I am happy to hear about your findings.
I am planning to feed all my (low level) components from a PP (except my 3 huge power amps).

Some Norwegian users have reported failure problems/lot's of defect units from PP. Hopefully this quality issue has been solved by now.
If so, it's listed on my 2011 budget!

Really? But was this a comparison of same recording at different resolution (384 vs. 192)?

Otherwise it's a comparison between apples and oranges...
-I guess the 384 is from 2L (Norwegian purist record company with SOTA equipment) and the 192 was "something else".

----------

I have Ray Brown/Soular Enery in 24/192. It's an analouge recording from 1987, sounding "very good". I ripped it from a DVD-A.
But Diana Krall/The Girl In The Other Room, from 2004 sounds in many ways much better in 24/96 (Ripped from the DVD side of a DualDisc).
What does it say about the medium (96 vs 192)? Nothing!
-It only tells me that the latter title has a better recording and mixing.

Pls correct me if I am wrong.

 

9-Z3 is a breakthrough.

For the first time I feel I really get under the skin of digital music.
It's sooo organic from top to bottom, without sacrificing anything in regards of detail, image or dynamics.
-On the contrary, I feel the "organic element" ADD to the instrumental detail and microdynamics.
Bass sounds more analogue (in a positive sense!), more "true".
I see that some mentions "artifical" treble, but that is not the case in my system. On the contrary - it is just "perfect"!

This in comparison with 9-Z2.

Still I have not converted to RAM or Vista.

I have not updated my signature yet, but final settings tonight seems to be:
SFS = 140 [about 50 less than max]
SFS.ini = Default [I dont understand how to do... Pls someone spoon feed me]
Adaptive Mode/Buffer 1024
Scheme = 1
Dialing Q1 from 1 to 4 tided up the bass somewhat.

Thanks Peter!

BTW: How did the cabinet paint turn out? Are you on schedule?

Thanks Criss!

I had Vista in the past, but with some minor hick-ups regarding Remote Desktop. W7 has been perfect in that regard. But SQ is first priority of course, so back to Vista!

Are there any particular VISTA version which is best?

Hi guys!

Once the pride of the setup, my dedicated music PC now seems angient. I am going to build a brand new one to benefit from RAM etc. That will have to wait until end of the year.

However, going back from W7 to Vista is easy. I can do that tomorrow. Is it worth it? Will I hear any SQ improvement from W7 vs. Vista? (Everything else unchanged).

Thanks in advance,

Leif is living an hour drive South East of me. It's time to listen to his new bass towers. He probably has a reason to be soo proud and happy.

Speaking about bass performance. Lately I have been listening exclusively to hi-rez music, from various DVD-A, DualDiscs, downloads, etc.
-It's interesting to hear how the bass improves with hi-rez. Not only the treble. With hi-rez there is more texture and naturalness on both acoustic and electric bass (guitar). It has a very "analouge" feeling in the mid and upper bass. In the bottom octave, of course, there is more feel than hear. The room is shaking with a solidity never ever heard from vinyl.

In the past, every time I upgraded CD-drive or DAC, I got more natural sounding bass. Better definition, more texture, less mud. I guess it will improve further with the new PHASURE DAC, too. Changes of jitter values are audible in the bass too. It's not only a matter of cymbals!

I dont use bass traps. Only some no-nonsens absorbers shortening the RT60 from lower midrange and up. It is needed because I usually play LOUD. My 2 linesource 225cm tall bass towers (7 pcs 12" each channel) goes flat from 80 to 4Hz about. Very clean and tight bass. Almost too tight. Sometimes listening on jazz/rock I long for that extra kick you get from ported cabinets. My cabinets are sealed.

Just for the record:
At the moment I am in digital purist mode. My setup is as simple as can be: XX > Soundcard > DAC. No DSP in between. In the past I used Audiolense digital room correction. It is probably the best of its kind. At the time I started using it, I had a rather untreated listening room, acoustically speaking. Adding Audiolense cleaned up so much of the room problems. It was really “magic”. However, lately I have applied passive treatment of the room. Big fabric covered sitting group. A 26 kilo heavy wool carpet in front of the loudspeakers. 12 pcs of professional build absorber panels from US (UK branch – the name just slipped my mind). Also, I moved my sofa 60cm away from the back wall, further into the room. By passive methods I have managed to cure unwanted bas modes and reflections. Now I have a very clean and distinct direct sound from the loudspeakers, with 1st and 2nd reflections arriving with necessary delay/attenuation. All in all I don’t miss the DSP room correction.
I didn’t retry the DSP room correction AFTER the passive room acoustic treatment. Maybe there is more to gain? (The less it has to correct the better it will perform). -Someday I will have to double check this point.

