ...is this true?

Regards,

Anthony

Oh, and I forgot to ask...is this buffer a dual mono configuration or do the two channels share the power supply?

Hi Frank,


Correct.


Good idea; wasn't allowed up to yesterday, but now it os of course. :)


No, but it will be like this :

Supposed the input voltage (= output voltage of D/A converter) = 2VRMS = 5.6Vp-p.
P = I x U tells that this is 2.8W. But :
With the knowledge that the current is 0.5A (max), R = U/I tells :
5.6 / 0.5 = 11.2 Ohm. Thus, this can drive 11.2 Ohm (when sufficiently cooled).
We don't need 11.2 Ohm, but say 32 (as the lowest). Now I = U/R tells :
5.6 / 32 = 0.175A. Notice that this is OK because it is 0.5A capable.
Next P = I x U again :
0.175A x 5.6 = 0.98W.

Maybe this was the long(est) way, but 0.98W is the answer, when 5.6Vp-p (2VRMS) is the input and the headphone has an input impedance of 32 Ohms.

---

For fun the power amplifier at the other end  :

Say this is 47000 Ohms input impedance. Repeat of the above :

U/R tells :
5.6 / 47000 = 0.000119A. Notice that this is OK because it is 0.5A capable.
Next P = I x U again :
0.000119A x 5.6 = 0.000667W.

---

As a bonus (for Matt) when we'd drive loudspeaker drivers of 4 Ohms :

U/R tells :
5.6 / 4 = 1.4A. Notice that this is NOT OK because it is 0.5A capable.
Next P = I x U again :
1.4 x 5.6 = 7.84W.

Mind the NOT OK;
This is also not OK because the voltage is 5.6 Only. So we need gain (provided by additional components I mentioned earlier on). The PSU can provide 34Vp-p. Now assumed the transformer will be sufficient large, then :
The board can provide 3.5A. Let's say that we need 14Vp-p, mind you, of continuous power ! then :

U/R tells :
14 / 4 = 3.5A. Notice that this is NOT OK because it is 3.5A capable.
Next P = I x U again :
3.5 x 14 = 49W.
This is per SE channel. Thus, would that be differential then this is doubled : 98W (which would be 34WRMS continuous power per channel.
And if the heatsinks are large enough, this all just works; this was all tested during the NOS2 project ...

Regards,
Peter (who hopefully did not make too many math mistakes)

Anthony,

It is shared. But this is only because I planned it like that.
From origine it all does not matter, as this springs from the 8ch design and the whole configuration is as flexible as can be (read : the number of channels serviced by a PSU really does not matter, as long as it can take it).

Please keep in mind that I am not into "audio idiocy" and that a PSU which can supply 7A or whatever it exactly is, is not going to be bothered by two channels requireing 0.000x whatever Watts.

Btw, the plus and minus can be regarded double mono (especially if I'd use separate trafo's instead of two secundaries from one ... but I don't).

Peter

Anthony, not explicitly. You guys just come up with more than I planned for this. Anyway let me tell you in advance that I think the price is not super high, especially if you think about all the design efforts (and the now emerged flexibility). But this is exactly the culprit : step out of this line and design starts again.

Example about the volume : If you ask me I say "undoable". I mean, if it is not allowed to be detrimental to SQ, forget it.
However, the NOS2 design solved that, with weeks of design. Think voltage references and the output responding to that because of the design itself (which explicitly took that into account). This does not do that.
And on a side note and FYI : applying any volume in the differential domain is a challenge in itself, because there should be no deviation between the two differential channels at all (while L/R is easliy allowed to deviate 0.5dB (I say !)). So with differential any volume control is almost a no-go, unless we step back 10 years (of say Phasure) and don't know much about anything BUT that our sound is not the best of the world. Understand ?
This is also how I claim to have learned so much from the NOS2 project, never mind no NOS2 is there. I can tell right now within seconds all the things which will *not* work. But behind such seconds is weeks of thinking ...

All what is "switch" will be too high-Ohmic and therefore no good in the input. One thing I am not so very much experienced with : we are already at a reasonable (line) level. So it is not in advance of a DAC where nothing is allowed regarding switches and such. Anyway, what I would allow for almost sure is just two inputs in parallel. Maybe this is harmful, maybe it is already world-wide known that this is not allowed, but without examining it, I say it may be OK.
What is NOT OK is connecting two devices in parallel to the outputs, what many people do (like power amps + subs to the NOS1 RCA and XLR outputs which are live in parallel).

You know, I am afraid that we are "designing" ourselves more than really necessary, and that any 700 euro device as of now, becomes 1200 euros. Maybe that's OK, but ...

But anyway I now realize that I also have a digitally controlled volume ready on a PCB (f*ck, what did I not do the past 4 years ?!?). It is only that I never really worked with it (so I have the PCB and that is all -it also requires uC programming). But I recall that this too was actually a bit too difficult and it requires some sort of calibration (the differential problem, described above).

Hey, I am not against anything. But I had one purpose with it and this was just better sound from the NOS1(a). I think we now must be careful not to make it unnecessary expensive for some. But I listen ...

Regards,
Peter

PS:
... which was for the DSD board I also have and never even bought one resistor for. So tempt me and that is in the same box too. Especially because that is voltage output and requires a buffer.
Anything else ?
:swoon::swoon::swoon:

Hi Arjan,

Of course, if you tell me what is at the left and what at the right side ... But not at this moment because :


I am not sure yet. Of course I have something working myself in a prototype (also wooden) box, but I must determine other things more definitive, such as where the power inlet will be (and this determines a lot). So while the size of the box has been determined, the backpanel layout is not yet.

Something else could be that with the NOS1a and the B'ASS next to each other, it really could be a challenge of where to put the cabling. Mine goes upwards from the NOS1a to the B'ASS on the shelf above it. And as you can imagine that just works. When going sideways it first has to go up (or down) anyway.
Think about this ...

Peter

My plan was to put it on top of the NOS1a. No other way possible.

 :)

Hey Stanley,

Yes, you are an exception I did not think about. And aplogies, because you actually have the best connection of all of us !

This is what I added to the original post about it :

4.
With 2x BNC-In and 2x BNC-Out. Balanced Stereo B'ASS. Output Impedance 2x 75 Ohms.
Including Headphone output stereo jack (Single Ended). Output Impedance 2.9 Ohms.
920 euros.

The price follows from the difference between RCA and normal BNC (130 euros) with the notice that I grant this situation actually 1 pair of Blaxius for free (not completely true, but anyway think of 2 pair of Blaxius for now 130 euros).
Happy to do this for you (but no obligations from your side of course).

Best regards,
Peter

Peter,

This sounds amazing..... I've just read the thread very quickly, and now I need to read it all again.

I will need #2. Actually I would like #2 but without the headphone out, price? How do we order - email?

Paul

Hi Peter - put me down for a #3 please

Thanks

Paul

Dear Paul,

I just put you on the list and by the time we're ready you will receive an invoice. No worries.

The Headphone out just comes along with it. I mean, I didn't calculate one penny for it although the connector will cost a bit. But otherwise there will be a hole in the case ...

Thanks !
Peter

Peter,

Oh well in that case I will have the headphone-out, no holes please! Just the tight-a*se in me trying to save a few $$....

Paul

I've changed my mind. Not #1 but #2 instead. Gives me more options in the event that I someday get an amp with balanced inputs. Also send and bill me for another standard length Clairixa cable(I only have one and my Intona is disappointed in me). Thanks.

(Ass)uming that B' ASS stands for Bad Ass...

Esau

You do realize that this plunges the NOS1/1a "head first" into the audiophile headphone aficionado arena. That is no small move. XXHE PC>NOS1a>B'ASS>headphone is a less expensive platform than many already owned by some "headphonistas," particularly as it obviates the need for a separate (expensive) headphone amp. I can easily imagine people debating which high end headphones pair best with their Phasure DAC setup.

Esau

Peter, please put me on the list for B'ASS #2.
As I am probably one of your most recently added customers, who will hopefully listen to the sound of XXHE and NOS1a next week for the first time in his life, I can imagine the improvement of SQ you described.
Regards, Richard

Hi Peter
This sounds really exciting. Put me in for B'ASS number 3. I have the Blaxius cables but I can't find anyone here to modify and guarantee the circuit board so I'm sticking with RCA and XLR. I use both outputs for main speakers and Subs. Thanks

Peter my mistake. I meant version number 2 with RCA & XLR

Hi Peter,

My concern, whether founded or not, is more to do with the current for the left channel being sourced from the same power supply as the current for the right channel, and they being effectively "joined".  Whether that power supply can keep up or not is really beside the point (my point anyway), but the pre-amps and buffers that I have heard that I have liked have been dual mono designs from input to output...which may be a coincidence...but that is what I have liked.

Regards,

Anthony

Sorry Peter...I hope you understand that I am just asking for what will suit my situation...and that this seems to be the time to do it.  If I can get the basis for a two input - one output B'Ass with or without volume control I can modify it to suit my purposes...but a single input B'Ass does not work for me because I want to listen to FM as well as my NOS1.




I think I understand your position.  I also think that I can get a good sounding passive or active volume control sorted for myself if you are not willing to do it, so that is not an end game.  But two inputs for the B'ass would be so, so convenient in my situation...




Two input would be fantastic...two BNC and I could change the output of the FM Tuner to BNC also.



1200 euros works just fine for me.  A used version of the active buffer I am searching for (they seem very rare used) will go for more than that, and it does just the same thing as your B'Ass box...current...but with multiple inputs and a fantastic passive attenuator.




That solution sounds excellent, if you can pull it off.




Much appreciated Peter.  Perhaps two versions:  one as you propose just for single analogue input systems;  a second unit for multiple analogue inputs, perhaps with remote volume control.



I can't think of anything else.

Hi Anthony,

Let's start with you telling me what this fantastic attenuator is. Next I will get one myself and build it in and try it. Some result will come from that, but you are going to buy that version anyway. If you're okay with this to begin with, we may proceed with this :

Still assumed that two parallel inputs are not detrimental to anything (but maybe let's cause only one source to be active with the notice that the NOS1(a) being active without sound will be odd but won't create more noise than this other source (?)) in the one input could be the high grade attenuator while in the other input there's nothing.
For you this means that you can attenuate your FM signal, while for others it means they can try to use it for their NOS1(a) or whatever DAC they use. If no difference is perceived then these people obviously will use that input, and if they think it is for the worse, they just don't use that input but the other one - the direct one.

I know, this all does not sound very decent up to "illegal" but if it works out, it is better than a switch in the signal path.

Might you know such a best attenuator that comes with a remote, don't hesitate to mention it.
All I know is that in the final stage of the development of the NOS1 I spend IIRC 8 months to create an attenuator which did not kill the sound (to so called "dead bird") and that I gave up on that in the end and started producing the (say) current NOS1. And hey, this included obtaining a 1200 euro attenuator for SE only (balanced was 1800 IIRC). I still have that ...

So unless things changed, our chances are zero. WHICH does not mean that it is not allowed to attenuate this other source. Actually it is a GREAT idea.

Uhm ... ehh ... The next step would be to make an input selector in that indirect path. But now things may get out of hand because some source will require the D/A converter and some do not. And there's only one source going to the D/A converter ... the PC.

To be clear : I am not proceeding on that digital attenuator I talked about and certainly not the DSD board. It is all too much trouble (with completely unknown results). But what I described above I really like.
Yes ...

??

Peter

PS: Don't complain that the case will get larger. :1eye:

Peter,

I will send you an email with the attenuators that I am contemplating.  There are three that I would try at this stage...depending on how they would be used.

Cheers,

Anthony

PS:  Thanks for even humouring me with this stuff...it is very much appreciated!


hahaha...no I will not complain.

@acg Curious about your list of 3 attenuators also.  I also use attenuators, with the DVD/Bluray player, and also with the Mac Mini --> NOS1a.  I've seen considerable praise for autoformer and LDR based designs, but haven't tried them myself.

So that. :yes:
But notice that this wasn't the DIY stuff. So it was (or still is ?) readily built, including a nice display and remote.
And please notice that back at the time (2010 I guess) I did not even know really much about the importance of differential (balanced) needing to be 100% the same, while this light stuff - now I think of it - won't be "the same" at all. I recall that it even requires some means of calibration and that the leds will deviate from that over time.

Btw, there's nothing much special in LDR means. Not if you compare it with today's possibilities (ok, as I know them and which are merely about design (not really about newly available parts)).

Peter

PS:

I could also say : yeah, great !! And you know what ? I have a spare set of that. You can get it for 500 only. New in box ! Including remote and nice display and all !!

But I won't.

:secret:

http://www.tentlabs.com/Products/page31/page31.html

I have that on sale too !
Let's make a nice deal : 175 only.

So forget about these too. They are the worse ... (but look so nice). And do notice that this is not about the brand, so to speak. But about the million switches in the signal path (all relais).
Not theory only ... sounds super bad and after that measures the worse.

And on the positive side :

The other day I was handed a 60K pre-amplifier. Let's not talk about what I was asked to do with it, but I started measuring it.
:swoon:

So if we look at this then a pre-amp kind of device really may have a good chance, because this measures superbly. And when that stops to be so, it will be a no-go. It would make no sense to me, no matter how much sense it seems to make to you.

Regards,
Peter

https://www.hawthorneaudio.us/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3129

Maybe someone wants to buy this one from me ?
A 100 only !!! And that is because shelf space also is $.

IOW ... this is all way waaay beyond what we are doing today. It is noisy as hell, shows no dynamics at all, rolls off like I don't know what, is unlinear as can be and belongs in a museum.

So forget all transformer based attennuators.

Anthony, I hope one of your ideas is left; I only mention these to be ahead of things instead of nagging afterwards.
And (Matt) never ever hunt hear-says. First investigate the leage you're in and in what leage that "shouting" is. It can be really fine, but always needs thorough investigation.

Regards,
Peter

()

:)

http://www.tortugaaudio.com/products/ldr3x-v2-1/

This guy claims he is "approaching" 99.9% accuracy from his LDR modules ( target attenuation vs actual measured), and he has an auto-calibrate feature since the LED do deviate over time.  Still, that's not to say he has solved the fundamental issues that LDR's may have.

Regarding the need for "investigation," I agree of course.  No doubt I'm limited by my knowledge and lesser experience, which is why I like hearing from others with more of both.  I will say that a huge reason why a disproportionate amount of my audio budget goes to Phasure is that your (Peter's) standards are simply higher than everyone elses.

Should Phasure release an outboard attenuator, I'll be first in line.  I think that's the bottom line here ;)

I don't mind forgetting about those other things in the meantime.  My current solution (Benchmark DAC2) is certainly not ideal either, but at least it's already paid for and offers many other features besides.

Peter,

For someone (I will not name him ;)) that uses a preamp, does the B'ass and/or that preamp become redundant ?

Regards,

Anonymous

Well, two of my ideas are still left.  I had thought of the auto former (Intact Audio would be my choice) but I would have needed convincing that its varying output impedance, non-constant resistance and the tendency of magnetics for inductance for LF changing to capacitance for HF could work in this situation.  That would have been a long shot I reckon.

The problem with any passive attenuator is that it is basically a voltage divider, whether that be discrete resistor based on a switch or relays, LDR type, or magnetics.  They all act as high pass filters and LF suffers plus they are incapable of driving any length of cable or wire. For them to work best they should be used right before the gain stage with as little pcb trace or wire following them as possible...think in centimetres rather than metres. What is the B'ass?  My understanding is that it is a gain stage or an active buffer to my way of thinking, so we have an opportunity for the best possible results from a passive attenuator if it is jammed in nice and snug before the unity gain stage.

How would I do a passive attenuator in this position?  Well, I would use sealed relays rather than switch.  These relays would of course be powered from a completely separate power source.  On top of this, this power source would only be active when the volume is being changed...for the moment of changing a relay...then shut down.  I would use Vishay VAR precision trimmed resistors and have an attenuator step of about 1.5dB just like XXHE, plus a mute function.  Note that as far as I am aware this is not like the Tent Labs attenuator (I admit that I did not look at it too hard) that you linked to Peter, and I am not sure how you used that device when you tried it, but it may well work differently immediately before the gain stage in the B'ass.  That is impossible for me to find out.

My other, and prefered option is the Muses 72320 chip (http://www.njr.com/semicon/PDF/MUSES72320_E.pdf).  Have you noticed them before Peter?  They also make some very good  opamps by all accounts.

Regards,

Anthony

Anthony, I'd say this is correct. Anyway during reading your text onwards to this sentence I was thinking "but no problem in this case".
This doesn't tell it really is no problem - only that the short run of length can be in order. Mind you (please) outside of the PCB's now present. So exactly as you just said.

Peter

Alain, please pass this on to Mr Anonymous :

I don't think so;
The attenuator "undoubtedly" will fail anyway (but yet to see of course), although it may not be worse than what you are used to, Mr Anonymus. For the remainder part it should be for the better or at least it is the very best, plus all explicitly tested as matching with the NOS1(a) (not only technically but also audibly). Also, because it measures as non-existent, it should work anywhere (a bit the same as the heaphone story, where I vaguely claim it should be "a best").

And of course, if the B'ASS is taken for its volume control (now assumed it wil be in there) then it is redundant when Mr Anonymous already has a volume control to satisfaction.
But then I'm responding in a pestering kind of way ...

Give my regards,
Peter

Peter,

Thanks on behalf of Mr Anonymous. He is telling me that he should send his NOS1 to have it upgraded, then he will make an order for a B'ass (#2). Damn conservative he is ;)

Ala(In)tona

A #2 BNC type please for me Peter.

One question, does the B'ASS have unity (or less ) gain ?

My NOS1a is driving 8 gain clones from its balanced outputs so the current capacity of the B'ASS would be very welcome but very loud volume is -34 db in XX so extra gain would not be a good thing for my system.

Regards,
Nick.

Hi Nick,

B'ASS is unity gain.

Regards,
Peter

Edit :
Don't you mean RCA + XLR ?
Otherwise #4 is balanced BNC ...

Oops !

Sorry I meant to say;

A #2 balanced XLR type please for me.

Thank you Peter,
Nick.

Well I hope it can work well Peter...I really do.  Thanks for even considering the VC as an option.