Here is a hypothesis I have been playing with lately. It might not hold water, but any way here it goes: I think the mathematics of the best DSP today is “perfect”. You can perform EQ, crossovers and attenuation (within a bit depth limit, of course) with no degeneration of SQ. It’s “perfect”, let’s say. Or at least better than what’s obtainable in the analogue domain.

However if you want to do DSP based on a measurement (microphone), then I think the measuring process itself adds a slight margin, or error. The microphone, the cable, the microphone analogue preamp, etc all have a signature. Also the placement of the microphone will be different from your ears. Finally, and probably most important, is the sound level. You measure at a given level. But playback can be 10dB louder or 10dB quieter. I think the room response (the room’s acoustical signature) is different at different sound levels. Also the loudspeakers change character at +/- 10dB levels. So, all in all, while the best room corrections (like Audiolense) can correct a whole lot of acoustical errors, it still leaves its signature on the sound. Not because the program (mathematics) isn’t good enough, but because it’s is difficult (impossible?) to get a "perfect" measurement.

Here, we are talking about margins of course, but that is what this forum is all about. Margins.

Anyway, I wrote this under the influence of 2 dl Cognac after dinner and wine, so I might rephrase myself next Sunday midnight. Cheers! 

PS: If you didn’t bother read all the text above, my conclusion implies that I think the upcoming XX digital XO + Phasure multichannel DAC will outperform my SOTA analogue electronic XO’s in my active driven 3-way loudspeaker system. Cheers again!

A Norwegian web shop selling many intersting titels, mainly jazz.

2 SURE BUYS:
-One of the best recordings EVER is Jøkleba LIVE. A 1996 concert of likeable "free jazz" in stunning SQ. Only available as 16/44, but a "must buy" anyway. (PS: The very last synthezied bass tone on the final track Mayshia reaches almost down to 20Hz)

-Mike Mainieri/Northern Lights in 24/96 is also a remarkable live recording, from the legendary producer Jan Erik Kongshaug/Rainbow studios (ECM et al.) Modern jazz, but not too heavy, including A-team of Scandinavian musicans. Trust me; Just buy it. SQ is top notch. Perhaps slightly dark in tonal balance (might depend on your systems tuning) but otherwise very realistic U-R-THERE production.

Enjoy!

EDIT: It was Come Together, the opening track on Abbey Road. Here is a link to the TAS article. Worth a read.
Come Together is also featured on the recent LOVE soundtrack, available as DVD-A remastered in 24/96. I'll try it out tonight!

Practically ALL multitrack rock recordings from the 60s sounds somewhat grainy. That is, compared with "modern recordings" at least. The recording equipment wasnt much good. I've checked the technical data on those recorders and mixers, and it wasn't even "Hi-Fi" (DIN 45.500)... Also, 50 years old magnetic master tapes are starting to wear out.
Interestingly, jazz and blues (acoustic) recordings sounds better, even those from the late 50's. It's the minimalistic aproach of course. Think Rudy Van Gelder etc.

Lately I have purchaed a lot of hi-rez albums in 24/96 and 24/192. Some of them are transfers of old music. It's very fascinating listening, because I easily get lost into the music, enjoying the very good SQ. It's only AFTER, when switching to a modern recording that you realize all the wow and flutter, distortion and limited bandwidth. Funnily, going back to those old recordings after a few days, my hearing is reset and I enjoy them just as musch as I did the first time. Aural perception is certainly a mystery!

Sorry for the OT. To get back on track I would only add that when those old Beatles recording are decoded by the XX software/hardware brobably 2-3 coats of haze is removed and the squarewave impulses are restored. So they take on another level. As I said; I cant wait to hear it for myself!