So ...

Yesterday's afternoon was spent for a large deal on sorting out solutions with the Muses chip.
Not unimportant side note : I have the idea that you just as well can use another ladder DAC to control the volume, but alas (although it is quite unclear, that chip looks to be an R2R ladder DAC).
Also ... no real relevant specs thar I can find in that "Japanese" style datasheet. Only the plots may tell something, but they are without real numbers anywhere while I am used to the numbers.

I only sorted out one path of solution (say with ready components) and for SE it looks that for ~225 euros for cost price of "foreign parts" something can be tested. And, this then can be tested for balanced as well (one channel), IMO. N.b.: Balanced looks to be ~100 euros more but this is not 100% clear to me yet.

I mentioned "foreign parts" because this is outside things I can arrange for myself. So the cost price tells nothing but that this is mandatory to set up a test, which btw undoubtedly (say by guarantee) will lead to a working whole.
It is more difficult to envision what more parts come along, like connectors, the wireing and regulators of various voltages. All I have seen is that all can be done with the PSU which was planned to begin with, but which possibly now require two, doing the job right, including an additional transformer. It would be end to end 2x mono, although at this moment I doubt whether this is the best to do. So FYI, you might think this works nicely but it thus assumes no common ground anywhere between the two channels of which you are not going to tell me that this stays separate at the other (poweramp) end. Then what ? I feel this brings misery only and my feelings are often correct.

In the end the work is maybe 2-3 fold of what it would have been for the original B'ASS and I envision a whole day of work to put one SE together outside of the base SMD soldering in order for the "amp". This means that this day now about equals the original price, so my mentioned 1200 was not a bad estimate at all.

BUT

For this all you would have 3 inputs as well and everything is remote controlled. The idea of having the "source" of D/A converter always connected directly, remains (that would be one of the three). But of course it can be connected to one of the controlled inputs, might one not hear a difference anyway.

I am not sure whether this would be "a best" preamp, but it could be equally good to e.g. a Pass XP-30 (uses the same chip) because it just will, measurement wise - at least for the direct connection. One thing : that XP-30 costs 16K and possibly that is because it is as good for each input.
http://www.stereophile.com/content/pass-laboratories-xp-30-line-preamplifier-measurements#DRiKWUSY2BvRCGYe.97
... Well, to be honest, the B'ASS measures better (direct connection - http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3592.msg38254#msg38254 with the notice that this includes the NOS1a which is feeding the test signal).

That's it for now and only starting. So :
Disclaimer : This is all very premature and "fast". Don't pin me down on any mentioned prices.

Not sure what's next ...

Peter

Nick,

In my proto-box there's currently still the switch hanging around that can add ~240mA per channel (I think I mentioned it in between the lines in the first post). So what I planned at some stage, is adding more current by means of, say, two switches (engage them both and the current is double the native). But it did not sound well. Not for me ! But I never thought of a situation like yours, where indeed it would be so that "double the drive" implies double the required current, all else being equal (read : if in my case and one 50K input impedance amp, the ~500mA is the best, then with two amps 1A should be required - well, sort of because the length of the interlink stays the same). So while I ditched the switches, I shouldn't ...

The additionally attached current ("chips") are only switched in the output signal path and I think/claim this is allowed at this higher level (of current). Measurement really shows no difference at flipping the switch (while it thus surely is audible). Side note (or not) : In my situation this additional current sounds chaotic, but this is not because of the switch; it already does with the chip nicely on the PCB like the others. Still, I can't judge the switch for that merit (of "switch").

Anyway ... thinking more inputs and what not it is not so difficult to again think "switches" (in the case). And if I do what I planned, then 2 switches plus electronics supplying the current, will cost 150 more for SE (300 for Balanced). It goes like this :

One switch can serve two "channels" and a channel is regarded one SE channel. Thus, stereo RCA (= SE, Single Ended) requires one double pole switch (think power switch sized) to attach one step of more current; with Balanced, the one switch would attach one functional channel (like the left channel) for both plus and minus of the differential channel. So it requires two switches to attach current for the left and right channel for one step of more current.
Thus two steps require 4 switches.

The switches would be at the outside of the case, reachable at any time without lifting the lid.

Peter

Peter,

I would also like my #2 to be dual-mono if you think it can be done successfully.

Paul

Peter, I am not exactly sure what you mean here.  In my situation, and I believe in yours as well with the Orelo's, the amplifiers for left channel are completely separate to the amplifiers for the right channel...true monoblocs...although they are in your case 4 amps per side and in my case six.  The only common ground between them is via the main socket into which they are plugged.

Or do you mean that this is setting things up for a nice big ground loop?

Anthony

PS:  Wow...you are already going on the Muses chip!  I feel quite guilty that I have caused all this extra work for you now...and I do apologise...but I also know that you would not be investigating this without consideration of its potential merit.  If you get a good result I think it will probably be a more saleable product especially to those not in the Phasure ecosystem.  Are you thinking of actually having two products if it works out?  For example B'Ass and B'Ass VC.

Haha, and this is eactly why you should not mention your situation with the ground, let alone mine !
So yes, for us both it would work, but for others, with one amplifier and shared ground between channels (which 99,99% of cases will be so), the ground loops emerge. Thus the ground loops emerge when at the far distance such a connection point exists (and not when it is not there, although I really must think about the mains as common point as well).

But more easy : Think about your NOS1. That already uses shared signal ground between the channels.

N.b.: I had much more text here, but I scratched it, once realizing that there's a difference between a shared signal gnd and a more "active" process on a PCB ground place. To give an example of two possites about this, both as effective for their merit :

One amplifier, differentially setup, MUST be on the same PCB.
Two amplifiers, for two channels (L/R) should NOT be on the same PCB.

... And because it is so easy to make mistakes, I made the mistake of creating one of the test PCBs at first for differential (balanced) and measuring that situation (see what I described for the Muses "test"), while when I was done with that, I connected that same PCB for L/R (easy enough, just connect different inputs and utilize the outputs differently). So I am listening all this time to a PCB with Left and Right on it. That shouldn't be the best for channel separation ...
The stupid stuff is too flexible !
haha

Anyway, one part of the scratched text was that we have buffer capacitors to not let influence the one channel the other via the PSU. This, while my earlier post writes out the overkill of the PSU in the first place. So I am nicely ignorant here.

Peter

Peter hi,

This is very interesting and sounds like a perfect arrangement for my amp. A line stage with 250 to 500ma + drive potential it must drive the power amps with real authority !

In my setup taking the posertive pole of say the left channel of my amp the posertive side of the nos1a output opamp drives 2 gain clones each with 22k ohm inputs so in parallel these present just 11k ohms to the nos1a op amp. The sound from bridging and bi amping is good but I feel the input arrangement has always been a compromise. I don't really have the confidence to build a buffer for the input as getting a line designs up to the level of the nos's performance would be way too difficult for me.

What you have developed sounds like a brilliant fit. Please put me down for a switchable and balanced version, I would not really need attenuation being discussed.

Regards,

Nick

Ps  I can always use the line stage to do some arc welding when I am not using it to drive the gainclone amps  :wacko:

#3 for me please + the hdd with operating systems + short usb cable

Ha !

Hey, it is not allowed to order more than one thing at the time, or otherwise we get confused over here !

haha

Thank you Leo.

But B'ASS is not ready of course. Must we wait with the RAM OS and short Clairixa ?
Shipping of those is 12 euros (a bit more because UPS, as it is forbidden to use TNT Post to your place :) :)).

Best regards,
Peter

PS: Annecdotical : :offtopic:
Back at the time we had clock upgrades. Leo wanted that too.
We shipped set #1 by TNT Post.
It did not arrive.
We shipped set #2 with the thought that this wouldn't go wrong a second time and again it was not insured.
It did not arrive.
Then I thought to explicitly insure it for 500 (IIRC the upgrade was 120 or so ?);
Now we hoped that it would not arrive and claim 500 so we could have a nice dinner together (3x 120 is 360, so ...).
It did not arrive.
Ha !
Leo then collected the upgrade himself.
I claimed the 500 and receive that indeed (after a 100 emails, but alas).
The dinner, though, never happened.
:evil:

Please send the harddisk and usb cable first. But do insure them, I still see the same delivery persons around....

If we keep this up it could turn out to become a really great & expensive dinner after a while :)

So you're suggesting that I again use TNT Post, but insure it for 500 again.
I better make two separate packages of it !! :clapping:

Peter,

Wow.  I've been off the forum for less than a week and come back to this. Please sign me up for 1 of #3 (BNC stereo) along with the short Blaxius cable needed.

Can I confirm this is what I need for current and future setup. 

Current: NOS 1a with psuedo Blaxius (RCA output using Blaxius cable with adapters on both ends) going to RCA inputs on Linkwitz ASP.  Input impedance of the ASP is 10K ohms, and output impedance 196 ohms (not sure if that matters).  The B'ASS would be between the DAC and ASP and I would use BNC to RCA adapters on all Blaxius cables.

Future: Upgrade to NOS 1a 75B (I have the kit) and go direct from DAC to Orelo BNC input, with B'ASS in between.

Ramesh

Hi Ramesh,

Yes, that is all fine.

Regards and thanks !
Peter

Hi Peter,

Thanks for making option 4. available (Balanced Stereo B'ASS).

I reread the posts of this topic to try to explain the B’ASS principle to an audio friend. It may be my lack of understanding amplification, but I don't get a clear picture of what the B'ASS does.

Excuse me for asking, but could you, in short, explain what the B’ASS exactly does to the signal arriving from the NOS1 and why the amplifiers (and subsequently the sound from the speakers) benefit from the B’ASS?

This also helps finding budget  :evil:

Thanks.

Regards,
Stanley

Same situation here.
There is so much text in Peters first post, I do not really understand what this is all about.
The only thing I understand this far that some kind of SQ improvement seems to be involved.
But why would you improve SQ if you put a device between the Phasure and the Amp, in my case the headphone amp.

By the way, I use a symmetric/balanced HF-Amp since the Abyss headphone should be driven symmetric.
The amp required to drive the Abyss to its best should deliver at least 2.5 Watts better 5W at 50 Ohms impedance.

Regards, Michael

Never try to explain anything to a friend, as this is audio; audio (at least "ours") lives by means of empirical finding with a good electrical setup as a base. Next, in my view, empirical findings should be able to be justified.
This is explicitly NOT :
I can clearly see distortion on an analyser, but hey, it sounds better !
Not Not NOT. But ten to one that any regular audio friend will claim the above. Maybe there isn't even anyone on this globe who is 100% sure that the least distortion will bring the very best sound, despite it sounds as logical as it is ...
Except for me of course.

The above actually tells half of the story because when we measure all to be "100%", there's a whole galaxy beyond what measures "best" but may sound like sh*t and what measures as "best" but sounds very good. Besides that, what is good today is sh*t next year.

That told it all.

:swoon:

Try to explain to random friends or people or even electrical engineers why an interlink which is capable of 6GHz of frequency over a length of 160 meters, sounds better than an e.g. 1MHz capable cable which won't do that any more at a length of 20 meters. In case the audience does not know that we tend to hear not beyond 20KHz, be sure to obfuscate that into 60KHz because of the crazies who are sure to hear that 60KHz sounds better to them, because it is in the material.
Now wait for the response.

FYI : I would not be able to fight that response either, while they will imply that I am crazy. Okay, you are, because you came up with the story, but you can always blame me for it.
... Which doesn't mean you were able to explain it ...

Of course I am making fun a little about that friend, but the story won't change because you are now my friend and I am the story teller. And that in poor English.

---

No amplifier is going to benefit from any B'ASS "driver" (let alone the speakers). It is the signal (towards the amplifier) which is improving;

Sadly I have no pictures of the situation, but when the "load" is too high (which means the resistance too low between signal and ground), then think like the current flowing because of that is going to influence the outgoing signal. Think like it can't flow freely any more and that a normally nice sine is going to exhibit harmonics. It could look like this, with the notice that the first picture is the reference, while the second is compromised because of too much current flowing, that not being suffciently under control :

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS2/Poweramp08.png)

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS2/Poweramp09.png)
Also notice that this is a "showcase" of what happens, and not the real situation (I just don't have picture of that, but I know the exhibit is the same).

If you look closely, you see that the 3rd (at 3000Hz), 4th and 5th harmonic not only have risen, but also are of equal height;
Compromise this signal even more, and the 2nd harmonic will also rise, a 6th will emerge of again equal height like the others and the THD figure will again be worse.

On a side note, see that the 2nd marmonic in the first picture is ~103dB down (and not ~91 as it seems). This is because the output is +12V (91 + 12 = 103).

You are used to these figures, because from the NOS1 (which is not what you see here) this is about the same (a little bit better). So what is the difference ? what you look at here is connected to an input impedane of (IIRC) 6.8 Ohms, while your power amplifier will normally have an input impedance of 47000 Ohms (or much higher).
Might you connect your NOS1(a) to such a low Impedance, you will have a virtual melt down because nothing can deal with the current flowing (wanting to flow because of this low "resistance" implied between the output wires, but that current not being available).

Still there ?
I ask, because I can see that you wonder how this is all related to the actual question ...

Supposed we act like the real audiofool, then we possibly would say that the first picture is sufficiently good enough for good sound;
I told it was the reference, but ... notice that I only said that because I can't make it better anyway. Oh, in this case I theoretically could, but do notice that the anlyser won't show better than 0.00073%, so whatever I might improve beyond that, will not be made visible by the analyser.
But does it mean that we can't improve further ?

Of course we can. But small problem : we must do it in the blind. We must start to work with theories only. Or better and back to the beginning of this post : we will now live by empirical finding, try to reason out the parameters involved and how, and proceed with that. Does it work out for the better ? then we continue that route. We do, until it stops (say, collapses). Small danger in this case : all by my ears, once we are operating beyond the analyser limits.

So remember ? Our 6GHz interlink sounds better, even at 2 meters of lenght than any audio voodoo interlink around. With no single means I could proove the difference, and the impedance - or reflection - or whatever vector (network) analyser I lack, so we have to believe in the rubbish. But don't tell there wasn't a strategy behind the Blaxius ! Same thing with Clairixa and same thing with now B'ASS;

It will be a repeat of an earlier post, but the capacity (as in capability) of the setup is causing the better sound. Thus, even with the 47000 Ohm input impedance at the other side and the "no current flowing at all", allowing for the higher current improves anyway. In the end it will spring from the same phenomenon as why the Blaxius improves so vastly, because what did that do ? ... it combines the very low capacitance with ultra high frequency capabilities into something which is well beyond what was there in the first place : something like 20 meters for 20KHz at the current which is present. Notice that varying ("improving") the parameters of the cable, does extend the length of the cable, but of course it still requires the current to drive it (so now we have two angles of current). But, this is non-sense because we are not lengthening the interlinks at all; All we do is making that theoretically possible, which has to imply that it even will be better at the short length BUT of which everybody says it is idiot to begin with (but read : at the short lenght the cable for sure can do 6GHz already).

It is for a good reason that right from the start (of this topic) I talked in terms of overkill. This is because it is exactly that, and it means that no math tells us (or at least me) that what we do here could be required or even help. Still the phenomenon of overkill in general, does help. It is only that we don't know how it works and that foremost is because we can't measure any more beyond the limits in order, which limits we already reached long ago.

In general terms we could say that I added a buffer where a buffer is not required (and there is math for that, so this is how we know).


Remember, P = U x I. From that follows that I = P / U. Thus :
For 2VRMS :
I = 2.5 / 5.6 = 0.446A.
or if 5W is better :
I = 5 / 5.6 = 0.983A.
This, while 500mA is at your service. This implies that sort of like the "Nick" situation, you'd need twice the current from the standard, which can just be applied.

But tell me, why would 5W be better than 2.5W while 2.5W is fine ?
IOW, you could ask your question to Abyss too. Maybe they have a similar answer, maybe they claim voodoo and maybe they say that you now can play 6dB louder.


Well, according the principle as applied with the power amp, this should work out the same, although I'd readily agree it would be stupid to do. So there's one real solution to this only : leave out the headphone amp (why ? because B'ASS *is* a headphone amp already).
But my real advice in your case, Michael ? leave it be; it would be a typical situation that I really wouldn't know the outcome in advance and only if you have measurement figures of your amp and they show worse, it would be worth a try. And oh, I tried to find figures/graphs myself of your amp but I failed on it. Maybe one I found but I don't trust that (but doesn't look to good to me at all (for figures)).
Btw, that your headphone requires a balanced input, only implies a connector which provides that (plus some wires).

I am sure it all doesn't make it really clear, but I tried.

Best regards,
Peter

Regarding the theoretical 3 input VC B'ASS, just clarifying something.

Input 1 could be BNC - Direct
Input 2 could be BNC - VC
Input 3 could be RCA - VC

Output could be BNC

Correct?

That would cover a lot of scenarios for myself...

So the B'ASS provides more current.  You mention if it adds too much, the sound can actually degrade.  My question is whether the "ideal amount" changes depending on the input impedance of the users amp.

For example, it sounds like your (Peters) amps have 47K ohm input impedance.  My current amps are a little lower, around 20K input impedance.  Would I possibly need to "flip the switch" for double the current?

Matt

Excellent question.  In my situation the B'ass will be driving 6 channel valve amplifiers with passive line level crossovers in front, so really it will be driving the electronic filters which I imagine will be quite a variable impedance load for the B'ass perhaps as low as 5k.

Peter

I do not know really why the juice is needed for the Abyss. The consensus seems to be that the more juice the more effortless it can reproduce. At least that is what the manufacturer said.

Regarding the BASS.... can you build it with a balanced Headphone output? For the HIFI headphone community, this is pretty much standard these days.

Regards, Michael

Hi Michael,

As I said, this is a matter of the proper connector;
It could be a good idea to show me such a connector / output terminal. Can you do that ?

And btw, would you require a volume control ?
Don't say Yes because you will always like that, because it *will* be detrimental to SQ for sure; there's nothing to do about that. But if you use it today with your amp, then it should only be better (the volume I plan to use).
Without is and remains the best.

Regards,
Peter

Yes, why not. :)

Peter

Peter,

It will either be dual 3-pin XLR or single 4-pin XLR. My headphone cables require dual 3-pin XLR, is this possible instead of the SE jack?

Paul

Yes Paul, of course.

But the "either" is nothing I really like (if so then so, but ...).
Isn't there a real standard ?

Peter

No no, I didn't forget this; I was just busy whole day.

Yes, I'd say so, but very very difficult to guarantee because the forces at work are from reasoning only anyway (see earlier post from yesterday).

I think we must try to envision that this is all a bit of "crazy" because now we are trying to extend the DAC to what's behind it (in the realm of influencing). It feels like a kind of new dimension. Thus, each DAC manufacturer (designer) just does something he likes best for his own device and maybe he thinks of "let's also try to drive power amplifiers" and then thinking of the length of interlink (possibly) involved (this is the only thing I did when the NOS1 was developed and the explicitly of that was quite new (IIRC).
It is also difficult because of being a mix of everything. It's not only about connecting a power amp as such but it is also about the thus never amplified voltage (a pre-amp usually also has some gain), it is about the length of interlink, but it is now also about the end stage when it acts as Headphone amp and somehow I see all coming together.
Should be the wrong idea, right ?
Well, wait until I make it poweramp as well. Haha (but really for another day, with the notice that people may recall that I actually already did (see NOS2 topic)).

Peter

Peter

The typical way to connect a headphone in a balanced way is 2 ways. You can use
- one 4 pin Neutrik XLR
or
- two 3 pin Neutrik XLR
connectors

See here a picture of a implementation by Violectric for 4 pin:
http://www.violectric.de/produktdetails-de/hpa-v281.html
and
http://www.wellsaudio.com/products/headphone-amplifiers
for a 3 pin hybrid implementation

I can tell you people are currently spending crazy money for headphone amps. The bar is now going towards 15000 Euros for the top models.

Regards, Michael

Regarding the question if a volume control is needed.
Well i thing the volume control is potential one of the weakest links in a headphone amp.
Violectric is using stepped VC and when you look at the one from Weiss, you can an idea how much work people can put to improve these things.
I think volume control per se is not needed, it is just a question of ease of use.
I have to try to work a bit with the XXHighend Digital volume to see how good it works for me. So far I have not been using it very often to be honest.
Regards, Michael

Hi Peter - just to say that I do not require any Blaxius with my B'ASS unit. I have some coax plugs and crimper so I will make up some cables of exactly the length I require.

Cheers

Paul

No cables necessary!! ;)

Hi Michael,

I have a couple of questions :

Why is that Violectric having two jack plug outputs ? Is that for balanced left and balanced right or something ?
Or is this just so that two people can listen ?

About the Wells, why do you call that a "3 pin hybrid" implementation ? This with the notice that the page you link to seems not to exist ...
(and I suppose it has 2x 3pin XLR)

Thank you in advance for answers,
Regards,
Peter

Peter,

This is the correct link:
http://www.wellsaudio.com/headtrip/

Paul

Hey Peter, I'm considering going bi-amping in my office system. One poweramp uses XLR inputs (and has a variable gain control - not an attenuator [Edit: Actually, I think it is a 'simple' attenuator - think some of the reviewers of the Einstein poweramp in question are mistaken]), the other has RCA inputs. Would it be OK using both the XLR and RCA outputs of a #2 B'ASS simultaneously without too much degradation to the sound?

(Sorry if you've already answered - couldn't find it.)

Edit: And when are you going to start taking orders? We've been waiting since the 1st April you know!

Mani.

Mani,

Using the parallelled outputs is not optimal, but people do it more often (without me knowing). It is not really forbidden anyway.

Most of the time I have been waiting for cabinet issues at that wood worker, and when he finally ordered the wood, I cancelled the order (took me too long). Next I started to think "now what ?" and now we're working in a gorgeous cabinet (alumin(i)um).
If all is right in 2.5 weeks of time I'll have a protoype.

Regards,
Peter

Still white or aluminium colour? I hope the former  ;)...

Mani.

Aluminium black anodised with some twists.

Thanks Peter. I think I'll give it a go.


Well, apparently not a simple attenuator. I've just received the following info from the designer of the Einstein poweramp in question: "It's an attenuator, but not a simple one. It's  acting as a shunt and not in the signal path. So there is no loss in quality compared to a standard attenuator."

Sounds good to me  :)

Mani.

Noooooo  :sad:

Mani.

Hi Mani,

Which Einstein Amp do you have?  Is it OTL? 

If the amp varies gain as a method of attenuation then it probably uses some form of variable cathode shunt.  In every schematic that I have seen the current in the signal path must flow in a loop that passes through the cathode, so if that is the case then the attenuator really is in the signal path even though it is not in the "direct" signal path that you would expect unless you marked the current flow loops. 

Semantics I know, sorry.  The new PSAudio preamp does something similar with its attenuation by varying the gain of the input tube with use of (I assume) a variable cathode shunt.  This may be the very least damaging form of volume attenuation currently available, but not many are doing it and it is not that easy to develop as far as I can tell.

Sorry for the off-topic Peter, but it is only a little off-topic because we are talking about volume attenuation.

Cheers,

Anthony

Hey Anthony, it's the OTL... in my dreams! Actually even in my dreams, I'm not sure I'd want such an amp for an office system. A totally gorgeous piece of kit though.

No, I bought a used Einstein 'Light in the Dark Mk II'. I didn't need it - I've already got a couple of really nice amps sitting around (the nicest probably being Bert's BD30-SPR monos, which I currently use to drive my K-1000 headphones). I sold my Berning Siegfried amp a couple of years and I think I just miss having a component with valves in it! (Actually my Thöress phono stage has valves, but that doesn't count.)

I think the attenuator is simpler than you're suggesting. The recommendation is to use the amp's XLR inputs because it's a truly balanced amp design. The amp also has two sets of RCA inputs per channel - one in +ve phase and one in -ve phase (so essentially connected directly to pins 2 and 3 of the XLR inputs respectively). So if you're using these inputs, you can change the phase by using one or the other input. Now, these RCA inputs can also be used as line-level outputs for multi-amping. If you do this, then the attenuator control will attenuate these outputs too, as well as the XLR input.

So it seems like a more straight forward setup than the one you suggested.

Mani.

No, not off topic at all. I take it for granted that the Attenuation will degrade anyway, unless indeed it is voltage regulating. But that needs a completely different design and is out of the question.

So it sure *is* a matter of obtaining ideas. And anyway, my first (and last ?) idea is on its way - due next week - so I can try it for measurement results. But really, I have not *any* hopes at all, plus that it isn't necessary for anything (it's necessary for nothing). And the headphone people ? they are used to it already. Soooo .... buuuut ... it is a matter of doing it the best possible way with the super clear advice that the digital attenuation of XXHighEnd should be used BUT that the volume should (and easily can) be used for TV etc. input. That looks harmless to me. Right ?

Peter

Actually, with what you have just said I am more sure that I am right.  Clever design by the sound of it!

Looking forward to what you have concocted.

Hi all,

What you see below is the case as I intend it now.
We really tried to make it look beautiful with the idea that cost is no object (hopefully some will agree).

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/Phasure B'ASS 03d.png)
Outside footprint is 23 x 23cm / 9.2 x 9.2". Height is 7.4 cm / 3".
The case is all 6mm aluminium, except for the back plate which is 2mm.
Cooling is provided by means of heatsinks at the sides and a large vent in the cover.

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/Phasure B'ASS 01d.png)
This is not all decoration since it is also a headphone amp. So of course there are a few outputs at the front (4 pin balanced + 6.5mm jack).
The switches are for attaching more of the internal amplifiers. One switch can attach one additional level of "amp" :
- with SE amplification for the Left and Right channel at the same time (a total of 4 additional amp levels possible);
- with differential amplification (balanced) for Plus and Minus at the same time for one channel (a total of 2 additional amp levels possible).

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/Phasure B'ASS 02d.png)
The back presents two hybrid XLR outputs (normal XLR + 6.5mm jack - thus Left / Right balanced).

There are also Inputs and Outputs for RCA and Inputs and Outputs for 75 Ohm BNC.

A rough description :

One of the inputs will connect directly to an output of choice (but is amplified for current under way); the remainder of the inputs can be input selected and is subject to volume control. This is the lesser path, but say for the convenience of connecting a TV or radio for input. Input sensitivity is not really arranged for, but the volume control can be set to memorize the level for the separate input channels.

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/Phasure B'ASS 04d.png)

Questions ?

Hi Peter,

About the volume control, is it remote controlled?
The input - output selection is manual?

About the input - output selection I am not so sure what it means. I my case the NOS1a output will be on the BNC inputs.
From there I can select or the BNC outputs (on the back) to the amplifiers or headphone 6.5 mm jack (on the front) for my headphone.
So I can switch between those two outputs, and both will to use the higher path for best SQ? Or just one of them?

Next I could also connect via RCA my TV and switch again to the amplifiers or headphone but via the lesser path with volume control.

Is that how it will work?

The design looks great!

About the title, is it still the cheapest upgrade?

Regards, Arjan

Hi there Arjan,

Cheapest upgrade ? well, what to say. Maybe not anymore. But hopefully the best looking one ?


Yes. But maybe one of those knobs is able to turn as well.
The stupid thing is, the gear I need for this - ordered the 24th of April - still did not arrive from China. DHL tracking number does not exist, so I just can't test things.


No, although it can be.
(same story)


Arjan, this is as vague as can be;

Let's first observe that this was designed as what we just as well can call a buffer. In your case BNC in and BNC out - done.
Then I was so smart (maybe not) to see that there can also be a headphone output. So for fun I "designed" that in. This really went without much thought about the exact how, but the least we can do is switch off the normal amplifiers and stick in that headphone jack. Right ?

Well, not so right, once you start to think about the other options surfacing, like inputs and also outputs. I mean, if I for the life of me couldn't let sound the BNC output good when it was there in parallel with e.g. RCA (and which is logic because the output impedance is molested again) then how should all this work ? Well, one thing for sure :

There is one output only. Thus, it is not so that the outputs can be selected. Thus your situation again : BNC in and BNC out and that's it. This means that all the other connectors are for inputs ...

Sure ?
No, of course not, because the dreaded headphone outputS are there as well. Mind you, three of them (4 pin XLR, Stereo Jack, and L/R XLR+Jack).

So what is this now ? A headphone amp ??

Although I know it can be done, I can not envision exactly how because I don't have that input selection stuff or anything. And, nothing would be the matter for 100% sure, IF that BNC connection did not exist. But it does - and actually most of us have precisely that.
So what needs to be done is that this needs to sound as good as without the other stuff (the headphone outputs). But say that I make an additional switch do detach the headpone outputs. Thus yes, that will be the lesser part now. That switch can also be in the normal output (say for those who don't even use speakers).

But I need the lot in my hands or otherwise I am blind ...

Thank you for the good questions.
Regards,
Peter

Peter,

Could this B'ASS be used to feed into an electrostatic (headphone) amp?

Paul

Hi there Paul - I'm afraid not.

Peter

Thanks, I suspected not.
Paul

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/Phasure B'ASS 06.png)


(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/Phasure B'ASS 07.png)

:ninja:

Leave it like this for me  :o...... No paint...... :)

 :veryhappy:

Hi Peter,

Nice looking as it is, don't paint it black. Is it still the cheapest upgrade?? Price pls.

Best regards,

Arvind

Guys,

It is virtually impossible to leave this untreated (not anodised). This is because aluminium will lose its shinyness (it oxydises) until you polish is with a cloth and next aluminium is so soft that it will scratch and becomes ugly.

Peter

Ok   :)

And uhm in Antraciet  ;) or would it be too much trouble?

 :)

A clear varnish or clear topcoat ?

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/Phasure B'ASS 10.JPG)

...

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/Phasure B'ASS 09.JPG)

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/Phasure B'ASS 08.JPG)

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/Phasure B'ASS 11.JPG)

XLR Input completely in the left, XLR/Jack Hybrid Output next to it.

RCA Input and Output in the middle (above power inlet).

BNC Input and Output in the right.

As tried to lay out earlier on, in practice combinations are possible like BNC In and BNC Out and 2x additional RCA In. Or 1x additional RCA and 1x additional XLR In (which theoretically requires an XLR Out).

Knowing that the RCA and BNC connections require the same hole diameter, you can see yourself that it is possible to e.g. have 3 RCA Inputs and one RCA Output. Etc. etc. - as long as you keep in mind that with Single Ended In, there will be no Balanced Out (there's nothing in there which converts). Balanced In and SE Out can work, though (you lose 6dB of signal level).

For the real die-hard there's also the possibility of Balanced BNC in and Balanced BNC Out (RCA the same, for that matter). And when that is in order, there's still an extra input possibility because the large leftmost holes are Neutrik which can also contain RCA (or BNC).

Peter

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/Phasure B'ASS 02b.png)

Here's something else, which I personally regard a milestone :

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/Phasure B'ASS 13.png)
It is the first official "Phasure activity" of our son Paul (who is 17 years of age these days);
It suddenly appeared to him that the controls in AutoCAD mighty much look similar to airplane and battle tank controls. :smirk:
So it is him who did the whole technical design. And mind you, this was given to a CNC machine, and the result is flawless.

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/Phasure B'ASS 14.png)

Here's the last one in the sequence "talking to myself" :

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/Phasure B'ASS 12.JPG)
It shows how tiny the B'ASS actually is. Disregarding the beer, the wine and the schnapps, the 3.5" harddisk tells it all.
Weight is 2.5Kg, empty.

Regards,
Peter

I think that is fantastic Peter, and congrats to Paul so far for the design.

Might we one day end up with an aluminium NOS1a case?

Peter, my eyes opened up when I saw the AC inlet right next to the single ended inputs and outputs.  Obviously I don't know how everything is laid out inside, and certainly not to criticise your layout, but personally I would have them separated as much as possible, and would stick the AC in the opposite corner.

Anthony

Anthony, what opposite corner ?

Otherwise I don't know what you "personally" are all capable of, but maybe you should first realize the dimensions.
Also, you're a bit late with such a remark (assumed it could be useful) because nothing changed since May 8 (Re: The cheapest upgrade : B'ASS (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3592.msg38585#msg38585)).

Anyway, of course I am thinking about that all. Btw, how bad does your NOS1 sound ?

:bored:

Let me know your ideas.

Peter

The NOS1 sounds fine, but I still have to be careful about where the single ended interconnects are routed or I do pick up noise.  I purchased a right angled IEC connector to make everything fit back there and I have a piece of foam in between cables to keep power and signal separated as much as possible.  At least with the NOS1 power and signal are at right angles so inductance is minimised, but that is not so with the B'Ass.

If feasible, I would move the XLR's to the right to make room for the IEC at the far left.  The real RFI source is likely to be the transformer ringing when the diodes switch on and off, so keeping the transformer away from everything is probably a more important consideration. 

Anyway, these are just casual observations from the other side of the world Peter, and there is more to think about than the little item I raised.  I thought you were getting tired of "talking to yourself", as you put it - haha.

Anthony

:) :)

Just try to envision that there's more than a power inlet in there. Start thinking about the transformer. Next there are amplifiers against the side walls. Oh, there has to be a power supply somewhere.
And when some space is left, we need some input selection stuff and a bit of volume control (PCB) and that kind of thing.

This is at the best position I could think of, with the 100% clear notice (again !) that no secundary inputs (say other than from the D/A converter) will be treated as "the best ever" anyway. So when there is no BNC in order it is or XLR or RCA, and in case it is RCA it will be the rightmost ones.

I think it is optimal.
Of course not thinking in terms of a 42.5 x 42.5 case ...

Regards and thanks !
Peter

PS: My good old subject again : If you can incur for noise by means of the cable position at the back of the NOS1(a), you have another problem somewhere. Only when I lay out the lot the worst possible (like right over the transformer when testing something) I can *see* a bit of 50Hz creeping up towards -120dB (outside from what we always see). But hear something ? hahaha NEVER. By that time I'd need to let rise that noise or hum etc. with another 50-60dB. So go figure how one will be capable of that. As said, when doing something else wrong (and not the slightest).
Btw, you can bet that I am super careless with the cabling and all the testing stuff I *always* have around, here. You see the pictures often pass by ...
(also loudspeakers did not degrade for sensitivity ;)).

Hi Peter,

Your b'ass design looks great. There are a lot of developments. I've red recently a very good review of an headphone amp Microzotl (1 watt) also usable for speakers with a high sensitivity. I'm using 99dbm speakers. Any change your design gets speaker terminals to connect them direct to the speakers? I'm no headphone fan. I'm very interested in the product. (Ps: How cheap is cheap?)

Regards johan

Hi Johan,

The B'ASS will be able to drive your speakers, but there's no gain in there. This means that the output Voltage is as high as the output of your NOS1a and this is not loud enough for normal speakers. And 99dB sensitivety is quite high but still not enough to be loud enough for the ~5.6Vp-p we are talking about in this situation.

Of course you could try ...

Regards,
Peter

Hi all,

Today I received the price for the B'ASS all aluminium case and as we could expect this is not really cheap.

Relative to the old price, 205 euros must be added for the case.

Copied from this post (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3592.msg38254#msg38254) the prices now are :

1.
With RCA-in and RCA-Out. Single Ended Stereo B'ASS. Output Impedance 33 Ohms.
Including Headphone output jack. Output Impedance 2.9 Ohms.
815 euros.

2.
With RCA-In + XLR-In and RCA-Out + XLR-Out. Balanced Stereo B'ASS. Output Impedance 33 Ohms.
Including Headphone output stereo jack (Single Ended). Output Impedance 2.9 Ohms.
995 euros.

3.
With BNC-In and BNC-Out. Single Ended Stereo B'ASS. Output Impedance 75 Ohms.
Including a pair of Blaxius BNC Interlinks of ~ 50cm / 20".
Including Headphone output jack. Output Impedance 2.9 Ohms.
945 euros.

4.
With 2x BNC-In and 2x BNC-Out. Balanced Stereo B'ASS. Output Impedance 2x 75 Ohms.
Including Headphone output stereo jack (Single Ended). Output Impedance 2.9 Ohms.
1125 euros.