BTW: All the Beatles records were done with the same old studio equipment (tube mixer and old tape recorders), except Abbey Road which had new "modern" solid state mixers and recorders. White album SQ stands out above the others, maybe because it is more acoustic, less edited. But Abbey Road is clearly the very best soundwise. It is also the only one which was mixed in stereo originally. On Abbey Road I feel that the grainyness is not present. It sounds quite transparent and clear, with deep bass and very good definition all over. The Beatles was "first" with doing just about everything in rock. The Abbey Road album might be characterized as the first audiophile rock recording, because they were the very first to use this brand new equipment inside Abbey Road Studios!

PS: After spending some many years developing your DAC I think you are entitled to shape it as you like. The H shape might be a good marketing gimic, too. Altough I would personally prefer the letter "P". Like in Pet(t)er...
;-)

 

I wish I was living within driving distance from Peter too!

I know those Beatles tracks well. I have them in "all" versions, including 24bit/44k. They allways sounded grainy. I look forward to hear it the way you did! (I think TAS author Robert Harley was floored too, when he heard Get Back in the million dollar reference system of the owner of Magico in USA. Read about it in TAS a couple of years ago).
-What about the bass pipe in the end of Yellow Submarine. Did it really "shake the house"?

Yes and the standing waves in the bass disappeared too!

I didn’t take those statements literally, although I did hear too what you meant. I had a similar “weird” experience changing from MosFet to Bipolare power amplifier. -My old arc enemy, a very troublesome nodal resonance in the bass, just “disappeared” because of better damping factor. The 2 amps measured the same, but behaved differently on music. -Because such measurements are done with static noise, not dynamic music.  It could probably not be measured in a traditionally in-room response, but it sure sounded like a “several-dB-improvement”.

Anyway, back to topic: What you said about word clock is of course very, very interesting.

We audiophiles are characterized by being both flock animals and creatures of habit. We walk the upgrade path as zombies. Adding a filter improves the mains, adding a PSU improves the amps, separates improves on integrates, biwire is better than singlewire, etc, etc. So, naturally, adding separate word clock improves your DAC! There are word clock BNC in/out connectors on the back of my RME FF400. When I lower my ear very close to the chassis I can hear their seductive siren song “Try me, try me”. It’s only a matter of time before I give in...

Honestly I don’t understand all this tick-tock-tech-talk. But can it be compared to a symphonic orchestra? -A word clock ensures that the orchestra starts playing exactly on time on 20.00.00, not 20.00.05. However the word clock doesn’t improve synchronization of the musicians. Whether they play out of tune or not, depends on the local clock.

To the audience, 5 seconds concert delay is a bagatelle. But musicians playing out of tune (not synchronized) are very audible of course.

Correct me if I am wrong. ["Everything should be explained as simple as possible, but not simpler."]

Hello fellows, do you remember the old Peter? The self made audiophile who could post and post about bass increasing with 10dB just because of some modification in XX, and all that?

Well, it’s all gone now. Finished. Now it’s the new Peter. After studying DAC constructions and looking into his scope for days and nights he’s become serious. Dead serious. -Doesn’t even believe in external word clocks anymore… 

Hold your horses, Gentlemen. Don't get carried away in the wrong direction! My electronic XO are top notch, (RRP €4k/pair): 3-way, dual mono chassis, external power, all balanced circuits (true push-pull operation), DC-coupled, no capasitors, 4th order Linquist-Reilly, high grade components, etc.  Adjusting treble level +/- 1dB doesn't degrade anything.

-----------

Mani, thank you very much for the cable offer. You are allways so helpful and supportive here at XXhighend. However, I do not plan any changes of hardware before the PHASURE DAC and its companion I2S interface has been installed in my system. Then I will take it from there. But thanks anyway for the offer. (I'll try to google a little about this special cable. It triggered my curiosity).

----------

Next listening session will be dedicated to the setting of SFS, that's for sure.

----------

Back to the Weiss - RME duel. It's quite amazing that 2 interfaces sound more different than 2 DAC's can do. I mean, both devices are "bit perfect" (according to the manufacturers promotion blurb at least), so how come such gross differences?

Peter: Can you tell more specifically the SQ gain you got when replacing your RME 800 with the new I2S proprietary connection you have developed for the PHASURE DAC?

Open question: I think the Buffalo II DAC connections for external clock/-syncing. Maybe I could hook it up the clock input of the RME FF400. Then everything would run from one (Buffalo) clock. Are there any hinders here?