---

It is now my question whether everybody says "never mind because we don't pay for nice cases and we like to pay for good sound only", or that half of you now says "No" which makes the case 125 euros more expensive for the other (this really is so because of overhead costs !).
Of course I'm hoping that everybody who applied so far, stays !

The above is half of the story - the other half is about the functionality. So :

Although exactly nobody complained about making it unnecessary expensive because not wanting more inputs and preamp like functions and volume control or headphone output ... I do not want to change anything around that. All I did though, was making the case suitable for it, in case it would be necessary for some. Since yesterday I have some  electronics to start the testing of the additional functionalities (like input selection), so when I have some spare time I can start with that. :swoon:

If you followed this topic, then you have seen that there's also more "functionality" possible for the adding of "current amplification" (maybe it is better to call that current boost). Thus, add more "amp" by means of switches. Of course this too costs money but at least that is directly related to Sound Quality and setting the best setting for your situation.
Side note regarding this (but I think I already mentioned that a while ago) : I now have another level of amp in there, and I switched that On and never Off again. But suddenly this is related to the Linear Power Supply I now use for the PC. Maybe I could sneak in another level of amp ...

The cost for one level more is not crazy high for the components, but it costs relatively much time for the additional wiring. Think two pair of wires for 2 channels SE and 4 pairs for Differential (Balanced). This is then for one additional level which can be hooked on (or off). Make that two additional levels and we have 16 wires for Differential.
Then of course I was so "smart" to find a means of having two levels of amp by means of one switch only (a switch alone costs 11 euros) so with 4 switches we are capable of adding 8 levels (4 levels for Differential). These 8 levels really can be there (on the PCB) so when you are crazy enough you could really do it. But we can also try to be fair to those who use Differential and limit the maximum added levels to 4 (as just told, Differential can not be more than 4 anyway).

It is quite difficult to judge what the price per level is to be because it has to be done once. But also looking at the cost for components I'd say that it should be something like 125 euros for SE and double that for Differential (Differential is exactly twice all the components and work).
Hmm ... Looking back (above) at the Difference between RCA and XLR and seeing that this is 180 euros and which is for double the "amps" with 2 in there for the base, then two levels thus cost 180, or 90 per one. Now add mentioned switch at 11 and we see that 125 - 101 = 24 is left for the soldering of those wires.
I think I calculated well/fair (or consistently, if you want).

Right. Now we know a bit more about the cheapest update ever, which indeed is not so cheap any more;
If people now want input selection and volume control, this will add again. If the electronics I now have over here do their job as hoped, this adds 250-300 for Single Ended and 375-450 for Differential (all remote controlled). This is for realizing all the connections and of course the hardware, like connectors.

In between this all could be the headphone amp as such, which does not require any input selection or volume control at all. All *that* requires is just connectors of the type required and let's say that it is do or die with that, hence that someone who wants explicitly a headphone amp, just gets the connectors for that, which is diverse - see earlier posts (now you can more easily sell it, when needed).
What does that add ? when the XLR connectors are not there for other reasons already, say 45 (I have no clue, but it will be something like that, including the soldering).

I hope this is not too chaotic, but I had to write it down one way or the other, so for now this is the base. Later I can try to make a nice table of it, or something like that.

Questions ? please ask. For me, at this moment, the most important is the knowledge of how many people still apply because this is so heavily related to the price of the case.
And let's try not to forget : it might not be the cheapest upgrade any more, but it sure is the most valuable upgrade. You'll get a totally new DAC because of it.

Regards,
Peter

Case price is fine for me Peter.

Ok two!  :)

What do you mean by this Peter? Do you mean it becomes a  preamplifier??

 :)

Price is OK for me

Gerard, make that "too" and I 'll believe it. :) :)



It already is that when taken with the Input Selection. What I meant with the "level of" is adding more current. Actually those "steps" of more "level" I am talking about when mentioning those switches to do it.

Regards,
Peter

And Gerard, maybe you were referring to "gain" with your preamp question ? But no, it remains unitiy gain (no gain).

Peter

Hi Peter,

I am ok with the case price. One #3 for me.

Best regards,

Arvind

Two was a bit of a joke because i was the second who said ok.  :blob8: :o



And extra current that will do what?  :scratching:


Yes that's what i meant.  Happy

 :)

Case is okay for me too.
For me it will be #3 then.

If the input selection and volume control is not hurting the SQ for normal NOS1a use I am also in the market for that.
To have the possibility to connect a TV via rca.

Regards, Arjan

Ok for me ;)

I am in for the nice case.  :good:

Still want version 2.

I am going to email you  directly regarding volume control.

I need no input switch because after the NOS1a + RAM-OS I'll never have need for another input. No longer relevant for me. :xx:

Hi Peter, the price remains OK for me. Definitely one #3 for me for now. (I'll send you a PM with some other thoughts.)

Cheers,
Mani.

ok for me too
maybe I will switch to a number 3, but I guess that a decision on that is not necessary today already :)

Thank you Leo. Indeed that decision is not necessary right now.

Regards,
Peter

Volume control with B’ASS

Hi Peter,

remembering my „pre amp“ times, the SQ was superior with a
XXH volume setting of -6db.
 
Question:
A) your prefered XXH volume setting is where with the B’ASS? (without VC)
B) did you perform comparisions with a B’ASS “volume control”,  setting XXH “VC” to appr. -6dB and your present XXH setting.

Joachim

Hey Joachim,

I never used a volume control with the NOS1(a) in my life.
Of course I am going to for this project, soon, but I am not going to attempt serious listening through any volume control anyway. I will measure though (and we will see later that this tells enough).

Regards,
Peter

Hi Peter,

my experience in other words:

A) playing muisc without a preamp (since 2 years) the XXH VC setting is between -27dB and -36dB depended on the present prefered SPL .

B) Using a pre amp the XXH VC setting was -6dB then, and with that setting the SQ was superior to A) - I remember that Coen wrote about this impression too.

It seems there are SQ differences within XXH with different volume settings.

Joachim

Hi Joachim,

That is correct. And that one can try to experiment with this, has been brought up by myself. This is because the D/A chips have a sweet spot. Of course it requires a volume control to be able to test this.

Peter

I'm still in for the BNC in and out model.

Todd

I'm still in Peter.
Keep going it all looks really good.
Nick.

Hi Peter,

Can I join now for a number 2.(RCA and XLR) The price is OK for me. Thanks.

Leung

Hi Leung - Yes please !

Thank you and regards,
Peter

All of you, thank you very much so far !

We are at 16 now (the original subscribers counted 24 IIRC) so I hope we can find 4 more in order to comply to the price of the case. So please, respond if you wish to have one and do not think "oh well, I will get one anyway, later". So it is really about the batch size and while the price of mentioned "205 euros more" is about a production threshold of 20, in realilty it is about a batch size of 25. Thus, I will let make 5 more anyway which is my own investment (no worries, I am fine with that). Now :

What I will do is apply a sort of sliding average, thinking that I will let produce always 5 in a batch. This will be ~150 per piece more then. However, say that I let produce 5 more for the first batch (now the promised 205 euros more applies) then on average this is actually 150 / 2 = 75 more when we also take into account these 5 I let produce more anyway. This means that when the first batch is sold out, a next costs 75 more (anticipating 5 more subscribers after the first batch sold out).
If I can sustain the batches of 10 to produce with an actual order quantity of 5, it shouldn't be too bad if all new ones after the first batch sold out, are 75 more.

Long story short (and sorry about the brainstorming character of this post) : There will be a first batch of 25 (or more) and it can be produced against the promised price(s) as mentioned in my earlier post (this means that the 205 euros more than the original wooden box, can hold). This batch will be produced when 20 subscribers are there (16 at this moment). At some stage we'll pull the trigger and after that every new subscriber pays 75 more (and new batches will be produced when 5 orders exist for this new batch, while a produced batch will always consist of 10).

Thank you all !
Peter

Hi Peter
  I'm also in for a modified #3 with VC and extra RCA/BNC inputs if still possible.

I'm still in Peter but I've decided on #2 instead of #1. Thanks again.

Esau

Thank you guys. We're at 19 now, so I suppose the 20th will be there soon. :)

But prior to that we are trying to make something of that finish;

I can tell you, the pure aluminium (aluminum for some) looks really cool. It also looks like such a thing is not being done. It looks too good to be true.
Well, possibly that is right.

So far, after many many hours of research and also trying some things for real, it looks like it is impossible to apply some clear varnish etc., because the first thing to deal with is the "veil" of fat that actually springs from the aluminium itself; when you deal with this, you can feel that you squeeze out the inside fat and next wipe it over the surface.

This material is realy strange, because when you wipe it with water and make it all dry, all the gloss vanishes, although the surface remaining from that is quite "equal".  You could like it, not knowing what's under the surface (for super gloss).
Don't like it ? then it takes 15 minutes to get rid of that glare.

Point is : At this moment I am unable to create a "stain-less" surface, so the possible varnish over that will only seal the stains. So now I am going to an anodising company and ask what possibilities are.
And no, that was not contained in the price (grr).

Peter

Hi Peter,

What's the dimensions of the B'ASS unit? I couldn't find it in the threads.

Best regards,

Arvind

Hi Arvind,

234 x 234 x 74 mm.

Regards,
Peter

Hi Peter,

you saw my email on Montag, 30. Mai 2016 12:06

Joachim

Yes Joachim, I did. Thank you.
(and I didn't see a question in there)

Peter

Hi Peter,

I'm in for the BNC one.

Regards,
Quint

Hi Peter. I know that B'ASS can be used with any DAC. I was just wondering then if you've tried out B'ASS with other non-Phasure DACs and, if so, how did it(they) sound with the upgrade. Just curious.

Esau

Hi All,

I added a table with prices to the first post.

:drums:
Peter

Hi Peter,

How does one figure out how many "amplifiers" we need?  Is it a case getting a few and then seeing if that is enough.  Will we be able to add more "amplifiers" in later on if we see the need?

Regards,

Anthony

Hey Anthony,

This is such a good question that I don't have the answer.

Maybe the whole feature of allowing you guys to choose is causing troubles now. Maybe my hunt for always keeping the price as low as possible, is killing.

:wacko2:

Example of my own situation :

I have 4 levels of amp at my service and the past days I used 3. This is because 4 can be too much, or maybe for certain music it is too much. Anyway, 3 is enough for me, and 4 I try some times. Notice that usually when I try 4, I know in advance that it will work (say that I can hear that, derived from 3). Then, a next day things may not sound the best (which already always is the case the first 20 minutes - despite all being On 24/7) and I switch back to 3.

Yesterday I tried something new and sound was superb;
It didn't take long to switch on #4.
Possibly it has been my best evening ever ...

When it still is so that tonight (or other days) I switch off #4 again, I don't need a #5; 4 is actually on the edge already and things need to be really good to have it on. However :
When I'd enter a stage that #4 never is switched off any more, I WILL make me a 5th. How else can I know whether that will be better again ?

And also to keep in mind : a month ago I did not have my LPS and what I did back then with hopping between 3 and 2, turned into hopping between 4 and 3. Just because something improved. And you know, by now I start to wonder how an open baffle speaker (it still is that :yes:) is even capable of producing such powerful bass, which now plainly feels like there's a few cubic meter of cabinet around it that pumps up itself with air before a vent opens and the power escapes in a blast. It really starts to be outrageous.

Btw it is interesting in itself to observe what actually happens, because adding "normal power" to the bass, brings something very different. So as we know I can easily DSP-in way more bass "level", but that does not work at all because it changes the balance. All will be too heavy and in the end coloured. This just adds power as such. Literal power.
And if people would complain about their DACs (the NOS1(a) ahead) that there's no power coming from it, then OK. But this is not so and thus this is a dimension we are not aware of.
Hey, this reminds me of the passive I/V conversion I played with for about a year (with the first NOS1 and prior to real production). It suited me well, but a sort of forced by the commercial situation and not so efficient speakers (mine already were 115dB at the sime) I *had* to swap to active I/V conversion. Then too I was shocked because it was actually better and I did not expect that at all. Now, thinking back of that situation, this was with 4.8mA of initial current and no molesting active device. But how does that poor weak signal end up at the amplifier ? say totally collapsed and tired because of the long travel. It isn't disturbed but it disturbs itself by breathing too heavy (so to speak). So better add an active device and 80mA of current, so the signal may be disturbed a little, but no wobbling breath taking is in order and at least all arrives in good shape.
We now do this again in superfold and as said with a factor of ~6 per amp level. Now we have an athlete and his heartbeating is not even disturbing his balance after arriving. One problem he has : he is so good and fast that he's having problems in the curves of the track and tends to break out of them. He really needs banked curves in order to be so fast and firm. And the faster he goes (more amp) the more banking he needs (better system as a whole). So without the banking he needs to hold back a bit (less amp).

So how much do we need ?
For fun, here is the table again :

	2 amp	3 amp	4 amp	5 amp	6 amp	7 amp	8 amp
1. RCA-In / RCA-Out					131516		156518
2. RCA-In + XLR-In / RCA-Out + XLR-Out			160524
3. BNC-In / BNC-Out (incl. Blaxius set)					144536		169538
4. BNC-In / BNC-Out x 2 (bal., incl. 2x Blaxius set)			173544
5. RCA-In / RCA-Out x 2 (balanced)			160554

Now cut out all the BS with headphone outputs, volume controls and Input selections, and there you have it. Just think that your best ever DAC NOS1a got ~1700 more expensive again, but that you will drop dead from being astouned. And worse, because you can set the sound.
Worse again, because what you can not achieve today (be stuck at 4 levels) can still work in 2017 when some idiot finds another gag that improves at the general level, which now allows your B'ASS to switch on that other level, always there waiting for you.

Peter

Peter, there was a time when I would have been concerned about an active I/V but those days are long gone.  In my eyes active at the source is just "necessary" for the reasons that you say about current (and more).

My concern (well a little question mark in the back of my mind) with all this current amplification in the B'Ass is whether its effects are unique to your situation (your gainclones) and whether we are going to get this "improvement" with other power amplifiers.  Will it work with amplifiers of other topologies such as triodes or Class D or...?  That is a little unknown, at least from where I sit, however I generally believe that current is very important when driving an amplifier.  So I guess my question is whether you have tried the B'Ass anywhere else other than with your gainclones?  And sorry to put you on the spot like this...honest question...please know that I am standing first in line for one of these things.

Cheers,

Anthony

Hi again Anthony,

I must apologize because I recall the same question already asked, while I never answered it (not sure whether it was you). So here goes :

If you look back in the first post, you can see that I there adjusted the first sentence; I did that a couple of hours ago. So what I did yesterday was changing the title, and for comfort call it a current amplifier (everybody seems to understand that). But it is not that all all, or not really or say half. This is how "buffer" suits better, but now not everybody understands.

Please keep in mind that half of this is reasoning; if it was really 100% knowing, I would have done it like this 6 years ago. That is, if I would have been as creative as I am today. :)

Somewhere in this topic (probably in the first few posts if not the very first) I talked about the utilisation of the current when it is needed. This is typical buffer behaviour. So it is not that we put 1A to your power amplifier - it draws 1A when it needs that. Think back of the NOS2 power amp testing again (at least this is how I got the idea) and think "loudspeaker". The lower the resistance ("impedance") the more current will flow, right ? And now the fun : the more some frequency requires current, the more current will flow *IF* it is available.
Remember, impedance behaviour is not consistent - it depends on frequency; say that one frequency implies less resistance than another, then current must be readily (almost literally) pushing - ready to be absorbed.

So it is nothing like "let's put our power amps under current" (this would be a lot of Dutch in that sentence) but we make it available.
And apparently there's much more required than we could imagine, or otherwise it wouldn't improve.

Point of course is again (and excuse me if I am repeating myself from posts elesewhere) that math never tells us in this situation that such things can ever be helpful. So again I give the example of the 6GHz interlink (which so much is in the very same physical realm) which also can't help once the interlink is 10MB capable (hey, we only need 20K !). But I think it is merely a matter of disturbances occurring otherwise, them tearing down the remainder of the building. Thus, if one frequency requires more current (and this can easily be an inaudible frequency in the GHz range !) which is not really available, it is taken from the other frequencies, so to speak, and all collapses.
Ever back I also talked about the idea of a song with hardly highs in it, being better in the basses; there's now more current available for that "one frequency".

That this is now about a power amplifier and not a loudspeaker, does not make much difference to the (actually simple) idea. It is only that some gurus in the past determined the math for frequency loss etc. in cables with resistance and inductance plus capacity etc. ... and that apparently there's more behind the horizon.
Anyway, an amplifier too won't have a linear impedance and it is only that everybody will tell you that 47K or 45K really seriously never ever can make a difference. Yes, but this is au-di-o.

Anyway, it is about the availability of the current.

What I lack at this moment is a good reasoning of how it can be too much. And this is not like in "as is" but like in "relates to the environment". So at this moment this is guessing with blah like "the baddies are amplified as well". Yeah, nice. And probably even true. But first we should not talk about "amplification" as such, but we should speak merely in terms of "allowing good shape" (good control is another nice one, telling nothing more than the fact).
And oh, we don't need to think long about numerous changes and applications which make our systems sound better. But what I like to see through is how - the other way around - the system not being better yet, this "allowing of good shape" works out for the worse (must detach one amp evel). Would it then really be so that the lesser sounding system now is putting forward everything, including the bits which are "less" ? seems logical if we see that nasty highs similarly do not allow the louder levels. Not so loud is fine, but don't make the music as a whole too loud or it starts to hurt.

The nice thing is that the number of levels allowed for the day, is really a measure in itself. So yesterday I had a Day Four !! - and my system must have behaved superbly.
haha

Peter

Peter,

I was told by someone that judging by the frequency response plot of my main speakers (from my sig) and the consequent change in impedance (depending on the frequency), my power amp (also in my sig) would switch very quickly from 200 (under 8 ohms) to 400 watts per channel (under 4 ohms) - back and forth, mutilating the sound.

Would such a situation be put more in evidence with a B'ass ?

Alain

Hi Alain,


I am not sure whether you want to say that the sound is destroyed. I think you want to say the opposite, right ?
Possibly you wanted to say mutate ? (as in mutation)

Anyway, what I tried to make clear was the same (I think you want to say) : the readily available current is "pushing" to be sucked in when required and FAST (otherwise it is useless).

Peter

Peter,

Well... "Mutilating" the sound (200 > 400 watts > 200, etc...) while impedance is "swinging" back and forth would "affect" the sound, but not in a good way. That was said from the frequency response and the change in impedance.

In other words, if my speakers would show a better response, without swinging between 4 and 8 ohms, the sound would be better.

Sorry if my very limited knowledge is showing...

Alain

Nothing wrong with your knowledge. :)


Is it possible to rephrase that ? (that English is too difficult for me and BIAS expectation lures (see previous post)).

Thanks,
Peter

Here is the plot of the Tannoy System 15 DMT II...

Was that rephrasing ? :nea:

Ha ha ! I feel lazy ;)

Nevermind Peter :) It was just a question related with the compatibility between current, impedance and what would result of them. I am not sure myself that my sentence makes sense.

When I will be able, I will certainly order a B'ass with a VC, but I will ahve to ask questions about the # of amplifiers...

Regards,

Alain

Last time :


Can you make English of that ?
Hey, I am serious. Please be so too.

Ok. Since there are impedance variations depending on the frequency and these variations can make an amplifier pass from X watts to Y watts very rapidly, can this be a positive or a negative... ? Will the B'ass increase this behavior ?

Alain

Ah, now I understand.

Ok, first back to your (first) assertion that it would be bad of the amplifier changing its power so fast;

First off, this change in Wattage is the same as change in current (you can well say it is the same thing). So, draw more current means consume more Watts.
Now it is exactly what I am saying that should happen or otherwise nothing of it works to begin with. Point of course is that you are told that this is a bad thing. Now :

That impedance response of your speaker does not look spectacularly wrong to me. I think it can be much worse. But what is "worse". So in the end it is dead-normal for a speaker to behave like that and it is only that it is never a good thing. So means exist (cables) that take out the effect as much as possible.

If someone has told you that *because* you have a fast amplifier, it is a bad thing that it follows the current need so quickly and with that sort of pulls over itself ... I can imagine something with that. So remedy : let it be and miss out on those more diffficult frequencies ?
I don't think it should work like that. I'd rather think that your amp is okay with it and that it is all meant to work like that.
It would be quite easy to think (from some other perspective) that when the amp delivers more power that fraction of a second, that it is boosting into the speaker all the time with this. But this is not how it is supposed to work;
There's a voltage to sustain and this is for all the frequencies while the amp does not really know about the freqencies. It just tries to put up the voltage and sustain that. The speaker kind of shortcuts it with the lower resistances, which are in certain frequencies. Those "parts" of the whole just draw more now ? It is per se not so that because 2K needs more "power" that 100Hz also receives that more power. It is exactly the other way around (and my story about buffer behaviour instead of current amplification). It is taken where needed.

One thing remains and this is the amplifier pulling itself over (so to speak). So yes, it would be fairly difficult tuning of the amp, if it continuously changes its power. Say that it would be the 180 degree opposite of what I try to achieve in a PC (most stable behaviour). So from that perspective I can agree.

And most I do is reasoning - not knowing !
Regards and thanks,
Peter

Thanks Peter.

It should be a good thing since I do not "hear" this happening. All that was said from that person was about the graphic I showed with the speakers I own. But he did not hear them in real life.

And I can obviously imagine that it should be good in the results.

Regards,

Alain

Hmm ... I see that I forgot to answer the question (since I finally understood it :swoon:);

It is hard to tell whether the B'ASS may contribute to such behaviour (as a negative). I don't see how. It may count for itself (see previous post and the poweramp pulling over itself) but I don't really see how to test that. Anyway, that is a different story.
So emphasizing what the poweramp does on its outputs as a response to the impedance changes of its load (the speaker) ... no ... I don't see the B'ASS doing that.
The poweramp may behave differently though, because what was not taken in for "firm frequency", now does. So it must be capable better and assumed this is no problem, it will draw current in a different fashion, itself.
But this is all a different story and quite complicated to follow (all).

Peter

Alain, perhaps that is true, but in reality there are not many amplifiers about that are able to double power when impedance halves, and I do not know whether yours can do this or not.  Those amplifiers that properly "double-down" to low impedances have huge power supplies that most people don't want to pay for!

Speakers are generically voltage driven for normal impedances...the higher the impedance the more voltage and less current is required.  When the impedance drops more current and less voltage is required.  Is the amplifier capable of providing enough current for low impedance?  Well that depends on the electrical characteristics of the speaker and amplifier in unison.  I think there is a lot to be said about current driven loudspeakers, but that is a whole other subject not really applicable to this conversation.

Peter, thank-you for your writings following my earlier question.  To my way of thinking the B'Ass would impact the input stage of the amplifier (signal integrity as you describe) rather than the output stage (where the power for the loudspeaker is produced) but you seem to be talking about the speaker load being integral to the effect of the B'ass.  In my example, with zero-feedback single ended triodes and the associated transformer de-coupled speakers the speaker load is not really "seen" at the input of the amplifier (of course the speakers are not absolutely-totally de-coupled, but I would suggest that they are much more de-coupled than for most solid state amplifiers especially those with global feedback).  What the B'Ass would "see" in my situation is the variable impedance of the Passive Line Level Crossovers at the inputs to my amplifiers, not the speaker load as you talk about, so I still have a niggle about what the B'Ass will achieve other than providing enough drive for a highly variable amplifier input impedance, but I guess there is only one way to find out, to put a B'ass in there and see.

Regards,

Anthony

Hi Anthony,

It is obvious that my knowledge is so thin about the matter that I never really got worried about this, unless I would have heard something odd with this amplifier. The good thing is that I have another power amp that I could compare with the one I mostly use and there were not much differences I could really hear. On the contrary I had the feeling that the cheaper of them was a little "rougher" than the Spectral Audio.

I learned something new with the factor impedance, voltage and current - I will keep that in mind :)

And as for the B'ass effects, my thoughts are the same as yours in your conclusion: the only way to see and feel what will happen, well... Is to get one :) But it is also a matter of trust in Peter and that has not been lacking for many years, even if I am late in upgrading my NOS1...

Regards,

Alain

Hmm ... With my poor (and too long-winded) English that must have sneaked in somewhere. Anyway, I thought this would say it all :


Also mind my usage of emphasizing in whatever person but not the first. So "I" am not the one emphasizing (or not) - the B'ASS can't do that (is what I'm saying here).
So we talk about the same.

Something else is (and that may have fooled you) that the more firmness of the signal will travel through the poweramp and has its effects there. Theoretically it must be faster now, or deliver current faster just because more requirement is there. This all could be (!) obvious. But then I gave the example for the speaker (driver) which should be able to follow and this was just an example, because everybody understands that.
So with the example of the speaker driver, the poweramp must be able to do the same (which is much less visible to most).

DAC (is as is) -> B'ASS (= more powerful) -> Poweramp (must be more powerful as a derivative of faster) -> Speaker (must be faster).

Anyway I am sure we talk about the same and hopefully others can follow (me) as well.

Regards,
Peter

Ok, yes, we are on the same page then...I must have misinterpreted something.  Phwew!

Hi Peter,
 
not 100% sure what is mend with "more powerfull bass".
You mean faster / more controlled and deeper? Could this affect the sound balance in your setup ending up being to bassy?

If so, would you be able to select the amount of B'ASS stages used in parallel in the new device you propose?

Also I'm a bit worried that my tube amplifier (more voltage amplification)  might behave different from your solid state gainclone's (current amplication?) on adding a B'ASS stage?

- Quint

Hi Quint,


Explicitly not because everything is amplified equally. Well, more equally than equal because what has been underwhelmed is now equally "put out".
Read back on the frequencies requiring more current and how that (also) tears down the lot.


And I am not 100% sure where I said that. Haha. Doing a search on the last two pages I only can come up with this :


... which is nothing about "more powerful bass".
But if you really like to know what is going on :
Of course it is a more powerful bass, but then everything is more powerful. If I make that "more effortless", maybe it is clear better ?


I don't know how that would be "current amplification" !


Somehow it is difficult to see / bring across that it is just an extension of the DAC ... and that there's nothing special about it (see previous posts from e.g. yesterday) ?
How much current can your mains (one outlet) supply ? Say it is 25A @ 230V. Does this bother your poor 72W light bulb ?
The 25W one ? The 5W ?
It does not matter. The lightbulb consumes what it needs, and as long as the current required is there, it will lit. A dim 5W for the 5W bulb and a more bright 75W for the 75W'er.
The 5W consumes 5/230 = 0.022A and 75W consumes 75/230 = 0.320A.

But now what if the current is not available ? Say that there is 0.02A available only ...

The 5W bulb : 230 x 0.02 = 4.6W. It is not as bright as intended.
The 75W bulb = 230 x 0.02 = ... 4.6W. It behaves even poorer than a 5W bulb.

While this is light, audio comes in "bursts". So supposed that an audio signal is intended of 75W but only 4.6W is available, then all is clipped to the 4.6W signal and the sound will be totally flat (and disturbed, but alas).

The above can not 100% represent reality but it gives the idea;
If the 4.6W can be extended to e.g. 30W, then all will be more powerful - not only the bass. All we could perhaps say is that when no high freuqencies are present, there's more power available for the bass.
The total power is utilized for all the frequencies at the same time.

Ever back I tried to sort out how much Watts "music" as such requires, but this is quite undoable and also not linear. Regarding this, think again about a loudspeaker driver. Say a woofer which can do 1000Hz.
When a bass signal is there at 500Hz then that part is working. Now we superimpose 700 Hz on that and you can tell me whether this is from the ground up (as if the 500Hz were nog there yet), whether it is on top of the 500Hz (so with the same SPL the 700Hz much make the same excursion on top of what 500Hz already is doing) or that it is something else. One thing : only one amplifier takes care of the both and when it does not have sufficient power (is current !!)  it can not do all - all equally bad, the 500 better than the 700 or the other way around. Or something else of course. :swoon:

Regarding this, again think about the interlink length and current math : How was that ? for 20KHz only ? or was it for a 1000 different frequencies at the same time ?
So I say that the math for that could be as difficult (undoable) as it is for the power music requires.
So let's be on some safe side with it, and know that your light bulb of 75W will also be litting with 200A "pushing" behind it.

Clear a little ?

Best regards,
Peter

Hi Peter,

thanks for explaining. A sound which is "more effortless" is what I am looking for... :)

Cheers, Quint

Ok Quint !

In this case too, I see that I forgot something :


Yes of course, this is what the switches are for !
So if you have a look in the first page again and observe all the options, then all you need to know is that when you chose e.g. option 34 (which implies 4 levels) then each of the levels can be switched off. One thing : the first level is two at the same time (this is why the columns start with "2 amp").
So with 34 you have the possibility of 2, 3 and 4 - at your choice. I plan pass through (0 amp) as well, so in the end it is 0, 2, 3, 4 (0 being the signal you are used to at this moment).

Peter

Something quite else ...

It looks like I have made a quite n00b mistake : I never took into account burn-in for my own testing. Well, sort of;

I knew from the start (which by now is about a year ago) that things seem to get better automatically. This has been crazy difficult because the first 3-4 months it was always trying things, up to the stage I found out what is actually causing the NOS1(a) burn-in necessity. Then I could elliminate that part and from then on all was good.
And then later things got better. And better. But in so many changes of that time (RAM OS Disk, new XXHighEnd version and more I forgot by now) I couldn't really point at it.

...

... So if you now hear me talking about how I now bit by bit am able to have 4 engaged a part of the time, while at first this was 3 a part of the time ...
Then this can very well be about burning in.

I thought of this yesterday, all sounding as good as the day before, even in cold situation (prior to the first 20 minutes passed). So it now looks that it is just a matter of keeping it in use and it will be "there" automatically after some time.
How much time ? difficult to say. They are always on and just hooked into the signal when I attach the particular one. So maybe I have been using my #4 for 12-15 hours by now under load (without load nothing much will be burned in, I'm afraid).

This is quite stupid because probably I should be using a number 5 by now. Sweat a bit for a couple of days and sit that out. Or do as I did with 3 and 4 and have fun with trying 5 once in a while. Until that day pops up that I can say once again : it has never been so good !!

:shy:
Peter

Hey Peter, why not just hook up 8 total amps and let them burn in over headphones?  Could save your sanity  ;)

Hi Peter,

Can you post a chart on the forum showing the increase in current amplification through each increased amp. Maybe this might help some of the guys who have the requisite technical knowledge (not me)to decide how many amps they may need for their set up.

Just a suggestion.

Best regards,

Arvind

Ha ! That is actually a good idea ...

Hi Arvind,

What I planned for today (and I already forgot), was actually measuring it. I mean, it won't work out as any linear thing - the same sort of problem with determining the power music requires (opposed to determining the power a testsignal requires, which is easy).

Theoretically is ia ~240mA per additional amp level but I am fairly 100% sure I am not going to measure close to 1A additional draw when I am playing music of whatever kind. What I do believe though, is that additional levels make a difference because it is "more readily available". So say all is faster because of the more pushing. Say that one person is able to move a car by pushing it and the accelleration goes very slowly. Maybe he can do 10Km/h (before he is tired). But with ten people the acceleration could be 10 times as fast, although the maximum speed will never reach 200Km/h (10x 20).
Something like that ...

Now I must not forget my measuring plans ...

Peter

Hi Peter,

I remember when I tried to bypass my preamp & feed the NOS signal directly into the amps, I never got any sound. Probably the current output from the NOS is too low to drive the amp with the speaker load. The B'ASS unit could be of help here, since essentially it's doing the job of the preamp, in terms of amplifying the NOS signal.

Best regards,

Arvind

Arvind,

Nah, what I recall of that is that you had too low (level) output because your poweramp anticipated the gain of the (adjacent) preamp. So this was a voltage problem.

You won't have that problem in your new (amp) situation, obviously ... :whistle:

Regards,
Peter

Hi Peter,

Pls amend my order to 35vIx3. Pls send me revised proforma invoice.

Best regards,

Arvind

OK Arvind. Thank you !

Peter

Hi Peter,

Is there any news on the volume control in relation to the SQ.
As far as I remember that was still a subject you would look into.

Regards, Arjan

Hi Arjan,


Yes, but not with pleasure. And I can tell you, since someone brought this forward, it at least is holding up.

Anyway, your question encouraged me to finally try the first ready option I have laying around for many weeks by now. The result you see below. It doesn't work at all.

I never have been lucky with volume controls.

Peter

Hi Peter,

Does that mean that the VC is not good for the main (nos1a) input but still useful for the additional rca inputs? Or not at all?

Or will you search for a better solution?

If this is it I would go for a 35vIx2. Plus blaxius of enough length (50 cm?) to place the B'ass next to the NOS1a.

Regards, Arjan

Arjan,

This was just the easy test because it comprised a ready product (huray for China). It doesn't work at all (only distortion as all the peaks show and no volume control whatsoever).

I only bought this as a ready product because it was cheaper than the elements in it. What I can expect of this is that electrically all is fine, but that the micoprocessor involved has a bad program in it. That would render it useless.

I have two other sets with "elements" but this requires maybe a day of sitting back and find out how to connect all. It actually requires relatively so much time that it looks that I may never find that time.
Maybe when I take a day off. Haha.

Peter

Haha...I know that feeling.

Hi Peter,

Just to be sure, is the B'ass ready to be ordered without VC?
Because a solution could be that I add an passive attenuator between additional sources (TV or whatever) and B'ass. So the B'ass is only a input selector. And only one RCA input is needed.

Additional question: is there any reduction in SQ for the NOS1a because of this input selector? As it is something extra in the signal path. Because if that is the case, even how handy it might be, I do not want it.

regards, Arjan

Hi Arjan,

Regarding the latter : of course not !
But for that too I FIRST have to find out the merits in practice. IOW, I think I can do that without even being in the normal signal path, but the point here is that this other input signal should not be disturbed by the DAC's wires.

Anyway, I am up to these experiments by now.

Regards,
Peter

Hi Peter,

I would like to change my order to 35v3. If I'm not wrong this means that the main input ( NOS1a in my case) is not connected to an input selector & consequently neither the volume control.

Best regards,

Arvind

Hi there All,

It must have been a 100 times that I wanted to write what I write below, but I never was able to find some real time for it. Also, it is difficult for me to share enthusiasm when I don't do that right the next day after a listening session full with pleasure. And of course I get used to things, so a couple of days after and I don't know how to :yahoo: anymore.
However, day before yesterday, after a vacation and a full day in the car passing countless "Baustelle" in Germany - with the most pittyful "modern" radio music (music ??) ... I had a few hours in the evening and so much appreciated what has been accomplished lately. Mind you, this spans more than a year of B'ASS development.

Actually I was ready for this sheerful message two weeks ago, when I blew something in my own NOS1a and had to switch to another one I had laying around, but without B'ASS provision. Ha !! NOW I knew. B'ASS is infinitely better.
It is different too. Very different. You will just have a different DAC because of it.

So you thought the NOS1a was the best DAC you ever owned ? wait. Because now there is the G3.

Uhm, what ?

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/G3-01c.jpg)

---

The G3 is the further development of the B'ASS but in a very diffferent setup as how it was / has been for a year in my own system;

It is not in an external cabinet because I found it actually un-doable with the stiff Blaxius Interlinks which most - or many of you use. You just can't put the cabling anywhere and e.g. taking out the NOS1(a) out of its cave became a very tedious job, therewith molesting the interlinks if not careful.

It is not provided with switches and different settings as originally planned because, well, I found another way of doing the same (in effect) with one option only.

It does not come with destructive volume control, and the talk about that was only disturbing me (very much).

It also does not come with a headphone output, although the normal outputs can be used for headphones (and if you are not satisfied with that then so be it, because I refuse to let degrade SQ even the smallest because of any side dish option).

Finally, it does not come with several inputs for the same reason.

Yes, what a list of what it's not ! :blink:

---

G3

The G3 incarnation of the B'ASS is way better than the original B'ASS, because it is now more than that.
How ?

It consists of 3 different Gain Stages.
Here they are :

1.
The configuration as originally planned, but with one stage of amplification only. This is because of #2 below which is the more formal one, and this (#1) config is actually strange as it works all right but without justification that I myself can discover. It changes the sound, it does that for the better, and with more amplifiers it changes the sound more and for the more better. But my guts tell me that all what it does is make the sound slightly more fuzzy, together with a more bassy sound. Completely nothing wrong with it, but only more expensive than #2 below.

2.
This configuration can be regarded as the schoolbook application for the setup involved, which I never really got working at first, which is all related to the power supply and oscillation (and the very high slew rate of the chips involved, which people may recall as over 2400V/us).
New PCB's were designed for a new supply (actually the regulation) and now it worked. And mind you, now the vagueness of "current amplifier or not", can be scratched because now it is a real current amplifier (so #1 is "half that").

3.
:drums:
Your good old gain stage.
He says what ?!

Ad 1, 2 and 3 :

The thought of this has been dealt with in between many lines, but originates from my finding that a certain chip on your momentary gain stage is responsible for the breaking in of the NOS1(a). With the explicit thought that such a chip is required anyway, the situation of #1 emerged, which has this chip in the chain but in the NOS1(a) as is/was and the remainder of the "current" amplification was posed to be in the external cabinet. This is to be read as : how to move the chip from your NOS1(a) to the external box which is thus impossible and thus think of a design which allows the chip to remain in the NOS1(a) and chain thingss such that it works together with what's inside the external case.
... Which I in the end did not like for physical + $$ constraints. So :

With the idea that the external case would not be the cheapest upgrade anyway and falling back to the more normal "upgrade situation" which implies building-in the NOS1(a), I could now think of any setup that suited me, and which incorporates that chip you have on the gain stage at this moment.
A first trial batch of new PCBs was ordered so they could fit in the NOS1a (the "a" now not between braces because the a version occupies more space to begin with), which for myself meant that the famous chips (one per channel) were taken off the old gain stage and put on to the new oneS (see more below). This fitted all right (and played well too), but I regarded it unnecessary "wired" so again a new PCB was designed. This PCB looks quite similar to the old one (for the gain stage) and attaches to the DAC board again (no wires involved).

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/B'ASS TOP.png)

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/B'ASS BOT.png)
Side note : The production of these should have gone out 10 days ago before our small vacation, but this failed because the W10 machine of concern (with the PCB design software) gave up on us all together. The machine is up and running again, but I expect 4 weeks before the PCBs now can arrive.

OK, but apart from the "opportunity" to provide the old (means of) gain stage, why do it in the first place ?
The answer is simple : The sound is so totally different with the #2 option (also with #1) that you can be sure to have a brand new D/A converter with a so changed sound that you may like to listen to the old sound once in a while.

And the NOS1a had no sound of its own ?
Yes, funny. It hasn't. But once you listened for a year (which is what I really did) to another "neutral" sound, you will discover that certain favours of, say, accuracy are audible indeed !
As usual, this hard to explain in words, but an attempt :
Let's imagine that we have random guitars with a certain mid (frequency) sound; what we perceive from that through the NOS1a (NOS1 I forgot a bit) is the sound of the string(s) with (relatively) few guitar body. Mind you, the body of the guitar largely makes the sound. It is this body which is added largely by the B'ASS and after listening to that for a longer period of time, the "flavour" of the NOS1a with old gain stage is one of strings. And oh, they are all so accurate, which is perfectly audible because of no real fundament (lower frequency) disturbing it, but it is not "complete" so to speak.
The sound of the normal NOS1a could be summarized as a very accurate and pinpointed sound, which accuracy etc. comes forward because nothing vaguens it. It is not false accuracy, but it is incomplete. So let's say that the flavour of the NOS1(a) is one of incomplete music sound, never mind that you do not recognize this at this moment.

I myself have been looking numerous times for less accuracy with the B'ASS amplification because most certainly it feels like that. But I could not discover any by means of explicit listening;
all the accuracy is still there, and now the bonus : a 1000 more sounds are there because so much is playing at the lower frequency (but think upper mid to begin with and most certainly not sub low or something). An example of it could be the now impossibility to not hear what the lyrics are. OK, this already was so largely, but it is now more so.

Mind you, in the above I am  talking from the experience with #3, which is the latest incarnation of the B'ASS and active over here for a small month.

The design

First off, the G3 gain stage is Double Mono now (this was not so with the gain stage you still have in there). I am pretty sure this is audible in the Left/Right separation but to be honest I can only have my judgement from comparing with the first PCB with "integrated" Left and Right, more so than what you still have in there. Anyway if you look at the board you can envision a vertical line going in between the "AS" of B'ASS and it is there where the board galvanically splits (with a small bend at the top because the right hand input signal needs some space).

Next, a new power transformer (one of them) is now matching the situation so good that the main power supply (right hand leg) remains almost at ambient temperature (maybe it is one degree Celsius above that). In itself this is a requirement for the ultra low noise (double) regulation on the G3 PCB, so the benefit is two-folded. And let's keep in mind : the lower the temperature, the progressively longer the longevity.

The main (shunt) power supply is now regulated so it can take 700mA for plus and 700mA for minus (was 500mA for the NOS1a (300mA for the NOS1)) with a dissipated heat as describe above.

The amplification is always in differential (Balanced) configuration, never mind you use Single Ended outputs only. This is no different from how the DAC works and how the old gainstage worked, but it *is* different from the original idea about the B'ASS (where SE stages could (virtually) be ordered). The additional advantage of this is that your NOS1(a) remains to be fully balanced, just in case you want to use that later (while today you may use SE only, like with the 75 Ohm BNC connection).

There's a 13600uF of buffer per channel (was 470uF) so the high slew rate can really be served when required. However, besides the possibility of assembling your own caps, there's also the possibility to assemble smaller capacitance (and with that - smaller sized) caps which again makes a difference to the sound  - see the bottom side and the four holes under de capacitors.

The output level is now 1dB more.

Means to configure the B'ASS G3

On top of the PCB you will find a bunch of jumpers (10 per channel);
The default configuration will be the #2 and for example, to move to #1 requires pulling off 2 jumpers per channel and move them to another position. 30 seconds of work, outside the taking off of the lid. Moving to the original Gain Stage goes similar.
Of course a guide for this (including pictures) will be provided.

The sound ?

Obviously this is a re-attempt of descriptions which passed by already in this topic, but possibly today I am better at it because the other day I listened to the NOS1a without B'ASS amplification for two days.

There is no spur of leanness, might leannes have bugged you to some degree. Instead it is slam and punch, but mind you, without any sniff of disco sound (this combination has been quite hard to achieve).

There is body in everything, though with the notice that not each song/track utilizes it; this is because what's not there is not added either. But for example, might you have had problems with some (or more) Rock albums, then you can take it that they now almost all play because of the added fundament. Of course this is about the disappeared leanness again, but now more focused towards "and what can we now play suddenly ?".
In addition I can tell that only the last incarnation (which is #2) made it possible for myself to play Rock albums for 2 weeks in a row by now.
In general we could say that the G3/#2 configuration makes all "less difficult".

There's spades of new sounds and where they are exactly can not be described. It is nothing like new or more bells or more bass, but it is about more clear voices (and then because they are nore realistic), "scratching" sounds which seem to be about ultra high transient on/off sounds (think like squeezing paper into a ball in your hands) and all kinds of "side noises" you never heard before but which are really there (think percussion but - trying to avoid my Ambient - also think about all the rarities hip-hop or that kind of bands can make for sounds (Faithless, Massive Attack ?). Water drops is an example of something which far more nicely develops and is renedered as a hole. And with this latter in mind, try to envision how clear a piano can sound while this is caused by again adding fundament; Clarity is not necessarily created by high frequency when we think "purity". Purity is more of the round (I say).
All sings more - it is more musical.

I don't know exactly where it happened (but probably it is a combination with Windows 10 Build 14393.0) but albums which were lacking highs, now don't lack that any more. It was already growing towards that prior to 14393.0, but today this has been "finalized".

You will notice a special treatment of cymbals, with now additional/again better "size estimation". This too is emphasized by 14393.0 and/but it is the combination with the B'ASS (G3) which lets this work out (instead of occasional too lean nastyness).

There is way more differentiation in drums again;
If I myself try to envision what all happened since the not so long ago times that each tom in the drum kit sounded the same (and paper like) then it is hard to see what all happened. But a *lot*.

A bit depending on what you play, it can come to you as "dangerous". This is about the most typical attribute of the B'ASS - dangerous. This is about the sheer energy which is thrown at you and which really feels like electrical energy. It can give the feeling "is my system sure it can do this for real ?".

There's now something with instantanous hits which are not only very live like, but also don't make you startle. The best example could be Dean Peer and his crazy dynamic basses (like on the Airborne album) and morphed sounds from them, which are not only dynamical but also very powerful; the normal NOS1(a) would make you jump to the ceiling at the louder levels while with the B'ASS there's always that tad of body that starts to occur right before the real hit so you know the hit is coming, which hit also is now more rounded because of that body (fundament) again.

An example in the same direction is the "push" behind hits like from a drum (but bass guitar the same). So with drums, and when in order, you can see the drummer first jumping up in the air so he now has his full body weight behind the sticks to slam the drum (like floor tom). To get the idea, envision A View to a Kill (Duran Duran) which is all about those hits. Meanwhile recognize that previously (still your situation at this moment) this was not really a track to listen to, because to lean and hurting. Now this works to some extend. So it is also about the relative ease that all now expresses. Yet all the high twingles and bells and stuff remain to work.

An example which is almost the other way around and mentioned because that works beautifully too, is the conga's on Pusherman from Curtis Mayfield on People get ready (live at Ronnie Scott's). This is such super fast stuff and so fragile that it testifies the exact opposite of "push" and which is thus important to work out just the same.

The mid is one of the most crucial improvements and to understand that, start preparing with listening to I heard it through the Grapevine from Creedence (the long version).

If you, like me the other day, play your regular albums with the new G3 (#2 or #1) you won't even recognize the album as the same (mix etc.). So you really can enjoy all your albums all over. But merely (and it was implied in the above) you can also try the albums from your younger era, because they all play better now (I bet you).

Price

Every NOS1 or NOS1a owner can have his all new sounding DAC - including the same sound he was used to - for the price of 580 610 euros (excluding VAT for those who are VAT liable).

For people outside of the European Union I need to add 55 euros for the import duties we always need to pay. Or actually (I think) for everybody outside of the EU except Norway somehow (we are never charged import duties for goods from Norway, as far as I can recall).
So please, you never noticed and knew, but each time anyone sent in his NOS1 we always paid ~40 euros import duties plus 12,50 of whatever fee the shipper charges for arrangements and this happened 100s of times by now (just think yourself how many times you sent in your NOS1 for upgrades). And the stupid thing is : getting back the ~55 takes about 2 hours of filling out forms, arranging for stamps and more non-sense per sent in DAC, so it is not worth it to claim it back. Which does not mean that I like to pay it. :) So I hope you like to pay it yourself this time ?

---

I had a text here, referring to this post (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3592.msg38254#msg38254) in which text I justified the price and that actually nothing changed regarding that "original" post. I saved the text, so if someone likes to know ...

---

Peter

Hi Peter,
Very good news actually. Now it becomes (one of) the cheapest upgrades again.
Yes, put me on the list for this upgrade!

When can I bring in my NOS1a?
Regards, Arjan.

Hi Peter,

Put me on the list too.
 Thanx

Joachim

Peter, I haven't read your post properly, but please put me down on your list to have both my 'white sheep' upgraded to G3. I'll read your post now...

Mani.

Hey Arjan and all,

At this moment this is not easy to tell. As I said in my previous post, it will take approximately a month from now to get the PCB's here (I actually think a week less), but that does not mean that they all have been soldered (or say a first batch). My spreadsheet tells me that there will be 2.5 hours of soldering.

The work outside of that takes also 2.5 hours and includes one reserved hour of measuring. And then another hour for "unexpected" (hey, we measure for a reason :)). IOW, it is nothing to really wait for (I know, you did not ask that).

Thus say that in 4-5 weeks the party finally begins.

Regards,
Peter

Ciska will have a very well-deserved Christmas break!

Mani.

:NY02:

I had to add some text close to the bottom in the G3 post (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3592.msg39774#msg39774). Something about import duties I am fed up with. :)
Sorry !

Great Peter,

Really like the idear of putting al of it in the NOS1a. Was a bit affraid of what was coming on top the DAC. ;-) And the price is back to the price you once said!

If there is a special list for this upgrade i like to be on it aswell.

Gr G

Hi Peter,

This is an interesting development.
I'm surely interested!

Regards,
Stanley

Hi Stanley,

Yes, you figured that you would be the one most benefitting from the new G3 setup. Ha ! with double BNC per channel that really matters !

Nice ...
Peter

Count me in as well! Although I'll probably have to get Peter to check his shipping rate from the US, since mine are even more ridiculous.
Todd

 :yes:

Well, I did not think that my NOS1a would miss the Netherlands so early after my upgrade to the "a" version, but I will be faster this time!

Count me in please :)

Regards,

Alain

Peter,
  Please add me to the list as well ;)

Matt

Peter,

i want this upgrade too


Tore

Peter,

Add me to the list too please.

Ramesh

Hi Peter,
Please count me in for the upgrade too.
Nick.

And of course put me down as well  :)

Cheers

Paul

Peter,
  Does Phasure have BNC --> 1/4 TRS female cables available for those who might want to try headphones on their NOS1a 75B G3 DAC?

Matt

Count me in for an upgrade cheaper than a pair of cables LOL!

Esau

me too please!

Hi Matt,

Quick response : What I use myself for testing (not important what) is BNC to RCA female. So that exists. And from there you could go further. But this does not seem the best to me.
I can do some research for you though ...

Regards,
Peter

Thanks everybody !!
I am putting you all on this new list. I think I will merge priorities with the old list. Thus, those on that one too but higher up, will be higher up in this list as well. I think that is fair.

Best regards,
Peter

Please put me on the list as well.

Best regards,
Juan

Nice  :)

And please add my 2nd dac to the list.

Ha ha ;) Please don't schedule me to be in 3 years from now ;)

Hey Peter  -  I have just been reading in more detail your description of the BA'SS sound quality and noted this :


WOW I get that problem NOW -  does that mean I should not have the upgrade?

Cheers

Paul

Paul,

Of course it does not mean that.
It can be jawdropping. That's all. Ha ha.

Peter

I like "Jawdropping"

 :) :) :) :) :)

Hi Peter...

Very occasionally I offer a comment...a suggestion...a recommendation...
This one is...why you would not send the upgrade parts to those who reside in far flung places to have the work done locally...
EG...me & Anthony (acg)...
No freight costs for the DAC - both ways - no tax for the DAC's return to you...no risk of damage...no logical reason exists for every DAC to return to you for an upgrade...other than for "control reasons"...
The fact is it will cost me & Anthony more in freight/tax costs than it would for the upgrade...& that is just ridiculous...when a perfectly logical alternative exists...
Look forward to your response...

Thanks
Rob

Hi Rob,


My response ? ... that your post is a bit ehm ... ridiculous. :)


What do you mean by that ?

Anyway, you seem to sound angry. Not a good idea.
If I saw a means to doit without the fuss on our side, then I would have done it; I suppose you just jumped in the middle of the topic.
Don't forget to look at the first page as well and compare the prices.

Best regards,
Peter

C'mon Peter, the post is not ridiculous at all, and you know it.  Last time Rob sent his dac across for upgrade it returned with the power transformers banging around loose inside the dac case.  Not your fault for sure but instead of going through the insurance rubbish it was me that repaired it.  Those two transformers are still only attached to the frame where I used epoxy to repair the broken weld, so I can for sure understand why Rob is reluctant to send his dac back for more of the same postal treatment...that joint will most likely break again in transit and the transformers will go banging into the power supplies.



Peter, at the cost of freight for the NOS1a from here to there and back again, those prices on the front page are closer to what we will be paying.  My NOS1 is coming to you regardless, but the "I can't be bothered claiming back EU55 so you'll have to pay it" attitude is a bit rich on top of EU400-500 freight for an EU580 upgrade.  Plus you have not responded to my email as to whether we can claim the tax back from our end.

Anyway, as I have just reminded you Rob is reluctant to send back his DAC.  Even small overseas audio companies make arrangements for local techs in Australia to perform the upgrades/repairs on their behalf.  That is what Rob is hoping for. 

Written in the best spirit as the sandwich between the rock and the hard place.

Regards,

Anthony

It is.
Remember that I referred to the first post with the prices for NOT needing to send in your DAC's. So what is it more ? a 1000 euros ? 1500 ?

You followed this topic for sure (each post) and you know how I did my stinking best to avoid upgrades this time. So your (now both) posts are clearly in that context and therefore I call them ridiculous. Btw, who started out with that word ? not me.
But I have the solution : no upgrades will be done to DACs from Australia. It is too far away and things always break over there by UPS outlaws toshing yout DACs over the road. It is too dangerous.

That it is Rob's NOS1 which undergone this treatment is indeed what I recalled only after my last post with an :oops:.
You know too that I know this, as I mentioned it to you only last week (or it maybe was to someone else ?) and it is the single example of something which ever broke (but don't count the very first batch with improper packing for some Norwegian roads).


Well, obviously I never knew (or forgot) about the fix applied and that it could be not all that decent for another shipment. And otherwise, at that moment nobody thinks of such future (did you ?). Anyway, if you put something on top of it (which is not 100% firm but sufficiently dense) and close that in by means of the cover which goes on top, it will be fine. And after it's here again we will repair it decently (and for free).


Don't be ridiculous;
I'll add that 1000 again and the problem is over. OK ?
Meanwhile read back in this topic how people managed to complain that all wasn't to be in a separate box and now also required additional cabling (Interlinks) and such. Possibly you were among those.
If you come here to only complain I quit the business. Easy enough.
Maybe you start to grasp how I can perceive things ridiculous.
I know all is in good spirit. But maybe less thoughtful.


See ? there we have it again. So instead of being thankful that I paid possibly 150 x that ~50 for all the non-EU upgrades (which comes to ~7500 euros), I get this from you.
The fucking funny thing is that you seem to notice (again) that this is 55 on 580 because 580 is 580 only and not 1580.
The solution is clear again : I make it 1580 for you and Rob and next can dig the 55 I will be charged for.
All in good spirit.


Oh is that so. You mean me spending a day with emails on such a bloke who - out of all and IIRC - tried to work out something for the very same Rob and which never happened. That guy ?
Don't make yourself ridiculous.


Yes, I only now see that I never responded to that email. It got lost in all the emails I had to organise the day after being back from vacation. From your email :


No, you can not claim that back. It's just how things go regarding import duties. As I told, I can get it back by means of a 8 (or was it 12 ?) page form which may take 1-2 hours. Regarding what I charge for time, that would be 60-120 euros. Regarding what I lose on ridiculous time I need for my normal job where I charge 150 the hour ... no, unless of course I can charge that to you.

My advise is to stop nagging with things you think you can organise better than me and instead just decide that this upgrade is too expensive for you. Meanwhile think carefully what you're actually saying to me when you seem to complain about a 55 I am charged for with the implication that I better pay that myself instead of you, the beneficiary. The other solution could have been that I made that 580 just 635 without notice, so half of your colleguages in here woul pay too much. That's a better attitude than me paying for all, right ?

I guess this was not in good spirit and I am pissed.

Peter

Nice customer service right there Peter.  I wonder if you really tried you could be more patronising, rude and over-sensitive.

I'll only respond to one thing in particular...


No, not that guy, assuming I am thinking about the same guy as you.  As far as I am aware you never had contact with him, and he would be about the last guy I would recommend for this task.  There are good techs about, but obviously this option is off the table.


Looks like I am stuck with the NOS1.

I've got nothing to say really... but felt I wanted to say something... anything...

I think it's so easy for each of us to forget that our relationship with Phasure is probably very different to that with any other manufacturer. I've never really felt a 'customer' of Phasure. More a 'collaborator'. My feeling is that if Peter wasn't offering us all the Phasure products, he'd still be developing them for himself. That fact that he offers them to us for, let's face it, ridiculously good value for money, is really great. How many of us would have the quality of sound we do without Phasure gear? Not me for sure... and not for pretty much any amount of money I could have spent elsewhere.

Ah but that doesn't mean we shouldn't give Peter a hard time from time to time. But stick to criticizing his hearing ability (or lack of) rather than anything else ;)

Mani.

Hi Peter,

I read the post about the G3 option right now and it's a very interesting option for me, as it looks like that SQ is better again that way and there are no extra interlinks needed.
A few month ago I had an remarkable experience concernring different RCA interlinks I am using:
One more time I was compairing SQ of the NOS1a with my Linn Klimax 20k€ network player, what I had done before a couple of times. The NOS1a always had been far better than the Linn Klimax, although my NOS1a and XXHE configuration has not been really good thst time, as I was pretty new in the business.
But this time SQ of both was in about the same level. What was going on? I easily found out that it was just the interlinks. The NOS1a was connected with "normal" RCA interlinks (price 150€ a pair) and the Linn had the advantage of beeing connected with my 1000€ siver ones. I new that this would make a diffenrence in SQ but I did not expect such a big one.
I am on the list for B'ASS since April and I already was planning to invest another 1000€ in good RCA interlinks to connect it. So the 3G option will be a perfect solution, because I sure that the best interlinks are NO interlinks.
Peter, would it be possible that I send you my NOS1a in the beginning of January for that upgrade? I will be in Panama for vacation that month and so I could have it back upgraded right after my vacation.

One question about B'ASS in an extra casing: Will this product be still available? I am asking this, because this way there would be other options for using it like connecting it in between other device, to test if it would have a big influence of SQ there too.

Anyway... I will go for the upgrade of my NOS1a. Your price for that is a very good one and will save me the 1000€ for good interlinks.

Kind regards
Richard

Hi there Richard,

What you really should do is get yourself a pair of Blaxius Interlinks for 250. These are used by everybody, regardless what they owned ($$$$) previously. But mind the possible downside (depending on your situation) : this is Single Ended and not Balanced. It can be made balanced, but then your amplifier(s) must take double 75 Ohm BNC (and you'd have 4 Interlinks for Stereo). And hardly any amp exists with such input (which is allowed to be double RCA !).
It also requires (sort of) not to use a preamp and at this time I don't know whether you use one or not.
The ultimate situation is that you change the (RCA) inputs of your power amp(s) to BNC - the material for that is all provided in the 250 package and it usually is easy to do it yourself (assumed one can hold a soldering iron).
Anyway, the Blaxius is a 75 Ohm interlink with BNC connectors and it can also be used with RCA-BNC adapters.
This is the topic about the (development of the) Blaxius : Cables with BNC Connectors/Adapters Are Generating A Superoir SQ (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=3026.0) and questions about it better be put in there so in here it's not getting too much off topic (wich at this moment is my fault of course).


Sure, but at this moment is is a but tough with a real planning, because the final PCBs are produced (China) at this moment and I can't know when we can begin really.


My answer to that should be No, although you have seen that all has been done to design a case for it, which also has really been produced one time (prototype). Main point is : by now I have been doing the SQ testing with the in-built (in-NOS1a) amplifiers and so that will be the final situation with guarantee of the best SQ  (guarantee is tough, but you'll get what I mean).

Best regards,
Peter

Peter...

Please do not exclude Anthony from any future upgrades...he has been a long time supporter of yours & just because he understood the point I was trying to make should not eliminate him from pursuing upgrades to his NOS 1.

There was no anger or angst in my comments whatsoever...there was certainly frustration with having to send a DAC back for an upgrade that will cost LESS than the combined freight cost of the DAC when (in my opinion...there should be no need to do so)...

Please explain to me why you would not sell the parts for the upgrade PLUS a written installation procedure for the same cost...you make more money (no labor costs for the work on my DAC)...I save money but not having to incur the freight cost both ways plus pay a stupid tax (because you are too lazy to claim it back)...everybody is happy...

Another benefit is no further damage to my DAC by freight companies...if you complete a SWAT or cost/benefit analysis on my suggestion/s...it is by far the best option.

If its good enough for PS Audio & a host of other companies that do offer upgrades &/or repairs by sending parts for local repairs/upgrades I fail to understand what makes your company so different...

Thanks

Rob

Hi there Rob,

Of course I am not excluding anyone from upgrades. If the fun about that came across as serious then I apologise for that.

And of course I also understand your worries like with the transformers, but that was not on my mind when I replied to your post. But as I explained, it can easily be sent in a safe fashion (and after that it will be repaired by us).


Easy enough : because it requires measuering with equipment I bet you nobody in the field you're addressing, has. Next to that, nobody will know what to measure and how to interpret. Lastly, if something is wrong nobody will know what to do.
I hope this is clear.


Show me the measurements of those. All is good enough when it measures 20dB more noise to begin with and besides it does not require measurement for the same reason.
I am not claiming "they" will also sound worse, but I have my ideas ...
Btw, what a silly discussion (again). Here' some more :


Why not answer that yourself. :)


Ah, so you too eh ?
Right.
I am not going to explain it again. Did you ever read my explanation ? is my math wrong ? am I stupid ?


I organised a special price for you guys. 1580 euros.
Problem out of the way.

Peter

I thought to be the adult and stroke all through which is silly.

Hi Peter,

concerning the Blaxius interlinks: very interesting to read about that.
All my devices I use unbalanced. So that would be fine.
But you wrote that changing to BNC only would make sence without a preamplifier.
So, I am using one, actually a good one (Ayon Polaris) for several reasons:

With my pretty new SE tube monoblocks I would have to put XXHE to almost full volume to get enough out of the speakers. I wrote you about it in an email a few month ago.

I also have got a nice turntable for my vinyl disks. Some of them sound very nice and it's interesting to compare it with digital sources played with NOS1a.
Then I also own a Lamizator DSD DAC, it's DSD only, what it does very well.
These devices are also connected to the preamp.

With my former amplifier, also a single ended tube one, but with double input impedance, I had the NOS1a connected directly to it, what gave very good results. But as new Ayon Crossfire Evo monoblock amplifiers are much better than the previous one, it was quite a big step up in SQ, even when the NOS1a is connected to the preamp most of the time.
But I will try again to connect it directly to the amp to compare SQ.

So I probably should try the Blaxius BNC interlinks, but I don't know if it would make sense in my setup.

Best regards
Richard

Oh boy ...

2 months or so back, I blew something in my own NOS1a and I replaced it for two days with another NOS1a I had laying around and which was waiting for the B'ASS upgrade already;
What I noticed was that this NOS1a, being cold as stone, sounded quite nice right form its box. At that moment I had the idea that it was sounding possibly better than my own NOS1a, just because it sounded so good right from the start, thus cold from the box.

Two weeks ago we came back from a small vacation, and all the audio gear had been off for a week;
I noticed that nothing told me that all had been off for a week indeed. Maybe I got used to the car radio and found my home system infinitely better ?
It creaped on to me that the B'ASS possibly was related to this all. I mean, it could be that this device "made" all what requires warm up, did not really need that any more.


Yesterday something of the other way around happened;
Once again I blew something (I get better and better at that) and again I grabbed the same NOS1a still waiting for its B'ASS upgrade, instead.

Can anyone guess what I did "wrong" here ?
:ok:

I couldn't at first either.
But after 15 minutes or so I started to think seriously whether I really had taken the same NOS1a as 2 months ago. Hmm ... I sure did. But why was it so super UNinterestingly sounding, flat-ish, no sparkle, no dimensions anywhere. Something must be wrong with it suddenly.
And then it came to me ...

Even two months ago I never thought of the fact that I had been replacing my own NOS1a with another one without removing the B'ASS from the chain. I just replaced out-going Interlinks (which I reach from the front side), never seeing what's at the end of them. Well, yesterday I did the very same. One difference : no B'ASS at the other end, because that now sits in my own NOS1a. So I removed the B'ASS together with my NOS1a, without really knowing / thinking about it.
OMG, what a difference !


This must have been the most objective "blindfolded" test ever.
Now, I don't want to debunk our own products which even are regarded the best in the world, but ... it still will be so that you are all listening to what I regard "bad sounding" these days.
You should start looking forward seriously !!
:biglol:
Peter

One small issue at this moment : I don't know what is happening in China, but the final PCBs required for the B'ASS/G3 are more than a week over due and the guys don't respond to my emails either.

Now let's pray a bit that it works. :scare:

Dear All,

It has been a hard week in trying to get the B'ASS right in its latest version as "G3" Gain Stage. But 5 days in a row is really sufficient to know that something must be wrong in the PCB.
It runs all right, but noise is not on par and for one of the channels even less than not so good. Chips on that channel reach 55C where the better channel remains at 35C, which probably is an indication that oscillation is going on because of that noise. Hard to tell what's first though.

FYI : It thus takes a full week to break down all the possibilities of error sources, thinking about building up a board bit by bit until errors occur. From then on you will know what step causes it to be wrong which does not mean you will know the cause. In this situation it is almost worse that I know that the concept works because the previous two boards worked fine, so you keep on trying. And so I think that something is wrong in the boards which starts with me myself possibly making a mistake in the layout of them, which would be a tough call (haha) but it has to be something. If we can find the error regarding this then nothing is lost (I now assume it can be fixed somehow) and when we can not find the error then it's possibly best to revert to the previous version (2.0). Anyway that will be three weeks of waiting again, because that version I had made in the amount of 10 only, while each channel requires 1, thus I'd have for five DACs which in the end is four because I use 2 boards myself.

:sorry:
Peter

Peter,

Please don't be so heavy on yourself. You said in another topic that you are obsessed with the best SQ possible and we know that you have achieved it in so many ways. I certainly consider myself very lucky to have all I already have because of your sense of perfection. Like we use to say here, "I won't complain with my mouth full already".

Take it easy on yourself (if you can) :)

Alain

Peter,

I want to second Alain's sentiments.  It has really been a most amazing experience to participate in your obsession with perfect sound, and this community which goes so much beyond customers and vendors.

I had some "audiophile" visitors over a couple of weeks ago, and they were literally shocked at what they heard; and this is with the LX521 speakers.

Ramesh

Hi Peter,

Please take your time to make it right.  For me there is no real difference between waiting 3 more weeks or 3 more months.

Cheers,

Anthony

Hi Peter, no problem on my part either, take the time you need until you are satisfied with the SQ. That's the best guarantee for everyone.

Cheers,
Juan

Thank you so much for your warming words !

Again 11 days further I can now say that this little project (ahum) succeeded after all. And how !

After countable failures and things changed and what not, yesterday morning I thought of something that I wanted to have in this design and what slipped out of it because of space constraints : an isolated part (two actually) on the board for the ultra low voltage regulation. Why ? well, because none of the boards with the similar design (including those for the power amps which functioned as the base for the B'ASS/G3) wanted to work well with the regulation on-board. The kind of stupid thing is that v2 of the B'ASS (which I am using for 2 months or so by now) *does* work regarding this, although I can see habits of "instability". Anyway, this put my attention away from the culprit, which ended up to be quite similar to the power amp situations as well as v1 of the B'ASS. So ... that v1 version I used for about a year in a row, but with the regulation off-board. And nothing wrong with that.
And so a new v3 board was starting to develop yesterday and bit by bit it was tested, and made larger (for necessary components).

30 minutes ago it was full-fletched and the most extended usage (which is also going through the largest chain of components) now looks like this :

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/G3-THD-03d.png)
It may not tell you much, but to me this looks superb (this is 16/44.1 and balanced output) and the THD+N is not only 0.0002% better (mind you, this is still a few dB at that level) but it is foremost most stable. So let's say that with all this work to find out the source of the (about 10dB of) too much noise and with all the component testing and trialling, it is now more robust than the gain stage of the NOS1(a) ever was. You can just see it by the THD+N being rock steady in itself (it is not the one second 0.0001% higher as the next second).

Funny thing is also, that while what you see above thus is balanced (XLR) output, SE (RCA) output is hardly worse, if only not this longest chain is used. This is because this longest chain implies a higher 2nd harmonic (I see I never made a screenshot of that) meaning that it is higher than the others which are about all equal (see first picture above). But when *not* this longest chain is used, and actually the one proposed by me, all is equal to what Balanced output shows, and then to know that the signal output of SE is 6dB less. Again it may tell you nothing, but when new NOS1a's go out they need to comply to THD+N figures, and coincidentally that number for Balanced output (which is the measure) is now the same number but for the RCA output. So this is seriously better.

This I want to show you too :

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/G03-THD-03ca.png)
as it meant a record for me on low THD+N (this is a 24 bit signal).

And how does it sound ? ... I don't know yet because we now need some other definite "fixtures" first plus this is a test board not containing my own SQ related chips (remember, yours too are pulled over from your momentary gain stage).
The fixtures are about the two now outboard ultra low noise regulators which a. must fit somewhere, b. must be fixated in a sturdy fashion not looking too much like a hobby-job (nothing is made for it in the case, obviousy) and which also involves some additional work. Apart from two additional PCB's, 4 more expensive capacitors are extra and I assume it is fine when the B'ASS costs 30 euros more because of it, including that extra labor.

Regards,
Peter

Specs look very nice Peter!!

Hi Peter,
Very promising :)
Happy you are spending all the needed, being a Phasure customer er is a privilege  :) :)
And the added 30€ is not worth mentioning, high expectations on the B'ASS and now even higher 

:) :)
But ... I have another upgrade for 80 euros. I don't know whether you guys are up to that or whether it maybe becomes too much of it all ?

For me that's perfectly OK  ;)
now, what is that all about?

Nah, never... just keep 'em coming ;)

Mani.

80€?, mmmmm... I don't know, I don't know...
 
No Peter, it does not seem like much for the improvements we have been accustomed to. Let us know what it is!

Regards,
Juan

Peter,

I still am in the pack :)

Alain

No problems here too.

regards, Arjan

Of course you all are ! So no need to mention ... :)

I am definitely in for that upgrade, I wonder what it is ha ha!!!

Cheers

Paul

Ok I am of course in for both.

Hi Peter,

when we met in Holland about 2 weeks ago, I told you that I planned to send you my NOS1-a for the B'ASS and additional upgrades in the beginnig in January, as I will be in Panama in January.
I decided now to do this upgrade later, as read here that there more great inventions to come...

Instead of that I want to order a new audio PC "Mach II..." now. But I am not sure which type to choose. Let's decide this during the next days.

All the best for 2017!
Richard

Hey, by now I can tell that the B'ASS needs about a week of breaking in. I suppose this is about the amplifier chips because I recall similar from adding one chip (as the 1.0 version implied (more of 'm)). So say that in a week's time the real uncanny stuff starts to happen. Before that it's only a "ooo, nice !". But ooo nice is different from :wtf: ??? :ninja:

By now I must be an experienced in-burner because I forgot how many times that happend, so many. But example : not necessarily in the right sequence :

Think does not work. Odd, because I can't recall that we changed something significant, and yesterday all was fine. OK, let's add some smaller capacitor value at position X and Y.

Ah, helps. Good.
Next step : let's put some load to it. Bweh, does not work. But why then ? because the situation now is the same as one week ago ? Let's put back those original capacitor values.

Does not help. Hmm ... back to the situation without load. What ? still does not work, but now all really is the same as early this morning ? :wtf: ?

And so one day has passed with a result of zero.

Hey, the left channel now works all fine. Let's do the right.
Nah, right is misery. And oh, because that is misery, left is influenced too and now also does not work. Hmm ... Let again to the right channel, step by step. Remove all, re-test  and ...
Left channel does not work. :wtf: ? this morning is still did.

And another day had passed.

Nothing works. It must be something with the PCB. Grrr. Let's try a new one.
Does not work. But wait, this is the situation with the larger capacitors. Didn't we had one working with smaller ? let's try.

Hooray, works ! now carefully add the 2nd channel.
Hmm, seems to work, but does not look stable. Is the power supply OK ? Almost. OK, let's change that a bit (buy a few parts).

Next day, work all day on PSU. Yes, all good and as desired. But over-speced only a little.
B'ASS now works ? what ? B'ASS does not work at all. Nothing nowhere. :wtf: ?
Hey if we move this wire a little, things move. Hmm ... bad solder. Re-do that.
Yeah, but now all looks odd all over. :wtf: ?

Another day (possibly there's a weekend break in between) again carefully start a new board. Just finish it in one go, because this must be something in the board. Don't move it ! don't touch wires !
It works !

That consumed a day.
Now let's test balanced.
:wtf:, really nothing works any more. F8ck, it must be the output wires. Something must be breaking inside of the board all the time. Let's bridge to another point.
Works.
See ?
Now balanced can be tested. Looking good ! Ha, now can listen. Let's do that tomorrow, because my crucial chips must be put over, and it is too late to experience failure and build back.

Nah, doesn't work. :wtf: ? :ninja::ninja:
Why ?? what ? no supply on that chip ? what ? :wtf: ?
Let's bridge that too then.
Ah, works again. But not really good. Must build back my chips or otherwise no music tonight.

I didn't count, but say this were 7 days, while 7 weeks have been spent on this total nonsense. Mentioned 10 days ago I finally got one working so I could listen to it and I suppose if I don't breath on it that it will keep on working (it still does today). But at the same moment it finally worked I also decided that this seriously can't be the way to proceed. So at that same day I started to work on again a new version. I thought to change the internal topology so things were not so tight, thinking that all was too squeezed to meet (Chinese drilling etc.) machine's specifications. I also dicovered a fault in my own design or (too quick) thinking and this was about making traces thicker (2oz instead of 1oz) instead of re-designing the board with wider traces (mind you, this was 3 months or so ago, say the day before I put out the order for 3.0 to China). But I discovered that by kind of accidence.

The processing of my regular China PCB producer took longer and longer (think a month of throughput time by now). So the thing is/was : I discover something wrong and while I could adjust that in 5 minutes, it is waiting for 4 weeks again (this happened the other day to the Stealth PSU board). This is intolerable. So I thought to hand B'ASS 4.0 to a for us new manufacturer. German maybe. Belgian ? At first glance this looked fine at only ~150 euros more expensive, but I soon saw that adding other parameters also added another 300 and by then it was 3 times more expensive and not even fast as well to cut on the costs. So :bye:
Anyway ... because of ending up at the say more decent or less careless manufacturers, I learnt that I had been able to squeeze things out to China in a way which can't be. I saw that when a German manufacturer started to throw error messages at some combination I made. Like "hey boy, if you want more copper, then you must add trace witdh at the same time because else you run into machine tolerances and we can not guarantee that all works.". And I just could not get in that order. So ... :wtf:
Yeah. I did exactly that with the Chines manufacturer and while nothing complained, they still could not do the thang I wanted (this is all very manufacturer/ring specific and while the one can drill up to 0.3mm the other can do 0.050mm and if I, say, for the one which can do 0.3 into 0.1, two holes may shortcut or ... and this is worse : won't because this is tested for, but don't sneeze at it !
And that is what we were doing of course with all of our changes.

In the end it is all my own fault, starting with a too small board for the lot I wanted to have on it. Now the board for 4.1 is larger (and larger again than a 4.0 which also was larger already but never went out) plus I carefully selected the factory and its capabilities, which btw are now not extraordinary again (because of the board size).

For fun I will add this :
One of the manufacturers I tested, offered a kind of 50% off per board if I in advance told that I'd take the over production. Ehh, what ? Yes, that is how it works. They produce say 100 on your desired 75 and they do this because many fail (like in my case maybe 50% failed because of too tight tolerances which they did not check in advance). So they use a kind of "lousy" machinery and just overproduce and next try to sell you all they could produce more. Not really a bad thing in itself (can work out cheaper for you) but from this you learn how these things go.

I must learn a lot, but I for sure learnt a lot these past weeks !

Meanwhile my poor man's B'ASS 3.0 measures better as anything I've seen here and it also listens the best and most normal at the same time.
Now I must try to avoid a cold.

Peter

PS: B'ASS 4.1 was put out for production (China somewhere again) first thing last Monday. Should arrive somewhere next week. And then the party starts all over ...

Oh, what I now added to it is not only separate ultra low noise regulation per channel but also a virtual separation between the power supplies and the consumer (which is the B'ASS itself). Well, sort of because this can't be separated, but all have separate ground planes. So the board is divided into 4 different ground planes (two per channel). I think this will make it measure and sound better again.

Peter

Hey Peter, I'm sure (along with everyone else here, I suspect) that what you're reporting about the improvement in SQ with the B'ASS is absolutely true. But I have to say that with 2.07, the sound is so good that I'm quite content without the B'ASS upgrade... for now. (Of course, I've never heard it, so can't miss it.) So please take as long as you need.

Mani.

LOL
But please not.

I just noticed today that
a. since yesterday finally we're really producing something (the Phisolator);
b. I at last have some peace, waiting for the 4.1. PCB production.

I could also say : it may be hard to imagine how restless one can get, knowing how "worthless" fairly large investments may turn out to be when nothing of it can be applied. So this is about 50x 80 euro chips here, 100x 12 euro chips there, 150x 8 euro chips such and all together ~50 x 60 = 3000 or so smaller compenents which also cost money and everything else which long gone assumed that all would come together. So the sooner all really works, the better it is.
And then there's also the pressure of new DACs not being able to go out now - and I better thank those people for their great patience !

But to be honest ... what I hate the most is that I can't keep on talking forever with teasing you all with my super sound this and that. So I did not really tell about this now (last post) while actually I should have. But it becomes impossible because you guys don't have any reference while I can't refer to more than a year ago because I don't know myself any more.

Peter

Peter you deserve a medal for staying with this one  ;)

Peter,

Re the G3, I am currently outputting my NOS1a via XLR to an electrostatic headphone amp and Stax SR009 headphones. If I have the G3 upgrade, will this still be safe to do? (I understood this was not possible with the external B'ASS box). I'm hoping so, but await your opinion before ordering.

Paul

Hi there Paul,

Possibly you misread something, because when the B'ASS was due with external box, this was possible just the same. But I recall now ... you (or someone else ?) put the question differently ... :

The question back at the time was whether the Stax could be connected directly to the dedicated headphone output(s) and thus eliminate the external headphone amp from the chain. The answer to that was : no, not possible (because of the high voltage requirement).
So what will happen with your Stax now is that you use it as you use it today; no difference anywhere (but the internals of your NOS1a will change all over :)).

NOS1a -> Headphone amp -> Electrostatic Stax.

If not clear, just shoot again.
Regards,
Peter

Great news Peter! Please put me on the list for the G3.

OK Paul !

So ... Being on the verse of diving deep into MQA, today just in time we achieved something based upon this :

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/B'ASS 41-00.jpg)
:heat:

But also this, which now was a matter of one attempt only, which is a bit different from the 6-7 weeks of the 3.0 version :

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/B'ASS 41-02a.JPG)
8) Ha !

Oh, if you see some "square" bends ... this is just the board separations you see. So, as told earlier (IIRC), this is actually 4 separate boards in one, with the power regulation separated from the consumers of it and left and right channel fully separated as well.

With an other tweak in mind as well now, I am going to listen to this version from now on.
Anyway, this time all worked in one go and it just felt decent right from the start.
What's also good is that all three ("G3") configurations measure exactly the same and as good.

I promised myself to give PCBWay (http://www.PCBWAY.com) a heads up because of the good price, and at the same time solving my most crucial problem after making a mistake myself : this arrives within a week from China ! If PCBWay read this themselves : keep up this quality and speed please !

Below a few more higher resolution pictures just because I like very much how all looks like and that it is clear that their machines can cope with much more (for precision) than I here utilized.

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/B'ASS 41-03.jpg)

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/B'ASS 41-04.jpg)

(http://www.stordiau.nl/Phasure NOS1/B'ASS 41-05a.jpg)

Peter

Looks great Peter,

Unfortunately no sexy white ones so we will have to keep the lid on the NOS ;)!

Let's put PCBWay first!

regards, Coen

Thank you Coen.

I stepped away from the white (and other colours) because I (finally) found that generally a PCB manufacturer has difficulties with colours different from the standard (green). Well, I'd have to put it like this : envision your best machines and everyting and what would you produce on those ? ... what's most asked for. You also have other machines but they are less used, and therefore also less expensive (with less capabilities).

Funny (or stupid actually) thing is that you learn such a thing from (in our case) European manufacturers of which by now a few exist as well with web ordering, which are more clear with their specs or maybe better put : more cautious. Once you know this and dig deeper in the far east producers, they too have their specs but are in the open with them or not. Fact is also that you only learn about it implicitly (end thus in the end your own fault) when you exceed the capabilities. But of course it is obvious that when you imply e.g. track spacing of 0.15mm while machines allow for 0.3mm only because of their tolerances, you are asking for trouble. So ...
From one of the European sites I learned that colours other than green are not only more expensive (this is almost always the case - btw not so with PCBWay), but have way lesser specs. And I just never knew that.:fool: But to be honest, I see no manufacturer but one write about such thing and it is only the (my own) logic which makes me think that this will be normal; I am not going to buy another 100K machine for those few who like the white better and make that a 20K machine with lesser specs (higher tolerances, thicker drilling bits, etc.).
Now I know this, it is easy to see everywhere (with automated web ordering), without reading into specs.

In the end it is even more complicated because I think that at the higher level it is about "companies" doing white or not. You might investigate "pooling". OK, I just Googled, and you might like to read this : http://www.eurocircuits.com/blog/173-The-history-of-order-pooling
Now my message : what happens behind the scenes of especially your web order, can not be seen. But for example, order something in the UK and 9 out of 10 times the order goes to China without you knowing (without deeper investigation). Anyway it comes down to the same story : the big pile of orders (now from different customers) can go to the fastest and highest capability machines. Again the (my) logic : of course this is so or otherwise the company can not receive the large "pools" because of 10% of the orders having too high specs otherwise.

As we tend to say in Dutch "hierop kan je afstuderen" (which reads something like : you can get a scholarship degree over finding this all out).

So we faught for 7 weeks with the 3.0 version, but I learned more than ever in that "short" period of time.

Regards,
Peter

There is a saying in English that most older mothers would know when choosing colour schemes in fashion or in the home and that is "Blue and Green Should Never be Seen".  MMmm ah well Coen has the answer that we will have to keep the lid on. Or maybe it is time to paint the NOS1!!

Maybe

Paul

Peter,

I must admit, I'm confused! Is the B'ASS 4.1 an ongoing upgrade to the G3, or are they two different options? Also when is the ETA for the first batches of G3/4.1?

Thanks,
Paul

Paul,

The 4.1 is only the 4th (+1) attempt to get the PCB right (and B'ASS is the same as G3). And now it is working ...

Upcoming week we start production (soldering) of the PCB's and together with the other upgrades there's a LOT of work ahead for us.
ETA I did not really calculate yet, which is also related to a small pile of new DAC's which have priority over the upgrades (I hope this is logic). They are prepared as much as possible all right, but still they need their last treatment with the upgrades and testing and such.

Luckily it is really something to look forward to !
:)
Regards,
Peter

I'm sure it is something to look forward to, as I am doing now! Thanks for the update Peter.

Paul

Hi Peter,

Even in 2017 you cannot treat production has an afterthought. That second industrial revolution still needs a lots of kicking in.

If green is better so be it. Looking forward to the upgrade!

regards, Coen

Hi Peter,

Waiting is difficult. Can we get an update?

Best regards Johan

Hi there Johan,

With now the backlog (of new stuff) behind us and with one more week to produce some more PCB's so we have a bit of stock off half products, coincidentally right at this moment I am arranging for the very first couple of NOS1's to upgrade which is going to happen in the course of end of next week and the week after.

And Johan, I notice that you are not on the list yet. I suppose I better do that now, right ?

Kind regards,

No, that obviously is not right, because I did not trust it and searched my emails. You ordered for an upgrade all right ... :)

Peter

Something else for people to remember during the waiting :

By a bit of accident, I set the SFS to 4.00 and kept the Q1=14 and xQ1 at 10. Q1 is not related much I think, but to me it is evident that this lower SFS bring "infinitely" more bass power.

Let's say that I got used to the (Q1=14 and xQ1=10 and) SFS=120 as Coen and I determined it, and it is not super obvious that you'll lose the bass to some degree. This probably is because something which doesn't jump out, also doesn't come to you as being a most clear change. The other way around does though.
Funny thing is that this change-back was incurred for by us here finding a voice not being so clear (or more strange) while the SFS=120 was applied just for that same reason (better understandable lyrics). However, today's more strange voices was in W10/10074 so we tried to get that right. Also I thought it would not matter much because it was 10074 anyway and I tested something else. Next I thought that 10074 surely must carry much more bass ... and when back in 14393.0 I started to miss that bass and thought of the SFS being set to 4.00 in 10074. So did that now in 14393.0 as well.

I can't be sure whether this makes as much difference without the B'ASS setup as well, or whether it is even more crucial - so you could try it. Thus :

Q1=14
xQ1 = 10
SFS = 4.00
ClockRes = 1
Core Assignment 3-5 (this will depend on the processor used)

Peter

I certainly did!

Best Regards Johan

No one seems to have noticed this reply, but I have tried it and it does lift the bass as you describe. Certainly changes things tonally but dulls the sound slightly. Takes some life out of cymbals and even bass. I think its a backward step worth trying. I need to try different settings myself with SFS.


Robert

Peter, I've just bought a new pair of tube amps which I'm quite prepared to say are the best sounding amps I've ever owned. However, they have very low gain. With my B75 connected directly to them, I'm playing music anywhere between -6dB and -1.5dB, and that's with my 109dB/W horns. I have a few tracks that I'm currently not getting as loud as I'd like.

The extra 1dB you mentioned will be very welcome, but an extra 6dB would be ideal in my case. Is there any chance this might at all be possible (obviously without a total redesign of any boards or anything like that)?

Mani.

Hi Mani,

I'd have to sort ou how much more is possible, but in theory the 6dB is achievable.

Best regards,
Peter

Hi Mani,

Just to be sure: are you able to use the right transformer secondaries for the loudspeaker impedance? Between a 4 and a 16 ohms tap is a 6dB difference in output voltage level (3dB between 4-8 or 8-16).

Regards, Coen

Hi Coen, I sent Reinhard Thöress (designer/manufacturer of my amps) the specs of my horns, and he recommended going for the 4 Ohm taps. I think he felt 109dB/W was plenty to be playing with, but perhaps I should have made it clear that the NOS1 output is slightly less than most other DACs. The taps are hard-wired inside the amps, though can be changed. So it's good to know that if I really need more gain, I could change to the 8 or 16 Ohm taps.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Mani.

Hi Peter,

I'm hoping to be in line for your upgrade in the near future.

And I too would like to get the extra 6db:)

Thanks,

Henk

Hi Henk,

Yes, you are. :)

Notice that I can not guarantee it yet, apart from "a little more" as talked through earlier. It must be tested.

Best regards,
Peter

Hi Mani,

You should definitely go for better matching of transformer and speaker. I had to insert Pault Spelz "Zeroformers" to get sufficient power for my 100dB+ 16 ohm baffles. These are quite versatile so I experimented a bit and learned that 6dB is a LOT of extra output especially since my "power" amp is so feeble in the first place (5ohm output tap). I was able to optimize the sound quality  by finding the best coupling.

These "Thöress" amps are very nice looking retro styled amps. I am pleased to hear they sound good too. Wich one do you have the 300B or 845? Their low sensitivity is part of the design philosophy so a preamp (that actually amplifies) is actually expected.

regards, Coen

Hi Peter,

Just recently joined the Phasure community (i sent you an introduction email on the weekend :smile:) , can you please add me to the list for the upgrade trifecta: B'ASS, Phisator and the 'Secret Upgrade'.

Cheers,

Jayce

Hey Jayce, welcome here !

I hope you don't mind I already put you on the list (instead of -). But I had a question mark in there which I will scratch now.

Kind regards and have fun !
Peter

OK, that was too much of theory. Sadly, it is 1dB only and I wouldn't even do that;
A tiny bit more and it goes wrong. No not even headroom above that 1dB - the 1dB *is* the headroom. Not advised now I know it anyway ...

:sorry:
Peter

OK.

With only 1dB of headroom, would you recommend not playing back at 0dB attenuation in XX?

From the top of my head, I can think of only a handful of 24 bit (mostly classical) albums that I have that I'd ideally like to play back with more volume than 0dB currently gives me. So this really isn't much of an issue at all... but would have been nice.

Thanks for looking into it anyway.

Mani.

Mani, what slipped through my mind after seeing the results yesterday, is dat you had a remark which was related IIRC, about your two NOS1a's both behaving drifferently regarding 0dBFS. Am I right ? now, it can be just this ...

I wanted to ask you anyway what this was about, because we now have yours both here ...

Regards,
Peter

I was going to mention this, but thought it might just complicate things.

Yes, it seemed to me that the sound changed between XX set to 0dB and any other volume setting. 0dB sounded 'thicker', with a loss of sparkle in the sound. And my feeling was that this had nothing to do with clipping or headroom, because the material I was using had an RMS level of -20dB or so. I also felt that it was an 'issue' with XX and not the NOS1 (either of them).

In any event, this is no longer relevant in my office system because I have removed the preamp and tend to playback on XX/HQP at around -30dB. But in my main system, I'm tending to playback on XX at between -6dB and -1.5dB. I avoid playing back at 0dB for the reason cited above (even if the RMS level of the material is low).

Does that make sense?

Mani.

Sure. It is only that the RMS level doesn't tell much (but depending how you audibly observe). Thus, with e.g. a drumming track the RMS level will be very low, while each hit can reach maximum digital level.

When you'd normalise the volume of an album of concern (via XXHighEnd), you can look in the XXAnalysis.dat file which resides in the folder where the track files are to see the max level - 32767 is maximum. 6dB less is half of that (3dB is 25% less).

Peter

I've been using TT DR Meter to check RMS and peak levels, but I'll use XX too from now on. Actually, looking at a drum kit track, I can see exactly what you mean.

Mani.

Hi Peter, so I think I don't have G3 (yet) ... but what is the lead time to get upgrade? (Can it really get better ? :)

Jonathan

Hi Jonathan - that would be 8 weeks when we wouldn't run into the vacation season - or pass that. :scratching:

Regards !
Peter